What Would Evidence for God's Existence Be Like?

[Ana the Ist]

Lol, ok, well it helps to know where you're coming from.
So, you don't believe in god or Christ. But you have already admitted that you do believe in love, just not to the extent that I do.
First off, Christs existence on this earth is indisputable as far as historical proof goes. If you don't believe in Christ you must not buy into any of that history stuff. That being said, I'll assume you meant you do not believe that Christ was God.
I do believe in God. But not as described by most religions. I base my opinions on the teachings of Christ. I do believe that Christ was the embodiment of Love and that he died to bring us the message of true salvation. If He hadnt been crucified I would not be able to tell you this.
Yes, I believe that even atheists will be in 'heaven'. Along with anyone else who lives in Love. (That's a simple statement that represents a much deeper belief)
I believe that we will all be judged based on what we believe to be true and how we acted accordingly. I would caution some however that use athesim as a method to not hold themselves accountable for their actions. This does not apply to you. (Not saying there are any here)
How else could any god be just? How can I be judged based on knowledge I don't possess. That wouldn't be fair. Neither would not allowing someone inherently good into 'heaven' simply because they called God, Allah.
There is certainly grey expanses but only your heart can condemn or save you.

I don't see why god would judge at all if he's "love" but maybe you don't understand love to the extent I do....

That said, the existence of Christ is an increasingly disputed historical concept...seems like more serious historians consider every year that maybe he never existed. You have to realize that for close to 2000 years his followers killed or imprisoned people who said he didn't exist...so it's understandable that we would see his historicity being taken more seriously now that that sort of thing isn't allowed.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Before we go any further can you tell me what the solid backup is for evolution.

Seriously? You mean I have to start from square one with you?

And no many scientists dont turn against new evidence. They hold onto their older beliefs and dont want to acknowledge the new evidence that has casts doubts on the theory they hold. They will even falsify results so that it supports their beliefs. Because they have bias towards evolution they will also interpret everything towards that bias. You only have to look at all the climate change data out there which is contradicting itself all the time to see that there are two different sets of scientists both claiming they have all the facts and both saying they are correct to know that they both cant be right. The same thing happens with evolution.

The two different sets of scientists you are referring to are not equally divided. It's a division somewhere in the vicinity of 97% versus 3%.

But now even more so it is being disputed and evidence is showing that the traditional view of evolution that Darwin promoted is in doubt. The problem is many of the old school evolutionists dont want to even entertain the thought that they are wrong. Just like religion it often takes a long time and many bits of evidence to finally convince them to change and see the light that they were wrong and move with the times.

Why would they stick with the status quo when a revolutionary finding - one that refutes evolution for example - would instantly catapult them to the same level of notoriety as Darwin? They would be considered among the most celebrated scientists of our generation.

The problem begins with the public’s rising expectations of science. Being human, scientists are tempted to show that they know more than they do.

You are projecting the faults of religion onto scientists. No, scientists are not tempted to mimic the religious.

The number of investigators—and the number of experiments, observations and analyses they produce—has also increased exponentially in many fields, but adequate safeguards against bias are lacking.

Well, thankfully religion provides an excellent model for safeguards against bias.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I wish I knew how to segment quotes like that.

As for the fossil record,
Evolutionary theory suggests that all life formed in one cesspool with the right chemical ingredients. Then life evolved from one species, to two, and so on and so forth. With me still?
So, the fossil record should then show that millions of years ago, there were only a few species that continued to evolve into more and more species.
Right?
Like a road cone with the small end being millions of years ago and the large end being the last 10000 years. Showing the growth and development of life. Slowly.

The fossil record does not show this at all. The fossil record shows that there is a steady decline in the existence of species. Fewer and fewer known species exist on this planet. The fossil record show the cone being upside down.

That's because of extinction.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's because of extinction.

You know scientists don't even agree on extinction...right?

 

[xXLoveisGodXx]

That's because of extinction.

Yes, it is, but you missed my point.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, it is, but you missed my point.

Your point doesn't make sense. You are assuming, for reasons I cannot tell, that for evolution to be true there must be a steady increase in the number of species alive over time. This might be true if extinction events never occurred, and even then, the assumption might be suspect. There is no "law" in evolutionary theory that says that the number of species alive at any given moment in history must be greater than the previous moment.

 

[Jesse2014]

According to NASA and archeologist the Bible has been proven accurate. But don't ask me to explain them just yet. I just started learning. I am still trying to understand what proof they have. But they say they can proof that the flood occurred in Genesis; they have proof that the Red Sea parted in Exodus; and they have proof of the ark of the covenant. But I don't know how yet.

 

[xXLoveisGodXx]

I don't see why god would judge at all if he's "love" but maybe you don't understand love to the extent I do....

That said, the existence of Christ is an increasingly disputed historical concept...seems like more serious historians consider every year that maybe he never existed. You have to realize that for close to 2000 years his followers killed or imprisoned people who said he didn't exist...so it's understandable that we would see his historicity being taken more seriously now that that sort of thing isn't allowed.

In order to believe that Christ did not exist historically speaking, you must throw out all history and all method for defining it. There is more evidence for the existence of Christ than any other five historical people put together.
People are also trying to say that the holocaust didn't happen either. All that proves is people are stupid.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In order to believe that Christ did not exist historically speaking, you must throw out all history and all method for defining it. There is more evidence for the existence of Christ than any other five historical people put together.
People are also trying to say that the holocaust didn't happen either. All that proves is people are stupid.

AntiCitizenX has a new video out discussing the historicity of Jesus. You should watch it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In order to believe that Christ did not exist historically speaking, you must throw out all history and all method for defining it. There is more evidence for the existence of Christ than any other five historical people put together.
People are also trying to say that the holocaust didn't happen either. All that proves is people are stupid.

Well, just out of curiosity...how much have you looked into it?

I've looked into it a lot.

If you feel you have too...we could do a comparison...i doubt I'll need 5 people.

 

[Colter]

In order to believe that Christ did not exist historically speaking, you must throw out all history and all method for defining it. There is more evidence for the existence of Christ than any other five historical people put together.
People are also trying to say that the holocaust didn't happen either. All that proves is people are stupid.

Did Plato, Socrates and Aristotle exist? Using the approach of the atheist, it's more and more unlikely because, well, that was a long time ago and some of the books written about them differ.

Behold, we see the parable of the weeds before our eyes in the multiplicity of ways to try to discredit faith in Jesus.

Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

“‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

“‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”​

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Did Plato, Socrates and Aristotle exist? Using the approach of the atheist, it's more and more unlikely because, well, that was a long time ago and some of the books written about them differ.

Given your tendency toward strawman arguments, you are the least qualified to speak about "the approach of the atheist."

 

[JGG]

Did Plato, Socrates and Aristotle exist? Using the approach of the atheist, it's more and more unlikely because, well, that was a long time ago and some of the books written about them differ.

They really existed in every way that's important. Someone had ideas, and expressed them under the name Plato. If Plato was not his or her real name, then that's unimportant. Plato existed because somebody had the ideas that we attribute to Plato. As it is, it is often suggested that Socrates never actually did exist, and that it was actually Plato essentially writing under that name. Suppose it was really John Terrydoodle Smith writing as Plato writing as Socrates. Is that important? Of course not. It's the ideas that we celebrate. If the ideas came from Socrates, or Plato, or John Terrydoodle Smith, who cares? In every way that matters (that someone expressed these ideas), Socrates existed.

Let's look at it from another perspective: If William Shakespeare was only ever a nomme de plume for Edgar Pezzywinkle and his wife Gertrude Fuzzybottom, was Romeo and Juliet still written and performed?

 

[Colter]

Given your tendency toward strawman arguments, you are the least qualified to speak about "the approach of the atheist."

You have a tendency to make false accusations rather than acknowlageing my points. I have a lot of experience with atheist arguments which coalesce into a predictable approach.

 

[Chany]

You have a tendency to make false accusations rather than acknowlageing my points. I have a lot of experience with atheist arguments which coalesce into a predictable approach.

Explain how your statement is anything more than assumption.

There is a reason why I don't have a problem believing the stories of Socrates and Plato to a degree while I have a problem with Biblical stories. Can you guess what it is?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You have a tendency to make false accusations rather than acknowlageing my points. I have a lot of experience with atheist arguments which coalesce into a predictable approach.

False accusations? What false accusation have I made? Be specific.

 

[Colter]

False accusations? What false accusation have I made? Be specific.

Specifically accusing me a making straw-men arguments and sidestepping when you just don't like my answers.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Specifically accusing me a making straw-men arguments and sidestepping when you just don't like my answers.

I leave it up to people who have read your posts to decide whether that is indeed a false accusation or not. I'm convinced that it's defensible, given what you've posted in the past.

Incidentally, I'm still waiting for you to respond to my question about Elvis.

 

[Colter]

Explain how your statement is anything more than assumption.

There is a reason why I don't have a problem believing the stories of Socrates and Plato to a degree while I have a problem with Biblical stories. Can you guess what it is?

I assume that you don't believe stories in the bible books because some of them are ridiculous and obviously not factually accurate.

 

[Colter]

I leave it up to people who have read your posts to decide whether that is indeed a false accusation or not. I'm convinced that it's defensible, given what you've posted in the past.

Incidentally, I'm still waiting for you to respond to my question about Elvis.

I missed the second question about Elvis:

Answer to the first silly question:

I wouldn't put any confidence in the claims of a person who talked to Elvis while on acid.

Second question:

Do you think it would be unreasonable to ask this person "How do you know that you really did have a conversation with Elvis?" or "Is this something you could be mistaken about?"

*no

*yes