My Evidence Challenge

[Tiberius]

Aren't there passages in the Bible that tell you not to question God? And doesn't the Bible have instructions on tithing?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV - in Sunday school, did they ever bring up the topic of "confidence trick"?

You mean like Genesis 3?

 

[AV1611VET]

Aren't there passages in the Bible that tell you not to question God?

Someone needs to read Habakkuk, doesn't he?

 

[razeontherock]

Aren't there passages in the Bible that tell you not to question God?

First of all no there aren't, quite the opposite in fact. Second of all:

And doesn't the Bible have instructions on tithing?

Your attempt at paraphrase here bears no semblance to the original statement. Thank you for stating things in reasonable terms though.

 

[razeontherock]

Someone needs to read Habakkuk, doesn't he?

And Malachi. And Isaiah 1:18 "Come let us reason together"

 

[AV1611VET]

And Malachi. And Isaiah 1:18 "Come let us reason together"

 

[Freodin]

So why then when someone tries to reason with you, you simply block and drop out?

Oh, I know, because you only reason with God... who has the advatage of never arguing back.

 

[Davian]

This is an outright lie, and a deplorable statement.

Is AV in agreement with you?

What part of "You don't need evidence. If you do look, disregard whatever you find there that contradicts what we write here in the bible." contradicts what AV says?

"Oh, and we want your money."
What am I supposed to put in that basket as it goes by? Candy wrappers?

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean a denial of the evidence?

I thought science doesn't deal with "truth".

In fact, the scientist that officiated at Jesus' crucifixion asked Jesus this:

John 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

... then didn't give Him a chance to respond.

Note Adam Clarke's comment here:

Among the sages of that time there were many opinions concerning truth; and some had even supposed that it was a thing utterly out of the reach of men. Pilate perhaps might have asked the question in a mocking way; and his not staying to get an answer indicated that he either despaired of getting a satisfactory one, or that he was indifferent about it. This is the case with thousands: they appear desirous of knowing the truth, but have not patience to wait in a proper way to receive an answer to their question.

 

[Nostromo]

In fact, the scientist that officiated at Jesus' crucifixion

Grow up, Phil.

 

[MoonLancer]

You mean a denial of the evidence?

Both

I thought science doesn't deal with "truth".

I did not mention science in my post, did I?

In fact, the scientist that officiated at Jesus' crucifixion asked Jesus this:

You clearly don't know what a scientist is.

Note Adam Clarke's comment here:

I have noted you have no defense against my post.

If people actually knew God existed they wouldn't need faith

 

[mg0086]

MOD HAT ON

​

Some of the posts on this thread are borderlining the Blasphemy Rule. Please be careful with what you're saying. ​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[razeontherock]

Grow up, Phil.

Does the guy in that avatar look like he wants to grow up? And here's betting you can't make him

 

[AV1611VET]

Does the guy in that avatar look like he wants to grow up? And here's betting you can't make him

 

[razeontherock]

If people actually knew God existed they wouldn't need faith

FALSE. All you are considering is the most basic step in the development of Faith. Are those that graduate from kindergarten done with school? Do those with a PhD have no use for their education?

 

[Stephen Kendall]

What practical difference is there between an event that leaves no evidence at all and an event that never occurred?

Evidence? The forever wave of energy touched something and set a tiny difference into effect. Maybe that is why time travel into our own past must be impossible. The touch on a human being sets into effect the total change of many things and is woven into the fabric of outcomes, no matter how tiny. Absolutes are ridiculous, because the tiny things that touch and interact are like guiding wedges to the big wheels of change.

It is interesting that Atheists don't really recognize their personal futures (as being they will not have any consciousness after their deaths), yet followers of Christ know by their hope in-which they live by, that they have no real end to come of their consciousness once with Christ if after death or when he takes them when he comes. So, Atheists don't see the tiny touches of truths that visited our world, because of their inherited shortsightedness being as a fool to not understand basic logic or reckon the gentle patient hand of the Father. You are selling your souls cheaply to not look around yourselves and see the enormous impact in the gentleness of God and Christ. If you like this world and are stubbornly rejecting perception and basic logic of God's existence, then your blindness is all you may have until true darkness and nothingness becomes your reality.

TO CHRISTIANS: I believe that we were each meant to have a personal relationship with God, Jesus' Father. We don't seek falsification by being unified apart from our relationship with the Father. We are unified as Christians, only if we are unified in an unique and very personal relationship with him. Unity in the faith is unity with the Father and as one with love for each other, though we are quite unique and different in our bonds with God. Think of a family with each member having a very personal and unique relationship with their Dad. They must respect each other and realize that Dad loves them all no matter their differences.

 

[Tiberius]

Stephan, I don't see what any of that had to do with the issue we are discussing. Just a few paragraphs saying the atheists are blind, are ignorant, that sort of thing.

Only the first word seems to be any kind of response to what was actually being asked. But that answer is wrong, because I very clearly asked what was the difference between an event that leaves no evidence and an event that never happens.

 

[AV1611VET]

... what was the difference between an event that leaves no evidence and an event that never happens.

The event itself.

 

[Nostromo]

But any event that happens makes an impression on its surroundings, however small that impression may be.

The only thing that leaves no evidence is nothing.

 

[AV1611VET]

But any event that happens makes an impression on its surroundings, however small that impression may be.

Not necessarily -- see my next comment.

The only thing that leaves no evidence is nothing.

A miracle could be an event that leaves no evidence as well.

Examples:

Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

Deuteronomy 29:5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.

Daniel 3:27 And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.