To All The Atheists/agnostics Seeking To Prove The Impossible:

[ephraimanesti]

i would strongly suggest that you stop wasting your time arguing about periphery issues--miracles, teachings, prophecies, etc.--which are of no particular account and thus of minimal weight, and cut to the chase:

All ya gotta do is prove that Jesus the Christ did not Resurrect on Pascha morning and you've won your case. Christianity rises or falls on the truth of the Resurrection--without that as the foundation, all the rest will blow away in the first light breeze.

So stop wasting your time and cut to the chase. Given the inescapable outcome, the sooner you fail in this vain attempt to disprove the Truth, the sooner you can fall on your knees, apologize to your Creator, and begin the process of obtaining a REAL life as human beings instead of accidentally evolved animals.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[begt]

"All ya gotta do is prove that Jesus the Christ did not Resurrect on Pascha morning and you've won your case."

One of the cornerstones of critical thinking and analysis is to use past experience in order to draw conclusions.

A resurrection would be a super-natural event, and no super-natural event of any kind has been confirmed. That means that the person who claim there's been a super-natural event has the burden of proof. Scripture alone cannot be regarded as enough proof that such an event took place. I can write "I can fly by flapping my arms" on a piece of paper, but that doesn't make it true.

Therefor the logical position is to think there has been no resurrection until it can be proven that it is true. Same thing with the existence/non existence of gods. Even atheists like myself don't claim to know with absolute certainty that there's no god. In fact I would not be totally suprised if a godlike being created the universe, but until such a super-natural being can be proven it's much more pragmatic to not believe in it. Still even if there was a godlike being I would ask where did he come from, so if there's a god it raises more questions than it answers. The principle of Occam's razor suggests that we should make as few and simple assumptions as possible. So why assume there's a super-natural god?

"instead of accidentally evolved animals."

Not to be condescending, but it seems to me that you have a shaky understanding of evolution.

Mutations bring new raw material that natural selection can act upon. Mutations are mistakes that occur when DNA copies itself. It's extremely rare (compared to the number of times DNA is copied) and there are built-in mechanisms that can repair some of these mistakes. Only the mutations in sex cells (gametes) are passed on to the next generation... Mutations are random, yes, but natural and sexual selection is anything but random. Random organisms cannot survive or reproduce.

 

[Ayersy]

i would strongly suggest that you stop wasting your time arguing about periphery issues--miracles, teachings, prophecies, etc.--which are of no particular account and thus of minimal weight, and cut to the chase:

All ya gotta do is prove that Jesus the Christ did not Resurrect on Pascha morning and you've won your case. Christianity rises or falls on the truth of the Resurrection--without that as the foundation, all the rest will blow away in the first light breeze.

So stop wasting your time and cut to the chase. Given the inescapable outcome, the sooner you fail in this vain attempt to disprove the Truth, the sooner you can fall on your knees, apologize to your Creator, and begin the process of obtaining a REAL life as human beings instead of accidentally evolved animals.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

We don't need to. It's up to you lot to prove it DID happen. There's no reason to assume something happened without any evidence saying that it did.

I could say a horse ate my socks, it doesn't make it true. Nobody could disprove it, does that mean we have to assume it happened, even though I have no evidence it actually happened at all?

 

[mulimulix]

We don't need to. It's up to you lot to prove it DID happen. There's no reason to assume something happened without any evidence saying that it did.

I could say a horse ate my socks, it doesn't make it true. Nobody could disprove it, does that mean we have to assume it happened, even though I have no evidence it actually happened at all?

Came here to say this.

Also, it's probably you that should be doing the convincing as many more people are turning away from religion, these days. Looking forward to the Census this year; Australia's 'No religion' bracket has been going up steadily.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

burden of proof. evidence. logic. 'critical thinking'. lol.

 

[Hentenza]

The purpose of this forum is for non believers to ask questions about Christianity consequently this thread is closed. Please read this forum's statement of purpose. Thanks.