Anyone got proof of God

[nine dog war]

I have heard all the retohric, the Bible versus etc etc etc

What Im looking for is proof to the hypothesis of God. I would love to see tangible proof or if not at least one logical argument. So far I have not seen nor heard either.

Please note the words "Tangible" and "Logical". If wish to use quotes from the religious texts then please prove the vadility of the source. e.g. If you quote from the Bible book of Luke please provide proof Luke existed and was not completly stark raving mad.

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt for it is easily filled with faith.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Duke,
I would tend to agree with the big O here,

BIG O!



----------------------------------------------------




Seriously, though, there's absolutely nothing compelling in the ID camp. There never has been. There never will be. ID is neither science nor logical. It's just god-of-the-gaps reasoning dressed up in fancy clothes.

Also, I've so far seen a link to the opening of the thread and a mention of the thread. If you think there's something compelling in it, link to it, or I will entertain nothing more from it.

[Goat]

I would say the historical figure Jesus Christ of Nazareth is both "tangible" and "logical", as documented within the reliable record of the Bible.
Hundreds of detailed predictions were made of the "coming one", and they all converged in the life of Christ, this is "tangible".

Is it?? The stories about Jesus have some items in there that can not be historical, and other items that can not be backed up by any kind of external reference.

For example, the trial of Jesus can not be historical, since it violates Jewish law, it violate Roman law, and it violates the sancity of the High Holy days.

The 'miracles' are the purest fantasy too. Considering all those factors, I would not say the 'Jesus of nazareth, call the Christ' is a reliable record. It doesn't mean there wasn't a Jesus, but the 'historicalness' of the bible stories definately should be taken with a heavy grain of salt.

One of the writers, John the Apostle, who was with Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry wrote in 1 John 1:1-4 "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.

Except, of course, there is very strong doubt that "John the Apostle' is the john that wrote the 'Gospel of John'. IF the gospel was written by a john at all, there are 4 different Johns that it might have been. It is very likely a pseudographical work. It is a statement of faith, and a declaration of theology, not a good source for historical information.

[quote[
We have a tangible record about Jesus Christ who is God by those who were witness to the tangible God and wrote down an accurate record of the tangible God-man and what He said and did while on earth and walked around amongst us.
This is proof.
[/quote]

It is in strong doubt that any of the Gospels were actually written by an eye witness. Also, even if Jesus did exist, that does not mean that Jesus was God. He might have been 'deified' by stories after his death, but he is no where unique in that regard. Julius Ceasar was diefied, has his divinity hearlded in by a star, and had a 'son' (adopted), whose title was 'Son of God', and 'Savior of the world'.

This predated the date given for the birth of Jesus by several decades.

[katiej49]

Katie,
Please accept my deepest condolences for your friends child. May God wrap you in His kind love, mercy, and grace, and be with you and console you, and His presence overwhelm you.

Biker[/quote]


thank you Biker...it was a service of hope and praise and the peace that passes understanding. We will see this precious boy again......keep the faith....again, thank you!

[josh]

Hello all,

It is my intention to show empirical evidence using the scientific method to show the existence of a god and maybe in latter post's to show the difference between the Christian's God and all the other gods that society has produced. I will show only one proof of evidence per post. I encourage anyone to refute my subject matter and I am open to peer review. As goes the scientific method I will quote the descriptions from Wikipedia:

Purpose of this particular post is to show certain biological functions cannot happen with out a higher being or designer. This proof must point to a god of some sorts. Specifically, I will examine blood and its clotting process.

Observation: ("A constant feature of scientific inquiry.") The following quote is from http://library.thinkquest.org/C0115080/?c=clotting#How. "When you get a cut or bruise, your blood exposed to the air will clot. The clot seals the wound to prevent excessive blood loss while at the same time preventing foreign invasive particles from entering your bloodstream."

Description: ("Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).") The following is quoted from the previous stated website. "When blood vessels are severed/damaged, the enzyme thrombokinase is secreted by the damaged tissues and blood platelets in the bloodstream. Thrombokinase converts the prothrombin which a soluble protein in the bloodstream into thrombin. Calcium ions must be present before this can take place. Thrombin is an enzyme that catalyses soluble fibrinogen into a network of insoluble fibrin over the wound. Other essential elements that include the presence of vital minerals and vitamins (i.e. vitamin K)"

Prediction: ("Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.") A sufficient prediction can be drawn from the presented facts.
--Given the evolutionary process is time driven and takes many different mutations to derive a change to the physiological make-up of a life form it must be presented that the conception of blood clots must have happened on the first try not several million trys down the road. The reasoning is that a life form cannot survive without being able to create a blood clot.-- Assuming that it was not created by something at one setting would be to say that the fittest could not survive because it did not have the basic of the basic survival capabilities. Ergo, the beginning of the species will also be its end.

Control: ("Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.") Argumentatively, our present day blood should be used as a control basis. Any other alterations to our blood that would give us clotting capabilities have never been observed thus they would be deemed unscientific.

[otseng]

First, Nature's Destiny is an argument in favor of intelligent design, not the Christian god. It really is remarkable how those two subjects can be used in conjunction or completely seperate seemingly at the whim of theists... a topic for another debate, that.

If you read the OP, it says "What Im looking for is proof to the hypothesis of God. I would love to see tangible proof or if not at least one logical argument. So far I have not seen nor heard either." It does not specifically mention the "Christian" God.

Anyway, Denton's arguments are neither logical nor credible. They all rely on the same trite flaulty logic that is the fatal hallmark of ID: "We don't know how it got here so goddidit". This isn't evidence, my friend. This is an invention attempting to cover ignorance.

I do not believe you've read through the thread. His argument does not rest on "We don't know how it got here so goddidit".

[Goat]

First, Nature's Destiny is an argument in favor of intelligent design, not the Christian god. It really is remarkable how those two subjects can be used in conjunction or completely seperate seemingly at the whim of theists... a topic for another debate, that.

If you read the OP, it says "What Im looking for is proof to the hypothesis of God. I would love to see tangible proof or if not at least one logical argument. So far I have not seen nor heard either." It does not specifically mention the "Christian" God.

Anyway, Denton's arguments are neither logical nor credible. They all rely on the same trite flaulty logic that is the fatal hallmark of ID: "We don't know how it got here so goddidit". This isn't evidence, my friend. This is an invention attempting to cover ignorance.

I do not believe you've read through the thread. His argument does not rest on "We don't know how it got here so goddidit".

No, his arguements seem to be more in line with of the puddle that is amazed that the hole it is in fits it so perfectly. It is sort of like taking a bow and arrow, shooting it up into the air at random, and then drawing a bullseye right where it lands, and be amazed it hit the target so perfectly.

[katiej49]

The reasoning is that a life form cannot survive without being able to create a blood clot.-- Assuming that it was not created by something at one setting would be to say that the fittest could not survive because it did not have the basic of the basic survival capabilities. Ergo, the beginning of the species will also be its end.

an excellent point and one i had never seen before . thanks for the post.

[otseng]

No, his arguements seem to be more in line with of the puddle that is amazed that the hole it is in fits it so perfectly. It is sort of like taking a bow and arrow, shooting it up into the air at random, and then drawing a bullseye right where it lands, and be amazed it hit the target so perfectly.

Actually, Denton argues convincingly that the target is drawn before the arrow is shot.

[Biker]

I would say the historical figure Jesus Christ of Nazareth is both "tangible" and "logical", as documented within the reliable record of the Bible.

We've already had several threads where the historocity of the gospel Jesus has been thoroughly and resoundingly debunked. There isn't a shred of credible evidence for the mythical godman. For further reading on the subject...

jesuspuzzle.com

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bible And Christianity -- The Historical Origins

BibleOrigins

Ancient Jewish Accounts of Jesus

Christian Origins Blog

The Historical Jesus: Table of Contents of on-line class notes (RL 307)

The Mystery of The Testimonium of Josephus

Welcome to Enlightenment! Religion–the Tragedy of Mankind - Articles by Kenneth Humphreys

Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus -- Is It Reliable?

I was kind of hoping to talk to you. Not 10 offsite links. I pretty well know what all those folks say, what say you? Funny for the N.T. to be "debunked" as you say, it's doing quite well sales wise. Still outselling any book in or out of existence. Also the overwhelming evidence for it's accuracy to the "Autographs" is unequaled for "any" book from antiquity. I say the Bible is not debunked! I say it's inerrant!

Biker

[Goat]

No, his arguements seem to be more in line with of the puddle that is amazed that the hole it is in fits it so perfectly. It is sort of like taking a bow and arrow, shooting it up into the air at random, and then drawing a bullseye right where it lands, and be amazed it hit the target so perfectly.

Actually, Denton argues convincingly that the target is drawn before the arrow is shot.

Well, from what I have read of what he said, the only way you can be convinced is if you were convinced before hand.