Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For you, Freak, no difference. You live in a limited world.
Ah this old trick again - the one where you explain away your lack of _any_ evidence for your claims - by imagining and inventing some "lack" or "deficiency" on the part of the mark. They are limited. Ignorant. Under educated. Not cognitively capable. Or some other imaginary nonsense you make up to ad hominem tham and pretend you have something they do not.
Or pretending you have access to some stream of knowledge and data no one else does - and your lack of any evidence or arguments for your positions is due to the people not buying it not having similar access to yours.
Yet you have evidenced no such data stream ever - or shown any credibility that you are privy to any experiences or information that anyone else is precluded. You are simply. Making. It. Up. Transparently. So.
It is similar to the Deepak Chopra approach of sitting back in a chair putting on an air of smug superiority in the hope that people will mistake it for actual superiority.
This is a thread about evidence for the Christian God. You have rolled into the thread and offered no such evidence. You have not offered evidence for _any_ god. You just call things that exist "god" in order to get "god" into the lexicon of the conversation - and then leap from that linguistic gymnastics to entirely unsupported claims about the universe being conscious - human consciousness surviving the death of the brain - and this "god" visiting us in human form in the guise of middle aged carpenters son.
For you, Freak, no difference. You live in a limited world. For those of us who experience a wider world, the difference is huge, or as The Donald would say: YUUUGGGE!
Yeah, that's how fundamentalist Christianity defends its irrational beliefs too: skeptics and non-believers are simply labeled as inherently deficient.
Yes. As far as I can tell, MysticPhD has a pretty loose definition of "God" that could mean almost anything.
I think he has the same god or at least one very similar to the god of Gldnrule which is that everything is god and is evidence for god. MysticPhD certainly is well spoken and uses a lot of big words but IMHO does not really say much.
If I am corrent he claims that if we were truly objective we would simply accept that the universe is god and was made by god . Some Christians claim that the existence of the universe is proof of the existence of their god and I do not see any real difference in the claims. That the universe exists there is no real arguement but then to leap to the conclusion that because the universe exists we must default to believing in a god unless we can prove that this universe is not god or is not evidence for a god is one very big leap and I do not think it is because one is against the existence of a god that one does not make that leap , it is becuase it is a leap without foundation.
I do not need to have any answers on how the universe came into being to not beleive there is a god, in fact I do not even have to be interested in how the universe came into being to not believe there is a god. That is a huge assumption on MysticPhD's part in thinking that we need to have answers in order to not believe what he does. The one claim that he has made that he has not even tried to back up is the one that scientists do not accept his version of the universe being god is because they do not what to believe that. All I read is big words, jargon and technical terms but no satisfactory explaination on why is the universe proof of god. I read it with the intension of trying to understand what he means and all I get out of it is he is good at using words rather than ideas or evidence to support his stance. I look out my window and see trees and buildings, sky and clouds, why should I think I am also seeing god?
Yeah, that's how fundamentalist Christianity defends its irrational beliefs too: skeptics and non-believers are simply labeled as inherently deficient.
almost had to weigh in but you did qualify with the fundamentalist adjective ... not all fundamentalists label. Many take a live and let live approach.
Now the fundamentalist FSM's... geesh, they are way over the top. Going on and on about how the rigatoni provides flight and how olive oil was created on the second day.
Yeah, that's how fundamentalist Christianity defends its irrational beliefs too: skeptics and non-believers are simply labeled as inherently deficient.
Among the groups that make similar claims for being able to grasp their own brand of belief you have biblical literalists, spirit filled Pentecostals, New Agers, astral travel advocates , alien abductees, and people who think they are God .
It is the standard stance for those that make outlandish claims they can't support with any sort of evidence .
What is proof for the existence of the Christian God?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
An empty tomb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy
An alleged empty tomb.
No, not alleged. Christ was actually dead and in the tomb. God raised Him from the dead and Christ came out of the tomb. It is not alleged to have happened since it actually did happen.
Quote:
The Romans did not allow the burial of crucifixion victims. This would cast some doubt on the burial account but the Romans may have given special permission. But if permission for burial was not granted then that would explain the empty tomb.
Philo wrote that under certain circumstances, a crucified person could be buried. Since permission was granted by Pilate to allow Joseph of Arimathea to take the body and entomb it, and since the historic documents state Jesus was entombed and roused from the dead, we know it to be a factual occurrence and not an alleged occurrence. This proves the existence of the Christian God.
Quote:
Another explanation could be that the man was not dead and did in fact revive and was removed from the tomb to be properly cared for. That could explain the empty tomb.
Or maybe some followers removed it for cleansing and burial before the others came to do the same thing.
And it could be Joe Namath was a Martian. I don't go by "could be" or "maybe." I just go by the facts.
I'm pretty sure the roman solders knew what dead is .
and because of Jesus claim to raise from the dead is why they entombed him and posted guards to make sure Jesus body was not taken.
But beyond that, the soldiers while Jesus was still on the cross drove a spear into His side to his heart and water and blood came out .
Pharisees had something to prove, and the soldiers had a reputation to maintain.
He defied both.
Beyond that, for two thousand years believers have know the presents and power of Jesus name, in healing and life changing and altering events .
If it bothers yo so much, why do you invest so heavily against God ,why not just drop it and go on with your life in ignorance ?
Does you unhappiness need a support group ?
What's holding up the earth's crust? Can you explain that?
And what's holding up that, and then what's holding up that, ad infinitum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... not all fundamentalists label. Many take a live and let live approach. 
