I don't think a broken heart is worth it, but it's the price we pay in order to not be alone. It has always been difficult for me to view a failed relationship positively. The memories of good times only fuel my contempt, but time does seem to heal the wounds and still talk to a couple of my ex's from time to time, but I don't miss the relationships.

I can't prove God if you can't accept the evidence. You didn't even look at the link. The link is extra-biblical accounts of the existence of Jesus which clearly makes him a Historical figure. Where have I quoted scripture in this thread ever? I didn't. You've tried every trick in the book to dodge my questions that you know leads to the end result. You, frankly, would deny the existence of God regardless of the evidence or thread topic. Be real for once.

You already know the answer to how Jesus explains the existence of God which is why you are desperate to avoid it. You are a God denier and you need no evidence because none would suffice. I'm done with this thread though you keep going with this insisting on YOUR parameters. Don't bother to respond further unless you are capable of addressing the historicity of Jesus. You're no longer speaking with me anymore after this point on this thread.

"It's not the topic of the thread" Such desperation you use for a question you refuse to answer. Is another thread necessary when you can't validate your claims? You lost because you have no evidence and refuse to accept the evidence offered. Nice try. Address someone else. Good luck to you.

Why is that even necessary? You still won't concede to the fact that you simply don't want to believe in a god and under no circumstances. You refuse to acknowledge the historicity of the existence of Jesus because it would end your argument. We covered it all here as you attempt to set the parameters of the debate. You lost. You have no evidence. You cant's have a belief and then have no evidence for it. Atheism is the belief that no god existence and offers nothing as proof as you all attempt semantics and word games only to avoid the ultimate truth. It's clear that there is nothing more to discuss. Good luck to you.

Why can't I submit an actual historical figure as evidence? Please explain this to me and actually try to address my questions for once. Then, why can't the gospels be used as evidence? If they can be used as evidence, why can't we believe what Jesus said?

Don't worry. Just ask another question and don't address these issues in your usual fashion. Most of all, why can't I rephrase the question of the debate? Do I really have to start another thread to introduce my questions? Really? Why does the atheist insist on not using evidence and then when presented with evidence if said evidence is not in the atheists acceptable parameters it's simply discarded.

Why don't you admit that there could never be ANY acceptable proof for you and that you are unwilling to look at all the evidence. Yes, the Gospels are, in fact, evidence. Give me a good reason to discard this evidence. You can't. You simply want to control the parameters of your debate to suit your unwillingness to look at all the facts. I bet you didn't even look at the link. If you don't want to have an actual debate, why do you persist in your questioning? Seriously.

If you view the Great Pumpkin as the first cause we are still saying the same thing which is why I introduced "X" as the value for first cause. Science validates the first cause through the big bang theory. This is commonly accepted science.

Ok on to your next question as you ignore mine. Have at it.

Ok, you wish to continue? Be honest with yourself. What would it matter if he left any scripture when you'd just prevent me from using it? I mean really! lol You'd simply shoot down the scripture as forgery or use some other excuse! You cannot have it both ways, bro!

If you never could read or write, does it mean you don't exist? And what if the proof of your existence was recorded by those close to you. Would there records be totally inaccurate?

Ok, here's what I'm referring to as academic proof of the existence of Jesus: http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html

I'll restate and restate until you concede to the fact that the person Jesus did exist! Jesus is the evidence you refuse to accept and wish to ignore. I include the existence of Jesus as evidence because he was an actual living and breathing historical figure! There IS NO GOOD REASON TO THROW OUT THIS EVIDENCE. NONE! If he did exist, why was he crucified? Why should the gospels be rejected as proof? Because you say so? Convenient. Again, please understand this. You require 21st century evidence for that which existed in the first century. Modern technology simply cannot accommodate this. I'll stop using Jesus as evidence when you stop using atheism for your defense. Deal? lol.

If anything, the extra-biblical sources, which if I remember correctly as fifty sources, bolsters the gospels and validates them. But you'd rather control the debate and throw out this evidence.

If there is no Jesus, how did Christianity come about using historical facts and NOT conjecture? You simply are unable to provide the answer as you continue to sidestep my questions.

Proof of God? WE are proof of God. The absurdity of life with no concrete morality makes everything permissible. This is proof. For you, I'm sure it's not proof at all. What is morality and ethics? What makes something right or wrong?

I've used the philosophical angle which I'll repeat yet again to no avail:

1.) What ever begins to exist has a cause
2.) The universe began to exist
3.) the universe has a cause.

Christians believe the first cause to be God as science concedes that the universe IS NOT eternal with the rejection of the Steady State Theory. To be objective We can easily insert "X" instaed of the use of the word "God".

"Science is the body of systematic knowledge of physical phenomena obtained by the scientific method which is the research method characterized by:

1. clear definition of the problem
2. gathering of relevant data
3. induction of an hypothesis
4. empirical testing of deductions from the hypothesis

Thus the predictions of science are not absolute truth and an hypothesis stands only until it is disproved by a single fact. Science theories are always changing."

To conclude, again to no avail, Modern day philosophical orientated Christians use science and facts to support their position. In order for you to successfully win this debate, you have to prove what "X" is. You have to say "X" is the reason for our existence and not God. Also, you have to actually provide evidence as to why the New Testament References to Jesus' existence are invalid without using conjecture. You simply won't. You'd also be successful if you can prove with certainty that Jesus did not exist. You'll, instead, ignore my questions and pick and choose what you'll respond to. So why are we still debating?

You are blatantly twisting the parameters in this debate to suit your agenda while accusing me of the same.



It is YOU who cannot have a debate without using straw men to win the argument. I refer to Jesus in this debate emphasizing the ACADEMIC evidence that lay outside of scripture. You simply DO NOT want to accept this and this debate really cannot proceed any further. It's the same if I asked you to debate me without using atheism and your preconceptions or if I asked asked you to defend your position without using words like "no" and "not". If I have to yield to your parameters then of course you would have the upper hand in the debate because you control the rules to suit your end. It's simply not a fair debate.

I appreciate your responses, but under these conditions I really cannot add any more to the debate than what's been already said. I've been repeating myself and it's clear that you simply don't accept the evidence I put forth which is no evidence at all in your perception.

Again, athesim should be redefined as the unwillingness to believe in god. Just as myself, you are not impartial and rely on preconceived ideas which then forces the parameters to change. Atheism is a belief system despite the denials by atheists. The only way an atheist can win this debate is by controlling the parameters and ignoring the evidence while cherry picking what is responded to.

I extend my hand for a cyber-shake and wish you well with your endeavors.

My friend, You are ignorant of the academic proof of the existence of Jesus. I want to fully emphasize that I'm not appealing to scripture alone, but but upon the academia of the modern day scholars and am not resting on faith alone or the conjecture of it's doubters.

Again, I will accuse you of requiring 21st century proof before it's very science. In the time of Jesus, 95% of the populace could not read or write. To compensate, The people often relied on oral tradition which was of a great importance. Modern day society requires evidence that is verifiable through the current accepted media.

Life itself is a miracle; a phenomena that that science, as far as we know, acknowledges it's complete randomness. It far for MORE LIKELY that a life prohibiting universe is more likely to exist, yet here we are. We are either a great cosmic accident with no further significance or created by a grand designer that provides reason for it all.

I can take on a humanistic lens that offers nothing more than desolation. Our life is arbitrary. The ends justify the means; the means justify the end. Morality is subjective to relativism. Society, through evolution, can evolve past the limitations of the current acceptable morality. Murder, in time, could be seen as a necessary cleansing of the weak until it's one's time to fall on the sword.

There is no morality without a definitive source that many recognize as God. There has to be a unmoved mover; something that is necessary in it's self that makes seemingly contradictory movements, for the sake of freewill, that much of mankind unwittingly rejects.

God is the first cause. Objectively. the first cause cannot be repeatable. The number one isn't the number two, though the number two consists of two ones. Life also consists of unrepeatable results. Science fails for it can only measure repeatable results. In a humanistic senses, we, as humanity's end rests in nothing more than a heat death. Our thoughts are meaningless and any attempt at offering another way is wishful thinking. Eat, Drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die..... Life without an absolute origin is meaningless.

As per usual, I offer agnosticism rather than Christianity. ATHEISM CAN NOT SURVIVE UNLESS IT VERIFIES IT'S BELIEFS.Simply, If there is no god, Why? Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. Period. Case closed. What ever follows outside of definitive proof of the negative is semantics. I can open my cupboard and recognize there is no cereal there without knowing what cereal is bu5 knowing what it isn't.

Atheism is the blatant unwillingness to accept the offered proof of the existence of God through the person of Jesus which was revealed to man a short two thousand years ago. I can easily concede a debate to an atheist if one admits one has no willingnes to accept the probability of God which removes the initial cause making life totally absurd and arbitrary.

For the 8 millionth time, the evidence of Jesus existence. I did not dodge the question or change the subject. I simplified the answer.

I totally respect your viewpoint and applaud your honesty. I like your concept of God being a feeling. A feeling is a part of our reality and consciousness. We can feel things that are real. For instance, if a person has a stomach ailment, the person may feel pain and discomfort which is very real to him, yet those around him feel no pain. For another similar example, let's say you witness a small piece of space debris hit the earth some miles ahead of you in a less advanced civilization and only you saw it. And let's say that you ran to search for the space debris but couldn't find it. Did the event not happen despite the fact that people have to accept your word to believe the event took place? As we can see feelings do have a play in our reality and it could be that some of us have an innate sense of God while others don't.

As submit the existence of Jesus as proof of God based also on the fact that modern biblical scholars, both secular and non-secular, agree that the person Jesus did exist. Followers eventually wrote down the events taken from oral tradition seen by the witnesses. Many throw out the baby with the bath water because the bible is seen as one cohesive book when, in fact, it is not and has various different authors written by people, many of which have had a different religious persuasion. The old testament is Judaism which Christianity is an off shoot of based on the belief of a God and a coming Savior, but there is a great difference between Christian beliefs and Judaic beliefs.

For the Christian, it need not be true whether God literally created the earth in 6 days based on the fact that the Torah was written by followers of Judaism in a much more primitive time. The Christian, to validate his beliefs, needs only to accept the existence of Jesus and that his words and actions were faithfully recorded. I find good reason to believe these events happened.

The very existence of Christianity gives credence that Jesus existed or one would have to prove without conjecture another reason for Christianity's emergence based solely on facts. If Jesus didn't exist, did his disciple exist? Did Paul exist? It very often appears that that evidence, truth and life are subjective.

There is no cop out on my side of the argument. I answered your question twice thoroughly. You're either just reading the first few lines of my response and nothing more or ignoring what I put forth. I'm fully aware what the subject and broadened the argument.

A negative can indeed be proved. I can say, for example,there is no food in your cabinet and open up the empty cabinet and find no food. I can say there is no money in my wallet and open up my wallet and find that there is no money in it. The word play pertaining to the subject of the thread is nothing more than semantics and you use it to bolster your position.

I respect your belief as best as I'm able to, but it's still a cop out using semantics. Phrased differently, if I pose the question to you, "Does God exist?" what is your answer? There is no wiggle room here as much as atheists try. Most atheists answer this question with a firm "no" and that there is no good reason to believe that there is a god which is simply a matter of opinion. Agnosticism is at least more honest because the agnostic simply says there may or may not be a god because all the data may not be available yet.

I'll repeat again the evidence that you deny by stating that the existence and words of Jesus are the proof of God's existence. You just choose not to accept this proof. Atheists desperately use conjecture when it comes to this subject. They imagine all sorts of possible scenarios but refuse to take the evidence on face value. Christianity is,therefore, not reliant on blind faith alone but by the evidence and words of Jesus that I'm comfortable in assuming you view as a fairytale. God exists because Jesus existed in human form over 2,000 years ago. To be successful as an atheist, prove that Jesus did not exist and that the miracles performed did not happen.

I do respect you view point as best as I can and enjoy these civil debates on the big question. Best regards to you.

That's a blatant cop out that most atheists take and I'll show you how it backfires. "There is no god" is a claim that most atheists assert, so using your logic, the claimant must prove there is no god or otherwise be agnostic. Atheism, in order to be successful, must answer the big question with concrete proof that no god exists. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. But, I know atheists know this and still continue to use this worn out tactic and then resort to ad hominem attacks by claiming a believer is delusional when the atheist is simply making a counter claim with no evidence what-so-ever while accusing those who believe and defend God of the same! The hypocrisy is astounding.

In order for atheism to be successful it has to prove the direct cause of the universe. It HAS TO say "X" is the reason for our origins and not a god. Otherwise atheism is presumptuous.

Christianity provides the evidence in the person Jesus which a majority of secular and non-secular New Testament scholars agree existed. There are over 50 extra-biblical accounts of Jesus albeit the majority of these accounts arrived AFTER the time of Jesus BUT within a few hundred years. Even Islam, a competing religion, acknowledges the existence of Jesus though claim him only as a prophet.

Modern day atheists enjoy the 'luxury' in the fact that these events happened over 2,000 years ago requiring proof that only modern technology can provide. In the same breath, no one question the validity of the existence of Alexander the Great where, if I remember correctly, a majority of his accounts were written about 300 years after his death and initially written about by a couple of men one being the court historian.

Secular New Testament scholars agree on the existence of Jesus but only acknowledge that he was an influential figure but that the claims of his miracle work were myth and lore as New Testament scholar Burton Mack would put it.

The evidence that Christianity uses to defend it's beliefs is simply rejected by the atheist and AGAIN with no evidence to back their claim. The atheists reads the stories of miracles and immediately exclaim, "Aha! a fairytale! It can't be true!" as if it were some vindication. They take the usual smug approach and wait for others to prove their point which is convenient for them and tiring to the believer.

It's much akin to someone identifying the sun as orange and insist that it is when it is in fact yellow. If one sees it as orange it is orange to them and no amount of evidence or proof will dissuade them: this is the atheist. I'm fully convinced that God could literally show his face in the sky and tell everyone, "I am God" and the atheist will insist it's a mass delusion or a trick of technology. There is simply no convincing the atheist. Atheism should be redefined as someone who does not want to believe in God.

I end most of my debates in this usual way: My charge to the atheist is that it's more intellectually honest to be agnostic than claim there is no god with no evidence what-so-ever.

Thanks, brother!

Excellent! Agreed!

I'm chiming in a bit late in this discussion but will add that evidence is what is clearly observable. The problem is that an event that was clearly observable 2,000 years ago is not clearly observable now.

Let's take a collision of a comet into a sun. Modern science can allow us to view such an event, but had this event happened before the advent of the telescope one can claim that no such event happened.

Faith is the belief in evidence that is not yet revealed. It's the reliance on the concept that we are not all knowing. It's not much different when an animal senses danger though a predator is not yet in view. Therefore, faith is based on evidence not immediately revealed, but evidence none the less.

Also, attacking religion DOES NOT disprove God. I wish atheists would get this through their heads. If there are inconsistencies and errors in religion it is the direct fault of man and NOT God. At best, atheism can only show that a Christian God, or an Islamic God, etc. does not exist. But, just like science and atheism, Christianity is also evolving and is not simply held to the writings of a book. But, many Christians (the laymen) DO believe that the bible in it's entirety is the literal word of God. Modern day science and philosophy shows that not to be true.

Evolution DOES NOT disprove God. Christopher Hitchens even concedes that there is no way to disprove, objectively, that if there is a god, that this same god may have used evolution as part of the overall design. The bible states that man was born from the dust of the ground which can be viewed as evolution. At some point man developed intellect and made conscious decisions and among them whether or not god exists despite the fact that God was revealed to mankind through the person of Jesus.

Unless science and atheism can definitively prove there is no god, it's nothing more than an evolved belief system not much different than any religion. In a humanistic view, morality is arbitrary so for atheists to feel some sort of moral or ethical superiority is just down right inconsistent, for morality has no set base and is constantly evolving.

Atheist LOVE throwing the baby out with the bath water. They love it. So much so, that a simple misspelling in bible would be used as 'proof' that their is no God, for certainly God is perfect and therefore must be a perfect speller! lol

Modern day Christianity concedes that man wrote the bible but inspired by God. The Bible IS NOT inerrant; it has contradictions and it's morality is questionable at various points. This AGAIN does NOT disprove God. In the same breath, there are good parts of the bible that the atheists blatantly over look such as do not steal, do not murder, love your brother. Why not focus on those teachings?

We need an absolute concrete proof that no God exists; other than that atheists should be content to be agnostic.

That's a VERY short sighted response. ALL beliefs have to be defended including humanism and atheism. Science is all about proof and repeatable patterns. Prove there is no god. It can't be done with solid evidence and attempted disproof is done only by conjecture.

Atheism is sad because it blindly asserts that there is no god and then leaves it up to the believer for proof. Cowardly. Atheism, in order to be true, needs to prove beyond doubt that there is no god. It's a belief not much different than Christianity.

Can anyone prove there ISN'T a God?

LOL very true

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUWqXbdjvgU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6GuCUOyb30

Does Evolution Disprove God's Existence?
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=49792846