Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Without quoting the Bible.

Those of us who know God exists don't have to prove a damn thing to you atheists. Creation is proof of God's existence. That's all the proof I'll ever need.

Originally posted by Star428
Those of us who know God exists don't have to prove a damn thing to you atheists. Creation is proof of God's existence. That's all the proof I'll ever need.
You failure

Prove He doesn't exist?

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Prove He doesn't exist?
No, prove HE DOES EXIST!!!

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Prove He doesn't exist? By saying that you concede he may or may not exist.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
By saying that you concede he may or may not exist.


No, I know He exists through faith. This is just a question to trap Christians because no one can offer physical proof of God's existence to an atheist's satisfaction. I can see physical proof beyond what science attempts to prove. However, atheists are spiritually blind and can not see the evidence.

Yes, asking for proof is just a big "trap" for you guys. Only crazy folk ask for proof.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=547634&pagenumber=1


Circle of life

It's basically the ultimate cop out. They can just say "we don't need proof, it's about faith". How do you argue against people that hard headed?

Originally posted by Surtur
It's basically the ultimate cop out. They can just say "we don't need proof, it's about faith". How do you argue against people that hard headed?

You can't bro i created that thread 4 years ago it's a never ending cycle.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
No, I know He exists through faith. This is just a question to trap Christians because no one can offer physical proof of God's existence to an atheist's satisfaction. I can see physical proof beyond what science attempts to prove. However, atheists are spiritually blind and can not see the evidence.

I didn't create this thread as a trap.

I created it after watching an hour of world news last night & saw nothing but violence & terror & bloodshed. One article alone was about 32 journalists shot dead ten years ago & still no justice for the accused. Another was about an 11 year old girl bludgeoned to death.

So yeah...prove God exists.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I didn't create this thread as a trap.

I created it after watching an hour of world news last night & saw nothing but violence & terror & bloodshed. One article alone was about 32 journalists shot dead ten years ago & still no justice for the accused. Another was about an 11 year old girl bludgeoned to death.

So yeah...prove God exists.

I can't. Just line no one can prove He doesn't exist.

Well when you see more horror today than people claiming their alive because a "miracle" just happened IMO proves he doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Without quoting the Bible.

First define God.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I can't. Just line no one can prove He doesn't exist.




Besides creation itself (which is a BIG one), the life of Christ and all the miracles He performed are proof enough. Who cares what atheists say about it? Seriously, anyone who'd rather believe that everything came into being by some freak "accident" of absolutely NOTHING colliding (LOL) and that all humans came from apes is not worth trying to reason with.

Thoughts on Catholic schools teaching Evolution as fact?

Originally posted by Star428
Besides creation itself (which is a BIG one), the life of Christ and all the miracles He performed are proof enough. Who cares what atheists say about it? Seriously, anyone who'd rather believe that everything came into being by some freak "accident" of absolutely NOTHING colliding (LOL) and that all humans came from apes is not worth trying to reason with.


Amen


But, you can't satisfy an atheist.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
No, I know He exists through faith. This is just a question to trap Christians because no one can offer physical proof of God's existence to an atheist's satisfaction. I can see physical proof beyond what science attempts to prove. However, atheists are spiritually blind and can not see the evidence. Fair enough, although I never understood that need of throwing jabs at the perceived atheists.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I didn't create this thread as a trap.

I created it after watching an hour of world news last night & saw nothing but violence & terror & bloodshed. One article alone was about 32 journalists shot dead ten years ago & still no justice for the accused. Another was about an 11 year old girl bludgeoned to death.

So yeah...prove God exists.

I empathize with that, but you can'say God doesn't exist based on atrocities committed everyday. It's up to God whether or not to intervene.

What if He did intervene? Sure, He could stop the violence and bloodshed, but how do you propose that He would go about it? Should He kill the evil doers or just snap His fingers and turn them into good and peaceful people? If He did that, you would have no free will. Are you asking for God to hold our hands and make decisions for us since mankind can't do it on his own without violence?

I think that assuming the question in the OP dismisses or attacks God is a weird reading. What it really does is showing our limited capability to provide proof, which is actually a fact.

Think about this: language is our means of communication and reasoning, most of our sciences assume not only around logic, but also explicit rules. When we talk about math, there are always some axioms that cannot be proved, the source of math if you will, the context that puts logic into perspective.

Any language or method has an inflexible source, a part that cannot be questioned without effectively dismissing everything. Those are our systems, they always work from a starting point. And God is assumed to be the source of it all. There is a chance that, because of our systems, God is effectively impossible to prove or that even finding a proof of God would disprove His part as the origin of everything.

Prove that purple isn't a colour.



See, I can demand stupid things too.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I empathize with that, but you can'say God doesn't exist based on atrocities committed everyday. It's up to God whether or not to intervene.

What if He did intervene? Sure, He could stop the violence and bloodshed, but how do you propose that He would go about it? Should He kill the evil doers or just snap His fingers and turn them into good and peaceful people? If He did that, you would have no free will. Are you asking for God to hold our hands and make decisions for us since mankind can't do it on his own without violence?

I'm not asking God to intervene or play Superman. I'm not even suggesting to take away our free will & make us mindless subservients.

I guess what I'm asking is simple proof.
For God himself to give us, this generation, proof that he does exist?
Why is that too much or considered blasphemous to ask?

Humanity's intelligence dictates we are inquisitive by nature. Our instincts require proof before trust.

How many of you openly give up your bank account details every time a prince from Nigeria emails you?
You don't, do you?
You can't proof it's legitimate. BUT if that prince personally took you back to his country & you witness the praise his followers give him, see his wealth with your own eyes...then maybe you would be less doubtful, wouldn't you?

If the one true God appeared before us all & explained his intentions, his expectations & providing we still have the ability of free will, then yes, we would be in a better position to either change our ways (& be peaceful to one another) or choose not to repent & face the consequences.

Honestly, what is stopping him to give us proof?
Where is the negativity in asking for some truth?

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=547634&pagenumber=1


Circle of life

I probably wasn't a member when you posted the same question or I never ventured into the religious forums.

Just goes to show there's a lot of people who are looking for answers.
Or evidence.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I empathize with that, but you can'say God doesn't exist based on atrocities committed everyday. It's up to God whether or not to intervene.

What if He did intervene? Sure, He could stop the violence and bloodshed, but how do you propose that He would go about it? Should He kill the evil doers or just snap His fingers and turn them into good and peaceful people? If He did that, you would have no free will. Are you asking for God to hold our hands and make decisions for us since mankind can't do it on his own without violence?





Frankly, I'm tired of hearing that same old argument from atheists: "If God exists, why doesn't He stop bad things from happening?!" LOL.


Yeah, you're right. It's all about free will. When Adam and Eve decided to disobey God and eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they basically were telling Him "We don't think we need you. We are smart enough to do things our way. Our way of doing things is better. So what if you were the One who created us?"... So basically, ever since then, God has stepped aside and let man be the total master of his own destiny. Whether people wanna admit it or not, they are the descendants of Adam and Eve. Not apes. Although why they'd wanna be proud of being descendants of apes anyway is beyond me.



The same disobedience that is in those two was passed down to all of those in their bloodline. It's in people's nature to sin. So when God "allows" all of these bad things to happen (He never makes them happen) He is simply letting humanity have it's wish of Him not interfering with their lives; He's letting mankind learn the hard way how foolish it is to do things their way instead of His.


That's why I always laugh or roll my eyes when atheists say some shit like "Where was your God when this terrible tragedy happened?" LOL. Man (and woman) made their choice. People shouldn't be b****ing and blaming God because He gave them what they wanted.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Prove that purple isn't a colour.



See, I can demand stupid things too.

Purple is a name or term used universally to label one colour from another.

It does not need to be proven a colour.

And if you doubt the nature of colour then you turn to medical science or an optometrist to determine the problem with your eyesight.

Originally posted by Star428
Frankly, I'm tired of hearing that same old argument from atheists: "If God exists, why doesn't He stop bad things from happening?!" LOL.


Yeah, you're right. It's all about free will. When Adam and Eve decided to disobey God and eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they basically were telling Him "We don't think we need you. We are smart enough to do things our way. Our way of doing things is better. So what if you were the One who created us?"... So basically, ever since then, God has stepped aside and let man be the total master of his own destiny. Whether people wanna admit it or not, they are the descendants of Adam and Eve. Not apes. Although why they'd wanna be proud of being descendants of apes anyway is beyond me.



The same disobedience that is in those two was passed down to all of those in their bloodline. It's in people's nature to sin. So when God "allows" all of these bad things to happen (He never makes them happen) He is simply letting humanity have it's wish of Him not interfering with their lives; He's letting mankind learn the hard way how foolish it is to do things their way instead of His.


That's why I always laugh or roll my eyes when atheists say some shit like "Where was your God when this terrible tragedy happened?" LOL. Man (and woman) made their choice. People shouldn't be b****ing and blaming God because He gave them what they wanted.

And you've proven that you can't prove his existence without referencing the bible.

Well done.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Purple is a name or term used universally to label one colour from another.

It does not need to be proven a colour.

And if you doubt the nature of colour then you turn to medical science or an optometrist to determine the problem with your eyesight. God is a name or term universally applied to one religion's deity or another.

He does not need to be proven existent.

And if you doubt the nature of religious deities then you can turn to a religious faith or a spiritual leader to determine the problem with your soul.



See, I can give useless non-answers too.

Why does God allow "innocents" to suffer? See article in link below:


http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t023.html



We ourselves do not establish the standards of what is right. Only the Creator of all reality can do that. We need to settle it, in our minds and hearts, whether we understand it or not, that whatever God does is, by definition, right.




There is really no such thing as the "innocent" suffering


Since "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), there is no one who has the right to freedom from God's wrath on the basis of his own innocence. (fortunately, Christ paid the price for people's sins but they have to repent and accept Him to be saved. But that still doesn't mean they are free from God's curse during their lives of God not interfering because of the choice Adam and Eve made)


As for as babies are concerned, and others who may be incompetent mentally to distinguish right and wrong, it is clear from both scripture and universal experience that they are sinners by nature (again, they inherited that nature from Adam and Eve) and thus will inevitably become sinners by choice as soon as they are able to do so.

The world is now under God's curse (Genesis 3:17) because of man's rebellion (the choice made by Adam and Eve) against God's word.

Eh, gotta love the rationale that babies haven't sinned but they would sin anyways so PUNISH!

Originally posted by Bentley
Eh, gotta love the rationale that babies haven't sinned but they would sin anyways so PUNISH!



*YAWN*... I understand you're just trolling Bentley and trying to provoke me but I won't be falling for it. Sorry, bud. Read the article for f***'s sake. I'm not going to argue with you or anybody else who trolls me for that matter.

We all (including babies and mentally retarded) inherited the sinful nature from Adam and Eve:



http://www.gotquestions.org/inherit-sin.html


That's an undeniable FACT.

You really need to check out the definition of words like 'undeniable' and 'fact'. Just screaming it doesn't make it so.

OK.....Free will, his goodness, Sin. The fact that people make other gods to prove his existence and go against him.

jsNdL_ANjAA

SIkVU0AcSMw

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
God is a name or term universally applied to one religion's deity or another.

He does not need to be proven existent.

And if you doubt the nature of religious deities then you can turn to a religious faith or a spiritual leader to determine the problem with your soul.



See, I can give useless non-answers too.

People can see a colour.
People can comprehend one colour to another.

Colours have been proven to exist.
Plain as daylight.

You want to question my soul but can't prove a God, any God for that matter, exists.

Did the colors infrared and ultraviolet exist before man invented equipment that could detect them?

Originally posted by Star428
*YAWN*... I understand you're just trolling Bentley and trying to provoke me but I won't be falling for it. Sorry, bud. Read the article for f***'s sake. I'm not going to argue with you or anybody else who trolls me for that matter.

At least you know I'm not serious about it, I was exemplifying just how people would read it without caring much about the rest.

I'm not terribly fond to discuss about hypothetical universes where there is no possible pain and call that a sound argument against God, but that's a quirk of mine. It's disturbing when some people are willing to talk about entirely theoretical constructs as examples while asking for perfect proof at the same time. I enjoy the debate about the delvings of faith and reason but I try not to give them too much power.

That said, there have been honest theological arguments about the possibility of redemption for people who are not believers. It's interesting at least, considering the idea of God having a bigger perspective than us about our own souls.

Originally posted by Astner
Did the colors infrared and ultraviolet exist before man invented equipment that could detect them?

And by answering this question. that will prove God exists?
The sun is the source for both infrared radiation & ultraviolet light, they existed long before man had technology to measure them.

Why is it so hard for a Christian, a Catholic, a Muslim ( whatever religious denomination) to prove his existence?

When I worked in an office, there would be weeks that'd go by without seeing the head manager. But we knew he existed. How did we know? Because of the regular memos & office meetings where his orders & expectations were handed down for us to follow & adhere to. The only times he'd make an appearance was to either congratulate or discipline us.
Get the point?
Having faith is a two way deal.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
The sun is the source for both infrared radiation & ultraviolet light, they existed long before man had technology to measure them.
But they couldn't be proven. Are you implying that things can exist without evidence?

Originally posted by Astner
But they couldn't be proven. Are you implying that things can exist without evidence?

They were proven by the heat we felt from the sun.
They were proven by the fact that living beings needed UV to thrive & grow.

Man has also proven they can thrive & grow with & WITHOUT religion, faith or God.

They were only labelled & given (scientific) names as part of evidence in the knowledge of how things worked.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
They were proven by the heat we felt from the sun.
They were proven by the fact that living beings needed UV to thrive & grow.
So as long as something exists it proves itself regardless of whether or not there's evidence or theories supporting it?

Originally posted by Astner
So as long as something exists it proves itself regardless of whether or not there's evidence or theories supporting it?

I have no idea where you're coming from but I hope you can see I'm being respectful & not heated in my responses to you.
Not like some Christians on this thread...

If something exists, isn't that solid evidence that it does?

I exist.
You exist.
The evidence is our dialogue together.

If you had never responded or I never made this thread then our existence would not have been proven to eachother.

And wouldn't you conclude that being a fact & not a theory?

What are you wearing btw?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I have no idea where you're coming from but I hope you can see I'm being respectful & not heated in my responses to you.
Not like some Christians on this thread...

If something exists, isn't that solid evidence that it does? No, as determining something's very existence will actually require evidence for said existence. If reality worked as that sentence of yours, then anyone (theists included) could assert God's existence by saying simply: "God exists, isn't that solid evidence that He does?" And you'd be right to laugh at their conceit and call it an ipsedixetism.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I exist. A solipsist would say otherwise.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
You exist. Most likely.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
The evidence is our dialogue together. That could all be taking place in your mind, just like the "dialogue" between a die hard believer and God.


Originally posted by Esau Cairn
And wouldn't you conclude that being a fact & not a theory? Ehhh, chalk one up for proper use of the word theory:

lqk3TKuGNBA

All you've hypothesised is that there's a 50/50 chance that either Astner or myself are God moonlighting on KMC.

Using deductive arguments to prove god's existence is a double edged sword, because you can literally argue anything exist or that it doesn't. You can just keep adding premises or make a premise that is true but leads to false conclusions.

Ex.)
1.)Billy is fast
2.)Billy is human
Conclusion: Any human named Billy is fast.

True premises;false conclusion.

There's a reason why natural philosophy switched from deductive reasoning, to inductive reasoning.

Anyway, there's no persuading evidence to convince anyone with functional faculties that god exists.

I've been hyphotesizing Astner is an AI for a while now. That's true and you shall believe.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
I've been hyphotesizing Astner is an AI for a while now. That's true and you shall believe.
AI? What is that?

Artificial Intelligence.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
All you've hypothesised is that there's a 50/50 chance that either Astner or myself are God moonlighting on KMC. 50/50. 100% chance that your both fanciful peasants who don't realize that God is a spambot.

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
Anyway, there's no persuading evidence to convince anyone with functional faculties that god exists.

See, I was expecting multiple posts from every Christian or Catholic to express how their blind faith in God was ample proof to his existence...but surprisingly no one has.

And yet isn't blind faith what it's all about?

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
1.)Billy is fast
2.)Billy is human
Conclusion: Any human named Billy is fast.

True premises;false conclusion.
You don't arrive at the conclusion from the premises.

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
There's a reason why natural philosophy switched from deductive reasoning, to inductive reasoning.
No. Deductive reasoning is generally not used in natural philosophy because we don't have a proper understanding of nature.

Originally posted by Star428
We all (including babies and mentally retarded) inherited the sinful nature from Adam and Eve:



http://www.gotquestions.org/inherit-sin.html


That's an undeniable FACT.

Okay you are legitimately insane. Why do you think this is a fact? All he does is pull stuff from bible passages. You can't truly believe the things you say.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
See, I was expecting multiple posts from every Christian or Catholic to express how their blind faith in God was ample proof to his existence...but surprisingly no one has.

And yet isn't blind faith what it's all about?

Blind faith is real faith. The Bible teaches this.

But then people need to realize faith isn't proof. That is the whole thing with faith, you don't have proof. Now people will say well they don't need proof and that is fine and dandy, but if the thread is specifically asking for actual proof there is zero.

At this point in time, God is as real as Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.

Why can't everyone be happy with their own ideology without attacking the others?


Asking to both groups.

Because people rule and form laws based on there favorite book.

I'd like to pass a law that all men must dress accordingly based solely on which side of the tracks they live on. Wouldn't want our women being besmirched by them greaser punks.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Why can't everyone be happy with their own ideology without attacking the others.
Because that's boring?

Originally posted by Astner
But they couldn't be proven. Are you implying that things can exist without evidence?
Proof and existence are different. You can't prove something without evidence, but something can exist independent of human reckoning. That doesn't mean it's epistemologically responsible to believe in things that can't be proven though.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Proof and existence are different.
I was making fun of his reasoning....

Oh, then carry on.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Because people rule and form laws based on there favorite book.

I'd like to pass a law that all men must dress accordingly based solely on which side of the tracks they live on. Wouldn't want our women being besmirched by them greaser punks. Pack mindset, I can see that.
Originally posted by Astner
Because that's boring? Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Life without religious conflict would be even more boring.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Why can't everyone be happy with their own ideology without attacking the others?


Asking to both groups.

It's not an attack to point out there is no proof God exists.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's not an attack to point out there is no proof God exists. You usually don't stop there, for instance.

Originally posted by Astner
You don't arrive at the conclusion from the premises.

They do support the argument. Did you watch the videos you posted?

Originally posted by Astner

No. Deductive reasoning is generally not used in natural philosophy because we don't have a proper understanding of nature.
Yes, and the conclusion even if logically correct can't be tested. So there's no way to test how false it might be.

Given that you understand the flaws in deductive reasoning, why would you try an attempt to use it as a way to prove god's existence?

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
You usually don't stop there, for instance.

Usually only after people begin saying crazy stuff.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Blind faith is real faith. The Bible teaches this.

The point to this topic was not to bring the bible into discussion as the only proof available.

Originally posted by Surtur
Usually only after people begin saying crazy stuff. It's still an attack.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Why can't everyone be happy with their own ideology without attacking the others?


Asking to both groups.

Notice the one's with faith are the ones must adamant in attacking others beliefs?

What would be be considered "proof"?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Notice the one's with faith are the ones must adamant in attacking others beliefs? Faith leads to rigidity in thinking, that's pretty much its purpose.

Originally posted by Mindset
Faith leads to rigidity in thinking, that's pretty much its purpose.

I get the feeling that when Star makes it to Heaven, even God will think he's a tw*t.

Originally posted by juggerman
What would be be considered "proof"?

God himself reaffirming his existence.

I don't think that's too much to ask for if he wants our devotion.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Notice the one's with faith are the ones must adamant in attacking others beliefs? Yeah, they're usually the first to talk contemptuously about other groups.

It's a back and forth.

God exists and he despises us.

Take comfort in that.

Only until I find him.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
God himself reaffirming his existence.

I don't think that's too much to ask for if he wants our devotion.

So if nothing short of that will suffice, why make the thread? Nothing but God Himself will sway you it seems

http://www.decodedscience.org/modal-logic-proved-godel-right-god-exists/38801


Kurt Godel offered a mathematical proof that God exists. Take it for what you will.

Originally posted by juggerman
So if nothing short of that will suffice, why make the thread? Nothing but God Himself will sway you it seems

I do have some personal issues with God and religion.
Belief ( or non belief) in Him has split my family apart, growing up.

So maybe I should've re-titled this thread, "God Needs To Prove Himself" instead of how I titled it in the first place.

But yeah I wanted to read posters defending their fate, how God has changed their lives & that was proof enough for them...but so far no one hasn't.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I do have some personal issues with God and religion.
Belief ( or non belief) in Him has split my family apart, growing up.

So maybe I should've re-titled this thread, "God Needs To Prove Himself" instead of how I titled it in the first place.

But yeah I wanted to read posters defending their fate, how God has changed their lives & that was proof enough for them...but so far no one hasn't.

What is it that you seek? Do you want God to be real, but you need empirical evidence of His existence before you believe in Him. It seems you're searching for God to fill a certain void in your life.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I do have some personal issues with God and religion.
Belief ( or non belief) in Him has split my family apart, growing up.

So maybe I should've re-titled this thread, "God Needs To Prove Himself" instead of how I titled it in the first place.

But yeah I wanted to read posters defending their fate, how God has changed their lives & that was proof enough for them...but so far no one hasn't. Neither religion nor God split your family up, your family split your family up.

Anyway, I used to believe in God, I don't now, but maybe I will again some day...it doesn't matter.

Originally posted by Mindset
Neither religion nor God split your family up, your family split your family up.

/B]

Please provide in depth, personal details of my life to back your statement.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
What is it that you seek? Do you want God to be real, but you need empirical evidence of His existence before you believe in Him. It seems you're searching for God to fill a certain void in your life.


Why is it so wrong to want or seek proof?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Please provide in depth, personal details of my life to back your statement. If you think I need to know the personal details of your life, you missed the point.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Why is it so wrong to want or seek proof?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I do have some personal issues with God and religion.
Belief ( or non belief) in Him has split my family apart, growing up.

So maybe I should've re-titled this thread, "God Needs To Prove Himself" instead of how I titled it in the first place.

But yeah I wanted to read posters defending their fate, how God has changed their lives & that was proof enough for them...but so far no one hasn't. You don't believe in God or the religions centered around him, but you readily blame both for your family's issues. You can't have it both ways. Either you reject the whole concept of divinity and deities and see it (and subsequently, all problems associated with it) as human constructs, OR...

you actually do believe in it all, but your just jaded that your notion of God has not led to something you think he should allow. So now you rebel against his authority and influence by calling out his intangibility.




If you're an atheist, then let the whole silly God bullshit go and see your family's issues for what they are: human-created foolishness. Work with that, and stop blaming and attacking their religion---it's not going to help you or them. Opening this thread just to chastise believers' faith is just coming off as petty and spiteful. And that you're masquerading your bitterness behind the classic "I'm just saying..." or "I'm just asking questions..." is pretty underhanded.




Or you're unapologetically shit disturbing and trolling. Either or.

Once again.

Why is it so wrong to ask for verification?

I can't put it any simpler than that.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Once again.

Why is it so wrong to ask for verification?

I can't put it any simpler than that. The question is simple and legit. In part, what makes the answer difficult is operationally defining one's terms, specifically "proof" and "God."

Let's define proof as a replicable experience directly amenable to the senses. Let's define *God* as an immaterial entity. How do we justify demanding physical-sensory proof of an immaterial/transcendent entity? Doesn't seem fair.

Eg, a floating gold mountain with winged humanoids suddenly appears over every city on Earth. Could be the doings of God, but only the Floating Mountains and Winged Humanoids are empirically, directly experienced. Only these phenomena, to the senses, are evident. The God conclusion is inferential.

Let's expand the definition of proof to include any replicable, immediate experience. Got an ontological argument? Could mean God exists, but again, the only thing being directly experienced is the ontological argument. The God conclusion is inferential.

In both cases, all we have are proverbial shadows on the cave wall.

Traditionally, historically, meditation has been the means to access what is considered replicable and directly experienced *transcendent* phenomena. But: are these experiences valid? That's the $64 zillion question. What requirement would you need here to determine that? Do glorious visions reveal information that improve the quality of life for yourself and others? Do these insights bestow a grand life perspective, resulting in a reverent, peaceful and constructive attitude toward the world, even in the face of suffering and death? Traditionally, historically, this has typically been the case.

In closing, I've always liked the Zen approach. Essentially: "Does God exist?" asks the Zen student. The master replies, "Meditate. Then we'll talk."

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You don't believe in God or the religions centered around him, but you readily blame both for your family's issues. You can't have it both ways. Either you reject the whole concept of divinity and deities and see it (and subsequently, all problems associated with it) as human constructs, OR...


The thing you quoted it sounds like the problem was the belief or non belief in God. If true that is technically not blaming God for anything, nor does it mean said person believes in God.

Let's put it another way which is simple. If God is real, the biblical God, then he is a piece of shit. Some might say this is an attack, but I am not being aggressive about this. It is simply an observation via some of the things he does in the bible. I don't think what I just labeled him is that offensive in context of what he has done. People who would be offended by it would be selectively ignoring parts of the bible.

Don't get me wrong God also does do a lot of stuff that could be considered good in the bible as well. But it doesn't really erase the bad stuff.

Here is the truth though, God as we know him is just a construct built by people. If something out there that created the universe exists then we most likely don't know much about it. The stories in the bible are just that, stories written by people, not divine beings.

If I found proof the biblical God was real I would just feel..saddened. Since it just seems like so much wasted potential.

I don't think anyone apart from Starsie believes divine beings wrote the bible. Everybody knows jesus gang did it.

But there are a not small amount of people who believe in the bible. I'd be curious to know where they think the writers got all these ideas from.

Since parts of the bible take place a long time before Jesus, so where did this information come from? That is a question I'm asking to people who believe in the bible.

Originally posted by Surtur
But there are a not small amount of people who believe in the bible. I'd be curious to know where they think the writers got all these ideas from.

Since parts of the bible take place a long time before Jesus, so where did this information come from? That is a question I'm asking to people who believe in the bible.

As Christians, we believe God inspired the men who wrote the Bible through divine revelation. This means that the authors wrote verbatim what God wanted to say. God did not audibly speak these words to the authors, but revealed His meessage in such a way to them that it was verbatim what He wanted to say.

So, to answer your question, the Scriptures came from God.

Considering posters can't stop mentioning the bible as means of evidence...then wouldn't it stand that what is needed is an updated version then constantly referencing something that has no relevance to today's society?

Isn't that where the true problem lies?

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
As Christians, we believe God inspired the men who wrote the Bible through divine revelation. This means that the authors wrote verbatim what God wanted to say. God did not audibly speak these words to the authors, but revealed His meessage in such a way to them that it was verbatim what He wanted to say.

So, to answer your question, the Scriptures came from God.





Precisely. I don't think anyone is naive enough to think that the Bible just dropped out of the sky already written by God Himself. All the authors in the Bible were insprired by God though which is the reason people call it the "inspired Word of God."

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Considering posters can't stop mentioning the bible as means of evidence...then wouldn't it stand that what is needed is an updated version then constantly referencing something that has no relevance to today's society?

Isn't that where the true problem lies?

Funny Islam is so accepted here and should be protected but when it comes to the bible and God it's considered a back water right wing cult while Islam seems the future religion of the democratic and liberal party.

^Truth.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Considering posters can't stop mentioning the bible as means of evidence...then wouldn't it stand that what is needed is an updated version then constantly referencing something that has no relevance to today's society?

Isn't that where the true problem lies?

It does have relevance in today's world. The Bible is a book that, at its core, is concerned about the spirituality of man. Besides technology and cultural diffrrences, those people are just like us. The Bible is meant to reveal Christ as the Savior of our souls and that includes everyone that ever existed or will exist. If you can grasp that, you will understand the Bible is not outdated.

I agree that is the most impprtant part but it also contains a great deal of prophecy. Not to mention guidelines in Psalms and Proverbs for living a better life. Then, of course, the part in Genesis that talks about the beginning is extremely important too. The Bible wouldn't be the book it is without all of those things. Very little, if any, of the Bible is "outdated". If people wanna start talking about an "outdated" book that needs revising it should be the Koran.

Originally posted by Star428
Not only that, but it also contains a great deal of prophecy. Not to mention guidelines in Psalms and Proverbs for living a better life. Then, of course, the part in Genesis that talks about the beginning is extremely important to.

Exactly. The Old Testament is filled with prophecies, many of them about the coming of Jesus, the Messiah. Jesus already fulfilled all of those prophecies concerning His first coming. What are the odds of that? One man fulfilling prophecies to the letter, written long before He was born in Bethlehem. Salvation was the same then as it is now, except during te Old Testament, they looked forward to Christ's coming...we look back at it as having already been fulfilled.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Exactly. The Old Testament is filled with prophecies, many of them about the coming of Jesus, the Messiah. Jesus already fulfilled all of those prophecies concerning His first coming. What are the odds of that? One man fulfilling prophecies to the letter, written long before He was born in Bethlehem. Salvation was the same then as it is now, except during te Old Testament, they looked forward to Christ's coming...we look back at it as having already been fulfilled.

It is called postdiction.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1d/fd/58/1dfd58519be231f05fc35afb325ec0a1.jpg

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is called postdiction.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1d/fd/58/1dfd58519be231f05fc35afb325ec0a1.jpg

Proof?

Of course he doesn't have any. Anyway, he's a Satanist so pretty much everything he says religion related is bullshit. I don't even bother reading any of his posts in the religion forum anymore.

Ha ha maybe it's Divine Intervention but I can't quote or add a comment to Adam Poe's reply.

Oh God, you sneaky deity!

Originally posted by Star428
Of course he doesn't have any. Anyway, he's a Satanist so pretty much everything he says religion related is bullshit. I don't even bother reading any of his posts in the religion forum anymore.
So is everyone who "denies" God a Satanist?

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
So is everyone who "denies" God a Satanist?

John 8:42-47

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 47He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.


Not a Satanist as in worshipping the devil literally, but non-believers are inadvertently, most times, allegiant to Satan.

No. If they don't believe in Satan, they have no allegiance or affiliation to him.

There's more to belief than a spectrum with God on one end and Satan on the other.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
No. If they don't believe in Satan, they have no allegiance or affiliation to him.

There's more to belief than a spectrum with God on one end and Satan on the other.

I put an edit in my last post

NM, saw you edited too.

Well, why are they "more allegiant to Satan"?

Wouldn't they be less allegiant than Christians given they don't even believe in his existence?

Compared to Christians who consider Satan an extremely powerful, existent being?

Like, Atheism and Satanism are as polar-opposite as one can get.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So how can you believe in Satan, but not God?
He doesn't believe in Satan.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
No. If they don't believe in Satan, they have no allegiance or affiliation to him.

There's more to belief than a spectrum with God on one end and Satan on the other.

That's not what the Scripture means. You don't physically worship the devil, but you are spiritually tied to him due to the rejection of God. You don't have to believe in Satan to be spiritually tied to him.

I guess we (as in the Bible and the dictionary) have different definitions of Satanism then.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
That's not what the Scripture means. You don't physically worship the devil, but you are spiritually tied to him due to the rejection of God. You don't have to believe in Satan to be spiritually tied to him. So the bible basically threatens people into believing in God because otherwise they're stuck with the devil?

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
He doesn't believe in Satan.

Read up, he does.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
So the bible basically threatens people into believing in God because otherwise they're stuck with the devil?
https://media.giphy.com/media/3rgXBwJBNh2Iz6eVTW/giphy.gif

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Read up, he does.
If he said he worships Satan, he's trolling you.

I think it's pretty damn clear he's an Athiest.

He belongs to some satanic temple. Thats enough proof for me.

LMFAO.

LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

You're the most gullible person I've ever met.

And you might be the most ignorant and small minded Christian I ever met.

infinite keks

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He belongs to some satanic temple. Thats enough proof for me.







Also, LOL @ "if he tells u he's worshipping Satan then he's trolling u". I don't care if he actually worships Satan or not because by calling himself a "Satanist" he is aligning himself with Satan and against God whether he actually believes in them or not. Period.

Talking about "close minded"... LMFAO.

Reported for trolling and spamming.

Originally posted by Star428

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Proof?

Of course he doesn't have any. Anyway, he's a Satanist so pretty much everything he says religion related is bullshit. I don't even bother reading any of his posts in the religion forum anymore.

If the people of his time believed Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies, then there would not still be Jews today.




Originally posted by DarthAnt66

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So how can you believe in Satan, but not God?

He doesn't believe in Satan.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

If the people of his time believed Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies, then there would not still be Jews today.

I'm confused, did someone say everyone believed this?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Of course he doesn't have any. Anyway, he's a Satanist so pretty much everything he says religion related is bullshit. I don't even bother reading any of his posts in the religion forum anymore.

If the people of his time believed Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies, then there would not still be Jews today.






He doesn't believe in Satan.



I'm not following you. Why wouldn't there be Jews today?

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I'm not following you. Why wouldn't there be Jews today?

If Jesus fulfilled the Jewish messianic prophecies in the first century BCE, and it was not a postdiction from the fourth century CE (the date of the oldest biblical manuscripts), then the first century Jews would have converted to Christianity, and there would be no Jews today.

Clearly, the Jews of Jesus' time did not believe that he fulfilled the messianic prophecies, nor do the Jews today.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If Jesus fulfilled the Jewish messianic prophecies in the first century BCE, and it was not a postdiction from the fourth century CE (the date of the oldest biblical manuscripts), then the first century Jews would have converted to Christianity, and there would be no Jews today.

Clearly, the Jews of Jesus' time did not believe that he fulfilled the messianic prophecies, nor do the Jews today.


I'm talking Old Testament prophecies, all of which precede the time of Christ. These documents were written well before the fourth century CE.

Also, Jews refers to the name of a people, not a religion. Jews would still be around regardless of what they believed. Of course most Jews rejected Christ. The Bible prophecied thst would happen also.


I believe you were implying Judaism wouldn't exist. That was what had me confused.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I'm talking Old Testament prophecies, all of which precede the time of Christ. These documents were written well before the fourth century CE.

Also, Jews refers to the name of a people, not a religion. Jews would still be around regardless of what they believed. Of course most Jews rejected Christ. The Bible prophecied thst would happen also.


I believe you were implying Judaism wouldn't exist. That was what had me confused.

The claims that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies have the benefit of being written, compiled, and edited between the fourth and the eighth centuries BCE.

Anyone can start with a written prophecy and then interpolate details into a manuscript to show the prophecy was fulfilled, especially when the story is not being written during the lifetime of any of the characters, let alone by eyewitnesses.

That is one of the ways postdiction works.

Moreover, I was not implying that Jews as an ethnic group would not exist, I was implying that Judaism would not exist.

The Jews of the first century BCE were anticipating the imminent coming of the Messiah. If Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies in their lifetime, they would have converted to Christianity.

A man cannot raise 500 people from the dead for 500 witnesses, and people remain non-believers. If that truly happened, there would be no Jews today. Judaism would have died and there would only be Christians.

Well, then you have things like the Battle of Los Angeles were the people claimed they saw an alien ship and to this day no one believes them.

That's not a good argument since history can't be recorded 100% accurately, specially when those events are as old as the one you're referring to. Also, 500 people is not that much people anyway.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The claims that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies have the benefit of being written, compiled, and edited between the fourth and the eighth centuries BCE.

Anyone can start with a written prophecy and then interpolate details into a manuscript to show the prophecy was fulfilled, especially when the story is not being written during the lifetime of any of the characters, let alone by eyewitnesses.

That is one of the ways postdiction works.

Moreover, I was not implying that Jews as an ethnic group would not exist, I was implying that Judaism would not exist.

The Jews of the first century BCE were anticipating the imminent coming of the Messiah. If Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies in their lifetime, they would have converted to Christianity.

A man cannot raise 500 people from the dead for 500 witnesses, and people remain non-believers. If that truly happened, there would be no Jews today. Judaism would have died and there would only be Christians.

No evidence that postdiction occured with these prophecies. How could we trust any hostorical texts if there is doubt about its authenticity? Who's to say what we know about Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates was not corrupted? Is the Bible's authenticity only attacked because it concerns a particular religion?

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
No evidence that postdiction occured with these prophecies. How could we trust any hostorical texts if there is doubt about its authenticity? Who's to say what we know about Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates was not corrupted? Is the Bible's authenticity only attacked because it concerns a particular religion?

The existence of Sokrates and Plato is not intrinsic to their thought. The philosophies they wrote (or in the case of Sokrates had written about) stand without their existence. The same goes for Jesus moral message of course, but not his divinity.

At any rate. We do scrutinize historical sources based on the time periods and authors of them, that's part of historical work and interpretation

Originally posted by Bardock42
The existence of Sokrates and Plato is not intrinsic to their thought. The philosophies they wrote (or in the case of Sokrates had written about) stand without their existence. The same goes for Jesus moral message of course, but not his divinity.

At any rate. We do scrutinize historical sources based on the time periods and authors of them, that's part of historical work and interpretation



No, people tend to accept as fact everything that's said in history books, science books, or any other kind of educational books as "fact" without actually seeing the proof with their own eyes. People never seem to question what non-biblical historians or scientists say. They'll gladly swallow whatever they tell them without them having the proof themselves. But when someone brings up the Bible atheists start claiming the authors of the Bible are lying just because they don't like what they say they've witnessed (like the many miracles Jesus performed).



Just look at the theory of evolution. There's not a single shred of proof that humans came from apes but you atheists have no problem accepting it as "fact" just because some scientist uses a bunch of sophisticated-sounding terms and you don't like the idea of creation even though it makes a Hell of a lot more sense.



Answer me this, why would so many different authors of the Bible lie about what they've witnessed? Many of them were persecuted for their faith. John the Baptist was actually beheaded. Why would they be willing to be persecuted so harshly and even in some cases become martyrs for a lie?

Originally posted by Star428
No, people tend to accept as fact everything that's said in history books, science books, or any other kind of educational books as "fact" without actually seeing the proof with their own eyes. People never seem to question what non-biblical historians or scientists say. They'll gladly swallow whatever they tell them without them having the proof themselves. But when someone brings up the Bible atheists start claiming the authors of the Bible are lying just because they don't like what they say they've witnessed (like the many miracles Jesus performed).


What the heck is this? Do you know anything about what you are talking about? Academic history is exceptionally sceptical about its sources, and the older they get, the more sceptical they are. There is an entire branch of academia dedicated towards trying to work out what parts of ancient historians like Tacitus and Livy can possibly be corroborated in any way- because they are so completely unsourced. The truth is the total opposite of what you are saying here. NO-ONE is taking these things at face value. Scepticism is the default position. The scepticism the Bible gets is the same as due to any source.

There is also shedloads of evidence for evolution in general, and 'humans came from apes' is a made-up thing ignorant people say. It's abut common ancestors. You're just flailing here.No-one accepts anything because of fancy language. Evolution is accepted because it is scientifically backed in demonstrable, evidenced ways.

Take the articles in links below for example:


http://www.creationsciencetoday.com/

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml


They both make a clear case for creation being a much more plausible explanation for our existence than evolution but the fact the links has "Christianity" or "creation" in them means that atheists will automatically dismiss them as invalid sources. Yet they expect us Christians to blindly accept what some scientist says about evolution being a so-called "fact" just because that scientist uses a bunch of fancy-sounding terms and uses some other scientist as a source to back it up. Of course, that scientist he uses as a source also uses another scientist as his so-called "proof" and so on and so on. LOL. No actual proof is ever shown. They just expect people to blindly accept it as fact "just because". LOL.

Originally posted by Star428
Of course he doesn't have any. Anyway, he's a Satanist so pretty much everything he says religion related is bullshit. I don't even bother reading any of his posts in the religion forum anymore. Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He belongs to some satanic temple. Thats enough proof for me.
Hurts me just a bit

Originally posted by Star428
Take the articles in links below for example:


http://www.creationsciencetoday.com/

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml


They both make a clear case for creation being a much more plausible explanation for our existence than evolution but the fact the links has "Christianity" or "creation" in them means that atheists will automatically dismiss them as invalid sources. Yet they expect us Christians to blindly accept what some scientist says about evolution being a so-called "fact" just because that scientist uses a bunch of fancy-sounding terms and uses some other scientist as a source to back it up. Of course, that scientist he uses as a source also uses another scientist as his so-called "proof" and so on and so on. LOL. No actual proof is ever shown. They just expect people to blindly accept it as fact "just because". LOL.

Again, not fancy words, they use evidence to back it up, as you would know if you made any sort of serious study. All you have in your pages are blind assertions- trying to make the world fit what they want, the opposite of science, which is open minded to discovering how the world actually is rather than following an agenda.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
What the heck is this? Do you know anything about what you are talking about? Academic history is exceptionally sceptical about its sources, and the older they get, the more sceptical they are. There is an entire branch of academia dedicated towards trying to work out what parts of ancient historians like Tacitus and Livy can possibly be corroborated in any way- because they are so completely unsourced. The truth is the total opposite of what you are saying here. NO-ONE is taking these things at face value. Scepticism is the default position. The scepticism the Bible gets is the same as due to any source.

There is also shedloads of evidence for evolution in general, and 'humans came from apes' is a made-up thing ignorant people say. It's abut common ancestors. You're just flailing here.No-one accepts anything because of fancy language. Evolution is accepted because it is scientifically backed in demonstrable, evidenced ways.

It is true that all ancient texts are heavily scrutinized for accuracy and authenticity. I'm not debating that. However, secular texts are given far more weight in legitimacy than religious texts, in my opinion. Most undergraduate history classes do not discuss textual criticism of the original sources. Ancient history is presented as undisputed fact in these classes. The life and teachings of Plato or Aristotle are given more credence than the authors that penned the Old Testament. In fact, many probably give more credence to Homer's Iliad than Moses (credited for writing the first 5 books of the Old Testament).

In sum, I believe there is a bias when secular scholars attemt to offer criticism of religious texts and its original sources.

Generally the supernatural aspects of historical stories do get discounted, and the religious bias gets considered in the writing (similarly to how national allegiances get considered). The Bible is partly used as a historical document, but it is very much seen that there are a lot of fictional aspects, because if isn't solely meant as a historical work, it is meant as a spiritual one, and there isn't any evidence for the supernatural claims.

In that way it is similar to the Iliad. Although I would say the Bible gets a lot more credit as a history than the Iliad.

The only parts of the Bible that secular historians would consider somewhat reliable in mapping a legitimate history of the Hebrew people would be the list of kings, including the reigns of David and Solomon. Also considered would be the Assyrian and Babylonian captivity of the Jewish people. They consider most other parts myth and legend.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
It is true that all ancient texts are heavily scrutinized for accuracy and authenticity. I'm not debating that. However, secular texts are given far more weight in legitimacy than religious texts, in my opinion. Most undergraduate history classes do not discuss textual criticism of the original sources. Ancient history is presented as undisputed fact in these classes. The life and teachings of Plato or Aristotle are given more credence than the authors that penned the Old Testament. In fact, many probably give more credence to Homer's Iliad than Moses (credited for writing the first 5 books of the Old Testament).

In sum, I believe there is a bias when secular scholars attemt to offer criticism of religious texts and its original sources.

Maybe in very poor quality undergrad classes, but that's nothing to do with proper History. Even people studying Classics or Literature rather than history know that we can't even be sure Homer existed, let alone treating the Iliad as some sort of historical work, which I am not aware of anyone doing (people trying to find the 'real' Troy were considered nutjobs throughout the centuries).

Plato and Aristotle were philosophers, not historians. Any credence in what they say is simply based on people agreeing with their logic. That's nothing to do with historical sources.

Meanwhile, there is very serious historical study attributed to the authorship of the Old Testament Bible- I'm not a classicist but even I have run into that- the P source and the J source etc, likely writing centuries apart. The Moses thing is given no credence because there's no evidence for it.

Originally posted by Star428
Take the articles in links below for example:


http://www.creationsciencetoday.com/

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml


They both make a clear case for creation being a much more plausible explanation for our existence than evolution but the fact the links has "Christianity" or "creation" in them means that atheists will automatically dismiss them as invalid sources. Yet they expect us Christians to blindly accept what some scientist says about evolution being a so-called "fact" just because that scientist uses a bunch of fancy-sounding terms and uses some other scientist as a source to back it up. Of course, that scientist he uses as a source also uses another scientist as his so-called "proof" and so on and so on. LOL. No actual proof is ever shown. They just expect people to blindly accept it as fact "just because". LOL.

At this point it's like watching the "Little Engine That Could" struggle and struggle and you just want the thing to succeed for the ordeal to be over.

You chug on.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
The only parts of the Bible that secular historians would consider somewhat reliable in mapping a legitimate history of the Hebrew people would be the list of kings, including the reigns of David and Solomon. Also considered would be the Assyrian and Babylonian captivity of the Jewish people. They consider most other parts myth and legend.

So, which parts.of the Bible would you like to be considered reliable, and which parts do you accept would at least need one more source to corroborate?

Originally posted by Bardock42
So, which parts.of the Bible would you like to be considered reliable, and which parts do you accept would at least need one more source to corroborate?




LOL. He doesn't have "to like" certain parts of the Bible to be "considered reliable". There is quite a bit of proof that the entire thing is:


http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml


Christianity is NOT a blind faith contrary to what many people think. It is the only religion in the world which can prove itself. There's tons of different types of proof-historical, scientific, witnesses, etc,- that verify it is based on fact.

At this point I'm not sure you understand what "proof" even truly means.

Want proof?.....
Jesus Christ has existed.

Originally posted by BeyonderGod
Want proof?.....
Jesus Christ has existed. Prove it.