Evidence for God

Originally posted by LancerJ1

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
90% of that is just arguments
the rest is intelligent design propaganda

so, you're using the theory of intelligent design to prove the existence of a being that the theory rests on

quite cyclical, isn't it?

But they are logical arguments.

Im not just using ID. In fact i know little about it.

What type of evidence are you after?

one of the arguments is that there is morality, therefore there is god
that isn't logical

Evidence of Design Implies a Designer

that's from the first site you gave...

The Reliability of the Bible

no actual evidence for the reliability of this anthology of books

AND the icingon the cake of illogical arguments

Jesus: The Ultimate Evidence

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE MAN

and then the second link goes into the "lord, liar, or lunatic" argument for the divinity of christ by cs lewis as evidence for the existence of god. it is a highly refutable and illogical argument

it also uses the same arguments of the accuracy of the bible and the design argument

and the final site repeats the same arguments

Originally posted by Reality Hurts

Originally posted by shihulud
Just because you have found something that MAKES sense to you doesn't make it TRUE.

This is the single most sublime comment that I have ever read on this forum.

I may hijack it and use it in a sig

Hijack away friend, it is quite cool. And cheers for the compliment.


G

Originally posted by shihulud
Yes just like the catholic church persecuting Galileo for daring to say the sun was the centre of the solar system. What I'm trying to get at is your beliefs are no more credible than mine in the context of what we dont know or understand. Your belief in a god is the best solution in your mind while my non-belief is the best solution for me. Why does that make me wrong???

You think you are right, i think i am right. Only one can be right. Are you confident enough in your solution to say Jesus is the biggest deciever in the world's history, and that hundreds of people lied about his resurrection?

I dont know what proof would be required for me but I would know it when I saw it. I quite agree that evidence is in the eye of the beholder as we are all different and have different lives, views, understandings and beliefs but why should my understanding of the world be wrong when their is no evidence (for me) to the contrary?

But when you have a large sample of evidence for something, it is more logical to believe. There is a fair sample of evidence for God, enough for anyone to be able to believe.

So in your eyes Joseph was the biological father of jesus??? but was also the son of god? If so how do you figure that one out?

No. Jesus was concieved by the Holy Spirit. He was born into their family without Joseph's sperm. But during pregnancy and surely after, they would of had intercourse.

What about everything I look at? There is no evidence other than peoples notions that a deity created all this. While I would like to believe in miracles there just isnt anything to suggest that miracles actually happen - usuallly there is more than one explanation and usually the explanation is fraud.

You just havent seen many miracles. I know about many healings. Just a few days ago a friend was ill. His friends sat around him and prayed that he would be healed. In that instant he was cured. More amazing ones is where lame people are able to walk again. These a far too numerous to say it's just coincidence.

I do base my beliefs on faith when I dont know as we all do. But I see no evidence to positively conclude the existence of ANY god, you have failed to provide this 'true' evidence of which you speak.
I also agree that a belief in a god is being open minded but when the things you attribute to this god are in total contradiction to the obvious then I believe this to be close minded.
I am not an atheist just to piss people off, I cannot honestly see anything that would/could account for a god, a book like the bible just doesnt do it for me.

What is the obvious?

Have you ever considered the possibility that the problem lies in the way you perceive things?

Is it possible that everything anti-christian you have read is just stuff based on false information? Most of the anti-christian websites are just copies of each other with false facts and information. If one was to read the bible for themself they would find that it is not like these sites say. They take quotes out and pick them to pieces, but it is important to read the quotes in context with the surrounding text.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

AND the icingon the cake of illogical arguments

Jesus: The Ultimate Evidence

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE MAN

and then the second link goes into the "lord, liar, or lunatic" argument for the divinity of christ by cs lewis as evidence for the existence of god. it is a highly refutable and illogical argument

I really cant understand how people can say this. Many people who set of to try and proove that the resurrection didnt happen end up believing it because of the information and logic behind it.

So which do you think, Son of God, liar or lunatic?

Dont you think that the Bible being recognised as the most accurate historical manuscript by scholars and historians gives it at least a little credence.

I ask again, what type of evidence were you after?

Originally posted by LancerJ1
You think you are right, i think i am right. Only one can be right. Are you confident enough in your solution to say Jesus is the biggest deciever in the world's history, and that hundreds of people lied about his resurrection?

Not really, we can BOTH be wrong. But yes I am very confident that the bible story is fraudulent to an extent concerning divinity and deities. About the ressurrection - it states in the bible that hundreds of people witnessed jesus but there is NO eyewitness testimony from these hundreds of people only the say so of the gospel writers, so maybe the authors lied or something.

But when you have a large sample of evidence for something, it is more logical to believe. There is a fair sample of evidence for God, enough for anyone to be able to believe.

There is only a sample if your inclined to believe in a deity anyway. What you consider as evidence I see as bias or a fraudulent claim etc.

No. Jesus was concieved by the Holy Spirit. He was born into their family without Joseph's sperm. But during pregnancy and surely after, they would of had intercourse.

The bible says that joseph had his wikid way with her, but we will have to disagree on the divinity aspect.

You just havent seen many miracles. I know about many healings. Just a few days ago a friend was ill. His friends sat around him and prayed that he would be healed. In that instant he was cured. More amazing ones is where lame people are able to walk again. These a far too numerous to say it's just coincidence.

I am cynical but even if what you say is true then it STILL doesnt mean that a god is the basis for the cure - a placebo effect could be in operation with will power alone effecting the cure. Some of these claims probably are fraudulent in an attempt to con the faithful. There is NO evidence to suggest that prayer is the cause of such healings and no evidence that a god is the operator in such prayer.

I do base my beliefs on faith when I dont know as we all do. But I see no evidence to positively conclude the existence of ANY god, you have failed to provide this 'true' evidence of which you speak.
I also agree that a belief in a god is being open minded but when the things you attribute to this god are in total contradiction to the obvious then I believe this to be close minded.
I am not an atheist just to piss people off, I cannot honestly see anything that would/could account for a god, a book like the bible just doesnt do it for me.

What is the obvious?

Have you ever considered the possibility that the problem lies in the way you perceive things?

Is it possible that everything anti-christian you have read is just stuff based on false information? Most of the anti-christian websites are just copies of each other with false facts and information. If one was to read the bible for themself they would find that it is not like these sites say. They take quotes out and pick them to pieces, but it is important to read the quotes in context with the surrounding text.

The obvious is all those parts in the bible that have be proven wrong, things like the young earth, how the earth was created etc.
Have YOU ever considered the problem lies in the way YOU percieve things? In any case why should I be the wrong one ? why not you or even both of us?, OR why not ALL of us? There is no either or.
I am not anti-christian (more like anti-religion) because I've read such sites - I found fault with religions, just so happens that christianity is the main one, many years ago and made up my own mind and figured out my own religious discrepances. I find some of these sites to be very badly informed just as you do just as I find some of the christian sites just as badly informed.

Edit to add

Dont you think that the Bible being recognised as the most accurate historical manuscript by scholars and historians gives it at least a little credence.

While the bible does contain historical truths it also contains many historical innaccuracies concerning the early israelites for example.

G


[edit on 3-11-2006 by shihulud]

Originally posted by LancerJ1

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

AND the icingon the cake of illogical arguments

Jesus: The Ultimate Evidence

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE MAN

and then the second link goes into the "lord, liar, or lunatic" argument for the divinity of christ by cs lewis as evidence for the existence of god. it is a highly refutable and illogical argument

I really cant understand how people can say this. Many people who set of to try and proove that the resurrection didnt happen end up believing it because of the information and logic behind it.

So which do you think, Son of God, liar or lunatic?

Dont you think that the Bible being recognised as the most accurate historical manuscript by scholars and historians gives it at least a little credence.

I ask again, what type of evidence were you after?

i believe that he wasn't real

there are 0 accounts of jesus during his lifetime

there are 0 instances of testable encounters with ANY diety

also, i've never heard of ANYONE calling the bible the MOST ACCURATE historical manuscript

another thing about the bible, it contradicts itself several times and has been proven wrong on several occassions

Originally posted by shihulud
Not really, we can BOTH be wrong. But yes I am very confident that the bible story is fraudulent to an extent concerning divinity and deities. About the ressurrection - it states in the bible that hundreds of people witnessed jesus but there is NO eyewitness testimony from these hundreds of people only the say so of the gospel writers, so maybe the authors lied or something.

What are the other alternatives besides God existing and not existing?

There may not be testimonies from other witnesses but that doesn't mean the gospel writers lied about it. I guess this is where faith comes in.

The bible says that joseph had his wikid way with her, but we will have to disagree on the divinity aspect.

Why?

I am cynical but even if what you say is true then it STILL doesnt mean that a god is the basis for the cure - a placebo effect could be in operation with will power alone effecting the cure. Some of these claims probably are fraudulent in an attempt to con the faithful. There is NO evidence to suggest that prayer is the cause of such healings and no evidence that a god is the operator in such prayer.

I dont think the placebo effect could work to the degree of making the lame walk instantly. Some claims are probably exagerated, but i fully know that truely amazing miracles have happened. Prayer cannot be scientifically studied so you cannot get evidence of the type you want for it working. But why do these healings only work in the name of Jesus Christ? Other religions do not claim such miricals.

The obvious is all those parts in the bible that have be proven wrong, things like the young earth, how the earth was created etc.
Have YOU ever considered the problem lies in the way YOU percieve things? In any case why should I be the wrong one ? why not you or even both of us?, OR why not ALL of us? There is no either or.
I am not anti-christian (more like anti-religion) because I've read such sites - I found fault with religions, just so happens that christianity is the main one, many years ago and made up my own mind and figured out my own religious discrepances. I find some of these sites to be very badly informed just as you do just as I find some of the christian sites just as badly informed.

Old earth has not been proven also. It is just a scientifically accepted idea based on human interpretation of available 'evidence'. If you take the creation being in six 24 hour days then it opposes the scientific theory. But by all means it could of been 6 periods of 1 millions years or anything else. So this can be of no problem.

Our beliefs are based on different things. Yours on knowledge, mine on knowledge and experience. You haven't experienced anything divine or maybe you have but passed it off. In the Christian belief it is not just saying "yes, i believe", but it goes far beyond this. A feeling beyong anything i can explain in words. It is the totally assured feeling that God is with you. Because you havent experienced this feeling you wont believe me.

While the bible does contain historical truths it also contains many historical innaccuracies concerning the early israelites for example.

But this is based on other historical texts. Who is to say which is correct.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

i believe that he wasn't real

there are 0 accounts of jesus during his lifetime

there are 0 instances of testable encounters with ANY diety

also, i've never heard of ANYONE calling the bible the MOST ACCURATE historical manuscript

another thing about the bible, it contradicts itself several times and has been proven wrong on several occassions

How about the Bible? Just because it is the book of a religion doesnt mean it cant be used as evidence. The reason why it is used is because it is true. Why would there be a Christian faith if there was never a Jesus? Jesus not being real is not an option. Ask a historian or scholar and they will verify the accuracy of the Bible in comparison to other ancient texts.

Originally posted by LancerJ1

Originally posted by shihulud
Not really, we can BOTH be wrong. But yes I am very confident that the bible story is fraudulent to an extent concerning divinity and deities. About the ressurrection - it states in the bible that hundreds of people witnessed jesus but there is NO eyewitness testimony from these hundreds of people only the say so of the gospel writers, so maybe the authors lied or something.

What are the other alternatives besides God existing and not existing?

There might be super intelligent beings from another planet that are seen as gods - something like Stargate for instance.

There may not be testimonies from other witnesses but that doesn't mean the gospel writers lied about it. I guess this is where faith comes in.

The bible says that joseph had his wikid way with her, but we will have to disagree on the divinity aspect.

Why?

Its not just the lack of eyewitness accounts for the ressurection but 2 of the gospel writers were not even in jesus's enteurage - and one of them was supposed to have wrote his gospel first WITH the disciple Matthew copying it (makes sense doesnt it). Have you never thought that the whole story was maybe a retelling of older stories made contempory by the writers i.e. Jesus was NOT real nor based on any historical person but based on the other pagan godmen with a jewish slant to the story.

I dont think the placebo effect could work to the degree of making the lame walk instantly. Some claims are probably exagerated, but i fully know that truely amazing miracles have happened. Prayer cannot be scientifically studied so you cannot get evidence of the type you want for it working. But why do these healings only work in the name of Jesus Christ? Other religions do not claim such miricals.

Lame walking, I would find that claim probably a fraud. While some things happen and they are unexplainable, that still doesn't mean that a god is intervening. And I would have a better look on the miracles of other religions and cultures (They would surprise you)

Old earth has not been proven also. It is just a scientifically accepted idea based on human interpretation of available 'evidence'. If you take the creation being in six 24 hour days then it opposes the scientific theory. But by all means it could of been 6 periods of 1 millions years or anything else. So this can be of no problem.

Tell me then why your god has given us this 'evidence' that suggests that the earth and the universe are far older?

Our beliefs are based on different things. Yours on knowledge, mine on knowledge and experience. You haven't experienced anything divine or maybe you have but passed it off. In the Christian belief it is not just saying "yes, i believe", but it goes far beyond this. A feeling beyong anything i can explain in words. It is the totally assured feeling that God is with you. Because you havent experienced this feeling you wont believe me.

So I dont experience anything???? You base your experiences on your god but this might not be the case, you just attribute these to a god without any tangible evidence. Your faith precludes any interpretation to be otherwise.

While the bible does contain historical truths it also contains many historical innaccuracies concerning the early israelites for example.

But this is based on other historical texts. Who is to say which is correct.

It is also based on archaeological evidence but as I have stated your faith means you dismiss any other evidence as being false.



G

Originally posted by LancerJ1

Old earth has not been proven also. It is just a scientifically accepted idea based on human interpretation of available 'evidence'. If you take the creation being in six 24 hour days then it opposes the scientific theory. But by all means it could of been 6 periods of 1 millions years or anything else. So this can be of no problem.

Maybe you could explain the major problems in genesis. The writer suggests..

Earth (1.1) before stars (1.16)

Day and night (1.3) before sun (1.14)

Birds and whales (1.21) before reptiles and insects (1.24)

Genesis 2:18-19 man before other animals

Gen 1:27 man & woman at same time BUT Gen 2:18-22 man, then animals, then woman.

It's all a bit silly, not surprising that a goat-herder from thousands of years ago didn't understand this stuff, but no evidence of creator knowledge here and much less than perfect...

And we can scientifically examine prayer, it has been done many times. Generally the findings suggest that if you know you are being prayed for - effect; if you don't know - no effect. That is, it a psychological placebo effect. Of course, you'll probably suggest that we can't test god or whatever, but I'm sure if the studies were positive in showing an effect you would readily accept the findings.

[edit on 7-11-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by shihulud
There might be super intelligent beings from another planet that are seen as gods - something like Stargate for instance.

There can only be one God who created everything. This idea just doesn't fit in.

Its not just the lack of eyewitness accounts for the ressurection but 2 of the gospel writers were not even in jesus's enteurage - and one of them was supposed to have wrote his gospel first WITH the disciple Matthew copying it (makes sense doesnt it). Have you never thought that the whole story was maybe a retelling of older stories made contempory by the writers i.e. Jesus was NOT real nor based on any historical person but based on the other pagan godmen with a jewish slant to the story.

If Jesus wasn't real then why were people following him and dying for him? That's illogical.

Lame walking, I would find that claim probably a fraud. While some things happen and they are unexplainable, that still doesn't mean that a god is intervening. And I would have a better look on the miracles of other religions and cultures (They would surprise you)

I know for fact that lame walking is true. Inform me of similar miracles in other religions.

Tell me then why your god has given us this 'evidence' that suggests that the earth and the universe are far older?

It's possible that the interpretation of this evidence is false. There are contrary theories that are backed with science, but because they are different then the main stream theories they are ridiculed and rejected and you dont hear much of them.

So I dont experience anything???? You base your experiences on your god but this might not be the case, you just attribute these to a god without any tangible evidence. Your faith precludes any interpretation to be otherwise.

You havent experienced God. It's not just about evidence but a realisation that occurs in the spiritual sense. A feeling regardless of evidence that confirms in you that God is with you, but because you havent had this experience you can not identify with this. Tangible evidence of the type you settle for nothing less is probably impossible.

It is also based on archaeological evidence but as I have stated your faith means you dismiss any other evidence as being false.

The evidence is not false, for evidence can not lie, but it is the human interpretation of this evidence which is false. Scientists and archaelogist who work with the same evidence do come up with different conclusions and base there conclusions on previous conclusions. The main stream theories are what we hear about. When theories come up that do not agree with what was believed before and sound ridiculous then these theories are often ridiculed and rejected. There is much room for error in studying the past, for really we will never know the answers.

And you dont dismiss evidence for God being false?

Originally posted by melatonin

Maybe you could explain the major problems in genesis. The writer suggests..

Earth (1.1) before stars (1.16)

God can do that if he wants.

Day and night (1.3) before sun (1.14)

God was the light source before the sun. Just like in heaven there is no need for a sun because the glory of God gives it light.

Birds and whales (1.21) before reptiles and insects (1.24)

no worries there

Genesis 2:18-19 man before other animals

Gen 1:27 man & woman at same time BUT Gen 2:18-22 man, then animals, then woman.

It goes animals, man, women.

Gen 2:18-19:
"The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."(18)
"Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air......(19)

"had" is past tense. Animals were already created.

And we can scientifically examine prayer, it has been done many times. Generally the findings suggest that if you know you are being prayed for - effect; if you don't know - no effect. That is, it a psychological placebo effect. Of course, you'll probably suggest that we can't test god or whatever, but I'm sure if the studies were positive in showing an effect you would readily accept the findings.

You cannot examine prayer scientifically. You cannot make God perform for you. Small sicknesses i agree that the placebo effect can take place. But healing from more serious illnesses and conditions ie crippled and lame can not be attributed to this.

Originally posted by LancerJ1

Originally posted by shihulud
There might be super intelligent beings from another planet that are seen as gods - something like Stargate for instance.

There can only be one God who created everything. This idea just doesn't fit in.

Doesnt fit in with your biased opinion you mean.

If Jesus wasn't real then why were people following him and dying for him? That's illogical.

Well thats debateable as well, christian apologists say that thousands of christians were persecuted and the apostles martyred but the historical data says otherwise - Origen stated that very few christians had been martyred. Plus there is NO real evidence that most of the apostles even existed (recorded only in the writings and traditions of early church leaders). Traditions that cannot be substantiated by historical data.

I know for fact that lame walking is true. Inform me of similar miracles in other religions.

You know for fact? How was it you? - Unless I see it with my own eyes then you can babble away to your hearts content about miracles. There are hundreds or sites containing religious miracles from other religions (Google it) and all the pagan godmen performed miracles.

It's possible that the interpretation of this evidence is false. There are contrary theories that are backed with science, but because they are different then the main stream theories they are ridiculed and rejected and you dont hear much of them.

So all the interpretations that state the earth and universe are billions of years old are false???? Most of these contrary theories, when scrutinised, fall flat on their face. Do you have any of these theories to scrutinise????

You havent experienced God. It's not just about evidence but a realisation that occurs in the spiritual sense. A feeling regardless of evidence that confirms in you that God is with you, but because you havent had this experience you can not identify with this. Tangible evidence of the type you settle for nothing less is probably impossible.

I have had spiritual realisations although mine confirmed that gods are non-existant. Tangible evidence is whats required though to make me believe, faith in a mythical being just doesnt cut it for me.

It is also based on archaeological evidence but as I have stated your faith means you dismiss any other evidence as being false.

The evidence is not false, for evidence can not lie, but it is the human interpretation of this evidence which is false. Scientists and archaelogist who work with the same evidence do come up with different conclusions and base there conclusions on previous conclusions. The main stream theories are what we hear about. When theories come up that do not agree with what was believed before and sound ridiculous then these theories are often ridiculed and rejected. There is much room for error in studying the past, for really we will never know the answers.

And you dont dismiss evidence for God being false?

First of all, show me this evidence for god for I have never seen any evidence for the existence of ANY deity.
I find it strange that when an archaeologist proves that some episode in the bible was true then christians use this evidence as a basis to prove that the whole bible is true therefore god and jesus existed BUT when the archaeology proves that a biblical episode was not true then the interpretation is wrong.
If, as you say, we will never really know the answers to what happened in the past, then how, can you state with great authority that the bible is true and god exists etc????



G

Originally posted by LancerJ1
God can do that if he wants.


God was the light source before the sun. Just like in heaven there is no need for a sun because the glory of God gives it light.


no worries there


It goes animals, man, women.

Gen 2:18-19:
"The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."(18)
"Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air......(19)

"had" is past tense. Animals were already created.

Some nice verbal/logical gymnastics, and total ignorance of reality there. Summary: "God can do everything therefore reality doesn't matter"

You cannot examine prayer scientifically. You cannot make God perform for you. Small sicknesses i agree that the placebo effect can take place. But healing from more serious illnesses and conditions ie crippled and lame can not be attributed to this.

They did and it was found wanting.

Maybe god can't perform because she isn't there...

The rest is wishful-thinking and illusory correlation.

Are there any instances of God talking to someone who isn't interested? Is anyone having conversations with God that they want stopped? Is God an unwelcome part of anyone's life?

It seems the desire to have God in their life blinds people to the fact that their beliefs are nothing more than personal opinions with no factual basis at all. There seems to be a lot of looking-down on non-believers as well, I guess to inflate the ego of the believer. Again, show me a believer who doesn't think they have gained some "afterlife" advantage over others through their faith, or that their faith is more correct than others. My beliefs are falsifiable, and open to scrutiny due to me being unable to know everything. And thats the main paradox with this thread, you are attempting to apply science to a hypothesis that rejects scientific method.

Have your own philosophy and dare I say, delusion, if you want, but don't even attempt to pass off an opinion as a universal fact. If you choose faith over science then you have rendered your view of the world as applicable to only one person.. you. I'm not saying this is good or bad (if the idea of God gives YOU comfort, then it is good), just don't expect your view to stand up to any scientific scrutiny.

The title of this thread remains unresolved.

Well said Glas,

I wish I could

Damn keyboard!!!

I wish I could say what you did so well.

Interesting concept Glastonaut, something like the film Stigmata?
Your post has made me remember another oddity in that is there any instance where god speaks to more than one person at a time???? (Excepting Adam and Eve). Most of the time god speaks to one person and tells that person that THEY must tell everyone else what god says. If god is so omni???? why doesnt he tell everyone instead ???? Sounds a bit dodgy to me!!!!!



G

Originally posted by shihulud
There might be super intelligent beings from another planet that are seen as gods - something like Stargate for instance.

So Jesus was a super intelligent alien? Explain how it fits in with Christianity. If these aliens are pretending to be gods they arent true Gods which fits into my original statement: either god exists or he doesnt, and this idea implies he doesnt.

Well thats debateable as well, christian apologists say that thousands of christians were persecuted and the apostles martyred but the historical data says otherwise - Origen stated that very few christians had been martyred. Plus there is NO real evidence that most of the apostles even existed (recorded only in the writings and traditions of early church leaders). Traditions that cannot be substantiated by historical data.

Regardless of this, i cant see how Christianity could of started if their was never a Jesus. There is only a church because of Jesus.

I know for fact that lame walking is true. Inform me of similar miracles in other religions.

You know for fact? How was it you? - Unless I see it with my own eyes then you can babble away to your hearts content about miracles. There are hundreds or sites containing religious miracles from other religions (Google it) and all the pagan godmen performed miracles.

I heard it from someone who saw it and i trust them 100%. Ok, miracles do happen in paganism. Any miracle not performed in the name of God, is by demons.

So all the interpretations that state the earth and universe are billions of years old are false???? Most of these contrary theories, when scrutinised, fall flat on their face. Do you have any of these theories to scrutinise????

It's possible. www.answersingenesis.org...

I have had spiritual realisations although mine confirmed that gods are non-existant. Tangible evidence is whats required though to make me believe, faith in a mythical being just doesnt cut it for me.

How can you have spiritual realisations if you dont believe in God?

First of all, show me this evidence for god for I have never seen any evidence for the existence of ANY deity.
I find it strange that when an archaeologist proves that some episode in the bible was true then christians use this evidence as a basis to prove that the whole bible is true therefore god and jesus existed BUT when the archaeology proves that a biblical episode was not true then the interpretation is wrong.
If, as you say, we will never really know the answers to what happened in the past, then how, can you state with great authority that the bible is true and god exists etc????

What type of evidence do you want me to show you? I given you prophecies and miracles but you reject these.

Although there are things the Bible and archaeology disagree on, there is no conclusive proof of any error. Because archaeology has fitted with the Bible so well it is not unreasonable to say the error is in the interpretation of the evidence. Archaeology reinforces the Bible more than disagrees.

Originally posted by melatonin
Some nice verbal/logical gymnastics, and total ignorance of reality there. Summary: "God can do everything therefore reality doesn't matter"

God is not limited to our bounds of reality. This is GOD we're talking about.

You cannot examine prayer scientifically. You cannot make God perform for you. Small sicknesses i agree that the placebo effect can take place. But healing from more serious illnesses and conditions ie crippled and lame can not be attributed to this.

They did and it was found wanting.

Maybe god can't perform because she isn't there...

The rest is wishful-thinking and illusory correlation.

I stick to what i said before.