becuase faith isn't about that.

don't worry about my logic. it's infallible. that's becuase it's not mine. it's what i've heard all the time in these debates. tha'ts it's about faith. that the reason god doesn't proove his existance is because his power comes from faith.

its perfectly natural to seek proof in the face of skepticism. but that really isnt the point.

the point is that said seeking undermines faith

No, proving the existance of Jesus as a person does not make it any easier to believe that he is the Son of God..... The two are in no way connected...... Just because I exist, does that make it any easier for you to believe that I am actually the prime minister of timbuktu and I have buried a nuclear warhead in your backyard? please, believing the divinity of christ is not made any easier by the awarenes of his actual his actual existence..... I am aware Mohammed existed though prominent records..... does that make it easier for me to believe that he is really Allah's greatest prophet, and that the muslim religion is in actuality the one true religion? No.

and I just had to quote this again before I start the next part of my counter argument...



wow... thank you for sticking your foot in your mouth, before you shot yourself in the foot......

For starters, you are mistaken..... completely mistaken if that what you think christians believe..... God's power doesn't come from anywhere.... he is omnipotent, all powerful, there is no other like him, he created us to know love and serve him and be happy with him in heaven, or maybe just because he was bored, but no matter why he created us, he did. And logically, how can his power, which he used to create us, be contingent upon the "faith"of his creations..... it just doesn't make sense.......

Next, he doesn't refuse to prove his existence to us....... he tried..... he appeared to some, he sent his prophets out to tell the people what he had revealed, he even sent his own son as a sign of the new covenant between God and man. But, God gave us free will and so we have the choice to believe in his existance or not to..... why? I don't know, maybe he just wanted to make things interesting, maybe he didn't just want a bunch of mindless zombies in heaven.... No matter his reasons, just because everyone doesn't recognize the signs that doesn't mean he didn't give us a lack of proof for his existance..... And yeah he could make miracles all day, and shock and awe all of us into believing...... but if he did that we wouldn't have the free will to choose to follow him..... It has to do with the fact that God doesn't want to encroach on the rights he gave us as human beings, such as free will...... it's not that he needs us to believe in him to give him power..... He wants the reason for us being in heaven to be because we want to be in heaven with him, not because he scared the shit out of us..... If he did that, what would be the point of creating us with free will in the first place......



Where the heck do you get off calling hearsay infallible? That is insulting..... Go talk to a priest or reverend and take whoever you heard that from with you..... Get yourselves set straight from an authoritative source please.

This was suposed to be a debate on the proof of Jesus' existence, not the special education of clueless people.... Your entire point has nothing to the actual debate.... hypthetically, even if you were right (which is sooooo far from the truth), saying that the fact that we can prove the existence of christ shows a lack of faith has absolutely nothing to do with the topic..... it was a cheap (and horribly made) attempt to attack Christian beliefs to try and say that we were being self contradicting by trying to defend our beliefs...... which had no bearing on the argument in the first place other than trying to switch the topic and make this an attack on christianity in general, rather than on the existence of Jesus. To recap, Acid bath slayer started the argument saying that there was a lack of historical data proving his existence..... I countered he argument and showed that there is no such lack because the gospels have been deemed historically reliable documents, giving the proofs for such...... unless someone can counter my argument, I have outlayed enough evidence to prove jesus did exist...... which would mean that the debate is over..... so either get your facts straight and make a feasible counter argument, or shut up and give someone else the chance.......

^ you are right in most everything that you refuted, yet you are a wee bit on the derogatory side.



However, this is what I was getting at:



I just didn't have the whimsical example to supplement it.

well, you can't be right both times.

i'm only repeating the arguement christians give to "why god won't prove his existance"

so, who's lying?

^ that question does not really have an answer because it is our belief that he has proved his existence. If someone says otherwise, and considers themself christian, I would encourage them to go speak to their pastor or reverend to get themselves set straight.... like I said before, there are a lot of people that are only nominal christians and have no idea what they are really talking about..... If you want concrete documented answers that you can trust, go talk to a priest or reverend....

that's one of the funniest things iv'e ever heard.

"if you want concrete documented answers that you can trust, go talk to a priest or reverend"

is that before or after he fucks me up the ass?

are is no evidence to the existance of god. if there is, i'd like to heard it. without having to go to a priest or something.

Is that really called for?

well, it was funny.

grrrrrrrr........ OK, here you go..... the proofs for God's existence

1) Motion - There is motion. motion is the change from potential to actual. In order to bring something from the potential to the actual, it must be done by someone or something that actually exists already. ex. If you come up with a design for a desk, you cant make that desk actually exist, unless you are actually physically present to do so. So, if you trace everything back, there has to be something that started everything, that was never potential but was always actual, known as the unmoved mover. It is not possibe that everything just happened randomly, something had to start it all.

2) Efficient Causality - Every effect has a cause. How did that tree outside start growing? The squirrel that carried the nut and randomly buried it there and forgot about it. How do you exist? Your mom and dad had some fun. Now if you taced every little thing back as far as possible, it all goes back to one thing... one uncaused cause.... An infinitely regressing series is not possible solely because you exist. There must be an uncaused cause.

3) Contingency / Dependancy - All things are contingent. When we observe reality, we see everything that is. But we also know that at one time it was not there, or at least we can imagine it not being there. Example- that computer sitting in front of you hasn't always existed.... neither has the tree outside the window. If all things are contingent and you trace everything back, eventually we reach the point where we have nothing, and something cannot come from nothing. There has to be a necesary being which exist by nature.

4) Gradation of Being - we can see that there are different levels of beings.... men, animals, plants, inanimate objects..... there must be a source of being, a source which we all came from, and no effect can be greater than it's cause. There has to be a supreme being, some self existing being, greater than us, that put into motion the cause we are all contingent upon. Still with me?

5) Final Causality - Every being has a purpose. Even non-rational beings like animals act for an end. But these things cannot direct themselves. They don't have the ablitily to choose what they are working for, they do it out of instinct. Where do they get this instinct? This infused knowledge. Some being had to determine to what end at these things were working. There has to be some sort of ultimate designer.

That's the best I can do from memory.... I think I hit all the logic parts..... This is the cliffnotes version..... you want to read the actual thing it's a book called "Summa Theologica" and it's written by Thomas Aquinas, and based on the philosiphy of Aristotle..... have fun..... it's quite long but if you have any questions on any/all of the ^ it'll be in there fully explained, kapeish? It proves for a fact though logic the existence of one all powerful, self existing being who started everything..... which is the definition of God......

Oh! and if you read the book, you don't have to go to a priest or anything! yay for you! Just what you were looking for! Yay!

and once again I would like to reiterate:

where you see god i see science.

there is no concrete proof of the existance of god.

there is also no concerete proof of the existance of jesus.

beyond the occasional writings which may have been influenced by various things. ergo, not to be trusted.

Religion isn't to be f**ked with. Look at what happened with the muslims or whatever...AND THE JEWS..

i dont know.

ludicrous. why on earth is it not possible for random chemical reactions to create life. the answer you have is simply that you believe oherwise, which is useless in debate.

repeating endlessly debated philosophical ideas does not equate to proof of anything.

that was mor eor less the same theory as your second point, and again equates to proof of nothing other than philosophical thought.

yes, im still with you, because you're reiterating the same point endlessly and trying to make it look different.

see, or you could look at it from a scientific point of view. which would suggest evolution, and experience, etc. this PROOVES nothing, but again is merely an extension of your beliefs.


the five points are causation, contingency, perfection, motion and purpose, just to clarify.

and using philosophy to try and prove a point is a waste of time. because although aquinas seems plausible at first glance, his argument is in no way decisive, and is CERTAINLY not proof of any christian god. in fact, it is genreeally accepted among philosophers that aquinas did not PROVE the existence of god. it is merely a way to harness reason to support religious belief, nothing more than an idea.

even if we except that a chain of events cannot extend back indefinately (moot point, anyway), it is not a logical garuntee that the so called ultimate cause is anything we want to call god, and there is certainly no good reason to assume that it is god in the christina sense, i.e benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient.

furthermore, aquinas himself did no tbelieve that his five points would lead to a full understanding of god, bu tthat it came to us incomplete, through analogy and negation, rather than anything solid on which to base a claim of 'proof'.

ultimately, you are a christian, and BELIEVE in god. nothing more, nothing less. trying to prove his existence, especially from a Thomist perspective, when such points have been done to death is not particularly helpful to anyone.



as for what you are reiterating, claiming that his point was 'horribly made' is defensive rubbish. what he said was intelligent and logical. get over the fact that religion doesnt equate to automatic garuntee that people will think that you are right, so we can all behave less childishly.

well, then what do you purpose made the chemicals randomly decide to react, if they hadn't been reacting before that..... in order for those chemicals to react, something had to happen..... that is the point, and following it all back you reach 1 point..... that does not have any reflection on what I believe. It is logic.



ok...... apparently you have studied this a lot more than me, so I will conceed to your point..... There is no formal proof for God...... My reiterated point is that this has no place in this debate...... start another debate, I don't care, but THIS debate was about proving the existence of Christ.... not proving that he was God..... not proving the existence of God.... His entire point was off topic in the first place. He couldn't attcak my argument so he tried to attack my beliefs....... was his argument logical and intelligent? sure, but it was (and "horribly made" may have been the wrond set of words... let me rephrase) not "validly true" because it was based on false notions of the Christian faith. So because he based it on the false notions of Christian beliefs, it holds no weight, and even my conceding that there is no way to prove the existence of God does not falsify any of my previous claims.

Even given all of that, IT IS STILL OFF TOPIC. My beliefs have no bearing on the historical proof for the existence of a man named Jesus Christ. There is historical proof, and historians of the day recognize that. If someone wants to challenge the lack of historical proof, thats fine and dandy. If someone wants to have a theological discussion on the existence of God, the beliefs of Christianity, or the divinity of Christ, they should start a new debate. Those discusssions in no way have any effect on this debate. THAT is the point I have been trying to make. And it is a valid one at that.



That is your belief, not the concensus of today's historians. Come back with something more concrete than your feelings or opinions. Your opinion proves nothing. The facts I laid out do, unless you can prove them wrong (with more facts, not opinions).

Your getting hung up on the progression of the debate. just because it began as a debate about jesus, doesnt mean it has to stay that way.

and also, i dont understand why you think his basis fo rargument regarding faith vs proof was misconceived... faith IS a foundation of any religion, including christianity. if i hadnt lent my copy of the bible to my brother, i would provide quotes to back up what im saying, and justin's point, but as it is, you'll have to wait.

^ b/c this is the basis of his argument on "faith vs. truth"......











OK, now I'm not saying faith isn't an integral part and one of the founding principals of chirstian beliefs. It is. He was claiming that because I can prove the existance of Jesus Christ as a person, that I suck at being a christian because I goes against my beliefs. He claimed that if we try to establish the truth of anything in the bible then we are violating our faith b/c it goes aganst the definition of faith. He also claimed that we believed God gets his power from our faith and that is why God refuses to reveal himself to us........ And you are going to tell me that this idea isn't misconceived? OK, then I challenge you to go snatch that bible from your brother and try and pick out some obscure quote that supports any of that bull crap. His argument was not made as a thought question, it was a derragotory attack on christians who were attempting to defend one of the founding principal of our faith, the existence of Jesus, by claiming that they were contradicting themselves by even trying. Problem is, we aren't contradicting ourselves by trying.......





This was my response. You want to try and get facts from the bible to try and prove this wrong too?

my borther and his bibl eare at camp for a week, so i'll wait.

but his pinciple is simply TRUE. if you KNOW something/someone exists, then you DONT have faith. that is a logical certainty, not an attack on anyone.

*smacks self in forehead*
ok, and you pick out the only thing he got right..... the definition..... I agree, if you can prove something you dont have faith..... but our faith in Jesus isn't in his existence..... it is in his divinity of Jesus, and the existence of God. Even Jews and Moslems believe in the existence of Jesus. Why? B/c it is know historical fact that he lived, and has been for centuries. He got the principal right but his application of it is completely whack. The Principal wasn't misconcieved, but his argument was. I could say "All cows are herbivores, and all cows are blue, ergo some herbivores are blue". Now that argument is based on the true statement, "all cows are herbivores". But in making my argument I also made a false staement, "all cows are blue", which make the entire statement flase and would be a minsconcieved argument. It is the exact same as saying "Christianity is based on faith, and it is easier to believe jesus was the son of god if you know there was a man about the time named jesus who was prominent enough for records of him to be made, ergo proving the existance of a person named jesus is a lack of faith. seeking the proof is a lack of faith, and seeking the facts is a lack of faith." Which was the entirety of his argument. Yes Christianity is based on faith, but knowing Jesus existed doesn't make believing in his divinity any easier. It doesn't undermine our faith or beliefs to be able to prove the existence of Jesus........ and I'm kinda confused..... you are going to use quotes from the bible to back up what point? The fact that faith is an intergral part of Christianity, which we have already established? Cause other than that, you really have made no point......

If you look at Nate's argument, it is far from aknown historical fact that he existed. That would be the point, as you have been so keen to observe.

and as for the faith thing, we are wroking at cross purposes.

Faith.

All about Faith.

If you had read my argument you would have realized that it is considered known historical fact, and I gave the evidence to back it up, Mr. Keen Observation. I gave the evidence used by histrorians which shows why they consider the gospels historically reliable sources, and If the gospels are considered historically reliable, you have historical proof. Don't be so quick to call the kettle black. But thanks for bringing us back on topic.

What do you mean we are working at cross purposes? What are you going to prove? That being able to prove the existence of christ means I "suck at being a christian"? That is the pont you are currently defending.

i DID read your posts. all of them. they were long winded. i happen to credit nate's. thats all.

no... actually, thats the point that brought me to the debate, not what i am defending. what i will say is that seeking to prove christ's divinity indicates a lack of faith. that's all, again.

I completely agree with you on that. Seeking to prove Christ's divinity would indicate a lack of faith.

so would seeing to prove the existence of god.