Proof of God

Well, disprove it, then. If you do, I'll be intellectually honest and stop saying it.

That verse is for the person who has not seen. I have seen and provided a photograph and still have faith.

You lack the common sense to see that all the people posting those types of photographs on the internet are not faking them and making money of it.

It is my honest opinion that those who disbelieve could not possibly understand much scripture because if they did they would believe.

Unless neo comes up with a disproof, you'll have to choose between claiming to have seen and to have faith. It takes no faith to know that I'm typing these words on a keyboard. Faith, as defined in your scripture, is in things unseen. According to your own scripture, you're going to have to choose one or the other. You can't have it both ways. You've screwed the pooch, looks like, unless neo comes to your rescue.




I was an ardent believer on my way to seminary. Studying the scripture in university is what convinced me that there's overwhelming reason to think that it's manmade myth, engineered to control the weak-minded and gullible. Such as yourself. You claim to have proof, but don't even understand what constitutes proof.

God seems to have given it to the Indians first .

The prophets in the Bible spoke to Father God. Abraham spoke with Him. Ezekiel saw Him. And all the Apostles walk and talk with Jesus. They all had faith. Your true ignorance is beginning show. We would no nothing of God if He hadn't revealed Himself to us. Wake up! The Christian would have no faith at all if They hadn't revealed themselves to us.

Your scripture is the claim, not the evidence. You still don't get what genuine evidence is. Quoting your scripture is just repeating your claim, not giving evidence.

Do you have knowledge of the seen or faith in the unseen?

It is through scripture that we come to know the things of the Spirit of God. And it is through scripture that we can identify Him. There is no other way.

I have both knowledge and faith in both that which I have seen and have not seen.

Here is what you posted:In your opinion, what degree of epistemological certainty is required for proof? A man in Snohomish County was sentenced today for over 90 years after being found guilty of manslaughter where there was no eyewitness and no bullet, among other "uncertainties". Yet, the jurors felt the prosecution had met its burden of proof 'beyond reasonable doubt'. I relate this because all the believer is able to provide initially is anecdotal and circumstantial evidence. But if (like some we may know) we are inclined to believe based on some desire for reward, perhaps self aggrandizement, or license. Our faith would not be faith, but credulity. That's a straw man Patches will have to deal with.Newton and Galileo were both Christian. I could name others.

Both of you are dodging. If you have knowledge, it's not faith. I can't have faith in this cup of coffee in front of me.

neo: You'll need to ask Patches about the defintion of proof, since s/he's the one claiming to have it.

Your understanding of the word 'faith' seems anemic.
I have 'faith' that my wife will continue to be 'faithful'.
What do I base that on?
38 years of successful marriage.

Context is everything. We're not talking about trusting one's spouse. We're talking about making a truth claim about the existence of something of cosmological significance. The claim goes to the very foundations of ontology, epistemology and cosmogony.

To paraphrase a bigger brain than mine, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you tell me that you have a pet tarantula, I wouldn't even bother to ask you for evidence unless it was something significant related to a court case. However, the claim of a creator deity is of a much greater magnitude, and the bar for proof is correspondingly high.

Mere a priori reasoning doesn't cut it. The angels dancing on pins thing. Appeals to scripture don't cut it. The scripture is the claim, not the evidence. Easily faked photos don't cut it for the very reason that they're so easily faked. Asking for credulity regarding an issue of such a monumental scale is asking too much.

I'm a "he."

Thanks for clarifying that.

You don't need to submit proof of that.

You speak of separation of church and state. Are you even American? Or are you just some foreign trouble maker who should mind his own business?

So your god is just a god for Americans?

I didn't say that. Only, I do believe that foreigners should not have their hands in disputing our government. They should leave that to the Americans and mind their own business.

Who I am has no relevance to the strength or weakness of your claims. What's relevant is that you have shown no credible evidence for your god claim. Separation of church and state is built into the Constitution, unlike Christianity, which you claimed and was corrected on. Please do your homework on the following topics:

1. The definition of proof.
2. American history.
3. Basic logic.
4. The prevalence of charlatanism in religious claims throughout history.
5. Basic photographic manipulation techniques.
6. The role of money in Big Religion.
7. The psychology of self-affirming beliefs contra empirical evidence (see #1).