Why Don't Christians ever present any evidence?

neologist wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

neologist wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

neologist wrote:

You can't provide empirical proof for or against any entity that exists outside of our perception of space and time such as the word supernatural implies. all you can do is provide anecdotal or circumstantial evidence which has to be evaluated according to personal standards.

So, if you could accurately post your personal standards, I might be able to provide you with evidence.

There certainly could be evidence. There could be cases in which numerous people saw the same visitation in modern times, things that can't be explained any other way, etc. Even on that level, you guys avoid logical presentation of evidence.

If you wish to have God make a special revelation for your sake, I don't think I can help you. If you wish to see God's spirit in operation, Jesus claimed that "By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves." (John 13:35) So, if you could find that group, you may get a revelation. Possibly.

I didn't ask for a personal revelation. I said that if a supernatural being created the world and interacts with it, there ought to be some sign of it.

According to the reported words of Jesus, there is.

At least I think I said that.

Can you give an example of such a sign that a God exists?

Brandon9000 wrote:

neologist wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

neologist wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

neologist wrote:

You can't provide empirical proof for or against any entity that exists outside of our perception of space and time such as the word supernatural implies. all you can do is provide anecdotal or circumstantial evidence which has to be evaluated according to personal standards.

So, if you could accurately post your personal standards, I might be able to provide you with evidence.

There certainly could be evidence. There could be cases in which numerous people saw the same visitation in modern times, things that can't be explained any other way, etc. Even on that level, you guys avoid logical presentation of evidence.

If you wish to have God make a special revelation for your sake, I don't think I can help you. If you wish to see God's spirit in operation, Jesus claimed that "By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves." (John 13:35) So, if you could find that group, you may get a revelation. Possibly.

I didn't ask for a personal revelation. I said that if a supernatural being created the world and interacts with it, there ought to be some sign of it.

According to the reported words of Jesus, there is.

At least I think I said that.

Can you give an example of such a sign that a God exists?

Stupid as this sounds:
Other than the current distressing world conditions which are often discounted, the only sign that is presently being given is by the conduct of his true followers. Were you find and observe them, you MIGHT see such an example. You would, not because any of them are, as individuals, in any way superior, but rather the direction of their focus.

. . . There is no way to determine if someone is a "true follower" or not. Asking isn't verifiable whatsoever.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

. . . There is no way to determine if someone is a "true follower" or not. Asking isn't verifiable whatsoever.

Actually, there is. Not as individuals, perhaps, but as a group. They will be obeying Jesus' command at John 13: 35: "By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves." You may have to look around, but they are not invisible.

neologist wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

. . . There is no way to determine if someone is a "true follower" or not. Asking isn't verifiable whatsoever.

Actually, there is. Not as individuals, perhaps, but as a group. They will be obeying Jesus' command at John 13: 35: "By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves." You may have to look around, but they are not invisible.

My point is that they may have done something "jesus said" but not because jesus said it. I can make a quack noise like a duck. That doesn't make me a duck.

Brandon9000 wrote:

neologist wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

neologist wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

neologist wrote:

You can't provide empirical proof for or against any entity that exists outside of our perception of space and time such as the word supernatural implies. all you can do is provide anecdotal or circumstantial evidence which has to be evaluated according to personal standards.

So, if you could accurately post your personal standards, I might be able to provide you with evidence.

There certainly could be evidence. There could be cases in which numerous people saw the same visitation in modern times, things that can't be explained any other way, etc. Even on that level, you guys avoid logical presentation of evidence.

If you wish to have God make a special revelation for your sake, I don't think I can help you. If you wish to see God's spirit in operation, Jesus claimed that "By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves." (John 13:35) So, if you could find that group, you may get a revelation. Possibly.

I didn't ask for a personal revelation. I said that if a supernatural being created the world and interacts with it, there ought to be some sign of it.

According to the reported words of Jesus, there is.

At least I think I said that.

Can you give an example of such a sign that a God exists?

Stupid as this sounds:
Other than the current distressing world conditions which are often discounted, the only sign that is presently being given is by the conduct of his true followers. Were you find and observe them, you MIGHT see such an example. You would, not because any of them are, as individuals, in any way superior, but rather the direction of their focus.

Neologist, do you interpret the adam and eve thing literally?
Because if you do, wouldn't that result in problems in terms of inbreeding.

Neologist, do you interpret the adam and eve thing literally?
Because if you do, wouldn't that result in problems in terms of inbreeding.

Neologist, do you interpret the adam and eve thing literally?
Because if you do, wouldn't that result in problems in terms of inbreeding.

Coolwhip wrote:

Neologist, do you interpret the adam and eve thing literally?
Because if you do, wouldn't that result in problems in terms of inbreeding.

Assuming the bible to be inerrant, Cain and Abel were the offspring of one time perfect parents.

Continuing this line of reasoning brings us to the conclusion that brother sister marriage was normal for that time.

Coolwhip wrote:

Neologist, do you interpret the adam and eve thing literally?
Because if you do, wouldn't that result in problems in terms of inbreeding.

Assuming the bible to be inerrant, Cain and Abel were the offspring of one time perfect parents.

Continuing this line of reasoning brings us to the conclusion that brother sister marriage was normal for that time.

neologist wrote:

Coolwhip wrote:

Neologist, do you interpret the adam and eve thing literally?
Because if you do, wouldn't that result in problems in terms of inbreeding.

Assuming the bible to be inerrant, Cain and Abel were the offspring of one time perfect parents.

Continuing this line of reasoning brings us to the conclusion that brother sister marriage was normal for that time.

Horseshit--leaving aside the fact that there is no plausible basis to believe the Adam and Eve fairy story, it would not in itself be a "line of reasoning" which would logical lead to a conclusion that incestuous marriage was "normal" at "that time," or at any other time.

If you wish to believe those things, that's fine. But don't try to peddle your personal favorite delusions as logically coherent "lines of reasoning."

So even if incestuous marriage was reasonable for the times... there's still a ****-ton of people to come from the very very very few that were there then. Unless adam, eve, cain and able were part bunny... I don't think even incest can come close to explaining the population.

I posted the correct disclaimer for your benefit. You should at least acknowledge it. The bible only says what it says. If the bible is correct then Adam and Eve were at one time perfect. If they did indeed live for hundreds of years, then they must have had less genetic flaws than we today. If they were almost perfect genetically, then harmful mutations would have been much less common.

I didn't ask anyone to believe the bible. Just consider the fact that, according to the bible, brother sister marriage was not prohibited until the time of Moses.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

So even if incestuous marriage was reasonable for the times... there's still a ****-ton of people to come from the very very very few that were there then. Unless adam, eve, cain and able were part bunny... I don't think even incest can come close to explaining the population.

According to the bible there have been about 4400 years since the flood. If you take the 8 people who supposedly survived the flood and figure they doubled every hundred years, that would be 2 raised to the 48th power, give or take.

Care to estimate how large a number that would be?

Can you say trillions?

neologist wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

So even if incestuous marriage was reasonable for the times... there's still a ****-ton of people to come from the very very very few that were there then. Unless adam, eve, cain and able were part bunny... I don't think even incest can come close to explaining the population.

According to the bible there have been about 4400 years since the flood. If you take the 8 people who supposedly survived the flood and figure they doubled every hundred years, that would be 2 raised to the 48th power, give or take.

Care to estimate how large a number that would be?

Can you say trillions?

Did adam or eve or any of the survivors from the flood have red hair ?

USAFHokie80 wrote:

neologist wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

So even if incestuous marriage was reasonable for the times... there's still a ****-ton of people to come from the very very very few that were there then. Unless adam, eve, cain and able were part bunny... I don't think even incest can come close to explaining the population.

According to the bible there have been about 4400 years since the flood. If you take the 8 people who supposedly survived the flood and figure they doubled every hundred years, that would be 2 raised to the 48th power, give or take.

Care to estimate how large a number that would be?

Can you say trillions?

Did adam or eve or any of the survivors from the flood have red hair ?

Apparently Esau did

neologist wrote:

I posted the correct disclaimer for your benefit. You should at least acknowledge it. The bible only says what it says. If the bible is correct then Adam and Eve were at one time perfect. If they did indeed live for hundreds of years, then they must have had less genetic flaws than we today. If they were almost perfect genetically, then harmful mutations would have been much less common.

I didn't ask anyone to believe the bible. Just consider the fact that, according to the bible, brother sister marriage was not prohibited until the time of Moses.

Since there only were Adam and Eve, who forged the rule stating it to be permitted? God? So brother sister marriage is the word of God? Sounds very silly to me.

Also, if Adam and Eve were, in fact, perfect. Why the hell are there mutations today? Saying they were near-perfect is like saying God did a lousy job. Or are you saying that God not only kicked them out of the garden of Eden, but he also tinkered with their DNA. Just to utterly screw them?


Do you even see what you are doing? You dismiss all scientific proof that refutes you narrow belief, yet you embrace everything that agrees with you.