You have no Case for Christ until you can Prove God exists

[brandx1138]

Instead of quibbling over scripture and when, where or if Jesus said what, let's start at the beginning. Christians claim that Jesus is God, but who is this "God"? It means nothing to say that Jesus is God if you cannot define, locate, detect or explain God. So who would like to be the first to answer this call:

Prove God exists.

First you must do that, then we can talk about Jesus. If God cannot be proven to exist, then this whole forum is a waste of everyone's time.

[chibiq]

Just a little edit to clear something up, I believe this discussion is to give a case for a creator/God. I'm trying to start from the beginning. Here's a list of requirements that I think we could all agree on for the need of an ambiguous God:

1. A need for a beginning of everything
2. A need for a cause of this beginning
3. A need for this cause to be a creator with a consciousness
4. A need for this creator to be intelligent (not a kid that accidentally kicked his paints over and created the Mona Lisa)

To me this seems to be what you think you need to feel confortable.

No, this is what is required of a God by Christian definition. It would make me comfortable to know that this God exists, because I'm a Christian (and I already believe he does), but that doesn't override the points I've made.

Judge me by the merit of my statements, not by my beliefs.

Your beliefs inform your statements. Therefore your beliefs are at the very core of any judgment toward you.

If this is what is required of a God by Christian definition, then where does this definition come from? Once you realize that the source of this definition is based on nothing but retranslations, mistranslations, and nimble editing of stories about legends about myths....you'll discover that the foundation you once believed was made of stone upon which you've built your castle of beliefs is very much the stuff of vaporous smoke....blown very swiftly and forcefully up your unaware little backside.

Really, that's very poetic of you and everything, but if you're not going to add anything with a point to the debate other than your opinion of where I'm getting my conclusions, then I suggest not adding anything at all.

Tell me something, how do you actually know that there are black holes? How do you know there are galaxies besides our own? How do you know we're in a galaxy? How do you know the moon isn't made of cheese? How do you know "shooting stars" are really asteroids? You don't really do all of the experiments yourself, do you?

We accept ideas for which we've no direct experience because they fit into our understanding of the truth. Because they are not inconsistent with other things that we have experienced they are acceptable as part of our truth. The idea of black holes has persisted because it has not been shown, conclusively, to be inconsistent with other more firmly proven ideas and because it has lead to further understanding, or at least possible opportunities for that.

We know the moon is not cheese because we have a very clear understand of cheese and where it comes from, and we don't have that many cows, much less a way to hoist that much cheese. That idea is inconsistent with calculable ideas based on the measurable facts about milk, cheese, and gravity.

The point I was trying to make is that we know these things because of people who came before us. We BELIEVE those people to be accurate because we have no reason to BELIEVE otherwise, like you said. We know that it's possible to put their theories to the test. However, the unwillingness of the scientific community to put Christian beliefs to the test is the exact ignorance that the clergy before our time were constantly being accused of. They BELIEVE that it won't work, therefore they don't test it, and even if they did their disbelief would lead to failure.

Christians on the other hand have the faith it takes for their prayers to be answered, and trust me when I say that it happens on a very consistent basis.

That being said, Einstein refused to believe that the universe had a beginning because of how inconvenient it would be to science. Ironically, his own findings and the data he accumulated from those findings helped the "Big Bang Pioneers" to reach their conclusion. I could say that they're a bunch of quacks listening to an old man who was obviously wrong to deny the universe started with the big bang, but where would that lead us?

That inconvenience Einstein was resistant to was that consistency of ideas. He went on to resolve that with mathematical proofs. Those proofs have been the foundation of other real reason that has produced any number of observable, tangible scientific advances.

He resolved that there wasn't a beginning to the universe? You've lost me now, I didn't know we had proof. Why didn't you bring this up in the first place?

The same could be said about Fred Hoyle, whose Steady State theory was disproved also, due to the noise the universe makes. Although he got that wrong (and died defending his position), his contributions to cosmology can't be overlooked. That said, even though he was wrong, would you call him a quack?

The aspects of his theory that have persisted are those that are consistent with other measurable facts and ideas consistent with those. That which has fallen away was shown to be inconsistent.

And again you miss the point I was trying to make. The original person I was debating with claimed that scientists don't base their theories on their beliefs, and I disagreed with Fred Hoyle and Einstein as proof. Scientists believe they're right, and "God" is for people who are gullible and at the very least mistaken.

Do your beliefs not inform your conclusions and statements? Isn't that the way of the scientific method, coming up with a possible conclusion first (hypothesis) and finding out if the evidence backs it up?

You're being prejudice because of your beliefs (even in a hostile way), isn't that a little hypocritical?

And isn't that against the forum rules?

Where I get my conclusions from mean nothing. Read the last sentence of my last post: Judge me by the merit of my statements, not by my beliefs.

Can we please get back on topic now?

With regard to the topic, I think until you find an acceptable definition of God that is not the one supplied with the proposed attributes of Jesus you're going to get nowhere. Which is to say, you're going to get nowhere.

God is an idea, a concept, that has developed over generations as that something that satisfies all the holes in our understanding. God's attributes change according to what we understand. What makes it persistent is that it's the foundation of an age-old understanding of two things that cannot be experienced by mortals. Those are the origin of our universe and the disposition of our consciousness after death.

Until there is an alternative that offsets the other properties that belief in God brings -- the social aspects -- the idea will persist. That is, what religion brings to society is real, necessary, and critical to social advancement. Should god be disproved, what's going to satisfy that purpose?

I thought this thread was debating Christianity? Why can't we use the Christian God as our example? Isn't he supposed to be the same God of the Jews, the Muslims, the Jehovah Witnesses, the Catholics, along with every denomination of Christianity there is?

God is a being, not an idea, not the putty for holes in our knowledge. He is the true alternative to the mistaken "science" of today. He is the same today as he always was, and always will be.

What about those people who have near-death experiences, and those who die on operating tables, who give their out-of-body experience accounts with great accuracy, down to what instruments were being used on them? How do you explain to them that after your body and mind die, there's nothing else you should see or feel? Doesn't this fit in with the Christian belief of a spirit?

Anyway, back to the main point, I am a Christian, the thread is "You have no Case for CHRIST", therefore the Christian God is the one I'm sticking with proving. As a matter of fact, if ANY God could be proven, wouldn't that satisfy the original poster's request?

[chibiq]

If calling the stars by anthropomorphic names and making shapes out of them helped the historical figures who did so do things like navigate the globe and decide when to plant their crops, who are you to argue with them?

Quit setting up straw men, I didn't argue they did something wrong. I just question the sanity of people that try to pass their "science" as something valid nowadays.

The Bible is not a science book... however, there are some statements in the Bible that would make absolutely no sense to people of the Bible's day if they tried to scrutinize God's words. For example, God said he would mutiply David and Abraham's children as the stars of heaven AND the sand on the seashore. With the naked eye (which is all the people of that day had), all the stars that were visible numbered around 3,000 to 6,000, while the sand was clearly visible to them and obviously more numerous than the stars.

The actual number of stars that scientists estimate nowadays is 10 to the power of 21, where they estimate the number of grains of sand to be 10 to the power of 25. Considering the margin of error, these numbers are extremely close.

The condescending nature of the common man nowadays really shocks me.

They did very well with what they had.

They think they're so much smarter than the historical figures because what is now common sense today wasn't then.

Common sense remains the same. It just depends on available information.

Take away the internet from the average person who claims themselves "above-average intelligence" today and stick them out in the desert, and they'd probably die in less than a week.

True. Who said differently?

I'd be willing to wager if you take away half of the technology that "scientists" today use, they'd probably be the village idiot in a group of pre-AD sheep herders.

Again, who said differently?

Unless of course you weren't being condescending with your "people that felt the need to anthropomorphize the constellations", which in that case I would go back to my original argument about debating with more than one person on the internet.

Why not stick to one-on-one debates than?

I feel it rude not to respond to those who question me. All it does is give them who are left unanswered reason to pop in in the middle of another debate and claim I ignored them simply because I couldn't answer their question. Not saying you would, but it happens more often than not.