Quote Originally Posted by quickdodgeŽ
I most certainly do NOT understand anything you wrote. I simply asked for tangible (something I can actually see or hear or touch). And by those I don't mean to see Bible. I don't mean to hear a preacher preach. I don't mean to touch whatever Christian people touch to make them believe. I want to see a ripped piece of God's clothing. I want to see an actual photo of God. The only form of proof believers have in His existence is their faith in Him.

No one will ever be able to provide materialistic proof of the Dude.

I haven't really said my stance on this topic (and it isn't what my posts may being saying about it). I am a questioning believer. I think i believe in Heaven and Hell and God and all. But I just have millions of questions about the whole thing. I am a realist, as well. When folks say there is proof everywhere of God's existence, I ask for real proof. And I don't want to hear, look around you. So I'm not a complete atheist or anything close to it, but more so "need actual proof before I can believe it fully" type of person. If you get what I'm saying. Later, QD.
I think I understand you and I apologize for the complexity. It is very hard to try to discuss this kind of stuff on a forum. I am just approaching the problem of proof as it is asked for all the time. We ask for something we can touch and grasp but people have done that. Christ was real, he was touched, he ate, we was physical and spiritual and universal all at once. He has a specific purpose in our history and he served that purpose and he left. But people ignore the evidence that is Christ.

Also an understanding of the art of proof in debate would tell us that there is another problem with a request for proof. If believers believe that everything is of God and from God then for any skeptics of non-believers these things are not acceptable as reason to prove his existence because they are ruled out as "having come from that which is to be proved" because anything God creates points to his existence and cannot be used to prove it. I don't believe this, but that is the way that many non-theists or atheists approach the discussion.

This is based off of debate theory. You cannot use anything that has a predisposition that says something is real to prove that thing real...So the Bible would not be sufficient enough to prove that God is real, because it presupposes that God is real. I cannot logically tell anyone otherwise because I presuppose that God is real. In fact, no one who believes in God can prove his existence because presuppositions are always there if you are trying to prove his existence. You would not seek to prove that which you do not believe exists and, you would not seek to prove what you do not believe is there.

My earlier post is about the physical proof. We believe God exists in three forms. The physical, Christ. The spiritual, The Holy Spirit, and the universal, God (The Father (Creator)). The only one that can be argued reasonably through physical means is Christ and *possibly the Father (as presented to Moses, who saw his back on Mount Sinai)

so if you want physical proof of God's existence look at the person of Christ. Look at his life, death, and resurrection. He exists in history, only retards can deny that, so look at his claims and start there. Based on what we have already said, it is going to be hard to determine what is a suitable resource for you to go to, because as people who do not believe investigate many of them become believers, and we have already said that the believer is not a suitable source. So the act of asking for proof for some, only exists to substantiate their non belief because the only proof that is acceptable is the proof that agrees with a single side of the argument.

Tangibility is not always an option in making a case for something. There are things that we know are real but cannot touch. History and the study of archaeology and culture is proof of that. We have to be able to look at the compilation of evidence and make reasonable claims. those claims become our faith and they are substantiated in reasons that we have to believe. This is our study of God, our Theology which should be just as grounded in logic and observation as any other science. So belief should never be based on just blind uninformed faith this is where all the misunderstanding and misconceptions come from about the Christian faith.

is that more clear?

BTW...what I am saying to you is strongly demonstrated in posts from d993s. I could introduce him to Christ and he would not believe him. Just as the world did not know Christ when he was here, what make us think that him being here now would be convincing enough for all. this goes to show that lack of proof and evidence is not the problem. It is something in the individual who either cant or refuses to believe or is in denial.