Christians come on in

[quickdodge®]

Well the interesting dynamic of the scientific discussion is all the things that science has to ignore because of lack of evidence. There are tons of things that exist that people cannot provide physical proof or some sort of scientific evidence of. Do you love any one? Do you think logically? Do you ever plan your next day? Intuition...ever speak to someone who has deja vu?

I'm not sure if you are trying to confuse me or not, but this reply doesn't make any sense. Three out of the four "examples" you just gave aren't even material items. Love, thought and intuition? Even if that made sense, you'd then have to discredit your belief in God. I mean since religion is a faith-based idea and faith is an intangible object much like love, thought and intuition, and you say that the latter three might not exist because of lack of scientific evidence, then you should toss faith right out the window as well.

As far as planning my days? Sure, that can be proven without a doubt. Most people have a calendar that they write their appointments or other plans on. I have one.

So if we are to discredit all things that do not present a burden of proof towards their existence, then we are in trouble and we need to get rid of every school and every form of education, because even our desire to learn, our presupposed ability to logic, do not exist in science if we only use the physical evidence to determine reality.

You do realize that we're talking about proving actual things or beings and not emotions and the mind? Two completely different things.

A group of hundreds of men and women who would have witnessed the life of Christ and his resurrection being tested by threatening their lives, yet whatever they witnessed, was real enough for them to lives in fear, and only to be put to death by men who would call them to renounce what it was that they witnessed. This is one logical reason to believe that something serious went down.

Or one logical reason that people were pretty gullible back then. In those days, they were obviously less people on Earth. There were less means of communication. There were more things that people didn't know about. It stands to reason that if something happened on Earth and the people did not have the capability or know-how to study it, then they would come to their conclusions.

You had the lady out in Conyers who reported seeing the Virgin Mary in a tree. She was able to convince thousands of people this. She made a shitload of money off that. Just shows you how gullible humans are. Later, QD.

[sport_122]

I'm not sure if you are trying to confuse me or not, but this reply doesn't make any sense. Three out of the four "examples" you just gave aren't even material items. Love, thought and intuition? Even if that made sense, you'd then have to discredit your belief in God. I mean since religion is a faith-based idea and faith is an intangible object much like love, thought and intuition, and you say that the latter three might not exist because of lack of scientific evidence, then you should toss faith right out the window as well.

Actually that is my point. There are things out there that we would say exist that cannot be proven by a scientific method. If we can agree that these things exist, yet are not physical and cannot be manifested in a physical way, then we are one step closer to understanding that there are such thing as "immaterial" things that exist not necessarily in a physical scientifically testable realm.

And if we want to take the step towards understanding that the immaterial does exist, and that these immaterial things are not going to be Sci method type things then we also have to understand that when we question these things we have to remember that they will be understood as immaterial things. This will change our questions entirely.

So instead of : "Is God real, prove it?" you get "validate your belief in God"
instead of: "Scientifically prove your love for your family" its "How do you validate or how can you manifest love to your family?"

basically saying you would not use algebra to try to understand shakespeare. And you would not use Hamlet to solve calculus. These are two different types of understandings that require two different types of fact finding methods. I hope that is clearer...

In these threads we are always seeing people ask questions that are about taking one plane of understanding to "prove" the other, when "proof" is a loaded word, and one plane is metaphysical and cannot be tested by the physical methods of the other. This is a HUGE logical fallacy that plagues these types of discussions. Using apples to describe define bananas.

[quickdodge®]

Actually that is my point. There are things out there that we would say exist that cannot be proven by a scientific method. If we can agree that these things exist, yet are not physical and cannot be manifested in a physical way, then we are one step closer to understanding that there are such thing as "immaterial" things that exist not necessarily in a physical scientifically testable realm.

I understand your point. Knowing that God was NOT an actual person, but was/is some sort of spirit, we move to the next step in the proofs that a lot of people seek. It is said that the Bible is God's word. There we go. We have an actual thing, in our hands, that we can touch and hold. We don't have to prove the Bible's existence. Again, the closest anyone will ever come to knowing if it is really God's word is only by believing it is His word. This will never be proven. The events that take place in the Bible aren't provable. It can't be proven that Jesus died and was resurrected. All these are just stories to be told. Later, QD.

[sport_122]

I understand your point. Knowing that God was NOT an actual person, but was/is some sort of spirit, we move to the next step in the proofs that a lot of people seek. It is said that the Bible is God's word. There we go. We have an actual thing, in our hands, that we can touch and hold. We don't have to prove the Bible's existence. Again, the closest anyone will ever come to knowing if it is really God's word is only by believing it is His word. This will never be proven. The events that take place in the Bible aren't provable. It can't be proven that Jesus died and was resurrected. All these are just stories to be told. Later, QD.

that is what I am saying...sort of.

We cannot go back in time to see events, but just like we can read recent history and cross check some of the facts with other references we have the ability to determine that some things given in our historical documents are reasonably accurate. Take the revolutionary war, take the crusades, wwI and II, historical conquests etc. these things can be read and we can always find documents that are written to support or discredit those things that are historically inaccurate.

When I read the accounts as written in the Bible, study other pieces of historical documents and bring in simple reason, I find that there is a very very convincing case to support Christ as having performed miracles, being resurrected, and ascending with many witnesses. And with all of the surreal stories surrounding Christ, you would expect to see tons of documents from that period discrediting these events if they were not in fact understood to have happened like we see them written. Even today, when a news report is written that is remotely inaccurate, there are a dozen reports following that serve the purpose of shedding light on inaccuracies. For such an incredible story surrounding Christ and at least three resurrections (A child, Lazarus, and Christ), you would imagine that someone would have immediately gone whistle blower if these things were not true or complete fabrications. Especially since being a follower of Christ was very unpopular amongst the traditional Jewish community.

There are tons more things like this, but this is just a glimpse into my reasoning.