Let's forget "Religion" for a minute....

[Ryan Thames]

So you want evidence that jesus Christ existed?

Or you want evidence that God exists?

Or you want evidence that Jrsus is God?

[Ryan Thames]

Let's talk elsewhere ....

[Dan Benoit]

All 3 ryan.....i guess. Any proof....I have read all 11 pages and I have no examples. Lets make this simple. I can prove that the sky is blue. I can prove that my foot is 11.37 inches long. I cannot prove by any means god or jesus existed. I can also prove what the bible said has influenced us greatly in this world. Is there actually proof?

[Chris Kaufman]

Apr 7, 2011 14:06:01 GMT -5 Ryan Thames said:

Let's talk elsewhere ....

I'm interested in hearing what you have to say. That's the one thing in all the hundreds of pages of these type threads that gets avoided is the proof or examples.

I know Bob P. stated a few personal things that he believed to prove the existence of God.

Let's hear it from all the believers (in your own words ). If you say you have a personal relationship with God, how do you KNOW you're not talking to yourself? We've stated that we don't know/believe because it can't be proven, so how can you believe in something that can't be proven?

I'm honestly curious, and please try and avoid side-stepping the question with the whole faith this and faith that stuff. With something as important as one's soul, you'd think you'd bank it's judgement on more than just hearsay. ;D

[Rick Laton]

Apr 7, 2011 11:22:24 GMT -5 Simon Berriochoa said:

Back to Rick's proposition...

I assume this intends to mean that there is new science that now supports scientific dating methods that are contrary to the conclusions previously held, subsequently everything is much younger than previously thought, additionally there is new scientific evidence that the current scientific laws around erosion and sediment dating are incorrect so the grand canyon is again very young. That the concentration of bones at one point coupled with the new dating technique and new evidence around erosion and sediment dating now point to human existence at a time when all but a small portion of the earth was underwater, presumably bones and sediment found elsewhere (what would now be areas of receded water) show human existence prior to the people on the highest hill, but not any older than original dating of the eldest humans. Basically this has now shown that the biblical version of Adam/Eve and Noah are chronologically possible… The above new science items would have to also stand up against every other conclusion that it touches in order to carry such weight. Such as the proven fact that humans are incapable of successfully inbreeding from a finite genetic pool such as Adam/Eve and Noah proposes.

There are two ways to look at this, philosophically and functionally.

Philosophically…. as a person that has formed their conclusions based upon the scientific evidence… how do I now reconcile the conflict created in my conclusions based upon new science vs. old science? It is kind of like the Easter Bunny I guess, as a small kid I concluded there was an Easter Bunny because the evidence provided to me by my parents showed there was one, as an adult where the evidence does not exist, I therefore conclude there is no Easter Bunny. In the absence of actually seeing the Easter Bunny I am left with no other choice but to conclude there is no Easter Bunny. Continuing to believe, there is, despite the obvious absence of evidence that it exists is simply illogical, so though it seems crazy to waffle from one camp to the other as a product of evidence I must concede to what can be proven or conversely not proven.

Functionally… This is asking me to compare one set of scientific findings to another… old dating method vs. new, (as I assume the evidence that created this new dating method is not a lost home video from God proving it out). Science is not absolute, in reality nothing is absolute, not a Webster version, but science is conclusion based upon an accumulation of evidence in direct application to other conclusions that stand on the absence of contradictory evidence but in concert with one another. Subsequently you would have to compare the two versions of the science and look for the factors that bolster or undermine the conclusion each creates. I would need to choose based upon the strength not singularly but in comparison to all other scientific evidence, I would then be forced to reach a conclusion as to which determination outweighs the other.

Question
If an advanced alien race showed up and put a video on CNN as evidence proving the evolution of mankind over the course of billions of years, would you then completely lose your faith in God?

Okay Simon. First off. Too many BIG words for me but.... I think you are saying that you would have to determine for yourself which science could be trusted. The old science or the new science. I think that a person like yourself must have a certain amount of "Faith" to believe either of the science's could be true. You have no idea really if what you are being told is possible or not. To your mind, it seems to fit together and make good sense to you. More sense probably than that a "GOD" created it. I'll go for that. Can you really wrap your head around the reality that something is BILLIONS of years old and actually KNOW that your odds of being right are better than being wrong? A billion years is a LONG time. As with the Grand Canyon, at the rate at which it rains during our lifetime, it would take a very long time to erode that much. But what if the flood of Noah had happened, it would obviously change that time. Many things like this make science just an "Educated guess". But, back to the subject at hand. Let's say that your brain tells you that the new science makes more sense than the old science and you agree with the new findings. DOES this make me sound a LITTLE bit less crazy? Would this make you consider my point of view a little more. Would you now think that the stories I tell are now possible, maybe even likely? I'm asking all this to try and prove IF in fact you are basing a large part of your beliefs on someone else's beliefs. (Scientists). It takes Faith to believe either way. I don't find my faith to be any stranger than your faith. It's just faith in something different.

[Ryan Thames]

I dont think anyone is side stepping the question. We give answers but mostly aren't accepted as evidence in your court.

[Simon Berriochoa]

Apr 7, 2011 13:26:21 GMT -5 @enginterzi said:

Simon,

i do not think that you are in a place to tell me if this discussion is for me or not.your question just sounded silly for me,that is all.i have challenged my own belief hundreds of times even much more than others challenged me.so save your teaching to yourself.

i have seen a book which is signed by GOD but the signature i saw is unique,deep and meaningfull.

I was merely suggesting that as entertaining other beliefs not your own is not something you are comfortable with it might be more productive to not slide this thread into another yes there is no their isn't debate.

This was supposed to be an open minded discussion about the creation of man, however you come on here and proclaim that you cannot entertain such things because you are right and everyone else is wrong, well ok then, thanks for pointing that out to us. Can those of us that are willing to discuss the subject openly get back to a non religious discussion about the creation of mankind....

[Chris Kaufman]

Apr 7, 2011 14:19:56 GMT -5 Ryan Thames said:

I dont think anyone is side stepping the question. We give answers but mostly aren't accepted as evidence in your court.

No that's not what I'm saying. Usually when it comes down to the "how do you know" question, it's usually side-stepped.

So honestly what is your evidence then?

[Ryan Thames]

Obviously we aren't going to get a DNA sample.... So what is your criteria for evidence within reason.

Is not logic enough?

I honestly came to know Christ as a logical analysis. Which lead to a great revelation.

[John Parton]

I read something someone posted about the Grand Canyon. Some years back a leak occurred under Hoover dam. I just a matter of hours a huge and deep hole was carved deep into the sandstone, thus dispelling the notion that it took millions of years for that type of process to happen. Remember people from all over the world get grants to continue to look at these things, so their whole way of living depends on continuing down this avenue.

[Chris Kaufman]

To answer your question Rick about the change in Scientific evidence of dating.

If it was shown that the most probable solution/cause of the Grand Canyon based on the "new evidence of dating" might have been cause by a flood considering the timeline, then of course it would change people's beliefs.

That's the thing about Science is it's ALWAYS changing and evolving with more and more data and innovations. Nothing (aside from Laws) is written in stone. Everything is up for questioning, that's the beauty of it. That is what I believe is the major difference with the believers and non-believers. The believers "somehow" chose not to question their religion, while the non-believers choose to always question.

[enginterzi]

Apr 7, 2011 14:08:34 GMT -5 Dan Benoit said:

All 3 ryan.....i guess. Any proof....I have read all 11 pages and I have no examples. Lets make this simple. I can prove that the sky is blue. I can prove that my foot is 11.37 inches long. I cannot prove by any means god or jesus existed. I can also prove what the bible said has influenced us greatly in this world. Is there actually proof?

if there is a GOD then HE may be more difficult to be reached than many things that HE created which are still unreachable for us.i mean we are talking about the earth to be billions of years old yet we just discovered that the earth is not flat.so just because we have discovered somethings this does not mean that we are capable of reaching anything we wish in physical way.your argument does not disprove GOD,same as just because we did not know about many things it did not mean that they never existed before we discovered them.

if one says that everything is all about the material things then no i can not prove GOD's existence to anyone.but i do not think that the proof of the eternity can be found in temporary material things.to me the life is not all about what we see,touch,smell or hear.physical actions of human beings are decided in our inner world where i can find GOD.

[Chris Kaufman]

Apr 7, 2011 14:22:59 GMT -5 Ryan Thames said:

Obviously we aren't going to get a DNA sample.... So what is your criteria for evidence within reason.

Is not logic enough?

I honestly came to know Christ as a logical analysis. Which lead to a great revelation.

I'm talking you personally.

So what is/was your great revelation? Was this your own personal proof that made you a big time believer?

[John Parton]

Apr 7, 2011 14:13:46 GMT -5 Chris Kaufman said:

Apr 7, 2011 14:06:01 GMT -5 Ryan Thames said:

Let's talk elsewhere ....

I'm interested in hearing what you have to say. That's the one thing in all the hundreds of pages of these type threads that gets avoided is the proof or examples.

I know Bob P. stated a few personal things that he believed to prove the existence of God.

Let's hear it from all the believers (in your own words ). If you say you have a personal relationship with God, how do you KNOW you're not talking to yourself? We've stated that we don't know/believe because it can't be proven, so how can you believe in something that can't be proven?

I'm honestly curious, and please try and avoid side-stepping the question with the whole faith this and faith that stuff. With something as important as one's soul, you'd think you'd bank it's judgement on more than just hearsay. ;D

That is a fair question about who is speaking. When God speaks He speaks His Word. I was not always preacher John. I used to be drug dealer John, giving myself plenty of advice. You can probably imagine how that worked out. When I do as God says, it always works. It might not work out how I would like it to but always what is best for me in the end. The other way is usually always worked to my immediate liking, but was a train wreck in the end. The thing is we have to do it completely His way or we just make a worse mess than before. There is where many have trouble. we want following God to be a democracy and that just doesn't work WE are either going to believe that He loves us and trust that He probably knows better or not

[enginterzi]

Apr 7, 2011 14:22:05 GMT -5 Simon Berriochoa said:

Apr 7, 2011 13:26:21 GMT -5 @enginterzi said:

Simon,

i do not think that you are in a place to tell me if this discussion is for me or not.your question just sounded silly for me,that is all.i have challenged my own belief hundreds of times even much more than others challenged me.so save your teaching to yourself.

i have seen a book which is signed by GOD but the signature i saw is unique,deep and meaningfull.

I was merely suggesting that as entertaining other beliefs not your own is not something you are comfortable with it might be more productive to not slide this thread into another yes there is no their isn't debate.

This was supposed to be an open minded discussion about the creation of man, however you come on here and proclaim that you cannot entertain such things because you are right and everyone else is wrong, well ok then, thanks for pointing that out to us. Can those of us that are willing to discuss the subject openly get back to a non religious discussion about the creation of mankind....

i did not tell anyone that i am right and the others are wrong..i only expressed my belief.