Christians: why don't you EVER provide proof?

[Big Hype]

Muslims like syriankid at least provide some form of evidence that their belief might be right, how come you guys don't? If you can't provide ANY, how are you so sure you're worshipping the right god?

[UltimateNYC]

childhood indoctrination.

[Big Hype]

I believe in jesus becuz da bible sez hes god!

[IraHays]

They consider the Bible proof. You do not.

/end thread.

[twisted03]

what do you want proof about? give me a subject and i will give you EVIDENCE of God any time any subject.

[1dayIWillBeBig]

Religions cannot provide proof. Religion requires faith (belief without proof).


/end thread (and all other threads that ask religious people for "proof")

[caj]

Jesus commands us to spread the Good News of God's grace and forgiveness through Jesus' death and resurrection.

It's up to each person to accept or reject the News. It doesn't say anything about us providing proof. That's where faith comes in.

[Shaun1990]

what do you want proof about? give me a subject and i will give you EVIDENCE of God any time any subject.

What about merely providing evidence of Gods existance?

[twisted03]

What about merely providing evidence of Gods existance?

ahh the evidence of Gods exsistance is found all around us but only seen by those who believe.

hey why dont you do me a favor and provide evidence of your precious fsm thing that you refer to constantly

[Violator009]

Muslims like syriankid at least provide some form of evidence that their belief might be right, how come you guys don't? If you can't provide ANY, how are you so sure you're worshipping the right god?

For the gadzillionth time, christians cannot prove Gods existance to a non- believer, all i can tell u is at the end of this earth age youll see who is right..

[daniel77]

What about merely providing evidence of Gods existance?

I would like to see evidence that he does not exist.

[Shaun1990]

ahh the evidence of Gods exsistance is found all around us but only seen by those who believe.

Ah, very convenient . . .

hey why dont you do me a favor and provide evidence of your precious fsm thing that you refer to constantly

The evidence of his existence is all around us, but only seen by those who believe.

[JAGERBOY]

I would like to see evidence that he does not exist.

Negative proof, invalid. The burden of proof is solely on the person making the claim of something that hasnt been proven yet. Until you can show proof that a god exists for sure, it is not an atheists job to disprove it.

If I make a claim that the sun does NOT exist, I better be able to back up that claim with some hardcore evidence. Since we can observe the sun, and its accepted in science as fact that it exists, at this point, it would be necessary for me to disprove the existance of the sun.

So far, no one has proven that god exists, so until they do, we are not responsible to disprove it.

[JAGERBOY]

ahh the evidence of Gods exsistance is found all around us but only seen by those who believe.

hey why dont you do me a favor and provide evidence of your precious fsm thing that you refer to constantly

Which is the inherent flaw in religion, as I proved in my thread "One of the major problems with religion is..."

You believed in your christian god as a child before seeing proof or evidence. Saying that evidence only exists to believers is a cop out because you were a believer before you saw evidence. Thus, you actually never needed to see evidence to convince you and still to this day you have not seen any empirical evidence, and I can state that as fact. If Im wrong, prove it.

[twisted03]

Ah, very convenient . . .



The evidence of his existence is all around us, but only seen by those who believe.

exactly head back to class now

[Shaun1990]

exactly head back to class now

Wow, strong argumentum ad hominem! I also noticed that you completely failed to refute any of my points, so are you saying that there is definitely proof of the FSM's existance?

[twisted03]

Which is the inherent flaw in religion, as I proved in my thread "One of the major problems with religion is..."

You believed in your christian god as a child before seeing proof or evidence. Saying that evidence only exists to believers is a cop out because you were a believer before you saw evidence. Thus, you actually never needed to see evidence to convince you and still to this day you have not seen any empirical evidence, and I can state that as fact. If Im wrong, prove it.

i was? thanx for the assumption yes i claimed to have a realationship with God until i was about 12 when i thought i was a know it all and gave all the same examples you all give as to why there couldnt be a God then i had to open my eyes to the fact that science invents alot of things and takes alot of faith to believe in and still cant come even close to having all the answers, God on the other hand has all the answers not just ones i need ALL of them

[twisted03]

Wow, strong argumentum ad hominem! I also noticed that you completely failed to refute any of my points, so are you saying that there is definitely proof of the FSM's existance?

no i am saying there is no disproof oyu cant proove a negative. plz dont say the ad hominem again it just makes you look stupid.

im saying i have 2000 plus year old documents that are historicly accurate PLUS tons of physical evidence that the claims it makes are 100% true. you however have only what one person recently invented and no physical evidence

[JAGERBOY]

i was? thanx for the assumption yes i claimed to have a realationship with God until i was about 12 when i thought i was a know it all and gave all the same examples you all give as to why there couldnt be a God then i had to open my eyes to the fact that science invents alot of things and takes alot of faith to believe in and still cant come even close to having all the answers, God on the other hand has all the answers not just ones i need ALL of them

When you are 12 you are still a child. You dont have the same critical thinking skills that you do now (arguable).

But going with your argument, "science invents alot of things". So basically what you are saying, is because science cant answer all things YET, you basically defaulted to a god having exist, and further more defaulted to it being the Judeo Christian god that the bible teaches. Again,where is your empirical evidence that god exists and that its the bible god? Can you provide some or did you just prove my post correct?

[JAGERBOY]

no i am saying there is no disproof oyu cant proove a negative. plz dont say the ad hominem again it just makes you look stupid.

im saying i have 2000 plus year old documents that are historicly accurate PLUS tons of physical evidence that the claims it makes are 100% true. you however have only what one person recently invented and no physical evidence

Really? Care to show us the physical evidence that all of the bibles claims are 100% true? Ive never heard this claim before. I as an atheist, and probably christians around the world would love see this evidence. :waits patiently:

[twisted03]

When you are 12 you are still a child. You dont have the same critical thinking skills that you do now (arguable).

But going with your argument, "science invents alot of things". So basically what you are saying, is because science cant answer all things YET, you basically defaulted to a god having exist, and further more defaulted to it being the Judeo Christian god that the bible teaches. Again,where is your empirical evidence that god exists and that its the bible god? Can you provide some or did you just prove my post correct?

12-17/18 6 yrs spent not believing (or trying to convince myself i didnt)

no im saying because science is constantly wrong and being disproved with new evidence i dont believe it. the bible has NEVER been disproved regardless of new informatrion or discoverys the claims stay the same and so do the facts, unlike science

[Shaun1990]

no i am saying there is no disproof oyu cant proove a negative.

Huh?

plz dont say the ad hominem again it just makes you look stupid.

Well, considering that its only fools who ever acually use it in a debate in the first place . . .

im saying i have 2000 plus year old documents that are historicly accurate PLUS tons of physical evidence that the claims it makes are 100% true. you however have only what one person recently invented and no physical evidence

Well, lets see this physical evidence that you are sooo keen on babbling on about!

[twisted03]

Really? Care to show us the physical evidence that all of the bibles claims are 100% true? Ive never heard this claim before. I as an atheist, and probably christians around the world would love see this evidence. :waits patiently:

what do you want? satellite photos of Noahs ark, facts showing NO evidence of evoloution in rock strata, things that point to a world wide flood, facts that show the world to be less than 11000 yrs old?

[twisted03]

Huh?



Well, considering that its only fools who ever acually use it in a debate in the first place . . .



Well, lets see this physical evidence that you are sooo keen on babbling on about!

First we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM THE STARS that the universe itself is quite young:

1 - STAR CLUSTERS?There are many star clusters in the universe. Each one is a circular ball composed of billions upon billions of stars, each with its own orbit. Science tells us that some of these clusters?with their stars?are moving so rapidly, together, in a certain direction that it should be impossible for them to remain together if the universe were very old.

2 - LARGE STARS?Some stars are so enormous in diameter that it is thought that they could not have existed for even a few million years, otherwise their initial larger mass would have been impossibly large. These massive stars radiate energy very rapidly?some as much as 100,000 to 1 million times more rapidly than our own sun. On the hydrogen basis of stellar energy, they could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate at such fast rates for long ages, because their initial mass would have had to be far too gigantic.

3 - HIGH-ENERGY STARS?Some stars are radiating energy so intensely that they could not possibly have survived for a long period of time. This includes the very bright O and B class stars, the Wolf-Rayfert stars, and the P Cygni stars. Radiation levels of 100,000 to 1 million times as much as our own sun are emitted by these stars! Yet, by the standard solar energy theory, they do not contain enough hydrogen to perpetuate atomic fusion longer than approximately 50,000 to 300,000 years.

4 - BINARY STARS?Many of the stars in the sky are binaries: two stars circling one another. But many of these binary systems point us to a young age for the universe, because they consist of theoretically "young" and "old" stars circling one another.

5 - HYDROGEN IN UNIVERSE?According to one theory of solar energy, hydrogen is constantly being converted into helium as stars shine. But hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it. *Fred Hoyle, a leading astronomer, maintains that, if the universe were as old as Big Bang theorists contend, there should be little hydrogen in it. It would all have been transformed into helium by now. Yet stellar spectra reveal an abundance of hydrogen in the stars, therefore the universe must be youthful.

Next we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM OUR SOLAR SYSTEM that our solar system is quite young:

6 - SOLAR COLLAPSE?Research studies indicate that our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds of arc per century. At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in far less a time than 50,000 years, life here would have ceased to exist. Recent studies have disclosed that neither the size of the sun, nor our distance from it, could be much greater or smaller?in order for life to be sustained on our planet.

"By analyzing data from Greenwich Observatory in the period 1836-1953, John A. Eddy [Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder] and Aram A. Boornazian [mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston] have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century during that time, corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour. And digging deep into historical records, Eddy has found 400-year-old eclipse observations that are consistent with such a shrinkage."? *"Sun is Shrinking," Physics Today, September 1979.

Extrapolating back, 100,000 years ago, the sun would have been about twice its present size, making life untenable.

to get ya started

[Shaun1990]

12-17/18 6 yrs spent not believing (or trying to convince myself i didnt)

I dont understand the grammar in the first part of this sentance.

no im saying because science is constantly wrong and being disproved with new evidence i dont believe it. the bible has NEVER been disproved regardless of new informatrion or discoverys the claims stay the same and so do the facts, unlike science

Yes, science is constantly proved wrong by new discoveries. So, old religions are constantly being proved wrong by new religions, like pastafarianism.
And, yes, many, many things in the bible have been proved wrong. People cant walk on water, the world is not flat, water cannot be turned into wine, a loaf of bread cannot feed 5000 people etc. PLease, show me where people have been proved to walk on water, and, in fact, show me where all of the above have been proved right.

[daniel77]

Negative proof, invalid. The burden of proof is solely on the person making the claim of something that hasnt been proven yet. Until you can show proof that a god exists for sure, it is not an atheists job to disprove it.

If I make a claim that the sun does NOT exist, I better be able to back up that claim with some hardcore evidence. Since we can observe the sun, and its accepted in science as fact that it exists, at this point, it would be necessary for me to disprove the existance of the sun.

So far, no one has proven that god exists, so until they do, we are not responsible to disprove it.

I understand you are not responsible, but that does not change the fact you still can't prove it. Where do your beliefs lie? How did you come to the conclusion of what you believe in? Is it faith in your beliefs? Or have you read books, talked to people to confirm your beliefs?

[twisted03]

I dont understand the grammar in the first part of this sentance.



Yes, science is constantly proved wrong by new discoveries. So, old religions are constantly being proved wrong by new religions, like pastafarianism.
And, yes, many, many things in the bible have been proved wrong. People cant walk on water, the world is not flat, water cannot be turned into wine, a loaf of bread cannot feed 5000 people etc. PLease, show me where people have been proved to walk on water, and, in fact, show me where all of the above have been proved right.

ahh i cannot prove the individual mircles no one can i wasnt there to see them but i give the evidence of God and a young earth.

example of miracle that has happened

car falls on man while reparing it, twelve yr old son cannot dead lift 600 lbs,
12 yr old son dead lifts 600 lbs any ways and younger brother drags dad from under car. using science please explain

[JAGERBOY]

I understand you are not responsible, but that does not change the fact you still can't prove it. Where do your beliefs lie? How did you come to the conclusion of what you believe in? Is it faith in your beliefs? Or have you read books, talked to people to confirm your beliefs?

By me not being responsible, that means that I dont HAVE to disprove or prove anything at this point. It is ALL on YOU.

Where do my beliefs lie?

-logic
-research
-science
-school
-empirical evidence

[JAGERBOY]

ahh i cannot prove the individual mircles no one can i wasnt there to see them but i give the evidence of God and a young earth.

example of miracle that has happened

car falls on man while reparing it, twelve yr old son cannot dead lift 600 lbs,
12 yr old son dead lifts 600 lbs any ways and younger brother drags dad from under car. using science please explain

Possible explanations:

-adrenaline
-wasnt a full deadlift

[Shaun1990]

ahh i cannot prove the individual mircles no one can i wasnt there to see them but i give the evidence of God and a young earth.

So you have said, many times, but I aint seeing it yet . . .

example of miracle that has happened

car falls on man while reparing it, twelve yr old son cannot dead lift 600 lbs,
12 yr old son dead lifts 600 lbs any ways and younger brother drags dad from under car. using science please explain

Some say the human body can do amazing things under pressure. I also love your logic here, if it cant be properly explain, it must be God!!!!!!1111oneoneoneone1111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!