Evidence for God from Science

If someone put a gun to my head and said that I must renounce Christ or I would die, he'd probably wear that gun shoved up his Ass for the rest of his life.
Now, if he put a gun to my childrens head, well...that is a tough one.
I think that when someone gets to that point, they will pull the trigger no matter what you do or say.

To be honest, ANYTHING can happen. However, I would really like to stick to my beliefs no matter what happens. The God who is in Heaven who sees everything will be pleased. Also, God promised us to not give us more than we can carry. No wonder why a minute percentage of Christians face such persecution. But if it were to come, id pray id be ready for it.

If someone put a gun to my head and said that I must renounce Christ or I would die, he'd probably wear that gun shoved up his *** for the rest of his life.
Now, if he put a gun to my childrens head, well...that is a tough one.
I think that when someone gets to that point, they will pull the trigger no matter what you do or say.

To be honest, ANYTHING can happen. However, I would really like to stick to my beliefs no matter what happens. The God who is in Heaven who sees everything will be pleased. Also, God promised us to not give us more than we can carry. No wonder why a minute percentage of Christians face such persecution. But if it were to come, id pray id be ready for it.

It sure is...very tough to decide but the Bible does say it can very well happen. I think the HS helps us deal in situations like this.

neo-x wrote:@Wayne

That's what YOU believe, how do you know that god wouldn't consider choosing to be killed to be suicide?

Because I am not an agnostic, because the Bible tell me that people can kill you for following Christ. On a side note, can't you see the difference between, dying for what you believe in and suicide. Suicide is an act which is a result of, dismay, pain, hopelessness or guilt. Dying for what you believe asks for courage, hope, dignity, the will to evaluate everything you hold dear in your life and weigh it against your faith and coming out with it. It is not easy. And is it so hard to understand - the difference between suicide and choosing to die for what you believe. Surely, you can not be that Naive!

You make a distinction between suicide and dying for what [you think] is right. How do ensure that what you think is right is actually correct? Aren't you basing your definition of "right" and "wrong" on what you've been told over the years by parents, teachers, clergy, peers, read in books, etc - in short, by other people? If you claim your moral "compass" was not calibrated by other people, what (exactly) IS your "true north"?

I can understand "standing up for what you believe in", and even giving your life because it furthers a cause you believe in. But I look at such stands in terms of "what is the possible cost?" versus "what is the possible benefit?". Would I risk my life to try to protect others - yes. In fact I have on occasion, I was a member of a volunteer fire department for a number of years and was involved in several rescues, at least one of which was downright "sticky". Would I risk my life for an idea that would benefit others - yes. Actually I've done that as well, I participated in some of the civil rights marches and protests during the '60's and '70's. Would I throw my life away on an idea where doing so would not benefit anyone? Not a chance!

Cost and benefit is a good thing to evaluate, I do not go against it, but to me there is no greater cost than self respect and your faith. I would never compromise on either. Because denial of either will result in me not being the man I want to be. Risking your life for others and not for your own self is quite interesting when put to test a little further down my post. But even if you throw faith out, have you read nothing about the people throughout history, who chose to die for their belief rather than accept the other side, rat out and live in their shadows? You should, read about Sophie Scholl (white rose), Bhagat Singh, Lady Jane Grey, William Wallace, Sir Thomas More, Joac of Arc, John Huss, Socrates.

Have you read Socrates, why did he chose to die? he was't a Christian? why didn't he flee. Because he believed in something and that it defined him as a person and denial of such would result in the loss of all moral grounds rather than his life, like a coward who couldn't face the consequences of his belief. Would you consider Socrates to have committed suicide by deciding not to run for his life?

I would point out that it is easy for anyone to say how they would (like to) react in any given hypothetical life and death situation - what they actually will do in a real situation is not so clear. I imagine you would like to live a sin-free life from now on - do you really think you can actually do it? You obviously think I'm a gutless coward and I doubt you'd believe anything I'd say to the contrary. I am far more interested in how you are so sure what's "right" and would rather not get diverted into a discussion of what either of us might or might not do in any given hypothetical.

So, if I understood this correctly, his wife said to go ahead and kill the children (and herself), and this is considered a GOOD thing??? And the pastor lived and wrote a book about it, presumably about how brave his wife was? How were his wife's actions any different than if she had aborted her children and committed suicide?

Sorry Wayne, you do not understand the concept at all. It is called the right thing to do, the thing that on all moral grounds defines your personality, even if you do not like it, in principle you either die for it or you rat out.

I imagine what kind of soldier you or anyone with cost to benefit mentality will make. You will kill for your country because it is the right thing to do, whether you like it or not. And if you are captured, and your enemy offered you freedom, all you have to do is to just spit on your flag and go home or else die. what will you do? How will your cost and benefit apply here. Would you spit on your flag, because it would not hurt anyone and you dying can not possibly benefit your country by dying like this. I mean you were prepared to risk your life for others but no way you are going to give it away if it benefits no one (as you said 'Not a chance'). so what would be your answer Wayne, would you spit on your flag with your cost and benefit mentality, (remember your death benefits no one, not others, not even you), come home, live like nothing happened, a traitor, a coward. Or on principle you would like to be killed as also your fellow soldiers died. And if you choose death (which I doubt by your ideas) does that make you suicidal or brave? and what if you chose to die, would that be considered equal to the idea, if you had just committed suicide back at your home. This way a suicide equals a death of a soldier who chooses to die for his country rather than dishonor his nation's flag(see the similarity between, aborting and committing suicide or be buried to death for not denying your faith)

See above.

So spit on your flag and go home or die? What will it be? I am interested on how would answer this, Wayne

See above.

But to answer your question about the pastor. It is not about being considered a good thing, no but I do consider it as the right thing, the thing that on all moral grounds defines you as a person. And it is very different than aborting and committing suicide, I explained that above. The path to God is not wide, it is very narrow and hard and few try to walk on it. Btw the book wasn't about his wife, the book was about the soviet Christians who suffered at the hands of communism and atheism.

Since you seem to be judging the actions of the pastor and his wife based on god's presumed wishes, how are you (and they, for that matter) so sure that god actually wanted the wife and the children to die? My comment about abortion in a previous post was meant to point out that a god who so hates abortion seems somewhat unlikely to desire the horrific deaths of children a few years later when they are cognitive human beings.

I would never presume to include anyone else in the consequences of a stand I chose to take.

I am not deciding for someone else, merely telling you that I know my girl, and I know like me, she would choose to be killed rather deny Christ. Just like you know your wife or girl that what food she likes? which flower she loves? what will she do if some certain thing went wrong?. That is how I Know.

After nearly forty years of marriage, I have a very good understanding of how my wife will react in almost every situation. I still would never presume to speak for her, especially about a life and death decision. The fact that you do speak for your girl is no problem at all, it was just a surprise to me.

I have no doubt of that either. But do you not see how dangerous such blind faith is?

Do you think, I am suicidal, that it is easy to come up with these kind of thoughts as plan of action, that I do not see the danger it poses, that I want to die, that life holds nothing dear to me. WOW, you presume much. If you think like that, you are wrong, it is wrong to presume that people having this kind of thoughts would not value life. To think that people like me are looking for an excuse to die, being stamped as a Martyr and go to heaven. sorry this is what Muslims train people like, Not Christians.

Didn't you indicate that you admired the actions of the pastor and his wife? IMO it's not a big step at all from being willing to die for what you "know" is right and being willing to kill for the same reasons. I'm most definitely NOT accusing you of being a "terrorist-in-training", but unquestioning faith such as yours is the putty from which clerics with a perverted agenda can mold evil.

But let me tell you why I seem so ready in this kind of thought plan. I live in a country that is currently the breeding place for all the major fundamentalist/ extremist Muslim groups, including terrorists. And here Christians are killed or persecuted every week. Just yesterday, they burned down a church and killed two Christian teenagers, ages 14 and 15. And they didn't kill them by shooting, no. They beat them to death by wooden sticks, in the middle of the street, with a crowd watching and the police as well. No one came to their rescue and no one stopped them. In 2007, pastors from all over Pakistan, from active preaching denominations were kidnapped, tortured, killed, a few were left alive to be an example to others. Including an uncle of mine. I could give you a lot of examples but this will suffice. So this is how it works for Christians here. My dad is an evangelist, and it is now twice that my family has received death threats, phone calls, warning letters - to stop preaching or else be killed. Do you think we are suicidal or we do not have emotions. Again, I could rat out but that would be an insult not only to my own conscience but to my faith as well. Not to mention that I saw a lot of people who never denied their belief, their faith even if the cost was their life. I have been in front of a gun in a robbery, and I know how it feels and it is not easy, it is not quick and there is nothing good to feel about it.

And no this is not an emotional plea to understand my POV, these are the facts, these things still happen and no matter how much I do not like to be in a situation where I have to choose between death or love and life, I still know it can happen. And if it does, I hope to do the right thing.

What do you think breeds fundamentalism/extremism where you live?

I am talking about willing to die based on faith, my faith never tells me to kill for it. you're mixing terrorism with what I am saying. I even gave you example from history, were those people terrorists? they stuck to what they believe, thats all.

I would point out that it is easy for anyone to say how they would (like to) react in any given hypothetical life and death situation - what they actually will do in a real situation is not so clear. I imagine you would like to live a sin-free life from now on - do you really think you can actually do it? You obviously think I'm a gutless coward and I doubt you'd believe anything I'd say to the contrary. I am far more interested in how you are so sure what's "right" and would rather not get diverted into a discussion of what either of us might or might not do in any given hypothetical.

When did I say it was easy to decide. The argument isn't what you or I will do, but how a certain idea plays out in a situation. Btw, aren't u questioning me, making assumptions on my hypothetical stance. What u might do or not do, is nothing to do with my question. I don't mind or care if u r brave or coward, my question is not about that. The question is about applying ur pov in a given situation. I gave a hypothetical situation and i told u how i plan to apply what i think to it. U call me close to a fundamentalist or blind religiously and u gave an alternative thought process which u said you would follow.

so it is only fair that i give u an oppurtunity that is non religious, but similar to my hypothetical stance, to apply ur pov into a hypothetical situation and see how, cost and benefit plays out in it. U dont need to worry, giving an answer doesn't mean i am going to hold u to it. Just tell me simply what u will do? Lets make it ez for u, what anyone with cost to benefit mentality would do? (since u r so relectant to put ur self in the situation) . It is plain simple. given are two choices, spit on ur flag and go home or die. There is no third one. How will ur pov play out here? Remember im not intrested in what u do, but how will this idea of urs is applied, given such a situation.

... if you are captured, and your enemy offered you freedom, all you have to do is to just spit on your flag and go home or else die. what will you do?

Given the situation as stated (and assuming the event is being recorded for propaganda purposes which you did not state), I'd see very little advantage to giving up my life. During the first gulf war, several coalition soldiers who became POW's gave propaganda statements - probably under similar circumstances.

Now how about answering some of my questions, let's start with ...

How do ensure that what you think is right is actually correct? Aren't you basing your definition of "right" and "wrong" on what you've been told over the years by parents, teachers, clergy, peers, read in books, etc - in short, by other people? If you claim your moral "compass" was not calibrated by other people, what (exactly) IS your "true north"?

Given the situation as stated (and assuming the event is being recorded for propaganda purposes which you did not state), I'd see very little advantage to giving up my life. During the first gulf war, several coalition soldiers who became POW's gave propaganda statements - probably under similar circumstances.

thats is as vague as not replying.

And I have been answering your questions from the first post.
Yes I am basing my opinion on the Bible.

If you claim your moral "compass" was not calibrated by other people, what (exactly) IS your "true north"?

This is a question that bothers atheists, not me they are the ones who lack any set of written standard or morals

neo-x wrote:

Given the situation as stated (and assuming the event is being recorded for propaganda purposes which you did not state), I'd see very little advantage to giving up my life. During the first gulf war, several coalition soldiers who became POW's gave propaganda statements - probably under similar circumstances.

thats is as vague as not replying.

Yes, I'd spit on the flag - I assume that's what you mean.

Yes I am basing my opinion on the Bible.

Part of the question was ...

Aren't you basing your definition of "right" and "wrong" on what you've been told over the years by parents, teachers, clergy, peers, read in books, etc - in short, by other people?

Clearly, your basing "right" and "wrong" on the bible. The question is why out of all the "holy" texts are you using the bible as your moral "compass"? Aren't you using the bible because you were brought up christian? If you were not brought up christian, what was the reason for your conversion? In either case, the reason is almost certain to be what other people told you and/or having read books written by other people. Even the bible itself was written, edited, translated, parts added and discarded, published and interpreted by people, many times over.

Yes, I'd spit on the flag - I assume that's what you mean.

That is not what I mean, that is the only logical conclusion that can be made from your cost and benefit approach. not me. I am no one to Judge you.

Clearly, your basing "right" and "wrong" on the bible. The question is why out of all the "holy" texts are you using the bible as your moral "compass"? Aren't you using the bible because you were brought up christian? If you were not brought up christian, what was the reason for your conversion? In either case, the reason is almost certain to be what other people told you and/or having read books written by other people. Even the bible itself was written, edited, translated, parts added and discarded, published and interpreted by people, many times over.

My great grandfather converted from Muslims to Christianity and my grandmother had come from the Hindus and I was brought up in a house where there was koran and Geeta (the hindu sacred texts) were also present as study material. And I did study them to the extent it was possible for me to get what they taught. I turned atheist because of some childhood problems and got concrete in it in my teens years. What paved my way of understanding was close to what you are saying right now. if all books claim there is a God, and they think only their God is the only God then how can I know which one is right, and since there can be only one God and all who lay claim to their own, there can not be any.

I turned Christian not because of the morality compass it teaches. but because i saw the power of God, his grace and love in some life changing events of my life. And through that I know which one is my God (when some people think they have their Gods as well). All morality can come from the human mind only if it knows what not to do. That is not the issue however. Even if my morality comes from the Bible, if it says, do not kill, do not lie, do not steal, than does that make it any less authentic, just because others feel the same way or you read it in your school book or your conscious doesn't allow it but also remember to some people, religious or not religious, these morals do not have any affect, so even without religion you can not guarantee morality.

The Bible was written and edited by men but it was also inspired by God, does that make it less moral. not to mention if I disregard these holy books. turn to moral philosophy, Kant, Plato etc etc. Does that make it any different. the problem or the highlight is not morality, even Buddhists practice these morals. What makes it unique is the power of God, his love for the sinner and his redemption to him. That is unique and that for me the real reason I believe in it. If you are just trying to find God, in the works of men than you are just looking in the wrong place buddy.

neo-x wrote:

Yes, I'd spit on the flag - I assume that's what you mean.

That is not what I mean, that is the only logical conclusion that can be made from your cost and benefit approach. not me. I am no one to Judge you.

Then I guess I have no idea why you consider my response "as vague as not responding".

Clearly, your basing "right" and "wrong" on the bible. The question is why out of all the "holy" texts are you using the bible as your moral "compass"? Aren't you using the bible because you were brought up christian? If you were not brought up christian, what was the reason for your conversion? In either case, the reason is almost certain to be what other people told you and/or having read books written by other people. Even the bible itself was written, edited, translated, parts added and discarded, published and interpreted by people, many times over.

My great grandfather converted from Muslims to Christianity and my grandmother had come from the Hindus and I was brought up in a house where there was koran and Geeta (the hindu sacred texts) were also present as study material. And I did study them to the extent it was possible for me to get what they taught. I turned atheist because of some childhood problems and got concrete in it in my teens years. What paved my way of understanding was close to what you are saying right now. if all books claim there is a God, and they think only their God is the only God then how can I know which one is right, and since there can be only one God and all who lay claim to their own, there can not be any.

The same thought had occurred to me as I starting to have doubts about my religion and religions in general.

I turned Christian not because of the morality compass it teaches. but because i saw the power of God, his grace and love in some life changing events of my life.

Are you sure the "life changing events" were truly "god's work" and not merely the results of coincidence, human benevolence, or other non-supernatural causes.

And through that I know which one is my God (when some people think they have their Gods as well). All morality can come from the human mind only if it knows what not to do. That is not the issue however. Even if my morality comes from the Bible, if it says, do not kill, do not lie, do not steal, than does that make it any less authentic, just because others feel the same way or you read it in your school book or your conscious doesn't allow it but also remember to some people, religious or not religious, these morals do not have any affect, so even without religion you can not guarantee morality.

I'm not sure I follow you here. I think English may not be your primary language, (although it is generally excellent BTW) you might want to clarify this paragraph.

The Bible was written and edited by men but it was also inspired by God, does that make it less moral. not to mention if I disregard these holy books. turn to moral philosophy, Kant, Plato etc etc. Does that make it any different. the problem or the highlight is not morality, even Buddhists practice these morals. What makes it unique is the power of God, his love for the sinner and his redemption to him. That is unique and that for me the real reason I believe in it.

Admittedly, Jesus has some very good lessons to live by. But just because someone has some worthwhile philosophical ideas doesn't make him more than a man. Just because a book written hundreds of year after attributes some "miracles" (including his resurrection) to him doesn't prove his divinity.

If you are just trying to find God, in the works of men than you are just looking in the wrong place buddy.

I've pretty much given up trying to find god. I am trying to understand why others think they've found him.

Then I guess I have no idea why you consider my response "as vague as not responding".

because you were not clear that you see the implication of your pov, thats all.

I am sorry for the mixed up English, (English isn't my first language, ur rite about that ). My point was that if my morality comes from the bible and a non-religious person's morality comes from philosophy or conscious thought process, then at best it only proves that the chances of turning out moral or immoral in religion or non-religion (atheism or secularism, socialism or communism) is 50/50. Because religious people also commit atrocities in the name of God, atheists in the name of duty or greater good, criminals are found from both entities, as no matter how much morality you teach it ultimately boils down to each person individually to follow it or not. And that is why it is not the balance scale through which I weigh my faith. When the Bible says, do not kill, do not steal etc etc, it gives me a standard to follow, a non-religious person may learn it from his school teacher but that doesn't make my claim on morality or his any better than the other. What separates Christian God and the rest is not morality because a lot of people who do not have religion or are not Christian, are good loving people. What separates it, is the power of God, his grace and love, this is something I have not found in other religions/atheism which I have studied including major religions of the world. It only exists here.

Are you sure the "life changing events" were truly "god's work" and not merely the results of coincidence, human benevolence, or other non-supernatural causes.

No, I have no proof to show you that it was only God's work and not coincidence, but I still believe it was, you can look at it empirically. When I was an atheist, everything was coincidence, everything was an accident, it was a probability and you are only left to wonder why are we here in the first place, probably because of an accident, a coincidence. But then I looked back at my own experiences and asked my self can I explain any other way, why a certain thing happened in my life and I looked at all the coincidences and all the would be's or could be's. And then I reapplied the same thing to creation, our existence, to the fact that life has been on this planet for 3 billion years and I saw that it was a greater coincidence that every time an incident occurred, it supported our cause for living, as a matter of fact it created an atmosphere, a world which was exactly balanced to its very minute detail for the purpose that it could support life. How many coincidences have occurred, how many "if it had been slightly different we would not be here" are present? you can see for yourself, this is like you are playing roulette and you win continuously for 4 billion years. Because if it is all chance, a sudden accident, an unintelligent, un motivated force that unknowingly started it all then every once in a while the coin must land on the other face as well which it didn't. This is simply not possible or scientifically not probable. (This however was not the only approach that led me to God. )

Admittedly, Jesus has some very good lessons to live by. But just because someone has some worthwhile philosophical ideas doesn't make him more than a man. Just because a book written hundreds of year after attributes some "miracles" (including his resurrection) to him doesn't prove his divinity.

Very true indeed, but if you do see that man (Jesus) and witness his grace and love, then I suppose it ain't a bad idea to be sure about his divinity (and right here I can be accused of having a mental disorder, a delusional problem) but to put it simply, I tried him, I tried him repeatedly, I understand your doubts cuz I went though the same things. He didn't answer me every time I prayed but he was always there when I needed him and with time I started trusting him. To be honest when I turned from atheism, I had one thing in my mind, if I find one reason, one thing at all that doesn't makes sense, I will go back, but I didn't find any, and i am not talking about the church or how Christians behave, even the Bible, there have been people of faith when there was no Bible. I am talking about trusting God and in turn, be trusted. I was very skeptical about religion, still am but I am not anymore regarding Christ.

I've pretty much given up trying to find god.

May be someday he will find you.

waynepii wrote:Admittedly, Jesus has some very good lessons to live by. But just because someone has some worthwhile philosophical ideas doesn't make him more than a man. Just because a book written hundreds of year after attributes some "miracles" (including his resurrection) to him doesn't prove his divinity.

If his resurrection is true it most certainly proves his divinity since he claimed to be the son of God and prophesied his own resurrection. With that said, looking at the evidence for the resurrection one would have to suspend reason for them not to consider the resurrection plausible. Intellectual honesty demands at a minimum admitting the possibility of the resurrection being true, however agnostic one decides to remain (and make no mistake about it, it is a conscious decision to ignore the evidence to remain so).

neo-x wrote:

Then I guess I have no idea why you consider my response "as vague as not responding".

because you were not clear that you see the implication of your pov, thats all.

I am sorry for the mixed up English, (English isn't my first language, ur rite about that ).

Your English is better than many whose only language is English. I assumed you had edited your post and had left some "crumbs" of the unedited version (I certainly have done so on occasion). I was just alerting you that there seemed to be something wrong with that paragraph.

My point was that if my morality comes from the bible and a non-religious person's morality comes from philosophy or conscious thought process, then at best it only proves that the chances of turning out moral or immoral in religion or non-religion (atheism or secularism, socialism or communism) is 50/50.

I think a lot of a person's morality comes from their upbringing - parents, teachers, clergy, peers, etc.

Because religious people also commit atrocities in the name of God, atheists in the name of duty or greater good, criminals are found from both entities, as no matter how much morality you teach it ultimately boils down to each person individually to follow it or not.

Very true.

And that is why it is not the balance scale through which I weigh my faith. When the Bible says, do not kill, do not steal etc etc, it gives me a standard to follow, a non-religious person may learn it from his school teacher but that doesn't make my claim on morality or his any better than the other. What separates Christian God and the rest is not morality because a lot of people who do not have religion or are not Christian, are good loving people. What separates it, is the power of God, his grace and love, this is something I have not found in other religions/atheism which I have studied including major religions of the world. It only exists here.

Are you sure the "life changing events" were truly "god's work" and not merely the results of coincidence, human benevolence, or other non-supernatural causes.

No, I have no proof to show you that it was only God's work and not coincidence, but I still believe it was, you can look at it empirically. When I was an atheist, everything was coincidence, everything was an accident, it was a probability and you are only left to wonder why are we here in the first place, probably because of an accident, a coincidence. But then I looked back at my own experiences and asked my self can I explain any other way, why a certain thing happened in my life and I looked at all the coincidences and all the would be's or could be's. And then I reapplied the same thing to creation, our existence, to the fact that life has been on this planet for 3 billion years and I saw that it was a greater coincidence that every time an incident occurred, it supported our cause for living, as a matter of fact it created an atmosphere, a world which was exactly balanced to its very minute detail for the purpose that it could support life. How many coincidences have occurred, how many "if it had been slightly different we would not be here" are present? you can see for yourself, this is like you are playing roulette and you win continuously for 4 billion years. Because if it is all chance, a sudden accident, an unintelligent, un motivated force that unknowingly started it all then every once in a while the coin must land on the other face as well which it didn't. This is simply not possible or scientifically not probable. (This however was not the only approach that led me to God. )

I understand your point about how many things could have prevented life as we know it by being slightly different. But given that the known universe contains billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, the probability of at least one star having a planet with the correct parameters doesn't seem quite so daunting.

Admittedly, Jesus has some very good lessons to live by. But just because someone has some worthwhile philosophical ideas doesn't make him more than a man. Just because a book written hundreds of year after attributes some "miracles" (including his resurrection) to him doesn't prove his divinity.

Very true indeed, but if you do see that man (Jesus) and witness his grace and love, then I suppose it ain't a bad idea to be sure about his divinity (and right here I can be accused of having a mental disorder, a delusional problem) but to put it simply, I tried him, I tried him repeatedly, I understand your doubts cuz I went though the same things. He didn't answer me every time I prayed but he was always there when I needed him and with time I started trusting him. To be honest when I turned from atheism, I had one thing in my mind, if I find one reason, one thing at all that doesn't makes sense, I will go back, but I didn't find any, and i am not talking about the church or how Christians behave, even the Bible, there have been people of faith when there was no Bible. I am talking about trusting God and in turn, be trusted. I was very skeptical about religion, still am but I am not anymore regarding Christ.

When I was young, I was quite religious, even seriously thinking of entering the clergy. During that time, I considered every good thing that happened to me to be a blessing, for which I thanked god. But no matter how hard I tried to resist, doubts kept creeping in. The more research, thinking, and yes praying I did in an attempt to resolve my doubts, the more things I found that just didn't make sense. Eventually, I gave in and looked at things from a non-theist perspective. Looking at things non-theistically, I had fewer doubts and found what I considered much better answers. That was some 40 years ago, and while I keep an open mind concerning the existence of god (I really do, believe it or not), I have not seen anything to indicate god's existence. Several things seemed promising, but they all fell apart as I looked into them.

I've pretty much given up trying to find god.

May be someday he will find you.

One can only hope

Byblos wrote:

waynepii wrote:Admittedly, Jesus has some very good lessons to live by. But just because someone has some worthwhile philosophical ideas doesn't make him more than a man. Just because a book written hundreds of year after attributes some "miracles" (including his resurrection) to him doesn't prove his divinity.

If his resurrection is true it most certainly proves his divinity since he claimed to be the son of God and prophesied his own resurrection. With that said, looking at the evidence for the resurrection one would have to suspend reason for them not to consider the resurrection plausible. Intellectual honesty demands at a minimum admitting the possibility of the resurrection being true, however agnostic one decides to remain (and make no mistake about it, it is a conscious decision to ignore the evidence to remain so).

IF he was resurrected, I'd say that pretty much proves his divinity (or great favor with someone who is divine). BUT conclusive evidence that he was truly dead (not in a coma or other death-like state) and then arose from the dead after three days (not merely disappeared from his tomb) will be very hard to produce. AFAIK most of the "evidence" is heresay written many years after the events supposedly took place by people with an agenda. What do you consider the most compelling evidence?