The final and ultimate proof for the truth of Christianity

[Lorizael]

Since we have not yet encountered life on other planets, it is impossible to know what conditions life requires to evolve and survive. Therefore we do not know that Earth was crafted just right for life, we know only that the life seen on Earth can survive on a planet like Earth. There is no proof of god there.

[Sava]

dammit, why couldn't this thread just die!?

[Wernazuma III]

Why don't you like it Sava? I still enjoy it quite a bit.

[Lorizael]

To me it's just funny, because I'll have thought it had gone away and then all of a sudden, it'll have a new reply.

[Demerzel]

Having read through this mighty volume of replies, I'm (a) quite bored and (b) still wondering what evidence there is that proves God exists? An ancient book of tales does not constitute proof.

"Religion is the opiate for the masses"
Karl Marx.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Christianity is the only religion that teaches that Jesus Christ is the son of God. In no other religion does God love man and hate sin so much that he would put his Son through such suffering.

Right, it's not like this god didn't put man through all the suffering to begin with.

[QUOTE] Originally posted by obiwan18
To make it simple- if Christ is dead than Christians are mistaken. If Christ remained in his tomb than he is not the Son of God. Therefore, in order to prove Christ is the son of God, one must first prove the resurrection.[/qoute]

Not so fast. Lets get back to step one. Where is the evidence that there was a Jesus of Nazareth?

Originally posted by obiwan18
The body had to go somewhere. Bodies don't just evaporate into thin air.

No, bodies don't vanish into thin air, but there is no evidence that the body had always been there, either.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by JohnM2433
Regarding physics, if theories don't make contradictory predictions, I don't see that anything really needs reconciling, except for purposes of simplicity or aesthetics. After all... it's only a model. (Monty Python fans, insert your own Holy Grail joke here. )

Science and religion at no point contradict one another unless the specific religion makes disprovable predictions. Christianity certainly does not, so it is not at odds with science.

Interestingly atheism is a world view which makes predictions that could potentially be disproven by science (although they haven't yet) - I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing though. The thing which bothers me about atheists (but not atheism itself) is that they often claim that their belief is backed up by science, when there is absolutely no scientific evidence for atheism at all.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


Science and religion at no point contradict one another unless the specific religion makes disprovable predictions. Christianity certainly does not, so it is not at odds with science.

It makes claims disproven all the times, that's why Christianity of today is not identical to that 2000 years ago - although VERY slowly and with limited success - the Christian ideas changed with the evidence. If science were only a Christian matter, we would still try to figure out how this earth's peoples are related to Noah and his sons instead of making archaeological and anthropologic studies. Lucy seems to be much older than Adam, so how 'bout that?

The thing which bothers me about atheists (but not atheism itself) is that they often claim that their belief is backed up by science, when there is absolutely no scientific evidence for atheism at all.

That's right, no proof, but it's the "0-hypothesis". If I can't proof a hypothesis "There is X" (with a 95%+ probability), I have to accept the "0-Hypothesis", i.e. "There is no X." That doesn't mean it's proven either though, you're right.

[Sava]

This thread is stupid because the idea that Christianity is BS iS SO DAMN OBIVOUIS IT DOESN'T DESEVER A THREAD>.. sorry I
've had a lot to drink today..!

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


Science and religion at no point contradict one another unless the specific religion makes disprovable predictions. Christianity certainly does not, so it is not at odds with science.

Interestingly atheism is a world view which makes predictions that could potentially be disproven by science (although they haven't yet) - I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing though. The thing which bothers me about atheists (but not atheism itself) is that they often claim that their belief is backed up by science, when there is absolutely no scientific evidence for atheism at all.

You're wrong about atheism. It's not that I believe there is no god, it's that I do not believe that there is a god.

What this means is that thus far, there have been no physical phenomena to suggest the presence of an omnipotent, omniscient being. There have also been no direct or indirect observations of any omnipotent, omniscient being. Therefore, I simply do not consider the presence of such a being when making decisions in life.

That's real atheism. Or is that agnosticsm? I allow for the existence of god, but because the only evidence I've seen for god is that a lot of people say he's up there, I don't know why he would be there. A lot of people believe a lot of things that are very far from the truth. Belief does not dictate reality.

Atheism isn't about belief, it's about the absence of belief. It's not about making predictions or proving anything, it's simply stating that the existence of god shouldn't be an assumption. The assumption should be that the universe is built on a number of physical laws that dictate its behavior, and that's all. There is no need to add the supernatural into a model that, while not complete, works pretty damn well.

[Ben Kenobi]

*puts on asbestos longjohns*
Wernazuma, you are right about Allah, as far as I can tell it seems to be the same God.

All three religions, Judiasm, Islam, Christianity use the OT, although I am not very familiar with how the Q'uran presents the OT.

The primary difference between all three is the role of Christ. Moslems treat Christ as a prophet, although lesser than Mohammed. Jews, as far as I can tell, except for messianic jews, (essentially Christians with Jewish traditions), do not recognise Christ at all.

Please, step in if I have misrepresented your religion.
*removes asbestos longjohns*

Lorizael- you are agnostic so long as you do not rule out the existence of God. Atheists believe that the evidence proves there is no God, not that the evidence is uncertain. As for necessary conditions of life, we know some of what we need to exist, although it would greatly help having more dots on the graph.

"I tell my wife that she's free to sleep with another guy,"

Wernazuma- According to Genesis, God gave very careful instructions, allowing Adam and Eve to eat of any fruit except for one. A better analogy would be to say to your wife- you may not sleep with another man, and I will extend my home and my protection.

What do you do when your wife breaks the only rule that you set for her? God did not abandon Adam and Eve, rather he provided for them, giving them clothes. Yes, he punished them, but they chose to disobey.

As for dead babies, you must exclude those who die from war, malnutrition or neglect. Even though they are innocent, these can be attributed to human causes. How many cases remain?

Some people are born disabled. Is it fair for God to curse them? God is less interested in making things fair and even, but rather in what people do with what they are given. He challenges everyone in order to make them better. I don't know why some babies die, but this has forced us to look into the causes of death. Would we have reduced our infant mortality otherwise?

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by obiwan18
All three religions, Judiasm, Islam, Christianity use the OT, although I am not very familiar with how the Q'uran presents the OT.

Actually, the Q'uran doesn't include the OT, but it accepts the line of patriarchs and prophets and the overall stories of the OT. Yet, his understanding of the OT was very fuzzy and in many parts simly wrong. That's due to the fact that he knew about it only by hearsay and from judaeo-christian sects on tha Arab peninsula who sometimes had weird concepts - Arabia was a melting pot for heterodox faiths and heresies. The Islam accepts also "the evangelium", but he says that the scriptures of both Jews and Christians had been partially falsified, as Jesus was "only" a prophet and not son of God. To put it drastically: He declared every bit falsified that clashed directly with his own account of the History of Salvation (not though minor contradictions in civil things, like marriage laws etc. In these aspects they have a legitimation from God).
In his view the "original faith" had been a pact between God and Adam, but people fell off. Thus, God sent his prophets to renew this old faith. Every prophet before Muhammad was not less, but only the job incomplete.

Wernazuma- According to Genesis, God gave very careful instructions, allowing Adam and Eve to eat of any fruit except for one. A better analogy would be to say to your wife- you may not sleep with another man, and I will extend my home and my protection.
What do you do when your wife breaks the only rule that you set for her? God did not abandon Adam and Eve, rather he provided for them, giving them clothes. Yes, he punished them, but they chose to disobey.

Well, OK, the analogy was not the best one. But it's still funny that God created Eve/Adam in a way that they sinned. It's still his fault, he must have known it'd happen. So, if he loves his creation, why does he create it in a way that many of them have to go to hell?
What's all this fuzz about the possibility to "chose"? God created us and he knows from beforehand whether we fail or not. Thus he deliberately creates someone, say me, for hell. How loving!

As for dead babies, you must exclude those who die from war, malnutrition or neglect. Even though they are innocent, these can be attributed to human causes. How many cases remain?

Well, sudden child death? It must have killed humderd millions over history. That's just one cause. Other sicknesses must have killed even more. And again, the babies are just ONE example for the fact that our world is imperfect.

Would we have reduced our infant mortality otherwise?

We wouldn't ever have had one in that case.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Please, step in if I have misrepresented your religion.
*removes asbestos longjohns*

Lorizael- you are agnostic so long as you do not rule out the existence of God. Atheists believe that the evidence proves there is no God, not that the evidence is uncertain.

You have misrepresented my religion!

Atheism is lack of belief in a God or gods. It doesn't require "proof". Atheists merely say that there is no good reason to believe that deities exist, just as there is no good reason to believe that fairies exist. We generally don't believe in either (though it is technically possible for an atheist to believe in fairies, I've never encountered any atheists who aren't also afairyists).

However, it is certainly possible to prove "there is no God" in cases where the word "God" is clearly being used to describe a specific deity with characteristics that can be disproved. There is no Biblical God, due to Biblical contradictions and the falsehood of the Genesis creation myth (among other things). There is no "omnimax" God, due to the Problem of Evil.

Hence, it is usually correct for atheists to say "there is no God" to theists with certain fixed notions of what the word must mean.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Atheism is lack of belief in a God or gods. It doesn't require "proof". Atheists merely say that there is no good reason to believe that deities exist, just as there is no good reason to believe that fairies exist. We generally don't believe in either (though it is technically possible for an atheist to believe in fairies, I've never encountered any atheists who aren't also afairyists).

That is certainly not my definition of atheist.

From dictionary.com:

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being

To me this is a statement of belief that God does not exist.

For agnostic they have:

a) One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b) One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

I have no problem with agnosticism. (In fact, I have no problem with atheism - just with atheists who claim that their disbelief isn't a 'belief'. )

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
That is certainly not my definition of atheist.

From dictionary.com:

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being

To me this is a statement of belief that God does not exist.

For agnostic they have:

a) One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b) One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

I have no problem with agnosticism. (In fact, I have no problem with atheism - just with atheists who claim that their disbelief isn't a 'belief'. )

I think that in general atheists should be allowed to say what atheism means.

In any case, even the definition you provided says "disbelieves or denies". "Disbelieves" does not require a belief in the lack of a God (sometimes xcalled weak atheism), denial would require such a belief (sometimes called strong atheism). Strong atheism is a statement of faith/belief like any other, weak atheism is simply a lack of faith/belief.