Most atheists simply think that there is no evidence that God does exist. Is there any evidence that he actually does not exist?
How would you propose going about providing evidence for the lack of something's existence? I'm told that can't be done. Try it yourself with 'Russell's Teapot'. Just for frame of reference, because I have no idea if you've heard of it or not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
I guess you might be able to disprove specific God, but the Christian God is a little vague and can be redefined. When the bible said the earth was created in 6 days (from morning to evening), science found it was around 14,500,000,000 years before humans came around. Now those passages are called metaphorical. This evidence seems to support your point.
I think the only way to evidence how something isn't is to have it around to compare those notions to how it is.
I have an invisible dragon living in my house. You can't see, feel, smell, or interact with him, but I know he's there because he speaks to me.
I have an invisible current running around my home. You can't see, feel, smell, or interact with it, but I know she's there because I once plugged a device into the AC outlet and it powered on. Or perhaps in this case I did 'interact' with it, but let's not quibble over semantics. The point is just it was there. Kind of like my tv being able to pick up signals and then displaying them through a mass of electronics. In the case of God, Christians do indeed interact with Him through the Holy Spirit. Think of this as an intravenous spiritual tube that can't be seen, felt, or smelt.
I understand what you mean by the "spiritual tube that can't be seen, felt, or smelt," and want to add that Christians aren't the only ones who interact with God.
I am not so sure if God exists or not. But I do know that you can't argue faith with reason...faith defies reason.
Practitioners of Voodoo also have a Spirit they claim to interact with. If you ever have a chance to watch someone go into a voodoo trance you will notice how similar it is to folks that claim to be overcome with the Holy Spirit. Folks doing such things was not considered a good thing by the early Church, hence why Montanism was considered heresy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanism There were many pagan religions where folks would go into these extatic frenzies which is probably why it was contrary to Church custom according to Eusebius.
I care not for your musings on the matter, I care for the truth and the truth is what I claim in the name of Jesus.
Many folks make many claims in the name of Jesus. Claiming something in the name of Jesus has little to do with what is truth though. The Catholic church tortured people horribly, persecuted and killed Jews, and stole land and committed genocide in the name of Jesus back in the day. Jesus councils not to swear oaths .. claiming a truth in the name of Jesus is similar to swearing oaths IMO. I would also redirect you to Matt 24 where Jesus talks about false prophets: Claiming to speak for Jesus is akin to claiming "here is the Messiah"
Claiming you speak to the word of Jesus and claming "the truth is what I claim in the name of Jesus" are two completely different claims. I speak to the words of Jesus and what Jesus warned against was folks who claim "here is the Messiah" Saying "The truth is what I claim in the name of Jesus" IMO, is the type of talk Jesus is warning against.
This is the irony of Atheist and Believers going at it. Neither side can prove or disprove the position of the other. Ultimately, people just support which ever belief they hope is truth.
Agnostics are fence sitters, unwilling to make a choice hence that is their choice and it's always the wrong choice. At least making a choice you have some odds that you have it right. Some think being an agnostic or following mulitiple religions they have it covered. That they are holding out on their options. They do not, they actually serve man in general and themself in specific.
We're not going at it. We're sharing our belief or lack of belief. There's a difference. For me it's not a hope, it's reality and it's a relationship with the Creator. The secular world and those that follow false teachings will come to the knowledge of the Lord.
I wasn't referring to this thread specifically. This debate is as old as the concept of creation itself. You mean to say that you perceive your view to be reality. And FYI, I don't really have any problem with Christians or the faith itself. I've had some great Christian friends in life, and spent a fair portion of my life trying to live the Christian way. On occasion, I still take a gander at the book of Proverbs, my favorite book of the Bible. I also like some of Psalms, and of course some of the writing in red.
No, I didn't mean "percieve". I know. Just because you cannot comprehend this, means not that it isn't reality.
Have you ever wondered if the description of the god(s) are where the errors are? I mean, the fact is that many claim to be divided from some 'thing' that is their creator but then of science, the reality is, there is no divide from anything, except by belief. For example; when mankind per se ate from the tree of knowledge, he then was per se kicked out of the garden of eden. But did we ever leave? Do you eat, breath, sleep and live within 'the garden' (nature/the universe) in fact? Are we all just lives within and upon this earth and bound to nature, the air, the soil, the water and everything of nature, in fact? If mankind was just instinctive within nature and then a 'day of choice' was the day the consious mind was born, is it possible mankind became aware of itself and then began to create its own divide from 'the garden'? If you know in fact that you are a part of the garden and that all phenomenon you ever experienced was just a natural process that can and will eventually be described; could the garden itself be 'god' (our creator)? So by redefining what 'god' is, could a bridge exist? Could 'god' then exist?
I am sure God is in some need of redefinition, however he is also in need of a little bit of evidence.
