Part 30 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity>>>MOD ALERT<<<

You keep saying they don't exist, but even when proof is given to you, you can't refute them. You just refuse to acknowledge. Sounds more like denial to me.

 

Using the Bible to prove the story of the Bible is true is rather problematic.
Got anything else?

 

Evidence is not synonymous with fact. I reject your evidence as proof of God because it does not meet my criteria of empirical proof. Like you said previously; "There's no direct proof", thus there is nothing but 2nd hand evidence which may or may not be accurate and is anything other than empirical proof of God.

 

Seems to me like you just refuse to accept the evidence. You can't refute the evidence either, which is pretty funny.

 

Supernatural claims require extraordinary evidence.
As a believer in one religion, I'm sure you put other religions through a microscope when others try to post proofs of their truths. Why would expect a "pass" on your own?

 

Oh. "Your" empirical evidence, huh? So tell me... Using your standards for evidence, does it also show that macroevolution is factual? I'm just curious. Perhaps your standards are so strong that we can determine the truthfulness of other things we are unsure of.

 

Prove that something that didn't happen didn't happen?

Irving Stone wrote an excellent history of the life of Michelangelo. It was extensively researched and you can actually use it a tour guide to the works of the artist (I've done it). It has detailed description of the art and the places it was created. The author used some of Michelangelo's own letters to back up his writing.

But it is still a work of fiction. Could I prove that some of what the author said Michelangelo's character said didn't really happen? No. Does that mean he said them? No.

 

Irrelevant.
Supernatural claims don't require extraordinary evidence. So, do you believe the Miracle of the Sun requires extraordinary evidence?
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

Oh, how about the Wooden Akita Statue that was confirmed to bleed and cry human tears. The blood and the tears were tested by scientists as well.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Akita

I want you to refute these claims and prove they are not true. Also refute the evidence of Jesus Christ's resurrection, and if you have time, refute everything else that doesn't line up with your world view.

 

You can certainly prove that something didn't happen by providing evidence to the contrary. So, do it. Make it happen. Give me indisputable evidence that contradicts Jesus' resurrection.

 

So your proof is based upon the words contained in the Bible and I would assume your own personal prayer and meditation... and I say there is nothing wrong with that! But people like me who base proof in the empirical are not satisfied by blind faith of an ancient tome.

Perhaps your basis of truth is the Bible, mine is science, and I argue that both have their flaws. But what I like about science is that pending new evidence a new conclusion can be made... but IMO in religion one is bound to the dictates of ancient claims that cannot be backed up with empirical evidence.

 

Give me irrefutable evidence that man wasn't created from two ears of corn.

If you are going to make the claim that Jesus was resurrected from the dead then it is up to you to provide proofs.
Circular logic (the story is true because the story says so) isn't proof. It's faith. Which I have no problems with. But stop trying to claim
it is proof.

 

I did provide the proof. Now, its your turn to provide contrary evidence that disproves it.

And it's easy to disprove that man wasn't created from two ears of corn, because the basic elements that are in humans are *all* found in the dirt. Corn does not share this characteristic.
Source: http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/1998/September/erseptember.21/9_21_98Size.html
Source (2): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body

 

Please post quote of me saying that I have empirical evidence of anything.

No need as I see macroevolution as the hypothesis that relies upon the fewest assumptions and anything but empirical and irrefutable fact. Like I have argued previously, go back far enough on an evolutionary timeline and one will inexorably arrive at a point where one must admit that they do not know.

 

Hilarious. You argue a God with no limits, all-powerful and all knowing, yet you have the audacity to claim He couldn't make humans from corn.
What's up with that?

 

The inability to prove the negative is not proof of the positive. To believe otherwise is illogical by my measure of logic.

 

In your mind you believe it to be true however not everyone agrees with you.

No, again that's your belief/theory/opinion/assumption. And so you can't say it's factual.

And human... end with the letters an...write that down in your notebook!

Or they are all commonly referred to as monkeys...right?

I spotted an error, here is the correction: The second of these two groups of APES...Hominidae consists of orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos. Alternatively, the hominidae family are collectively described as the great apes.

It's a theory you believe in and so why do you insist it is a fact?

Here is an example of a fact: It's a fact that you believe in a theory.

Mitt Ryan

 

You mean your inability. Just admit you can't disprove the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

We can all play this ... prove that Christ wasn't resurrected by space aliens.

 

That's pretty easy. Just like I disproved the idea that humans were made from corn and you cracked. If space aliens resurrected Jesus, we'd have testimonials of the aliens, however, there are no such records. You can read the source I provided you earlier for confirmation.

 

Not if the aliens DIDN'T want people to know. Everybody knows about the Prime Directive.
You're not very good at this game.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

What's really sad is that you can't admit what you're spouting is a theory...and so why do you insist it is a fact?

I will respect what you say more if you only say you believe something to be true but you can't prove it's factual because it's really just a theory.

 

I can and have refuted it ... as hearsay evidence. There are glimpses of a man (Jesus) we can glean from reading the New Testament, but we can't just outright accept the claims of supernatural events and of this man also being God.. I mean, maybe you can, but I and other rational people can't. And I'm still waiting for a reply to my other posts, Qchan.

 

You want proof of something that never happened? How does one prove something that never happened, just curious?
Can you prove unicorns never ate junk food?
https://justunicorns.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/what-do-unicorns-eat/

 

I sure can. All I need to do is prove Mystical Unicorns (Horses with horns on their heads) never existed. We can easily do that by checking the fossil record:
Source: https://paleobiodb.org/navigator/

- - - Updated - - -

You have done no such thing. You can scream and yell that Jesus never resurrected until you're blue in the face. Until you provide facts disproving the empirical facts already out there, then you're just blabbering.

 

Admitted but a moot point as I have never claimed the resurrection did not happen. But this does nothing to diminish my argument that "The inability to prove the negative is not proof of the positive. To believe otherwise is illogical by my measure of logic."