What Would It Take?

[Godscreated]

 I have evidence God is real, undeniable evidence, thus you can produce nothing to the contrary, if you could it would have already been presented, yet not one iota of evidence has ever been given against God's existence. People have had thousands of years to find the evidence God does not exist and nothing, not one little tiny bit. I have my evidence, where's your evidence. The end is getting closer every day and soon enough Christ will come and those who have excepted Him as their savior will be perfect beings, so the future looks quite bright.

What evidence could possibly exist that "there is no God"? You tell us, so we can go find it. It can't be done. Why, you ask?

You're right there's no evidence God doesn't exist, ever wonder why, here's a hint, He does. This being so means there can never be evidence. Very illogical of you to think otherwise.

It's called "proving a negative", and it's one of the most basic mistakes of logic. If you want us to take you even remotely seriously, you're going to have to at least understand how logic works.

I made no mistake, the God I know is real, so there can be know negative, you want to stand behind a ridiculous term because you think it keeps you safe, to the contrary it puts you in eternal jeopardy.

If I was sitting here telling you that invisible pink dragons exist, and demanding that you "present one iota of evidence against the existence of invisible pink dragons", you would (rightly) think I was insane and an asshole.

You're trying to compare a fairy tale character that no one believes in to the God billions believe in, you just might be insane.

Our position is quite simple, and summed up by Stephen F. Roberts on one of the first internet atheism forums in 1996:

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

I've heard this so many times it's getting to be ridiculous. Atheist say they have no belief, yet the statement you used says you do, seems to me you guys need to get your story straight.

Thousands did when Christ walked the earth and I see the actions of God on a daily bases. I've never seen air but I breath it all the time, I see it's actions when it moves. Your evidence is no evidence at all, just your weak opinion.

GC

That's funny. "Thousands did"? Thousands of people saw God on earth, and nobody bothered to write to their cousins in Rome or Alexandria about it? None of the Jewish or Roman historians living in Judea at the time noticed any of these amazing events that the early Christians would later write, half a century or more later, as having occurred?

Most people could not read or write during those times and you very well know that, that was something for the wealthy. As for those you mentioned they would not get involved with a single preacher spreading something contrary to what they believed God was saying in the OT.

Heck, there were 80,000 people living in Jerusalem at the time of the events described, including the historians who wrote about all kinds of events during that time period in that city, yet fail to mention the darkness, the earthquake, the rending of the veil in the Holy of Holies, or the raising of the dead that walked around.

Many of those saw Christ, most couldn't write and the ones who could weren't going to say anything about Him, they wanted Him dead. How would the historians have know about those raised from the dead, they would have looked like regular people, people couldn't tell that Christ was once dead and raised from the dead. Many earthquakes were not recorded in the past and a darkened day could have and probably was like a very stormy sky, I've seen many myself. The veil well that was more of an observation the priest would see and would have told only a few people. 

If the veil was torn, how did the priests keep doing services before the Holy of Holies such that the Romans were able to "defile" it with a symbol of the emperor in the 60s, leading to the revolt and destruction of that temple? It wouldn't be necessary if it was already shut down due to the traumatic effect of a destroyed veil. Yet it's not even mentioned. The silence speaks volumes; everyone who wrote about that time period just goes on speaking of mundane things.

The veil was torn and like I said the priest weren't going out and announce something they probably believe would cause them more problems than they already had. They simply replaced the veil, then carried on as usual until the Romans destroyed the temple. Yes the silence from the priest does speak volumes, they still felt it necessary to hide the existence of Christ from the world, they must have known Christ had risen and continued with a cover-up.

Where are the historians, outside of Christian tradition? We know of a couple of dozen of them living in Jerusalem at the time, both Jewish and Roman (and others). He is claimed to have done many things that would have been worthy of widespread note, and yet the first historians to mention him are Josephus and Tacitus, neither of whom were even alive when Jesus died, and both of whom seem to refer to the followers of Jesus and their stories of him (usually at their execution trials, which is what Josephus was writing about), rather than directly to (nonexistent) records of TheManHimself™.

That's a question you should be asking yourself, why didn't they write about Jesus. We know the Jewish elite wouldn't, it would have destroyed their authority and their wealth. The Romans were not going to write about what they had heard others doing before Jesus, and they wouldn't chance putting another God before Caesar, they weren't willing to go to the cross for the truth.

Your arrogance in demanding that we "prove you wrong" when you are the one who must bring evidence, and you are the one apparently refusing to grasp what proving a negative is, is simply astounding to me.

Atheist like to toss around the word arrogance, especially when you are the ones being arrogant. I've already told you what I think about your negative.

You cannot prove that Marduk doesn't exist. Or Allah. Or Ganesha. You can't prove that Cthulhu isn't reading this conversation. And neither can I. When you truly understand why you have dismissed all the other possible gods, you will see why I dismiss yours. Not BS excuses about "I accepted the Biblical evidence", but why/how you can so clearly see that the thousands of years the Greeks spent wasting their time on Zeus just made them silly and having "personal experiences" and prayers to nothing, yet you cannot look at your own beliefs and see that we can't tell a difference between the two.

What I see is someone afraid to find the truth about God, which you are. If you were to find out that God does exist you would have to change your life and apologize for all the things you've said to Christians, not to us but to God.
I do not need to disprove those other gods, seems history has eliminated them. God says He is the only God and because I know Him personally I do not need bother myself with false gods. 

---

Addendum: By the way, I've seen air. I've shot light beams through it and tested its spectral composition. I can tell you the Ideal Gas Equation that lets me calculate exactly how much air there is, what pressure it's under per volume and temperature, and what it will mass. Your asserted deity isn't just invisible, he's untestable. Why? Simple: he's not real. Your entire "evidence for" consists of "But I feel it, really really feel it!" 

I do not do anything with just by feeling, especially when it come so God. You can't see air, the results yes, just as I see the results of God, why, because I'm looking and you're denying. 

GC