Evidence that God exists

[Kyuuketsuki]

I allege the opposite to what you are stating. I think God did do the miracles recorded in the Bible. I also think that it's poignant that these miracles are not provable.

I restate that if miracles occur there must, in principle at least, be evidence for them.

Jesus said "you see me, yet you still don't believe" (fr0d0 paraphrase ©) . Even with a personal encounter, there is no proof even to the person experiencing it, that it happened. God says again and again about the necessity of faith to reap the rewards offered. This is very different from a scientific subject of study.

That is only because scientists can't currently fully visualise brain activity, recent research (in Japan as I recall) has managed to get visual feedback from human subjects ... the visualisation is poor but it seems to me it's only a matter of time before people's thoughts, dreams and personal religious experiences" become something that we can all view in glorious three-dimensional Technicolor.

It's not a "necessity" that God works miracles. That he has, is very nice, thankyou. Our only hope would be that this would lead us to discover more about him.

It would be nice to discover anything about "him" at all including whether or not "he" actually exists.

"As a matter of fact", in the sense of provable fact, no, God does not supply. So in that sense you are right. A factual historian will never ever be able to prove the existence of God. I, on the other hand, have faith, and I believe that God did (and does) indeed do miracles as described in the Bible.

And faith is all you have, faith without (and often in spite of) the evidence.

I wouldn't be able to predict the workings of God. That would be impossible of course. Given precedent however, I could assume that God will never work a miracle that would be provable, yes.

Yeah, yeah, "God's" plan is ineffable ... yawn!

You cannot know in any provable sense, is my point, No.

Nothing, in principle, is beyond scientific investigation.

It is indeed a claim incapable of being supported by fact. Precisely.

And this of no value whatsoever.

You presume that God could not provably doing anything = God not actually doing something. This is incorrect.

And only theists can think in that fashion. You know it's a really simple concept ... in order for something to happen it must affect our universe, if something affects our universe then it MUST leave evidence, if there is evidence then it is (at least potentially) investigable by science. Given that a phenomenon itself is evidence, you are in essence saying we can't even see "God's" miracles ... if so, what's the point? They might as well have never happened.

God is constantly revealing himself to everyone, in every moment. You are like a naked person in a desert with no possible shelter, and he is the Sun.

You mean like a flasher? Sorry ... that just slipped out!

You know I've looked across the street, in the parks, in the countryside, in the cupboard, in my drawers, in my pockets, my socks and even my undies and I have never, anywhere at all, seen the vaguest sign of your god or any other. So no, you god is most definitely not everywhere.

The implication is that the revelation of truth is constantly available, It is up to the individual to accept it or not, with complete choice. It would be correct, given the model, for either choice to be perfectly reasonable.

And the free will argument raises it's head.

To some it was clear, and yet to people standing next to them, seeing and hearing exactly the same thing, it was not. This perfectly follows my proposition I think.

An unsupported biblical claoim.

None of this addresses the real nature of God though.

Which is (and I'm betting you won't say)?

To me the effects of Christianity are immediate, in a sense. Life and death as defined as heaven and hell aren't to do with some heebie jeebie unknown life after death nonsense, they're about our lives now. You can live both by the choices you make; you either grasp life or you rot and decay letting it go. This isn't my unique idea BTW, it's a mainstream one. When you die, you'll carry on in the memories of those you affected, and in the artifacts you leave behind. That's all.

So just a twist in the usual fairy tale nonsense?

As there's overwhelming proof that he doesn't, it only serves to bolster my argument. Win win. Truth.

Sigh! Only a theist could use the lack of evidence as proof.

Kyu