(January 25, 2013 at 6:43 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: 1. I think it's silly to state that there is no evidence for a thing crammed full of evidence. It's a mistake to confuse 'scientific' evidence with evidence of all other sorts.
2. Note: an equivocal amount of evidence points to the Bible being true. Faith's an amazing thing, isn't it?
3.How could there be evidence produced by scientific method of a *metaphysical being*?
1. Crammed full of evidence? There's loose historical evidence that some things in the Bible aren't completely made up. But it's hard to argue that's "crammed." What evidence is there for God's existence? And for his attention and interference? I'd like to point out that a lack of understanding about our world and the consequential amazement of it doesn't count as evidence.
2. No. The parental factor can be decidedly known. Unambiguously, unequivocally. In contrast, there are thousands of translational differences among a variety of Biblical transcriptions. There are a multitude of contradictions. There's an obvious dearth of physical evidence for the body of Christ. The evidence to support these two ideas are nothing alike.
3. "He" could easily perform any number of interfering miracles like he was claimed to have done through Jesus. Because you hesitate to suppose of ways an "all powerful creator" could produce evidence doesn't mean it can't be done.
