proof of end times?

[Psalm 23]

Not really lol. If we're thinking "What if?" what will you do if a giant chariot made of crocodile meat comes to earth instead of Jesus? And he's evil and he destroys the universe. Earth heaven and hell. Everything. But the souls remain and everyone, whether good bad evil, hero or son of God's soul's are tortured for all eternity.

The question was, "What if Jesus Christ does return to Earth?" Can you please answer the question, and try not to respond to my question with a question. That's not how a debate session works..

Seen as we're just thinking "what if?" and ignoring probability here! THAT would be a scary moment for EVERYONE.

I would be on the first flight to Israel!

I'm not talking about absolute evidence. I am talking about current evidence in practice.
If you're suggesting that God isn't probable because there's no evidence whatsoever of his evidence...would you be willing to say the same equally about ALL the other Gods? Zeus? Thor? Allah? Or anything supernatural like the FSM or the IPU?

The "lack of evidence" argument only works if every possible angle has been studied. Can I say for 100 percent fact that Thor and Allah are imaginary gods? Answer, No I cannot. I can't prove they were not gods.

Errrr no. There could just as easily be a God that hates belief in him and damns all believers to hell and doesn't to the disbelievers. Or even sends the disbelievers to heaven because he approves of doubt.

That's right.. A god could exist that sends all believers to Hell and send all atheists to Heaven, but wait!! Why would atheists want to spend eternity in Heaven with a God who they believed was imaginary? I guess that would make you believe in him? Secondly, Pascal's wager is not a doubt. I believe in God. But if he doesn't exist, I win.
It's a response to the question, 'What if?" if God doesn't exist, I win.

As there is no evidence of a God at all. There is no evidence that IF there is a God he will approve believing in him anymore than doubting or disbelieving him/her/it.

That's correct. There is no evidence whatsoever of God approving of those who believe and disbelieve. All we have are ancient manuscripts that give detailed accounts of ancient man speaking to God through Visions and Dreams. Why should I believe these men? I don't know them,, are they liars? Were they on drugs that made these visions appear? Who knows? I don't, and neither do you.

Sounds like Pascal's Wager to me. A truly spineless argument with no merit or value other than self-deluded placebo.

Pascal's Wager is the ultimate answer to the question, 'What if?'

But there's no reason to believe Jesus will return. As there is no evidence he is the son of God or that there will be a second coming or that any God or anything supernatural exists at all.

That's right! There is no evidence Jesus will return, and there is no evidence he was the Son of God. However, on that note, you cannot disprove these claims. In reality, all you can say is, "I don't believe it." And all I can say is, "I believe it happened." In the end, no one wins. Because neither party can display any proof.

So why don't you think a purple alien named "bloop" will come to earth and save us instead? Because the bible doesn't say so? There is no logical reason to believe that the bible has any evidence of God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit or anything Supernatural's existence at all.

You don't have to believe the Bible was inspired by a supernatural deity. But it doesn't mean you're correct. It means you simply don't believe. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why don't you believe in Bloop instead?

Because I don't want to believe in Bloop? My religion is extremely commanding about worshipping other gods, idols or statues.

Because of a book full of bullshit?

Warning, your opinion on my Holy Bible is making you a less credible debater.

[Ace Otana]

There is no evidence Jesus will return, and there is no evidence he was the Son of God. However, on that note, you cannot disprove these claims. In reality, all you can say is, "I don't believe it." And all I can say is, "I believe it happened." In the end, no one wins. Because neither party can display any proof.

Yes, I cannot disprove god, just as you cannot disprove santa claws. You can believe something that can very well be wrong. Evidence is greatly important. Without it, all we'd have is stories with nothing to support it.

Now, weather you see evidence as invalid or not, I need it. Without it, there can be no way for me to be convinced.

I will not turn away from science and into superstition all because someone mentioned it. I need evidence of god. if there is none then I will dismiss the claim as false.
Like when people kept telling me about ghosts and such. They always mentioned that, it was the ghosts that causes sounds in buildings, well, I looked into science and found other causes and so I dismissed the ghost claims.

Even though we cannot disprove just as you cannot prove, we can dismiss it.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You claim, and so it's down to you to prove it. So....evidence please

[Ace Otana]

Warning, your opinion on my Holy Bible is making you a less credible debater.

Well I actually feel the same way about the book. A Lot of people feel the exact same way.

[Tiberius]

The question was, "What if Jesus Christ does return to Earth?" Can you please answer the question, and try not to respond to my question with a question. That's not how a debate session works..

If Jesus returned to earth I would have a few questions for him, concerning the inaccuracies in the Bible, and why God allows suffering, etc. But I guess I'd repent and believe. Of course he'd have to prove he was Jesus first. I expect to see him fly down from Heaven, heal amputees, etc.

The "lack of evidence" argument only works if every possible angle has been studied. Can I say for 100 percent fact that Thor and Allah are imaginary gods? Answer, No I cannot. I can't prove they were not gods.

So you are rather agnostic about your faith. Thats always good. The question that now arises is why you believe in the God you do and not in any of the others.

Pascal's Wager is the ultimate answer to the question, 'What if?'

Pascal's wager doesn't answer anything. It is a failed wager on why you should believe in Gods. It says that if you believe in God and God exists, you go to Heaven whilst an atheist goes to Hell. If God doesn't exist, nothing happens to either party. At first look, it seems like the believer is the winner. This is not the case, because the wager forgets to mention other gods that the theist doesn't believe in. What if Thor were to exist? Then the theist and the atheist would both be condemned. Same goes with Allah and almost every other possible kind of God. At the end of the day, the theist has such a low "advantage" over the atheist that it makes the whole wager pointless. It also assumes that you can easily decide to believe in God and mean it, and further, that the God would overlook your dishonesty just because you are claiming to believe when you really don't. According to Pascal, feigning belief is enough to get you into Heaven.

Warning, your opinion on my Holy Bible is making you a less credible debater.

??? Since when were you not allowed to call "bullshit" in debates? The Bible is full of bullshit, and I can show you some very good examples.

[Ace Otana]

Psalm 23, you know when I mentioned alot of criticism? Well the bible is included, as well as jesus, Allah and many more.

The bible in my view and others here, is bullshit.

[Psalm 23]

Yes, I cannot disprove god, just as you cannot disprove santa claws. You can believe something that can very well be wrong. Evidence is greatly important. Without it, all we'd have is stories with nothing to support it.

I know my faith in the Christian God could be wrong, but I haven't had any reason to think otherwise.

I will not turn away from science and into superstition all because someone mentioned it. I need evidence of god. if there is none then I will dismiss the claim as false.

No one is asking you to turn away from Science and believe the bible. If you notice most of my arguements are based from, "I don't know, and neither do you."

Like when people kept telling me about ghosts and such. They always mentioned that, it was the ghosts that causes sounds in buildings, well, I looked into science and found other causes and so I dismissed the ghost claims.

Modern Ghost hunters are capable of detecting high levels of energy in a room. They believe this energy is actually ghosts. I believe there is a program called, "Ghost Hunters," and they document live recordings of ghosts or spirits.

Even though we cannot disprove just as you cannot prove, we can dismiss it.

You can dismiss the existence of God and or ghosts all you want to, but that doesn't mean these two are non-existent. That means you have no faith. That's all.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The writers of the bible had the evidence during the time it was being written. Of course a story can easily be questioned 3,500 years later. Heck, that's the easy part.

You claim, and so it's down to you to prove it. So....evidence please

It's unfortunate I cannot prove God's existence to you. This is the fine line between faith and evidence.

---

If Jesus returned to earth I would have a few questions for him, concerning the inaccuracies in the Bible, and why God allows suffering, etc.

All of those questions would be answered. What better way than go straight to the horses mouth? Don't listen to 2.1 billion believers because you will get 2.1 billion different reasons and answers.

But I guess I'd repent and believe. Of course he'd have to prove he was Jesus first. I expect to see him fly down from Heaven, heal amputees, etc.

There are several verses in the New Testament where is shows that Jesus healed amputees. Jesus healed the lame so they could walk again, and he also healed an amputated ear. Jesus created an entire human body from dust. I'm sure making an amputated limb reappear would be no trouble.

So you are rather agnostic about your faith. Thats always good. The question that now arises is why you believe in the God you do and not in any of the others.

I wouldn't call it "agnostic." However, I do believe Yahweh is the only true God. But can I prove it? No. I can't.

Pascal's wager doesn't answer anything. It is a failed wager on why you should believe in Gods. It says that if you believe in God and God exists, you go to Heaven whilst an atheist goes to Hell. If God doesn't exist, nothing happens to either party. At first look, it seems like the believer is the winner. This is not the case, because the wager forgets to mention other gods that the theist doesn't believe in. What if Thor were to exist?

I'm not sure if Thor commanded people to a place called 'eternal damnation" if they didn't worship him. I believe Islam and Christianity are the only two monotheistic religions that give a detailed account of the afterlife. Heaven or Hell.

At the end of the day, the theist has such a low "advantage" over the atheist that it makes the whole wager pointless.

Not really because the theist have chosen to worship a God. Where the atheists have erased God completely. It's like the lottery.. you have to play to win.

It also assumes that you can easily decide to believe in God and mean it, and further, that the God would overlook your dishonesty just because you are claiming to believe when you really don't. According to Pascal, feigning belief is enough to get you into Heaven.

I believe God exists, and his Omniscient Mind is aware of that. If I look into the Heavens and say, "God, if you are listening, I want you to answer my prayer." Now, by saying that, does that mean I put my faith in question? Answer, Not really.

??? Since when were you not allowed to call "bullshit" in debates? The Bible is full of bullshit, and I can show you some very good examples.

It's perfectly normal to have an opinion on a book, but to say it's "bullshit" doesn't actually benefit your arguement.

I'm assuming you have thoroughly studied ancient Hebrew and Greek to come to that conclusion?

[Tiberius]

There are several verses in the New Testament where is shows that Jesus healed amputees. Jesus healed the lame so they could walk again, and he also healed an amputated ear. Jesus created an entire human body from dust. I'm sure making an amputated limb reappear would be no trouble.

The problem you have there is that we have no external sources to back up the claims of the New Testament. There are no historical references to Jesus doing anything spectacular other than the ones in the Bible.

I wouldn't call it "agnostic." However, I do believe Yahweh is the only true God. But can I prove it? No. I can't.

I've bolded the bit that is important. That question and answer are the exact definition of agnosticism.

I'm not sure if Thor commanded people to a place called 'eternal damnation" if they didn't worship him. I believe Islam and Christianity are the only two monotheistic religions that give a detailed account of the afterlife. Heaven or Hell.

Most religions have a concept of Heaven and Hell, or at least some forms of punishment. Both Romans and Greeks had several variants.

Not really because the theist have chosen to worship a God. Where the atheists have erased God completely. It's like the lottery.. you have to play to win.

That's not the point at all. The point is that there are multiple lotteries, in which we both are not playing. Thus we are all taking "risks".

I believe God exists, and his Omniscient Mind is aware of that. If I look into the Heavens and say, "God, if you are listening, I want you to answer my prayer." Now, by saying that, does that mean I put my faith in question? Answer, Not really.

I never said you were. My point is that Pascal's wager assumes that the God is an ignorant fool who likes people who lie about believing in it. Even if I found Pascals wager to be a good reason to believe, I couldn't just start believing. I'd have to have the evidence before I did that.

It's perfectly normal to have an opinion on a book, but to say it's "bullshit" doesn't actually benefit your arguement.

I'm assuming you have thoroughly studied ancient Hebrew and Greek to come to that conclusion?

It doesn't benefit the argument, but it puts your opinion across (which is what debates are for). And no, I did not study ancient Hebrew, or Greek. I read the Bible.

[Ace Otana]

Modern Ghost hunters are capable of detecting high levels of energy in a room. They believe this energy is actually ghosts. I believe there is a program called, "Ghost Hunters," and they document live recordings of ghosts or spirits.

More like floating dust particles caught by night time cameras and perceived by superstitious nutcases.

Now every building moves, especially wooden ones, now these places are old and often hold alot of wood and they will make noises due to temperatures in and out side. There would be plenty of dust and a little whiff of air caused by someones foot or breath may be more than enough to move the dust causing it to float in front of the camera, and adding the natural sounds of the structure + insane adults = overactive imagination taking hold. It's crazy and unscientific. I had watched this once, where Atheists would investigate and they say, it's perfectly normal for what you see and hear. Why do you think they only investigate at night and in old places? At that time of day is the best time to catch floating dust and noises, since there is no other sound and there is hardly any light. It makes it easier to hear when there is no noise outside and to see the glow effect from the dust at night.

It's unfortunate I cannot prove God's existence to you. This is the fine line between faith and evidence.

Then we can agree. I can never believe it. Since you have no evidence I must dismiss it. I go by evidence not blind faith.

[Psalm 23]

The problem you have there is that we have no external sources to back up the claims of the New Testament. There are no historical references to Jesus doing anything spectacular other than the ones in the Bible.

There is no need for external sources. You must remember, hearsay and eyewitness accounts was the only way information was spread in ancient Israel. Secondly, we have four Gospel records that include passages that mention this Messiah named Jesus healing "lame legged" people. "Lame" was considered, "Impossible to walk." An amputee could very easily fit that category.

I've bolded the bit that is important. That question and answer are the exact definition of agnosticism.

Agnosticism says, "There may be a God, or there may not be." I believe there is a God. I don't say, "There may not be a God." I do not doubt my belief in God in any manner. I say I believe in God, but I cannot prove him. That does not mean I think "he may not be there." You are confused...

Most religions have a concept of Heaven and Hell, or at least some forms of punishment. Both Romans and Greeks had several variants.

Yes, but I do not believe any other religion casts unbelievers into Hell like Christianity and Islam. So, therefore, If Thor is the one and only true god.. I am in no danger of Hellfire.

That's not the point at all. The point is that there are multiple lotteries, in which we both are not playing. Thus we are all taking "risks".

Everyone is taking a risk, and that includes, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists...etc..etc, but atheists choose to take the larger risk by not obeying any sort of God or gods. Atheists are pretty much in a lose-lose situation. Unless there is a higher being that is opposed to the idea of god.. and then it looks like the atheists might be saved..? You never know what is out there.. No one knows.

I never said you were. My point is that Pascal's wager assumes that the God is an ignorant fool who likes people who lie about believing in it. Even if I found Pascals wager to be a good reason to believe, I couldn't just start believing. I'd have to have the evidence before I did that.

God knows who is truthful and who is false. He is Omniscient. He knows everything. Pascal Wager only works if God is truly Omniscient. Understand?

It doesn't benefit the argument, but it puts your opinion across (which is what debates are for). And no, I did not study ancient Hebrew, or Greek. I read the Bible.

Yes, understanding ancient Hebrew and Greek does have a large benefit. I've had literally hundreds of atheists approach me and say, "Jesus said we are supposed to HATE our parents in order to be his Disciple!" .. and they go on to slander Jesus and say, "What kind of sick God would say something like that!!?"

Well, now here's where the problem comes in. Jesus used the word, "Si'nah" in Hebrew, which means, "To love lesser than." Jesus was simply addressing his Disciples that they must love God more than their family. But to an untrained eye, it looks like Jesus was telling a crowd of people to HATE their parents! That is so, so untrue!!

Jesus lived by the Law, and the Law is, "Honor thy Mother and Father."

[Ace Otana]

Everyone is taking a risk, and that includes, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists...etc..etc, but atheists choose to take the larger risk by not obeying any sort of God or gods. Atheists are pretty much in a lose-lose situation. Unless there is a higher being that is opposed to the idea of god.. and then it looks like the atheists might be saved..? You never know what is out there.. No one knows.

Well, I think it's safe being an atheist because if god is all knowing, he'd know why I'm an atheist. Think about it, all those gods, no evidence for any of them, and so I choose to step back and have nothing to do with religion. God should be able to understand that, if he doesn't then why call him god?

Also if god tortures people just because people doubt his existence due to lack of evidence which is a good reason to doubt then he is extremely immoral. Also I wouldn't worship this arsehole, since it would be like worshiping the devil. This god sounds immoral and not all knowing at all. So why call him god?

I didn't know there was a lovely girl called Katy that I feel in love with till I meet her. I've only heard of god through stories and not actually seeing him for my self. Also there are so many gods, and so it is reasonable to choose not to follow any of them till one of them proves themselves by evidence. Which no one has ever archived.

So if this god does harm people because of dis-belief then, existing or not, this god thing is an arsehole. Not worthy of worship apart from devil worshipers. So as you can see, even if you did prove gods existence, I will not worship this monster.

Also, buddhists don't actually believe in god You have no idea how many theists mistake this.