Why is Your God(s) True and Others False?

Welp, there's all those miracles that have happened. And all those prophecies made thousands of years before Jesus that were fulfilled. AND all those people that saw the resurrection. But surely that's not enough proof, it never is, is it?

 

No one can tell someone else that their God is "false" because, honestly, no one really knows who's right. Everyone's personal God is true to them, even if no one else shares their belief.

Unless you saw these first hand and have some sort of video record of them or something, they can't really be considered "proof". Some say they happened, and some say they didn't. There is no proof, so no one knows for sure. But if that's what you believe, then it's true for you, and it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks.

 

Even then, video CAN be edited. It is impossible to prove past events beyond a doubt.

 

I thought about that before I posted, but decided that was still the most reliable form of proof (even though nowadays it's not that reliable at all).

So yes, again, there is really no way to prove anyone right or wrong.

 

I don't consider the events in one book, written 2000 years ago and translated half a dozen times, with errors becoming more and more likely each time, with no corroboration, proof by any stretch of the imagination. Give me alternative sources, in the original format, dated to 1-33 AD, and maybe then, I'll believe you. As it is, no, there is not enough proof for a scientific analysis. I can write a book with a thousand vague prophecies as well as the next guy. I can also write down that I can fart gold and walk on clouds, but that doesn't mean I'm telling the truth.

 

There are ways to prove someone wrong, but they're not in physical evidence.

 

I don't really consider it proof unless it's physical evidence... but I can see what you mean.

 

I'm going to react by saying that you cannot prove these wrong either, so as long as no proof stands like you say you cannot use this as an effective argument.

 

We may not be able to disprove them but I think that is the wrong way to look at it. What should be looked at is how credible they look compared to other theories, and the majority of other theories make those presented in the Bible look pretty ridiculous to the point of being false.

In our universe when nothing can be exactly determined that is the best we can hope for.

 

How credible theories look has nothing to do with how credible they actually are. In olden days, the most credible looking theory on the common cold is that it was Satan.

 

Exactly, but what else do we have to go on if people don't trust or use actual evidence? A line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel's_teapot

 

Right, then why would this argument of christianity vs atheism even exist, if no line was drawn. That line is drawn, albeit I find it to be in the wrong place, it is there.

If you are to follow that train of thought, yes.

 

And thus another thread of infinite possibilities is created...

It's really hard to answer this question. Hmmmm. Well I'm Christian and the Bible has stated that Our god had it out with Baal, and "Gods" of Egypt and won. Though it purely speculation as we were not alive at the time.

 

That's assuming any gods exist at all. That is also assuming that the bible is to be taken literally. Both pretty frikken huge assumptions. I mean, the bible obviously has translation errors, context errors, and sheer exaggerations (from popes who wanted Christianity to look better to "heathens"), so IMO it cannot be taken in any kind of literal sense. And to just assume that any gods exist at all without hard proof, without hard evidence, just isn't sensible, in my opinion.

 

You know as well as I do that anything short of the clouds parting and omnipotent beings appearing in the sky worldwide falls short of evidence of God's existence.

 

Your point being?

 

Absolutely none. I'm post whoring to get to prem.

 

At least you're honest about it. I have to hide it in informative and quasi-useful posts, much like the following.

Give me a few more books, in their original forms (the original books), written by contemporaries of Jesus (or any other major biblical event), describing in great detail his life, then we can talk evidence. Things like that cna be analyzed and measured and assessed. One book translated literally over 9000 times is not proof, and neither is anything else yet presented. I'm starting to ramble, aren't I?

 

Yes you are, and I can tell from who I'm talking to that this is all bull. The childofturin I know wouldn't accept a number of books about a god on earth considered by religions to be true. If I know you, you would remain skeptical, all the analyzing in the world couldn't validate their accuracy and you know it. Not to say that I wouldn't like these books to be found.