There is no proof that God exists

[Sour Masher]

And as to why his followers didn't choose to die in the moment but were killed later, the simple answer to that is they believed in the message, so it made sense for them to live to carry it on as long as they could. But such radical messages of reform are dangerous, so their commitment to the cause was logically going to lead to their deaths, eventually. That level of commitment does not require witnessing a supernatural act. Many have died for causes they believe in. Not doing that needlessly, right away is not proof of initial cowardice; it could have simply been practicality. And maybe the religion wouldn't have survived and thrived had that not acted the way they did.

Gregg, let me ask you this, if you don't mind answering: do you think Christianity, as an ideology, a way of living, but devoid of the supernatural, devoid of the messenger being the one true son of God, is a way of living worth sharing? Do you think it represented an improvement at the time over how many then saw the world? Is Jesus' divinity essential to your identity as a Christian? Do you think it must have been essential to all of his earlier followers or they would not have risked their lives to spread the ideas for how to live that are embedded in the faith?

[TranaGreg]

I've been thinking about this need for Emperical, verifiable scientific, replicable proof of God.

While I'm leery of jumping into the fray on this, I just want to add: If God was replicable, God would be a pretty small God or not God at all, as God would share God status with whatever was replicated.

I think that's where the faith element come into this.

I think he meant replicable proof, not a replicable God.

And I agree, it's a faith thing. There will never be irrefutable proof (based on the scientific definition of proof).

[In the Corn]

I think he meant replicable proof, not a replicable God.

And I agree, it's a faith thing. There will never be irrefutable proof (based on the scientific definition of proof).

Well, replicable proof of God would mean, at least to me, that man could replicate God, which again would make God pretty small.

[Gregg]

And as to why his followers didn't choose to die in the moment but were killed later, the simple answer to that is they believed in the message, so it made sense for them to live to carry it on as long as they could. But such radical messages of reform are dangerous, so their commitment to the cause was logically going to lead to their deaths, eventually. That level of commitment does not require witnessing a supernatural act. Many have died for causes they believe in. Not doing that needlessly, right away is not proof of initial cowardice; it could have simply been practicality. And maybe the religion wouldn't have survived and thrived had that not acted the way they did.

What you are writing is too large a leap of faith for me and has no basis for truth. The testimony of the people in question refute this. They admit/confess to running away and believing it was all over. The reason that you are purposing lines up with the world view (no supernatural) but is not honestly dealing with the testimony. It is bending or disqualifying it.

If you were talking about later martyrs I could believe that they did die for what they believed not witnessed.

What do you think Jesus wanted to accomplish with his ministry?

Did the disciples want to further that (whatever it was) or do you believe they had their own agenda?

[TranaGreg]

Well, replicable proof of God would mean, at least to me, that man could replicate God, which again would make God pretty small.

I can run a test to prove that gravity exists. I can repeat that test an infinite number of times & always get the same results. That's replicable proof. Gravity isn't replicable (tho man has certainly tried) ... it's the test/proof that is.

If something exists, there should be a way of proving it. Until that can be done, it's a matter of faith.

[Gregg]

Gregg, let me ask you this, if you don't mind answering: do you think Christianity, as an ideology, a way of living, but devoid of the supernatural, devoid of the messenger being the one true son of God, is a way of living worth sharing? Do you think it represented an improvement at the time over how many then saw the world? Is Jesus' divinity essential to your identity as a Christian? Do you think it must have been essential to all of his earlier followers or they would not have risked their lives to spread the ideas for how to live that are embedded in the faith?

I do not mind sharing.

If I did not believe in Jesus as the Son of God, what would there be to share? There are plenty of religions to go around for a better life here on earth.

His divinity is essential to the 12 or they would not have blatantly changed from disillusionment and running to bravely proclaiming what they had witnessed.

You asked: Do you think it represented an improvement at the time over how many then saw the world? Not at the time. He was misunderstood by his own people as well as his own disciples.

[Fresno Bob]

Well, replicable proof of God would mean, at least to me, that man could replicate God, which again would make God pretty small.

Man has created every God that has ever existed, from The Great Goat to Thor to Santa because "God" is a construct

[Fresno Bob]

I do not mind sharing.

If I did not believe in Jesus as the Son of God, what would there be to share? There are plenty of religions to go around for a better life here on earth.

His divinity is essential to the 12 or they would not have blatantly changed from disillusionment and running to bravely proclaiming what they had witnessed.

You asked: Do you think it represented an improvement at the time over how many then saw the world? Not at the time. He was misunderstood by his own people as well as his own disciples.

I am 100% behind the teachings of Jesus as a man, and don't need him to have any godhood to have validity as a moral compass

[Hi.I'm.Mandy]

Man has created every God that has ever existed, from The Great Goat to Thor to Santa because "God" is a construct

what proof do u have for this ?

[In the Corn]

Why did Mark not include reports of seeing the resurrected Christ in his initial Gospel? It seems like a pretty important thing to exclude. It makes more sense that it was added, because it was needed to convert more folks to the faith from among those who already believed in the possibility of an immortal physical form,and expected it from their gods on earth stories.

As for why I believe there was a man behind the myth, there is substantial circumstantial evidence for his existence. As for what he was trying to do, I can only infer that from what others, long after his death, tell us was his message. He wanted reform. He wanted to change the world to fit a new way of living and worshipping. It is worth mentioning he was not alone in this goal, even during the time period in which he lived. His was an historical moment ripe for reformation, Mich like the Civil Rights era in the US in the 60s. Of course, no one is calling MLK Jr. The literal and only begotten son of the one true God.

As for why his message went viral when others did not, I think it is a combination of his talent and vision and message, and luck and circumstance. Some moments are just right for an extraordinary thought to spread. Some ideas really are viral. I should add, though, that I don't think all viral ideas are bad, and I'm not comparing the supernatural myths about Jesus to viruses to be offensive or dismissive of the extraordinary accomplishment in human history that is Christianity. But many such ideas take root based on distorted events far removed from reality, and they become absolute tenants of faith.

Here is a good read on how such a thing could happen from our recent history: http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-cree...ve-ever-heard/

It takes awhile for the connection between that article and our conversation to become clear, but by the end, it does a good job of describing a phenomena very much akin to what I think happens with the supernatural tales in religions.

What do we do with Paul's conversion and influence on Christianity? If there was anyone who wouldn't want to be a Christian it was Paul (Saul). He was the Jew of Jews. He was killing Christians before his conversion.

[B-Fly]

It's interesting how, much like last time the "does G-d exist" question came up here several years back, the focus of the discussion has somehow shifted to the question of Jesus's divinity. I thought the question was aiming at what "proof" is there of the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity, whether as Creator or as an active G-d who is still pulling strings, hearing and responding to prayers, judging humans, etc, on an ongoing basis? At least to my mind, that has little or nothing to do with the debate over evidence of Jesus's resurrection or lack thereof, but maybe that's just me.

[baldgriff]

Fly -
I think you have to remember context for many here that come from a Christian background. As such - Jesus is the human embodiment of God. Therefore, Jesus divinity is at the heart of the question, being part of the Trinity. From that point of view Jesus' resurrection is a critical proof.

[Ken]

what proof do u have for this ?

[B-Fly]

Fly -
I think you have to remember context for many here that come from a Christian background. As such - Jesus is the human embodiment of God. Therefore, Jesus divinity is at the heart of the question, being part of the Trinity. From that point of view Jesus' resurrection is a critical proof.

Proof of the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity, whether as Creator or as an active G-d who is still pulling strings, hearing and responding to prayers, judging humans, etc, on an ongoing basis?

Even if, against every fiber of my being, lol, I conceded the "resurrection" of Jesus, how does it prove/support the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (and day-to-day active and responsive) deity, whether in solitary or "Trinity" form? How would evidence of "resurrection" prove the existence and characteristics, let alone the specific acts/miracles detailed in scripture (the Hebrew Bible/"Old Testament"), ascribed to the Judeo-Christian G-d?

[Gregg]

I am 100% behind the teachings of Jesus as a man, and don't need him to have any godhood to have validity as a moral compass

How do you know what his teachings were/are?

I am not being a smart aleck when I ask what source gives him validity to you? How do you separate the true from the false?