There is no proof that God exists

[Sour Masher]

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?

Yeah, I shouldn't have contributed to this inevitable derailing. It is the nature of such conversations though, because most people believe the evidence for God exists in their specific religion. I think those who are agnostic or atheist have a hard time having this conversation with those who are religious, because they want to focus on evidence independent of the religious texts and teachings of a specific religion, and that just isn't possible, as religious folks concept of God is so grounded in their religion. The conversation always goes to proving the existence of their God, rather than a generic "omnipresent, omnipresent, omniscient, and benevolent deity." All answers to such challenges presuppose an acceptance of their sacred texts, or the conversation goes no where. Proof does not exist outside of the specific narrative, so none can be given to someone who does not immerse themselves in the narrative.

[Gregg]

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.

We really have not had much discussion on things religious since you left.

There was really no question. There was a statement that there is no proof that God exists. I believe that Jesus is the proof that God exists.

[Hi.I'm.Mandy]

Yeah, I shouldn't have contributed to this inevitable derailing. It is the nature of such conversations though, because most people believe the evidence for God exists in their specific religion. I think those who are agnostic or atheist have a hard time having this conversation with those who are religious, because they want to focus on evidence independent of the religious texts and teachings of a specific religion, and that just isn't possible, as religious folks concept of God is so grounded in their religion. The conversation always goes to proving the existence of their God, rather than a generic "omnipresent, omnipresent, omniscient, and benevolent deity." All answers to such challenges presuppose an acceptance of their sacred texts, or the conversation goes no where. Proof does not exist outside of the specific narrative, so none can be given to someone who does not immerse themselves in the narrative.

Now that you have derailed us we will never reach agreement...it was so promising for a while there

[Sour Masher]

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?

Our knowledge of what his teachings were is all based on conjecture. There is currently a fairly strong consensus on what they were reported to be by his followers, though, as the Christian church has had a stable cannon of sacred texts for a good, long while. The religion came to an agreement about the messages they wanted to propagate. That is what matters. We really don't have to know what his teachings were. Whatever they were, they have turned into what they are now perceived to have been. People believe in that message more than the man. If Jesus really were divine, and he came back today, complete with all the supernatural trappings, but said a lot of the words and ideas in the sacred texts of Christianity were all wrong, distortions of his original messages, I'd wager most Christians would reject Jesus as a false prophet or Satanic deceiver. The Word would win out over the man/God. The Word is what is worshiped, and the belief in the Word is the foundation of the faith. Jesus himself, even if he existed and came back today as a divine entity and displayed his divinity in the ways described by the texts, would have a very hard time shaking that faith. They'd say any miracles were tricks meant to make them stray from the true path of the Word. This is the power (and danger) of a narrative once it is accepted as sacred and divine. This is faith, once one submits fully to a religious doctrine. This is also why these conversations are doomed to go nowhere. But they are still fun to have.

[B-Fly]

Now that you have derailed us we will never reach agreement...it was so promising for a while there

LOL. Indeed.

[Sour Masher]

Now that you have derailed us we will never reach agreement...it was so promising for a while there

I'm currently flagellating myself as an act of contrition for my sin.

[B-Fly]

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?

If you're just viewing the NT's Jesus as a moral guide, separating the true from the false is irrelevant. The "teachings" of the real, semi-fictional, or wholly fictional character of Jesus, as reflected in the NT, either do or don't make sense to the reader from a moral perspective. So that's why a non-believer like me has no problem saying that I generally agree with what Jesus was promoting/advocating from a moral/ethical perspective.

[Gregg]

Yeah, I shouldn't have contributed to this inevitable derailing. It is the nature of such conversations though, because most people believe the evidence for God exists in their specific religion. I think those who are agnostic or atheist have a hard time having this conversation with those who are religious, because they want to focus on evidence independent of the religious texts and teachings of a specific religion, and that just isn't possible, as religious folks concept of God is so grounded in their religion. The conversation always goes to proving the existence of their God, rather than a generic "omnipresent, omnipresent, omniscient, and benevolent deity." All answers to such challenges presuppose an acceptance of their sacred texts, or the conversation goes no where. Proof does not exist outside of the specific narrative, so none can be given to someone who does not immerse themselves in the narrative.

I do not see this thread as derailed. It has been a very civil exchange. I don't think anyone is riled up. I am glad you are participating.

When I brought up the resurrection I did not refer to any texts. No one denies the existence of Jesus and his followers. No one denies he was crucified. No one denies that many of his disciples were killed. I asked what changed.

Edit to add : No one is probably to strong and should read not many.

Did you think that I could change your mind or anyone else who claims to be atheist or agnostic? Did you expect to give me the aha moment where I would lose the faith that I have? Would you even want to do that?

Plus this is the hot topic thread.

[Sour Masher]

I do not see this thread as derailed. It has been a very civil exchange. I don't think anyone is riled up. I am glad you are participating.

When I brought up the resurrection I did not refer to any texts. No one denies the existence of Jesus and his followers. No one denies he was crucified. No one denies that many of his disciples were killed. I asked what changed.

Did you think that I could change your mind or anyone else who claims to be atheist or agnostic? Did you expect to give me the aha moment where I would lose the faith that I have? Would you even want to do that?

Plus this is the hot topic thread.

My tongue was half in cheek with this comment. I'm enjoying this conversation. I don't expect to be swayed or to sway you, but it is still an interesting exercise to me, especially since you are being so civil as folks challenge your central beliefs--that is a hard thing to do and I applaud you for it, and I'm glad no one is being dismissive of anyone's ideas here.

One thing that is worth bringing up, as a way to broaden the convo to take a step out of Christian doctrine is that your experiences with the historical evidence we try to piece together and the way the sacred texts fill in the gaps is very much like what those of other faiths experience. The sort of belief testing you have engaged in to come to the conclusions you have are similar to ones others have engaged in to become certain in the validity of their religion. There is just as much evidence, if you want to find it, and you are willing to make some leaps of faith, in other belief systems that tout their own divine beings and teachings. So, are they all true? What makes Christianity more valid than these other faiths with equally compelling stories, and with millions or billions of devout followers? Why is the proof provided in your sacred texts more valid than the proof provided in theirs?

[TranaGreg]

I'm currently flagellating myself as an act of contrition for my sin.

If you're typing at the same time then you're not doing it right.

[Sour Masher]

If you're typing at the same time then you're not doing it right.

Ah, that is true for more than one thing on the internet...

[TranaGreg]

Ah, that is true for more than one thing on the internet...

in either scenario, god knows.

[Sour Masher]

in either scenario, god knows.

Prove it!

[chancellor]

I'm currently flagellating myself as an act of contrition for my sin.

Let us know when you're done in about....a year or so.

[Fresno Bob]

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?

the same way I can parse the "true" from the "false" when reading anything. for example, Matthew 7:12 vs Timothy 2:12 or hell, most of Leviticus