Prove that God exists

[Final-Fan]

padib said:

Final-Fan said:

padib said:

sapphi_snake said:

padib said:

I know sapphi, but I'm using the word proven as Runa is using it. In other words, the events and locations of the bible have archaeological and historical evidence to back them up such that to deny them would be beyond reasonable doubt.

It's an issue with semantics, that's why this thread fails but I tried to circumvent that to at least make it constructive to a certain degree.

No dude, very few of them have. And just because some of  them may have some historical basis, doesn't mean that they're entirely true (mainly, the mythological aspects are false). For example, just because Jesus actually existed, doesn't mean he was the messiah. Just because a part of a story is true doesn't mean that the whole story is.

Actually, this is how you build the most efficient lies. When you like, you musn't fabricate an entire fiction, but rather put a grain of truth in it. Then if people ask for proof, just present to them the little bit of truth of the story. People often make the mistake of thinking that jsut because a part of a story is true, then it all must be true.

I know, that's why I gave a full picture in my original post. I mentioned, to recap:

1. The authenticity of the manuscripts.

2. The historicity of the places and events.

3. The cohesion of the texts.

4. The fulfillment of the prophecies by said figure (Christ in this case).

5. My personal conviction given reason and emotion. I understand this one is subjective, but it fits perfectly in the OT's rules. Proof is subjective, in that the person who accepts a claim as proof needs to have it proven subjectively to them, given their understanding of the world around them. Anyway I won't go too deep into this last point because we'll never end. But point 5 is there.

I gave the many together and the pieces fall into place for me, that makes it what I believe. You don't think that's fair game, I had the exact same thing said to me about ToE. Everything falls into place so its proven. Well I'm just playing by the same rules for equal debate.

1.  Only proves that after the texts were codified no further changes were made. 
2.  Proves nothing.  You might as well say that The Iliad is undeniable evidence for the Greek gods being real. 
3.  Only shows a common source.  If it was fabricated, then split into 3 or 4 factions who each had their own variation of the story, that would also explain it. 
4.  Proves nothing.  The prophecies were made long before, which means the fulfillments could easily have been "edited in".  Even if most of the stories about Jesus are true, I could see someone adding in a missing prophecy fulfillment. 

5.  Not IN ANY WAY acceptable as evidence for the italicized claim.  You can't simultaneously claim you have evidence no reasonable person would refuse, and claim that the evidence is a personal emotional conviction. 

Okay final-fan for points 1 to 3 I repeat you have to take them as supporting evidence not proof. Obviously the Iliad is (edit: not) undeniable evidence for the Greek gods being real. But if you take that and add the other points together you get substance.

Finally, on point 4, well, the editing in argument is fine and all, except when the claims are historically verifiable. Then you have a different beast alltogether. I'll try to nail down some prophecies which can be verified from an outside source. I believe that should demonstrate their veracity beyond reasonable doubt.

Again, I repeat, I am neither theologian nor historian. But I'll look for the sources.

Points 1-3:  But really, what are these pieces of "evidence" supporting?  The manuscripts haven't changed much since the 3rd century ... so what?  What makes these points, which you seem to agree are pretty weak evidence (at least in the case of Point 2), become strong evidence, undeniable in fact, when considered together?  I think you are really handwaving this part of it and it just doesn't fly. 

Point 4:  OK. 

Point 5:  Since you did not respond, does that mean you understand and accept my point?