Prove that God exists

[Runa216]

padib said:

Runa216 said:
Padib, NONE OF THAT MATTERS. The bible is just a book, a poorly written one with inconsistencies and a slew of impossibilities, it doesn't matter how far back it goes...not to mention there's the Torah, the Qua'ran, and various other holy texts that date back just as far if not farther. 

Using force of opinion again shows me your lack of commitment to the topic you raised. I'm actually bringing out points, and you revert us back to convoluted comparisons which lack any studied insight whatsoever.

The bible is just a book, a poorly written one with inconsistencies and a slew of impossibilities, it doesn't matter how far back it goes...not to mention there's the Torah, the Qua'ran, and various other holy texts that date back just as far if not farther. 

Convoluted statement. I mentioned points with much more depth (authenticity, veracity), yet you insist on disregarding them. Again I am convinced you have no commitement to the topic whatsoever. If it's the miracles that are an issue for you ("slew of impossibilities"), again these are things that should be verifiable by science (parting of the seas, the global flood, and other verifiable miracles such as a 40-year sojourn in the desert).

The farther back you get in history, the less accurate the texts tend to be. Hell, people misinterpret and misrepresent events happening 300-500 years ago, there are wars and conflicts and interactions that happened VERY differently than the history books tell you.

Not really. The farther the texts are from the events they describe, the less accurate the texts tend to be. Dating is a fairly respected practice in the study of history and archaeology at the moment. They also provide margins of error I hope you are aware. For the italics, that's why I provided the authenticity and veracity arguments. If you want to battle, battle on the points. If we are to battle on opinions we will go nowhere.

logically thinking, do you honestly believe a book written over a thousand years ago about events that happened over 2000 years ago are likely to be perfectly accurate? if you do, that's just naive. 

Care to provide an example of which biblical text you're referring to. To lump all the biblical texts into one vague statement is a gross misrepresentation of reality and a true testament to your lack of knowledge in the matter.

If god was real, why would he present himself to an ignorant civilization in clear, obvious ways (coming to see him, making a son that could perform miracles), but refuses to do so today?

If you want to discuss spiritually, it might be best to give credibility to the texts from another level first. I suggest following the trail of history and archaeology, along with theology. We'll come back to this once the texts are given their due relevance.

there are more religious people now than there were in the times of the bible (both in raw numbers and ratios), so what's the deal? if God came to me, and it was clearly not just some parlor trick, I would certainly believe in him, as it stands, there is no reliable evidence to support his existence, especially not in the way many people see him.

The deal is that people are getting more informed, poorer nations are reproducing very quickly (which tend to be more subject to faith in the higher up), and otherwise there is more communication and availability of the teachings of said faith due to groundbreaking technology. For italics, Christ claimed that had even someone returned from hell to warn people against it they would not believe. What would God possibility tell you for you to believe? Your a priori is so strong I mean it's hard for me to phathom the scenario. But if it happens I really hope you do see him and I would be dumbfounded.

"there is no reliable evidence to support his existence, especially not in the way many people see him."

Well, again for this part I believe it is possible to provide evidence to support his existence, yet you constantly reject it. @Final Fan, this is mostly why I believe the point 5 was meaningful. No matter what you say, what facts you bring to the table, if for that individual it doesn't matter, then is it proven? Does proof require consensus?

It's perfectly logical to dismiss faulty logic and inconclusive 'evidence'.  You keep insisting I'm being some cruel person by waving off your arguments, but I chose not to waste my time arguing with faulty logic.  I don't mean to be TOOOO abrasive here, but have you ever heard the quote "Don't argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"?  Well that's how I feel.  I COULD go into intimate detail explaining why each and every one of your arguments are flawed, I COULD present alternate explanations and debate with you, internet forum style, but I got burnt out on that BS ages ago.  I used to be a fairly active poster on a debate forum (which had one purpose: for people to debate), and even the most intelligent people on there were incapable of arguing a point without letting their biases cloud their judgement.  

I'm no god myself, I'm not perfect, but I Can differentiate between "my opinion" and "Logic", something so few people can do.  You say you're openminded, but I'm not seeing evidence of that.  All I'm seeing is someone who wants to argue a point for arguing a point.  

You say I'm closeminded becuase I 'know' you can't prove god, but I still insist (and am being honest) that I WANT to hear some evidence that God may exist.  Instead I'm getting a lot of philisophical maybes, which is in no way conclusive (or even supportive) evidence.  yeah, god COULD be real, but where's the evidence?