ChristianVoice08 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

utube, I agree with you to an extent. While I do not use my own experience & personal knowledge of God with others as proof since that proof is subjective & not easily verifiable by others, I do have empirical evidence & personal knowledge of God. These coupled with an ongoing relationship with Him make your ascertion a moot point. I can't deny Him Who I know exists. I would be a liar to speak hesitantly about that which I know beyond doubt. You should think about what this means.

utube2344 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

no man can prove there is no God neither can they completely prove the existence of a God. A man who claims to see is blind for he cannot see any way but his own. A man who claims he is blind can see for he admits that he does not completely understand the worlds secrets and he is open to many ideas instead of just his own: Both theists and atheists should think about what i mean by this.

seethebright (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Science is superior to religion in every way that matters. Science would be science even if religion never existed. That's my opinion. Your opinion is that religion perfectly harmonizes with philosophy and science, and elevates them both. Can't we all just get along? I'm sorry, is this just more rambling?

ChristianVoice08 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

NO, Bright. YOU must prove your claim AGAINST the Historical Jesus. I have to prove NOTHING! The accounts stand as true until disproved as they are contemporary and YOU are NOT, Aristotle's Dictem. So, let's see you disprove ALL four Gospels and then the Book of Acts as it also speaks of Jesus's resurrection.

SoulOdyssey (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Curiously, your statement is neither scientific nor philosophical--well, I suppose it could be had you actually given support for your arguments--which you haven't. All you've attempted to accomplish is to try and relate all religions with a commonality with "magic" (which you have yet to define). Again--incoherent rambling. I implore you to spare yourself from becoming the laughing stock of both the atheistic and theistic community. Try again honey

seethebright (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Well, at least now you are making some attempt to define what you think is evidence. But let us step back a few steps. You present the gospels as evidence for claims made by the gospels. I told you before that I felt there was scant evidence that jesus even existed. Perhaps you should start there. (And please don't bore me with Josephus. Been there. Done that.)

ChristianVoice08 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I don't have to try harder. If you cannot refute all 27 books of the New Testament & namely the four gospels, then, YOU are the one ignoring the evidence as God stepped into time as a man & performed miracles showing His mastery of the natural. Then, He rose from the dead showing He was God. He identified Himself as God. You are ignoring that evidence, Bright. Give answer.

seethebright (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I understand that you believe that your particular god created the natural law and is thus free to break it at will. I don't see much evidence that your particular deity is in fact real. That naturally leads me to doubt your claim that he/she/it created anything, let alone the natrual laws governing the universe. Try harder, CV. Try harder.

seethebright (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

There you go again. Challenging me to prove a negative. YOU ARE RIGHT--I CAN NEVER PROVE THERE IS NO GOD. And you can never prove there are not magical unicorns grazing on the lint in my sock drawer. Could you at least list a few of your facts? Seriously. As I said before, if there is some real evidence you'd like to share I won't dismiss it. To be clear, I do not claim there is no god. Like you, I don't know if there is a god. Unlike you, I suspect there is not a god or gods. Understood?

seethebright (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

"beliefs that define religion differ from one religion to the next" Not really. There is no fundamental difference between believing different manifestations of the supernatural. What makes religion different from philosphy is an appeal to magic. (Sorry, CV, I know that makes you very angry.) I CANNOT fathom why you'd ever argue that religion harmonizes PERFECTLY with science. Science is superior to religion in every way that matters. Science would be science even if religion never existed.