YES Network.com

Yes, Jesus did exist, but all we have to go on as for him being the son of God, is hearsay and Faith.  Many religious icons have actually existed, yet in every instance we have no proof of their divinity.  We could discuss this for a lifetime, and we will wind up back at the same starting point, we can not prove the existence of God.  Descartes, Blaise Pascal, and many others have tried, and all of the arguments fail. 

It is not an attack on the existance of God, only a matter of circumstance.  We all know UFO's exist, but that does not mean aliens exist, just as miracles happen, but do not prove the existance of God. 

Now to use the reverse of Glenns' argument, How do you know Jesus Christ existed?....You weren't there, you never saw him?

See how irrational the argument is? 

But have fun with this, if you guys want to prove something, that by definition cannot be proved, feel free.

Jan 18, 2010 -- 8:51PM, T15D23 wrote:

We know Jesus existed, that is not a simple matter of faith, that is fact.

Jan 18, 2010 -- 8:37PM, Demonseed wrote:

The argument that somehow faith in God can be intertwined with faith in science, is a tad outdated.  Religious Faith by definition, requires a belief in something that cannot be proven.  Empirical evidence is not subject to frivolous debate on temporal matters;  "Just because the Sun rose today does not mean we know it will rise tomorrow."  The idea posed by the statement implies there is indeed some reason to believe the Sun willl not rise tomorrow and it requires the same level of faith to believe that it will, as it does to believe in 'God' or any diety.  Except, it has no place in the discussion.

This becomes more of an epistimological discussion, about the nature and validity of knowledge, and is not a matter of Religious Faith.  Yes, the expected reply to; "How do you know the sun will rise tomorrow?" is "I just know it will!", to which the reply is, "You do not know it will rise tomorrow, you just believe it will!"  The intent is to get a person to admit, that in some way they can not know the sun will indeed rise tomorrow because tomorrow has yet to occur, and hence they depend upon faith to interact with the World on any level.  The reasoning becomes absurd when it is extended and it devalues the actual meaning of Faith.  The same reasoning could be used in any context; "How do you know the water you drink today will quench your thirst tomorrow?", "How do you know the food you eat tomorrow will sate your hunger?", etc.

None of these questions have anything to do with 'Religious faith', they are meant to act as mini-ontological arguments to attempt to prove the existence of God, through a play on words and expectations of future events.  A good book on the subject is the Philosophy of Religion and Theology.  The kicker is this, no matter how much we believe in God, by design, we can not prove God exists, otherwise their would be no Faith. 

On a personal note, I have no doubt in my mind God exists, but I also know there is no way for me to prove it to anyone else. 

Jan 19, 2010 -- 1:17AM, Demonseed wrote:

Yes, Jesus did exist, but all we have to go on as for him being the son of God, is hearsay and Faith.  Many religious icons have actually existed, yet in every instance we have no proof of their divinity. 

Well as far as hearsay, there were over 500 witnesses that saw Jesus after his resurrection.  That's 10 times more people then saw Washington cross the Delaware, yet no one questions if that happened.

its a shame how the politics forum has turned into a trash fest by the libs on this board !! the board could still go back to being a good debating forum but because of a few bad apples who start the same krap in almost every thread its getting old and boring !! and they dont even hear a word from our esteemed dean of discipline for calling a poster a dolt etc..good thing it wasnt jimmy, ratman, yankeerose or demonseed, all who were put on double secret probation for making such heinous remarks !! i believe if it was one of those posters it would have been taken very seriously and probably would have been sent upstairs for further review !! everybody else it seems can keep name calling as long as its against posters the dean of discipline doesnt like and then guess what,if ratman responds to being called a dolt with name calling himself i have no doubt that the board stool pigeons and trouble makers would have been emailing the d.o.d. to pound his gavel and ban him ''for the better of the board'' 

what a joke this joint has become !!