You continue to ask for “evidence”….there is plenty of it, and I’ve been giving you evidence throughout this discussion, but you do not want to accept it as legitimate evidence because it doesn’t “fit” your perspective or your worl…d-view. Instead of coming at what I’ve presented to you as “maybe this has validity”, you have approached it all, it appears, as “nothing you say has any validity at all”. I’m not faulting you for this because this is the human condition apart from a relationship with God. I assume you have not spent much or any time with true believers in Jesus, nor have you seriously sought out God and sought answers from Him. Yet, you have sought out answers from the “gods” of this world, the scientific minds who start from their own premises. That’s fine, but when you start from a certain world-view and premise and are looking for everything to “fit” into that perspective rather than expanding it to a wider premise, then you will get what you seek…the limited view that we are completely meaningless, the world is meaningless, our existence in the universe is meaningless, everything we do is meaningless, and we are simply blobs of matter with zero meaning in a completely meaningless universe. That, my friend, is the ultimate end of the world-view you adhere to, whether you want to accept it or not. However, you DO have meaning in your life. You say that YOU create that meaning and that man has created that meaning….but logically, if that is true, then there must be an ultimate “MEANING GIVER”…or SOURCE OF MEANING. And because we are intelligent creatures, capable of incredible discovery, that Source of Meaning must also be the Source of Intelligence. I don’t know how to make the argument any clearer on a level that makes logical sense…this is science aside, and purely logic working here to, as you want, “prove” God’s existence. I know your question is why the Christian god and not other gods. I’ve already answered that: all other religions, if you study them, have at the heart of them a list of “dos and don’ts” and are attempts to please some god or gods. The faith espoused in the Bible, especially in the New Testament, is utterly different, not only in its premise, but also in its “fruit”. In addition, there are hundreds of prophesies in both the Old and New Testaments which have unfolded on the earth and which are coming to pass even today. Can I list them all for you here? No, but again, there are books written to this end.

The stuff you say about islam is the exact same thing the christian church has been doing for hundreds of years: regression of humanity in every possible way. i know that the institution itself has nothing to do with having a relationship with Jesus in your opinion, and i couldn’t agree more, but this shows that there might also be muslims who don’t believe in the jihad and the similar violent stuff, but only in the “peaceful parts” of their religion, just like you do. a same “kill the infidels” case can be made against christianity just as against muslims, christianity just did that a while back, not today.

i have a bit of time now, so i’ll collect a couple of issues i mentioned which you have yet to address:

can you specify even a bit of supporting evidence-like anything, that goes towards showing that the christian god himself is the true god / creator? the sole existence of Jesus is not valid, because he was a prophet just like countless others, and was in no way special. of course he was special for *you*, because you’re a christian, but try to see yourself from the perspective of someone who is outside of all religions. how would you convince, or just show the true nature of your religion, AND the fabricated nature of the others at the same time? your answer to this will basically supply the sole reason why you are a christian and not of some other faith, so make it a good one.
put a bit differently, could you convince a muslim for example that his religion is wrong without mentioning anything christian-related, so not using your own religion in your process of reasoning?

do you think that something that cannot be explained or disproved by science automatically becomes the evidence of god? if yes, and that way of thinking is how religions are supposed to be dealt with, do you think you could make a successful case against the existence of santa claus, if i were to believe in him?

why do you have any more reason to believe that the 500 witnesses of the ascension were actual witnesses, that to believe their stories were lies/fabrications/tales/exaggerations, without having anything to support the former idea other than the bible, which, and i think we can agree on this, is not god’s work, thus not infallibe, thus not reliable.

you assume that god doesn’t want to be hidden. then why is he communicating his existence solely through obscure concepts, and not obvious ones? if that would take away our free will, how do you explain Jesus’ and other biblical figures’ obvious miracles, which, by definition, should have taken away people’s free will to believe in god?

concerning abortion: because you clearly disagree with my idea on the beginning of the human life being subjective, i assume you possess (or at least there is) an objective, ultimate standpoint on that. what is it, why is it absolute, and what is it based on? also, why did you call doctors performing abortion delusional?

based on your reasonings, i am led to believe that you think that if today we didn’t have religion, the world would be a much worse place to live in. why?

concerning morality: what do you make of the dilemma that i described twice through our discussion, namely that if human beings are not in fact able to discern right from wrong themselves, then how could they choose between the two poles of morality presented to them by either god or the bible?
(the last time i could word this better, so i’ll just copypaste:
your ultimate standard for morality is the creator, aka the christian god. why him? who told you that his way should be the ultimate morality? he himself, didn’t he. how do you know that he possesses true morality? how do you know it is not for example satan who does? well, based on what god says of course, because you have no other point of reference. can you be sure that god’s morality is indeed the right one? what if satan’s morality is the right one, god just makes us believe that he is good and satan is evil? what if it’s the other way around? we have to decide somehow. what is a valid way of figuring out which one of them to pick? on our own. there is no other way. “yes there is! god tells us directly!” sure, but how do you know that he possesses the true morality? a vicious, self-contradicting circle. the only way of figuring out which one of them to pick is to figure it out on our own. but if we can do that, we eliminate the need for a creator in the first place.)

gotta go, maybe i missed a couple of things, but this is it for now. i’ll address “belief in god by the population of a country more or less equals the prosperity of said country” later.

So evidence that goes against a number of religious ideas is actually “god in undercover”, because as he created everything, anything i would come up with is meaningless, because it is his creation anyway? twis…ted logic indeed, still, let me get it straight: are you saying that he very fact that everything exists is a *direct* proof of his existence? that anything existing in this world is sure to have been created by *the christian god himself*? now, matter existing in the universe is not direct proof of course that a creator, let alone the christian god of the bible as we know it created the world. hell, by that rationale, it could have been krishna or brahma or allah or whatnot. not being able to know where matter came from implies nothing, only the obvious: we. don’t. know. it implies nothing else. not even that there has to be at all an ever-existing entity to create everything. it CAN exist, of course. we just don’t have anything to imply that it does. you don’t know it, i don’t either. *firmly* believing that this creator exists is dumb. saying that it *might* exist is the only rational way to go. of course in the same fashion, declaring that there is no creator as it was a fact is dumb too. people should accept that neither side knows the truth for sure, that’s why all of the “i’m 110% sure of this and that” declarations are just delusions, be them pro- or anti-creationist.

the problem with people being sure about either of these is a very obvious one: when the universe came into existence, nobody. was. actually. there. thus we can only speculate, you and me included. i know that i can’t really be sure of anything that i don’t witness first-hand, but do you? or do you believe that you can declare with 100% certainty that you know what happened back then?

“but then why are the two theories are so different, if you’re saying that neither of them are surely true? why do you accept one and not the other?” because the difference between my view of the world and yours is that mine possesses “pieces of the puzzle” in scientific findings, and yours has none, just the very existence of the universe (look at it! doesn’t it scream of creation?!), which is in itself is no implication, let alone evidence for anything, because, as i’ve said before, it is based on the human concept of “something screams of something”, which is a gut feeling or opinion, nothing else.

ah, the 500 witnesses. i’ll ask you again: did any of them leave first-hand evidence about seeing Jesus resurrect? no. the events written in the bible are all hearsay. no actual contemporary of Jesus wrote even a single line in the bible, thus the tale of the 500 people who saw him ascend is just something that the people who wrote it simply heard, or, god forbid, made up.

your life changing for the better is as subjective as it gets. i agree that religion can be and usually is good for individual people, because they find a meaning for their lives, thus become more productive and happy. i have no problem with that, in fact, i think religion really changes individual people for the better. my grandmother’s sister for example is an even more “hardcore” believer in Christ than you are, and she’s constantly telling us that she’s been SO MUCH better off since finding god. good for her. really. and i’m not even attempting to have a conversation with her about this, because, for one, doing so in english is much more fascinating, but also because her rationalizations as to why the stuff she believes is true are so outrageous that reasoning with her is completely impossible. i’m happy that you’re not like that, but expecting me to believe what you say solely because you’ve experienced all of it is not too far from it.

god’s been screaming, eh? so he doesn’t want to remain hidden, but wants the people to KNOW that he exists? why doesn’t he prove it in a non-obscure way then? would that take away our free will to believe in him? bollocks. that’s only a bullet-proof rationalization, designed against this very question. but if you stand by it, and i believe you do, why did Jesus supposedly perform obvious miracles in front of hundreds of people? wouldn’t that take away their free will to believe in him as god? see, there is no sensible reason as to why god would “scream” his existence at us through hazy concepts, while in the meantime, failing to perform an objective act of miracle, which would prove for everyone in an instant that he indeed exists.
or there may be a reason: he hates sensible people.

Mengele: there were not only him, but a lot of deranged people, yes, mainly nazis, who experimented on people in unimaginable ways. but. they didn’t do it for the sake of the advancement of our species, but so that they can rule the world. that is not science. that’s killing people for selfish reasons and not for the good of the human race. torturing/killing/maiming/whathaveyou someone for selfish reasons and people dying in the process of the betterment of humanity are not even remotely in the same ballpark. science helps humanity advance. people torturing and killing others to develop weapons to take over the world does not. don’t confuse science with selfish mass murder. they both involve deaths, yes, but one of them is justified through everything humanity has become, the other one is just pointless, selfish killing.

if we’re at this topic though, let me remind you that the christian church killed people simply because they were not christian. they thought that the act of killing non-christians would genuinely make earth a better place. nazi officers in contrast probably knew that their endeavours would only benefit THEM and that they are selfish deeds, but the church firmly believed that god is the one who tells them to do this, so that it is justified, and even right. i’m not saying that i somehow hold you responsible for all the murder committed by the church simply because you believe in god. i understand you don’t believe in the institution itself, but Jesus, who has nothing to do with the church, as a result, you obviously don’t endorse any kind of church-approved killing, or anything it has ever done that went against the teachings of Jesus.

your religion being the right one: if i understand you correctly, you’re saying that Jesus alone is the proof that the christian faith is indeed the correct one. what about the other prophets who existed, just as Jesus did? why it is not them you’re following? all religions state that the glory of god is above all, name one that doesn’t. all of them say that all creatures are revelations and reflections of a certain god’s glory, for it was he/she who created them of course. christianity is in no way special. you could be a muslim, having the exact same mindset, having the exact same arguments of admitting god’s glory, not putting yourself but god in the middle, etc, the only difference would be your customs and the name of the god&prophet pair you believe in. the ideas you’re saying are not christian-specific, but are present in every religion i’ve ever heard of which has one single god to it. thoughts?