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.

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?

Two things in response to what you just wrote…or maybe three. First, your “mountain of evidence” is the same mountain of evidence that I use. Period. Get it? I see your mountain of scientific evidence and it is amazing! I …love it! It is CLEARLY revealing the creator God who made it all and spoke it into being. We limited human beings are simply discovering this mountain of evidence which had to come into existence somehow. Here is where you get angry because I have argued all along that something cannot come from nothing. There had to be an eternally existent being, outside of our time and existence that will never be “proven” by our limited minds scientifically, because this being is not only flesh and blood but also spiritual, that brought everything into existence. I call you “limited’ because you won’t let your mind fathom something beyond your limited physical world. Second, PLEASE don’t lump me in with religion.

I am not religious by the definition you and so many others have concluded with your “rational” mindsets and your man-made definitions. And the reason that I know my faith is real and true is because my God lived in the flesh and blood, died and was raised again from the dead, and there were over 500 witnesses to this. My life has been radically changed for the better mind you, by this same God whom you say does not exist. It is not a figment of my imagination as you suppose…and you only suppose this because you have never allowed yourself to be open to having an encounter with this God. He won’t force Himself on you, nor will He force you to love him or accept him, just as you cannot force your girlfriend to love you or accept you. The gospel (which means good news) is really quite simple. We humans have turned our backs on the creator because He took a huge risk and gave us a free will to choose. He has forever and ever, since the creation of the world been SCREAMING at us through creation, through people, through science, math, language, arts, music, emotions, seasons…through everything, that He is real and is madly in love with us and wants to be in a relationship with us. We have, all of us, chosen to go our own way, figure things out for ourselves rather than inquire of Him, through science, through math, through literature, through love, through art and discover who He is. He, in His love, gave His life through Jesus that we might live with Him forever, eternally, in a loving, meaning-filled relationship both here and eternally. That’s good news! Otherwise, our lives have ZERO meaning. But that’s the conclusion you have drawn. Life has no meaning, so you will live with that. By the way, you never addresses Pascal’s wager.