- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
After thinking about this for some time, I realized that all I have is indirect evidence at my disposal. I sincerely apologize for not getting to that sooner. I will do what I can to explain myself without trying to go into special pleading. When it comes to nature, if the natural world cannot account for something, where else would you look? The evidence points to something either inside or outside the universe. While I have used God as an explanatory mechanism the same way you described in the past, I have started to use a natural, scientific explanation for things. However, that does not take God out of the picture. God is still the one that created and sustains everything. My evidence for this, although indirect, is that nature could not have created itself thus justifying a beginner. I do not want to go down the rabbit hole of trying to prove that its specifically the God of Christianity unless you would want to. That though has more indirect evidence. I feel like I'm rambling now and to be honest, I only wrote as much as I did because I forgot what you wanted evidence for
This isn’t necessarily directed at you but I think the claim that there is no evidence for something then to me, it just shows that you were not willing to look at evidence that could prove otherwise. I think that for the most part you can find a natural for something But when you require something outside the system that the natural world cannot account for then to me it will require something outside the system to have caused it. I think the main difference though between us is that I have not philosophically ruled out God. I am not trying to make a jab at you by saying this, I just wanted to point it out the difference
You're right. I did. At the moment, the best I can do is creation. What I mean is all the intricacies about creation that can't be explained outside of direct creation from a being outside of it which as I am writing this sounds more like indirect evidence. I apologize but I think I spoke earlier without thinking about what it was I was saying. Although I personally can't think of direct evidence, other than Jesus and creation, at the moment, I am sure there is
To be honest, I didn't look into it before I said what I did. From what I remember hearing, there are prophecies that Jesus fulfilled and prophecies that are meant for the end times. Those may be the ones you are referring to. If not let me know. Maybe this may help you
Fair point. The best answers I can give at the moment are deductions and inferences to the best explanation. Proof beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus was who he said he was, not sure that anything comes to mind but one thing I think helps are all the prophecies that came true surrounding Jesus. In terms of the miracles, I just have a question to clarify something for me. Do you think miracles are impossible?
I think you know the typical response that Christians will give you in terms of direct evidence. Jesus and the world around us. I would argue that to say Jesus doesn't exist would be ignoring all the historical writings about Him. I do recognize that you don't think the writings are credible, however, when there are 10's of thousands of documents talking about his existence (and not necessarily his deity), its hard to not find them credible. I guess my point is that if his existence is going to be denied, then its going to have to be argued with every single history department. I guess all the historical evidence would be considered indirect evidence, but that still leaves the eyewitness testimony. For the world around us, its primarily going to rely on an objective, unbiased standpoint. What I mean by that is I can't outright assume something supernatural, but at the same time you can't outright assume something natural, not that you do that already.