I found a really interesting article, esspecially for those who don’t believe in God, but rather in the miracles of science.
You like paradoxes, so I will give you one: If I could prove God existed, I wouldn’t believe in Him.
Believing in God is not having certainty; believing in God is not needing certainty.
You cannot prove God exists, for there is no greater authority than Him. He does not subdue to any reason. You can only admit He exists.
I’m cool with that.
I think it was Ortega who said that it does not matter whether God exists. What matters is that we believe God exists, and that we act as though He did exist.
Works for me.
God loves him anyway.
If he gives me evidence to admit to. Otherwise, he has left me in the dark with nothing to admit to.
He did give you evidence. Jesus Christ.
Think about the Bible. It describes political events that are happening as we speak, not to talk about the mystical features described in that article I told you about (usa-the-republic.com/religion/bible.html)
If I had evidence I would most definitely accept Christianity as truth. I am not one to deny clear evidence. If Jesus Christ were evidence, then wouldn’t Muhammad be evidence for the validity of Islam? They both made claims.
Concerning the link, I found it very interesting. Still, I don’t see it as evidence of anything. Do you really think that God would be concerned with the computer analysis and mathematical interpretation of the bible? It is just illogical in my opinion. If God were interested in revealing himself to mankind, why wouldn’t He be a little more clear in his revelation?
I don’t deny God or even Christianity but the evidence is lacking. Not that I am implying that He has not provided evidence for you, just not me. But in that case, I would believe Him to be prejudiced and that seems contradictory.
Yes, many made claims. But, as much as I remember, The Scriptures foretold Him, as well as His circumstances of birth, His genealogy, etc. Also, at His baptise, the voice and the white bird, have also shown He was the one. Personally, I believe the strongest evidence of His validity remains the fact that He resurected himself, thing which I dont remember anyone else to have ever done.
I dont think He wanted us to analyse it mathematically, ot something. The thing is that when something is true, many facts come to sustain it. And I think that was one of those facts. And as I said before, I think He was clear enough with what happened 2000 years ago.
Great response!
Many made claims but Christ fulfilled what are called the “Messianic Prophecies”. Tough subject and I must admit that I don’t have a great rebuttal. The only downside to such hard evidence is that the only proof of these fulfilled prophecies were written many years after Christ’s death by his followers. We have no other accurate accounts of these fulfillments accept by his biased disciples. Sometimes things are remembered a little differently by those whom were so emotionally involved and devoted.
The ressurection for instance, has no unbiased witnesses, nor any other outside evidence that such an event occured, except from the writings of Matt, Mark, Luke, and John. In my opinion, four biased accounts are not enough evidence to make an accurate judgement. This is where faith comes in to the equation. Faith in my opinion is just a way to ignore to the unanswerables and to rely on hope. Remember though, as Paul says in Romans, those whom are appointed to believe will believe. The problem is that those whom are not appointed will not believe.
Again, I don’t deny the possibility of Christianity being truth but I just don’t see the evidence to support it. I have no reason to deny something that is evident, especially if it for my well-being. I’m just not willing to devote my effort in to a false hope. When God provides me evidence enough to believe, that I will, but until then I am left without response.
Here is great link on the Messianic Prophecies. They are very interesting and they will definitely leave you wondering. Just remember who wrote the proof of these fulfillments. Man, just like you and me.
“I don’t deny God or even Christianity but the evidence is lacking.”
The evidence is clear. The evidence is clear. Jesus is our savior. He is the way. He is the light
Uh yeah…
Thanks for clearing things up. 
Maybe you could suggest what evidence is clear.
even if he did exist i think he is a meany.
You see, there are no absolute proves. As long as:
-the Michelson-Moreley experiment tells us you cannot make a valid and absolute statement about a system, from within that system;
-Heissenberg’s principle of incertainity shows us that from a deterministic point of view, you cannot know everything;
-the theory of relativity and general relativity tells us about universal relativity;
-there are non-euclidian geometries;
-“there are no signs” (because they can get wrongly interpreted, as Sartre shows);
-axioms cannot be proven;
-the laws of physics only have a statistic and probabilistic nature;
-each and every scientist, before starting his studies, must create his own personal equation of the world, a kind of personal view of events;
-we get in contact and work only with appearances and idols (there is a movie about this, The Matrix; it explains it quite clearly);
-language is not a very accurate and certain way of communication,
I think all we have left is the way of free belief. By free belief, I mean here belief without concrete proof, based on a personal acceptance of reality, of relativity. Faith.
St. Augustine, I believe, said that God’s knowing of the future does not affect the course of events, just as our memory does not affect the past.
I completely agree with everything you said! 
In fact, it only furthers my point that we cannot know these things. I don’t knock anyone for having faith or hope, though. I just don’t feel compelled to have faith without evidence. I do have hope, however, that there is a greater being in control, but I just can’t say that I know b/c he has provided me no evidence. Therefore, I must claim lack of knowledge and that’s why I am an agnostic.
If there were absolute evidence, it wouldn’t be called faith.
True.
But unless we are talking about two different religions here, Christianity claims absolute evidence. Check out Romans 1:20.
Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Unless, of course, you believe the bible to be errant, as some do. Including myself. (I could go on all day with errant scriptures and incongruent logic between authors. Even an errant historical reference by Jesus himself. No need for that though.)
To add to this …
If his evidence were not absolute, how would it be just to subject judgment upon those of us whom were unable to believe due to insufficient evidence?
Like I said before, many have claimed their religion to be the one true religion, so how do I know which one to choose? Unless one has sufficient absolute evidence. Without that, I am left guessing. Damned if I do, damned if I don’t. That’s why I say that I have an excuse for my ignorance until sufficient absolute evidence is presented.
Clearly seen here, means clearly seen by the heart. Because you saw that logics alone can’t handle reality.
Besides, you can’t judge the Bible by a line or two alone. It must be taken as a whole, otherwise it is misinterpreted. As you did here.
You are suggesting that my interpretation is misinterpreted? You are the one who is adding words to the verse.
What?!? Where did you get that? It does not mention anything about a heart. You are the one taking it out of context and yes my interpretation is according to systematic theology. It has taken into account the context of the entire bible, where as your interpretation just adds new words and bends things the way you would like them to be. Ask any systematic theologian and they will most definitely agree with me.
You need to take a look at your own bias before you suggest that I have a bias. I have no bias. In fact, I am seeking more so than any Christian. You also ignored half of the other questions that I posed.
In fact, as you interpreted the passage incorrectly, it still makes no difference whether you add the new concept of by the heart. Either way the passage suggest that it is clearly evident and none have excuse. Does it not? If you really need me to, I will look up the many other verses that back this up.
As I said before:
If his evidence were not absolute, how would it be just to subject judgment upon those of us whom were unable to believe due to insufficient evidence or as you suggest the emotions in our heart? Why anyone would make decisions based on emotion, I don’t know, but that is your call.
Many have claimed their religion to be the one true religion, so how do I know which one to choose? Unless one has sufficient absolute evidence. Without that, I am left guessing. Damned if I do, damned if I don’t. That’s why I say that I have an excuse for my ignorance until sufficient absolute evidence is presented.
Are you suggesting that the Hindus believe so strongly in their religion in spite of the undeniable evidence in their heart that the Christian god is the real God? Every person of every religion feels it in their heart that their personal religion is the one true religion, so what makes you any different? Nothing.
Sorry, I don’t mean to sound harsh. I respect your opinions, but that’s just it, they are unsupported opinions. My suggestions are backed with evidence. You can’t just tell me how you feel, but I understand where you are coming from. Christianity is a very one-sided perception and will not allow an unbiased view. The questions that are too hard to answer get left at the door.