Post Any Evidence For God Here

[BigBallinStalin]

Should've hit the "Back" button.

[BigBallinStalin]

I just spent the last hour typing a response to you, when I tried to post it the website told me to relogin. There is no way I'm going to retype it all, but I'll point out a few things.

Your guys image is not the same. The shroud cannot be drawn.

Take a closer look at the images. You will see that my image shows that the darker spots are lighter and the lighter spots are darker. This is what happens when you have a photographic negative. Your picture does not do this. If a person were to draw this, it would basically be the same as you trying to sign your name upsidedown and with your left hand (If your right-handed). Now, try drawing an entire painting like this.

The shroud could not have been drawn, because when the scientists used a 3d imaging machine they were able to see a clear 3d image of the man on the shroud. There has not been any artist out there capable drawing with such detail. If you take the 3d imaging system and use it on these other drawings, the results come out very destorted.

"darker spots are darker and lighter spots are lighter" OH NO, ever heard of fading? There's certainly evidence of that between the two.

what it shows is that it can be done. Now given it's just a Doctor of Chemistry, if you were to take a team of highly skilled tapestry workers, then you'd have something like the Shroud of Turin. Those "mysteries" that you relied on so much or that you erroneously connected with the work of God are not mysteries; the scientist has shown that it can be done. It doesn't have to look 100% the same; he's showing how there were medieval methods to achieve similar results.

This isn''t proof, just strongly supporting evidence that undermines a lot of what you claimed to be the work of god or the 1000 flames of Resurrection radiation.

There is also, as i mentioned, dirt particles spaciffically located in the nose and knee areas, pollen all around the sides, real human blood and blood serum within the shroud. As I said before, the image is only in the top 6 microns of the linen fibrils. Most of this along with "possible paint or pigments" are detected using microsopes, ultraviolet light, and other advanced technology only available in our modern world.

You say that it is very faded over 700 years. Think about that. If you paint something now and in 700 years you still see an image, that would mean there would still be paint or pigments on your paper or canvas right? Unless I'm missing something, if you can detect something created by paint or pigments,the amount of time doesn't matter. If you see it and there are no paints or pigments then obviosult it was not drawn (again, explain how this could be detected otherwise).

And where are your sources? Surely, you can provide those, can't you?

Paint isn't what he used, so I'll disregard that part.

Just because you have trouble finding paints or pigments doesn't meant that you can with certainty jump to the conclusion that Jesus was behind the cloth, that Jesus was resurrected or that God exists. You've only asked a question that could be properly answered by someone who has sufficient knowledge in such things, I don't, so I can't explain this unless you provide me your sources.

If it wasn't drawn, you say that a random body or corspe was used. This couldn't have happened.

It couldn't have been a live body, because there were no broken bones in the image on the shroud, and the positions of the body parts on the shroud cannot be replicated unless the body has gone through rigor mortis. You wouldn't be able to lie down and take the exact position of the body shown on the shroud (and I mean EXACT) without breaking your body.

Oh so that means some artistic creativity was used, unless Jesus looked like a physical freak of nature, then I concede on this point.

Regardless of live body or not, if you wrapped a body in a shroud, there would be smear marks of the blood and blood serum, the pollen, the dirt marks, and other things in the shroud. even if you "let it dry" you should still be able to see microscopic smear marks showing directionality. The shroud of Turin only has directionaly created by the 120 scourge marks from the Romans. There are no directionality from smear marks seen on the shroud, even at a microscopic level.

Why would there be smear marks? There aren't any in that italian scientist's test?

What you did is this: They put a shroud around a bloody corpse, but there are no smear marks, therefore it must be authentic, Jesus was behind the shroud, yada yada yada.

You've ignored other possibilities, which I've already explained above.

Also, where are your sources?

So, either there is some unfound way the shroud was created, or it could be the possibility of the radation from the Resurection that created the image.

I think so, it would allow for the photo graphic negative image, the 3d imager results, and the fact that there are no smear marks.



Believe what you want man, but I got my facts from those who have actually studied the shroud. Again 95% of these scientists have converted to the Christian faith. However niether of us can prove to one another about the shroud, because we personaly have not viewed it. I will simply say that if the facts I have posted are indeed facts, then I can say for sure that this is evidence for Jesus and him resurecting ... an act of God.

Where are your sources? I've got my facts from people who studied the shroud, and all I asked are simple questions and offered possible and reasonable alternatives. You haven't listed any sources to back up your questions (probably because you're distorting the conclusions of your sources---much like the whole coin on the eyes ordeal.)


Regardless of the methods used (other than the ridiculous Resurrection Radiation), there's no evidence pointing to your claim that the man behind THIS shroud was Jesus. There's nothing that supports that except some hoodoo voodoo you invented, and your sources which you fail to present, which remain immune from further reasonable scrutiny.

All you did was regurgitate what you previously posted, again ignored possible alternatives, and just went straight away to the "MUST BE GOD" conclusion. Then ended with a "look, man, like whatever."

_________________________________________________

Think back a few centuries. The world had certain phenomena that couldn't be explained, so nearly everyone attributed said phenomena to be the work of God because there was no good explanation at that time. Then the common misconception is disproven.

This shroud is just that. It's some last remnant of the faith that certain Christians fanatically latch onto in order to affirm their faith of God. There are much better reasons for believing in the existence of God, but what this is about is the Son of God being God. You're one of those Christians who have a very limited and specific definition of God, and when put under pressure will 1)duck, 2)dodge, 3)dip, 4)dive, and 5)duck.

So far you've been intellectually dishonest with a hard shift into "Faith Drive." I'd love to view your sources, so you can give me the opportunity to show you where you're wrong.

[PLAYER57832]

I just spent the last hour typing a response to you, when I tried to post it the website told me to relogin. There is no way I'm going to retype it all, but I'll point out a few things.

Your guys image is not the same. The shroud cannot be drawn.

Take a closer look at the images. You will see that my image shows that the darker spots are lighter and the lighter spots are darker. This is what happens when you have a photographic negative. Your picture does not do this. If a person were to draw this, it would basically be the same as you trying to sign your name upsidedown and with your left hand (If your right-handed). Now, try drawing an entire painting like this.

The shroud could not have been drawn, because when the scientists used a 3d imaging machine they were able to see a clear 3d image of the man on the shroud. There has not been any artist out there capable drawing with such detail. If you take the 3d imaging system and use it on these other drawings, the results come out very destorted.

"darker spots are darker and lighter spots are lighter" OH NO, ever heard of fading? There's certainly evidence of that between the two.

what it shows is that it can be done. Now given it's just a Doctor of Chemistry, if you were to take a team of highly skilled tapestry workers, then you'd have something like the Shroud of Turin. Those "mysteries" that you relied on so much or that you erroneously connected with the work of God are not mysteries; the scientist has shown that it can be done. It doesn't have to look 100% the same; he's showing how there were medieval methods to achieve similar results.

This isn''t proof, just strongly supporting evidence that undermines a lot of what you claimed to be the work of god or the 1000 flames of Resurrection radiation.

I believe the latest, most scientific evidence suggests that this is truly and artifact of someone who was crucified. There is some dispute over the dates, but as mentioned in another thread, one big reason not to suspect a fraud is that so many details run precisely counter to what was believed to be true about crucifictions in the Middle Ages, but which we now know to be real. In fact, it was investigation into the veracity of the shroud that led to some of those re-discoveries.

There is also, as i mentioned, dirt particles spaciffically located in the nose and knee areas, pollen all around the sides, real human blood and blood serum within the shroud. As I said before, the image is only in the top 6 microns of the linen fibrils. Most of this along with "possible paint or pigments" are detected using microsopes, ultraviolet light, and other advanced technology only available in our modern world.

You say that it is very faded over 700 years. Think about that. If you paint something now and in 700 years you still see an image, that would mean there would still be paint or pigments on your paper or canvas right? Unless I'm missing something, if you can detect something created by paint or pigments,the amount of time doesn't matter. If you see it and there are no paints or pigments then obviosult it was not drawn (again, explain how this could be detected otherwise).

No one is saying "no pigment" the question is from where the pigments arose.

Think back a few centuries. The world had certain phenomena that couldn't be explained, so nearly everyone attributed said phenomena to be the work of God because there was no good explanation at that time. Then the common misconception is disproven.

Wrong, the misconception is that finding a "natural" explanation must mean absence of God. This is just not true. It is well within God's power to manipulate and use the processes he, himself created.

So far you've been intellectually dishonest with a hard shift into "Faith Drive." I'd love to view your sources, so you can give me the opportunity to show you where you're wrong.

So would I.

[dctalk]

notyou2 wrote: I believe he was simply a man that existed a long time ago. He is not the son of god, just a man like any other. Perhaps a man of stronger convictions and better moral fiber than most, but a man non-the-less.

Oh I DEFINETLY COULD SHOW YOU GOD!!!!! HE"S MY LIFE!!!!!!!
but first, Jesus COULDN'T have just been a "good guy" or "a man like any other"!!!
LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC! this states Jesus was either God, Satan, or crazy, maybe even possessed!
but you don't believe any of those! He couldn't have been normal cuz He stated He was God! (which is true)
either he was lying or telling the truth. God or something else! the "something else" was either the devil or he was insane, and out of his head. he wasn't a normal man. HE CLAIMED TO BE GOD!
one example: In John 4 of the Bible. he was talking to a samaritan woman (who Jews hated) who had been with many men, but had no husband. Jesus was with her by a well when he asked for her to get him a drink of water. she said you are jew i am samaritan. how can you ask for a drink? He said if you knew who i am you would ask of me living water. she said something like but no water from here is living. our father Jacob (israel's descendant) died to! he said whoever drinks of this water will be thirsty again. but whoever drinks of the living water i give them wont ever thirst again. she said GIVE ME THE WATER! he said well then go get your husband. she said i got none. he said yah, you've been with five guys before. she said sir! you must be a prophet! then He says a lot about how jews and samaritans will eventually worship together and so on. but this is proof that he said he was God.

John 4:25-26: The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he (God, the Christ, the Messiah)."

so, cant be a normal guy in the bc's right? soooo, WHICH DO YOU CHOOSE? LORD LUNATIC OR LIAR?
i choose Lord. and guess what? ITS THE BEST THING IVE EVER DONE!

[notyou2]

....and the Beatles are bigger than Jesus

[jonesthecurl]

So let me get this right: a book tells us that someone who may or may not have existed said something. Therefore there's a god?

[UCAbears]

I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

God is ultimately a matter of belief.

But then, you cannot prove there is NO God, either.

The proof for either comes within.

There's got to be a God-particle or something that proves God is real?

I know there is evidence for Santa Claus and he was a real person, there must be some type of evidence to show us that God is more than just a belief. Many scientists believed the Earth was the center of the Universe, but they were proved wrong through experiment and observation. Even the Theory of Relativity had its naysayers, who believed purely in Newtonian Physics.

Can we sit idly by and let the opportunity of such belief to be finally proven once and for all?

Why must the burden of proof be upon the non-believers? It should and always will rest upon the believers to bring forth evidence of the existence of God. And I am willing to listen. So please, can we keep the posts limited to the evidence only.

I heard that the Chinese might have found Noahs' ark, but that's just what I heard. If it's true, I'd say that is enough evidence.

[BigBallinStalin]

I heard the Chinese have no illegal migrant worker problems! 200 million people problem solved overnight! AMAZING!

[Symmetry]

notyou2 wrote: I believe he was simply a man that existed a long time ago. He is not the son of god, just a man like any other. Perhaps a man of stronger convictions and better moral fiber than most, but a man non-the-less.

Oh I DEFINETLY COULD SHOW YOU GOD!!!!! HE"S MY LIFE!!!!!!!
but first, Jesus COULDN'T have just been a "good guy" or "a man like any other"!!!
LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC! this states Jesus was either God, Satan, or crazy, maybe even possessed!
but you don't believe any of those! He couldn't have been normal cuz He stated He was God! (which is true)
either he was lying or telling the truth. God or something else! the "something else" was either the devil or he was insane, and out of his head. he wasn't a normal man. HE CLAIMED TO BE GOD!
one example: In John 4 of the Bible. he was talking to a samaritan woman (who Jews hated) who had been with many men, but had no husband. Jesus was with her by a well when he asked for her to get him a drink of water. she said you are jew i am samaritan. how can you ask for a drink? He said if you knew who i am you would ask of me living water. she said something like but no water from here is living. our father Jacob (israel's descendant) died to! he said whoever drinks of this water will be thirsty again. but whoever drinks of the living water i give them wont ever thirst again. she said GIVE ME THE WATER! he said well then go get your husband. she said i got none. he said yah, you've been with five guys before. she said sir! you must be a prophet! then He says a lot about how jews and samaritans will eventually worship together and so on. but this is proof that he said he was God.

John 4:25-26: The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he (God, the Christ, the Messiah)."

so, cant be a normal guy in the bc's right? soooo, WHICH DO YOU CHOOSE? LORD LUNATIC OR LIAR?
i choose Lord. and guess what? ITS THE BEST THING IVE EVER DONE!

He stated he was God? Who stated that he stated that?

Wait, you think that Jesus wrote the Gospels? If you believe that the apostles wrote them, then you must equally apply your own argument: Matthew, Mark, Paul and John were each either liar, Lord, or lunatic.

[dctalk]

no, those apostles DEFINETLY wrote the gospels, but that's what Jesus said. John wrote the book of John.
and just because he said he was god doesn't mean he was. but you have to choose what he was. i chose lord.
so again, LORD LIAR LUNATIC?

[jonesthecurl]

It's someone else' turn to point out when the gospels were written. I can't be bothered to do it again.

[notyou2]

Long after the man called Jesus was dead and buried after he lived a long life in Southern France. About 3 to 4 hundred years I believe.

[Lionz]

Who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John if not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/49_matthew.html

http://graceandknowledge.faithweb.com/papias.html

Maybe we with myself included should be careful not to be led to believe something simply because we want to believe it.

[Strife]

I have proof of god right here:

[dctalk]

if you really cared to find evidence of God, why'd you make this topic?

[silvanricky]

if you really cared to find evidence of God, why'd you make this topic?

Because the atheists here start threads like this every month as an excuse to have a big circle jerk. If they were really secure in their beliefs they would talk about something else and be satisfied with their lives.

[dctalk]

Who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John if not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, Luke wrote Luke, and John wrote John.
plus, for those evolution people out there, listen to this (Frye, J. 2009):
In 1981, evolutionist Colin Patterson asked his audience of evolutionists, "Can you tell me anything, any one thing about evolution...that is true? Phillip Johnson repeated the question at the Evolutionary Seminar in Chicago (really scientific bunch!). He got SILENCE!! but then one evolutionist, one of your own people, said, "i do know one thing -- it ought not be taught in school." that's pretty convincing because your body of "believers" said it.
and i want you to consider this. God is really offering you a complete, full, rich life but you still believe in life being an accident? God brings PURPOSE into life! you are wanted and loved by Him. have you seen the passion of the christ? that's all fact! (except for creative liscence...) If he really meant it, and died such a GRUESOME death, why don't you take it?
this is the best part. HE'S OFFERING YOU ETERNAL LIFE!!!! FOREVER!!!!!!! isn't that enough?
I forgot to say this before with Lord, Lunatic, or Liar...if he was Liar (the devil), why did he die and claim to be God? he certaintly wouldn't have used Jesus' morals! if he was insane, why did he get so many followers. and if they knew he was insane, they DEFINETLY wouldn't have killed him so brutally! guys, JESUS IS GOD! HE IS LORD!

[Symmetry]

Who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John if not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, Luke wrote Luke, and John wrote John.
plus, for those evolution people out there, listen to this (Frye, J. 2009):
In 1981, evolutionist Colin Patterson asked his audience of evolutionists, "Can you tell me anything, any one thing about evolution...that is true? Phillip Johnson repeated the question at the Evolutionary Seminar in Chicago (really scientific bunch!). He got SILENCE!! but then one evolutionist, one of your own people, said, "i do know one thing -- it ought not be taught in school." that's pretty convincing because your body of "believers" said it.
and i want you to consider this. God is really offering you a complete, full, rich life but you still believe in life being an accident? God brings PURPOSE into life! you are wanted and loved by Him. have you seen the passion of the christ? that's all fact! (except for creative liscence...) If he really meant it, and died such a GRUESOME death, why don't you take it?
this is the best part. HE'S OFFERING YOU ETERNAL LIFE!!!! FOREVER!!!!!!! isn't that enough?
I forgot to say this before with Lord, Lunatic, or Liar...if he was Liar (the devil), why did he die and claim to be God? he certaintly wouldn't have used Jesus' morals! if he was insane, why did he get so many followers. and if they knew he was insane, they DEFINETLY wouldn't have killed him so brutally! guys, JESUS IS GOD! HE IS LORD!

Well, looks like this matter is entirely settled.

[PLAYER57832]

plus, for those evolution people out there, listen to this (Frye, J. 2009):
In 1981, evolutionist Colin Patterson asked his audience of evolutionists, "Can you tell me anything, any one thing about evolution...that is true? Phillip Johnson repeated the question at the Evolutionary Seminar in Chicago (really scientific bunch!). He got SILENCE!! but then one evolutionist, one of your own people, said, "i do know one thing -- it ought not be taught in school." that's pretty convincing because your body of "believers" said it.

One idiot does not an argument make.


Whether there is definitive proof of Evolution or not is irrelevant. There IS proof that the Earth was not created in 6000 years. But there are 3 other threads to debate just that point.

And neither theory is proof of God or lack of God.

[PLAYER57832]

It's someone else' turn to point out when the gospels were written. I can't be bothered to do it again.

They were cannonnized, but not written a few hundred years after the birth of Christ.

Who actually wrote them is not as important as that they were representations of what each of those apostles taught, said and believed. In some ways, talking about who wrote them is like asking of a "ghost writer", and editor or the stated author actually wrote a biography.

Christians believe the words were inspired by God. Others never will. I believe the words of the Bible offer guidance applicable to all.

[Lionz]

Who claims earth was created in 6,000 years? You mean created about 6,000 years ago? Either way, where's the proof if there is some?

[Neoteny]

Who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John if not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, Luke wrote Luke, and John wrote John.
plus, for those evolution people out there, listen to this (Frye, J. 2009):
In 1981, evolutionist Colin Patterson asked his audience of evolutionists, "Can you tell me anything, any one thing about evolution...that is true? Phillip Johnson repeated the question at the Evolutionary Seminar in Chicago (really scientific bunch!). He got SILENCE!! but then one evolutionist, one of your own people, said, "i do know one thing -- it ought not be taught in school." that's pretty convincing because your body of "believers" said it.
and i want you to consider this. God is really offering you a complete, full, rich life but you still believe in life being an accident? God brings PURPOSE into life! you are wanted and loved by Him. have you seen the passion of the christ? that's all fact! (except for creative liscence...) If he really meant it, and died such a GRUESOME death, why don't you take it?
this is the best part. HE'S OFFERING YOU ETERNAL LIFE!!!! FOREVER!!!!!!! isn't that enough?
I forgot to say this before with Lord, Lunatic, or Liar...if he was Liar (the devil), why did he die and claim to be God? he certaintly wouldn't have used Jesus' morals! if he was insane, why did he get so many followers. and if they knew he was insane, they DEFINETLY wouldn't have killed him so brutally! guys, JESUS IS GOD! HE IS LORD!

[PLAYER57832]

I exist, because I think. I believe in God, therefore God exists, because in belief is a creation. but whether that has anything to do with the biblical God, is still unproven

[jonesthecurl]

So whatever anyone believes in is real?

[PLAYER57832]

So whatever anyone believes in is real?

Why not? It's as good as any other answer.