Would you sacrifice your son if God demanded it?

[vision]

We're damned. Simple as that.

And that right there is by far the worst worldview I can imagine. Dammed from birth from no fault of your own. What a rotten, rotten way to look at life. Simple as that.

You have my sympathy though. I remember what it was like think that way.

[roid]

And as usual your derision makes use of an incomplete picture of Biblical history. I'm sure before the fall God communicated with man just fine. Here we are, after the fall, and you blame God for men's ignorance.

Not sure what your point is here, Abraham was not pre-fall, he was post-fall just like we are. So the fall has nothing to do with his ability to communicate with God vs our inability.

God is not going to bully anyone into being righteous.

Except that's what he actually does in the bible. At every turn he is holding eternal damnation over your head. He's the ultimate bully. Do exactly what he says or burn in hell.

heh, i originally had started to type out the "God the Mafia Boss" protection racket metaphor at the end of my last post, but thought the post was long enough so i ended up deleting that bit

A Mafia Boss is going to break your legs, but then he allows you to make a payment to avoid this fate, in which case he'll protect you instead. This "pay me" loophole does not make him moral.
Likewise if Mafia-Boss God is going to send you to hell, but then he offers to let you accept Jesus, in which case he'll protect you instead. This "accept Jesus" loophole doesn't make God moral. God is a bully, operating a protection racket, his terrified clients all have stockholm syndrome.
Fear God and give him his stipend uh i mean glory. Or he'll break your legs and send you to hell.
He loves you, like an abusive spouse if you make him angry he'll slap you around while saying "Look at what you made me do". He loves you.

Getting people IRL to recognise that they are in a real abusive relationship can be very very hard , it's often all they've known. Abusive parents then abusive partners, this is just what they think love is - they've known no different.

[Jeff250]

I think that way too much blame gets placed on Adam for the fall and its consequences.

1) Adam was imperfect. He would have inevitably erred in some fashion or another. It could have happened no other way. Having every person living in a fallen world had to have been the plan from the get go, or else serious planning mistakes were made during creation.

2) The consequences of the fall didn't need to be so bad. After the fall, God wasn't forced to implement all of these consequences because "those were the rules." Who do you think made those rules? He didn't make child birthing painful for everyone because he had to--he it it because he wanted to. And more to the point of this thread: he didn't make everyone fall out of commune with man because he had to--he did it because he wanted to.

So I reject this notion that the story of Adam and the fall provides any meaningful historical context here in explaining why things are so bad. Adam's fall was inevitable, and most of the consequences of the fall, such as everyone falling out of commune with God, were completely at God's discretion. If things are bad, then it's because God wants them to be this way.

[Sergeant Thorne]

We're damned. Simple as that.

And that right there is by far the worst worldview I can imagine. Dammed from birth from no fault of your own. What a rotten, rotten way to look at life. Simple as that.

You have my sympathy though. I remember what it was like think that way.

That's one way to exit a failed argument. Don't be so sure you know how I think, even as it conveniently helps you to dismiss my statements here.

And as usual your derision makes use of an incomplete picture of Biblical history. I'm sure before the fall God communicated with man just fine. Here we are, after the fall, and you blame God for men's ignorance.

Not sure what your point is here, Abraham was not pre-fall, he was post-fall just like we are. So the fall has nothing to do with his ability to communicate with God vs our inability.

This was in response to Vision's...

The fact that your own special brand of Christianity doesn't agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses' brand (or any other brand) is a good enough reason to believe neither are worth a damn; just for the simple fact this alleged all-knowing, all-powerful god is incapable of relaying universal principals properly to his creation.

[vision]

We're damned.

What a rotten, rotten way to look at life.

Don't be so sure you know how I think...

But you just said "we're damned." So which do you believe, are we damned or not? If I'm not sure what you think, then you are doing a bad job communicating it to me. Try again I guess.

[Sergeant Thorne]

We were never talking about what I think, the subject was humanity's situation. You were arguing that the Bible, and the story of salvation makes God a bully who dangles hell in front of anyone who does not obey his whims. I was pointing out that hell was not a threat to those who didn't step right in a game of hopscotch, but rather we are already damned since Adam and Eve--separated from God and sinning. Then you started talking about how I think, and how you feel sorry for me because you used to think the same way... and here we are.

[snoopy]

No, Abraham had communication with a supernatural being and had no real way of knowing who it was at any time. He just assumed it was God, he apparently assumed correctly (yay). But we're supposed to believe there was no question that it was indeed God, simply because it'd be a plot hole otherwise? No, it could have been any supernatural being. You saying "there's no question" doesn't constitute an argument, the question exists, the question remains. (what do you think you're some kindof Jedi waving your hand around like that?)
Abraham was naive, it's lucky no-one got hurt.

If you read the text, it doesn't give you the latitude to take that step. If you insist on taking that step, why not just conclude that the text is about a guy named George taking his cat Pookie to the vet? (In other words, if you're going to make things up, then we're done here.)

But it can't be because he's Just, Righteous, Good, or Loves you, as those are now self-referential - God's telling you he's those things, the only reason you like it is because he's told you to like it and you are compelled (from fear i think) to obey him. God says think like this, so you think like this. God says like this, so you like this. But as a result it leaves you hollow, you are not allowed to have a moral compass or sense of personal taste of your own. ....
Worshipping a God because he says he's good, even when he does things that are bad....
Why is God worthy of worship? He's not Good, Moral, Just, or Loving. You tell yourself he is those things, but to do so you literally change the meaning of the words to something else, something self-referential. Is the original concept of Love that we all understand really so unpalatable? This is sick.

Is worshiping God, in a sense, enslaving? By all means. Here's the key question, though: is the alternative any less? No. It's funny that you say "the result leaves you hollow...." - that's exactly what the Bible teaches about sin (I.E. not worshiping God) - it enslaves you, but leaves you empty - always craving more but never being satisfied... and leaving a path of destruction in its wake. Conversely, enslavement to righteousness (God) means giving up some of your "freedom" (which is really an illusion, because the enslavement of sin takes that and more) and the result is a deep, lasting peace that fills you up.

Is God the author of evil, as you assert? by no means. You just don't see it, but then I don't really expect you to. I think the root of the difference in perspective is the question of the meaning of life. I don't think it's really about humans - it's primarily about God.

[snoopy]

They're thought experiments, not straw men. If the rule is "God == good," then it has to work for any God, or otherwise it's not a rule. If the rule is "God == good, assuming God isn't an ★■◆●", then we're already presupposing some external morality to judge Gods with.

What about "God == good, assuming he's really God?"

I hear you that it should apply to all Gods... thing is, there's only one who's real. Ultimately witness to that fact can only be provided supernaturally, so while I can assert that there's only one, and you can assert that there could be many, we're not really going to be able to resolve the argument. If you want an example of God asserting Himself as the only real God, refer to the ten plagues on the Egyptians right before the exodus.

I think that way too much blame gets placed on Adam for the fall and its consequences.

1) Adam was imperfect. He would have inevitably erred in some fashion or another. It could have happened no other way. Having every person living in a fallen world had to have been the plan from the get go, or else serious planning mistakes were made during creation.

2) The consequences of the fall didn't need to be so bad. After the fall, God wasn't forced to implement all of these consequences because "those were the rules." Who do you think made those rules? He didn't make child birthing painful for everyone because he had to--he it it because he wanted to. And more to the point of this thread: he didn't make everyone fall out of commune with man because he had to--he did it because he wanted to.

So I reject this notion that the story of Adam and the fall provides any meaningful historical context here in explaining why things are so bad. Adam's fall was inevitable, and most of the consequences of the fall, such as everyone falling out of commune with God, were completely at God's discretion. If things are bad, then it's because God wants them to be this way.

1. I'd argue that Adam was actually perfect. He was free, in that he had his own volition, but he was also perfect in that he had no corruption within himself and had never made a mistake... ever. Now, at the same time, God is sovereign & has laid out a plan for the entirety of history... so in a sense you're right that it could have been no other way. There isn't a nice a tidy way to bring man's responsibility & God's sovereignty together logically, but consider this: Did Adam take from the fruit against his own will? Would he have told you that he was forced to do it?

2. By God's nature, He can't endure sin to be in His presence. I'd say that the falling out of communion between God and man would be the one aspect of the fall that was beyond God's choice... because He can't violate His own nature. As for the toiling and the painful childbirth.... yes those do seem to be things that God chose. I'd contend that punishment had to be given for the disobedience (part of God's nature is justice) - so while the specific form of the punishment maybe could have changed, the overall concept of Adam and His offspring being corrupted and punished for their sin remains. If Adam had never sinned, (as I pointed out earlier, a volitional act on Adam's part) we wouldn't be here in this corrupted world; we'd be in a perfect one. Notice, again I hearken back to the nature of God as the basis upon which the "rules" are set...

I've struggled with your precise question in the past... if God is sovereign over all of creation, how dare He hold man responsible for sin which God ultimately had control over and had predestined to happen? The basic answer that I've come away with is two fold:

On a theoretical/abstract level: He's God, He created the universe, so He gets to make the rules however He pleases (and they just so happen to match His nature.)
On a practical level: No sinner was ever carried kicking and screaming into their sin.... it's usually more akin to drooling.

[flip]

I think in these arguments people fail to take into account that there is a war going on between God and one of His creatures. I think God in His foresight accounted for all contingencies. If man had not sinned, Satan would be under his feet, if man did sin, Satan would be under his feet. I think there are legalities involved that none of us fully understand, but the end result is still gonna be the same. All things are going to be reconciled back to God's authority.

[snoopy]

I think in these arguments people fail to take into account that there is a war going on between God and one of His creatures. I think God in His foresight accounted for all contingencies. If man had not sinned, Satan would be under his feet, if man did sin, Satan would be under his feet. I think there are legalities involved that none of us fully understand, but the end result is still gonna be the same. All things are going to be reconciled back to God's authority.

I speak from a reformed tradition... which would state that there is no such thing as "contingency" with God, because everything occurs as He has purposed.

[vision]

Is worshiping God, in a sense, enslaving? By all means. Here's the key question, though: is the alternative any less? No. It's funny that you say "the result leaves you hollow...." - that's exactly what the Bible teaches about sin (I.E. not worshiping God) - it enslaves you, but leaves you empty - always craving more but never being satisfied... and leaving a path of destruction in its wake. Conversely, enslavement to righteousness (God) means giving up some of your "freedom" (which is really an illusion, because the enslavement of sin takes that and more) and the result is a deep, lasting peace that fills you up.

Well of course the bible tells you not worshiping god leaves you hollow. The purpose of the bible is to sell god. It's like politics. Why would you make a decision on Romney if you only read Obama's lies?

The truth is, abandoning god is totally liberating for most people. My life is so much better after leaving the church, it's amazing really. Of course, I wouldn't expect anyone to take my experiences over theirs, but you can't possibly make the claim that not worshiping god leaves you hollow because it's patently untrue. And then you have to consider all the non-believers who lead loving, fulfilling lives filled with years of good works. Also, don't forget about those evil Buddhists who don't worship god but are smiling all the time. How dare they be satisfied without god!

If I was the only one who who felt satisfied with my life without worshiping god that would be enough to disprove it. But I'm not. There are literally billions of other people who lead fulfilling lives without your skygod. I leave you with this appropriate bit by Hitchens. Have fun groveling, slave.

[Foil]

Vision, I daresay people would be more inclined to believe your claim about happiness/freedom outside of religion... if you didn't throw in stuff like:

Have fun groveling, slave.

[CUDA]

The purpose of the bible is to sell god. It's like politics.

that would NOT be the purpose of the Bible. only some one that doesn't understand the Bible would think that. God does not need to be "sold" to anyone, and it's an extremely limited self serving perspective that would reach that conclusion.

[CUDA]

Vision, I daresay people would be more inclined to believe your claim about happiness/freedom outside of religion... if you didn't throw in stuff like:

Have fun groveling, slave.

there really is no point in discussing this with Vision. he'll do what he does and that will be that. he feels we are wrong. we know that he is wrong. so we should leave it at that. neither will change the others mind.

The truth is, abandoning god is totally liberating for most people.

Some not most, only arrogance would think that

My life is so much better after leaving the church, it's amazing really.

maybe, maybe not. life has a way of bringing us changes we cannot foresee.

Of course, I wouldn't expect anyone to take my experiences over theirs, but you can't possibly make the claim that not worshiping god leaves you hollow because it's patently untrue.

No it's not and there are BILLIONS of people that would say you are wrong.

And then you have to consider all the non-believers who lead loving, fulfilling lives filled with years of good works.

Now someone may argue, "Some people have faith; others have good deeds." But I say, "How can you show me your faith if you don't have good deeds? I will show you my faith by my good deeds.

Also, don't forget about those evil Buddhists who don't worship god but are smiling all the time.

Who said Buddhists are Evil?? Buddhists are sinners, just like you and I are.

[flip]

Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with that Snoopy. There are too many occasions in the Bible where God changes His mind and one time even repents that He made man at all. I think He just has great wisdom and foresight, not that everything is predestined, or He is wise enough to take every situation and turn it to His or our good. Fact is, if there wasn't a predetermined end, this rebellion would never stop. He just thinks so far ahead of everyone else is my belief. To believe the way you do really puts freewill in question. Just my opinion.

[vision]

Vision, I daresay people would be more inclined to believe your claim about happiness/freedom outside of religion... if you didn't throw in stuff like:

Have fun groveling, slave.

They won't be inclined to believe anything whether I'm nice or not. I could be the nicest person in the world and religious nuts still think I would go to hell. Bill Gates is a full time philanthropist giving millions per day to causes that make the world a better place. He's also an atheist going to hell. Dalai Lama? Burning in hell too. That kind of thinking isn't deserving of respect, sorry.

[Heretic]

And again I say to you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. --Matthew 19:24

[CUDA]

Vision, I daresay people would be more inclined to believe your claim about happiness/freedom outside of religion... if you didn't throw in stuff like:

Have fun groveling, slave.

They won't be inclined to believe anything whether I'm nice or not. I could be the nicest person in the world and religious nuts still think I would go to hell. Bill Gates is a full time philanthropist giving millions per day to causes that make the world a better place. He's also an atheist going to hell. Dalai Lama? Burning in hell too. That kind of thinking isn't deserving of respect, sorry.

and I'll ask, what are the motives for his giving. Show me where a man puts his Money and I'll show you what his true love is. there are MANY different reasons for giving and there are also just as many reasons that are self serving. Giving money to Charity does not make you a good individual and it does not make you a bad individual. it does not make you generous and it does not make you selfish. now show me a man that gives of his time and I will show you a man that is generous and giving. because your time is more valuable than your money.

[snoopy]

If I was the only one who who felt satisfied with my life without worshiping god that would be enough to disprove it. But I'm not. There are literally billions of other people who lead fulfilling lives without your skygod. I leave you with this appropriate bit by Hitchens. Have fun groveling, slave.

I guess we'll be stuck with our assertions. You haven't been in my shoes; I haven't been in yours. Converts to Christianity will support me, and converts away will support you.... Same applies to the video. I could argue that people convert away from "religion" and convert to genuine relationship with God... but at the end of the day we'll just end up disagreeing.

There is certainly worse enslavement out there that people are stuck in. (alcoholism, drugs, tobacco, anyone?)

[Spidey]

Speaking only for myself, as a person who has left formalized religion behind…I can definitely attest to the fact of having something missing after the fact.

Things science can’t provide and questions science can’t answer. So I started to look for answers outside of science and formal religion for these things…

Example…

Trying to come to grips with life being nothing more than a bunch of excited molecules, and consciousness being created by complexity.

(Nether of which I believe)

So yea, you can discard religion, but you can’t replace it all that easily.

[CUDA]

I could argue that people convert away from "religion" and convert to genuine relationship with God...

I did.

and the Bible teaches that religion his a hindrance to a relationship with God.


Religion is a stone tied to my feet. it never set me free.

[vision]

now show me a man that gives of his time and I will show you a man that is generous and giving. because your time is more valuable than your money.

Did I forget to mention that Bill Gates is a full time philanthropist? After spending his time helping to change the world through technological achievement, he'll spend the rest of his life sharing his rewards. Sounds like a pretty good life for someone damned to eternal hellfire.

[CUDA]

now show me a man that gives of his time and I will show you a man that is generous and giving. because your time is more valuable than your money.

Did I forget to mention that Bill Gates is a full time philanthropist? After spending his time helping to change the world through technological achievement, he'll spend the rest of his life sharing his rewards.

Did i forget to mention, Giving money to Charity does not make you a good individual and it does not make you a bad individual. it does not make you generous and it does not make you selfish.

Sounds like a pretty good life for someone damned to eternal hellfire.

why are you damning Bill gates to hell, sounds judgmental on your part. because the Bible says

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”

Do not judge others, and you will not be judged.

but it seems that you have already condemned a great many people to hell. which i find it ironic since you criticize us for being judgmental

[vision]

You know I don't believe in heaven or hell. Also, making judgements about people is central to civilization. And if giving your time and money to making the world a better place doesn't make you a good, generous person, well damn I give up. I guess all you guys care about is servitude to the celestial overlord.

[CUDA]

giving doesn't make you good..... why are you giving??? is it so you don't have to pay as much in taxes???? is it that you want to make a name for yourself??? both of those are selfish reasons and are not charity. they are self serving.

And even when you ask, you don't get it because your motives are all wrong--you want only what will give you pleasure.

I am not criticizing Bill Gates Giving. what I am criticizing is your flawed logic.

I guess all you guys care about is servitude to the celestial overlord.

UHM I don't know where you get your ideas of Christianity, Maybe that's what your "Religion" taught. (shame) but that is not what Christ taught, he taught us about self sacrifice and service to each other.

There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends

that is not just talking about your Physical life, it's also talking about your personal life. if you care for someone you sacrifice.

[vision]

I am not criticizing Bill Gates Giving. what I am criticizing is your flawed logic.

It's not flawed and your examples don't apply. I specifically said full time philanthropy for the purpose of making the world a better place and used Bill Gates as my example. I don't care if there are tax incentives for giving to charity because giving to charity is still good. Whether a rich person's money goes to helping people through charity or helping others through taxes is irrelevant. Tax cheats will cheat anyway so I'd rather them cheat by giving their money to a good cause if that's the case you are making. You can argue that while a certain person paid less taxes because he gave to charity, you can equally make the case that the money spent on charity did more good than the money spent on taxes. And if this is all you've got, then unfortunately we have to get into the ethics of taxes which is a whole other argument I don't care to since it doesn't further either of our points.

[flip]

Gates: "In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don’t know if there’s a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid."

I understand what he is saying here. Gates is not an atheist, he just doesn't have evidence.

Meaning, he is smart enough to keep his mind open and not totally dismiss the idea, he just has no good reason to believe it either.

[vision]

I understand what he is saying here. Gates is not an atheist, he just doesn't have evidence.

Semantics again, see above.

Even an atheist like me holds open the possibility of God, pending evidence.

<semantics> That would place you somewhere on the agnostic spectrum, as "atheist" means a perspective which strictly excludes any deity. </semantics>

Ha! You are correct. Even Richard Dawkins doesn't consider himself an atheist in the strict sense, but he also says making that distinction is pointless when dealing with believers, who often see evil in any form of doubt. I also tend to make a slight personal distinction between "belief" and "practice." I'm technically agnostic (depending on your definition of agnosticism, because there are a few), but I practice atheism. That is to say, I live my life as if there is no gods.

I would totally believe in god if there were evidence, however there is none.

[snoopy]

I would totally believe in god if there were evidence, however there is none.

Actually, it's all around you and even within you... you just don't see it.

[CUDA]

I would totally believe in god if there were evidence, however there is none.

there is plenty of evidence. both physical and historical.

[vision]

Actually, it's all around you and even within you... you just don't see it.

I thought I saw it when I was younger, but I was mistaken. It was an illusion.

there is plenty of evidence. both physical and historical.

Name one.

[CUDA]

there is plenty of evidence. both physical and historical.

Name one.

the Physical
1. where did the matter come from that precipitated the "Big Bang"
origin of species can and will be debated until we are Blue in the face but the matter that created it all had to have a starting point. where did it come from. saying that it was "ALWAYS" there is circular reasoning and without logic or fact to back it up.

the Historical
2. read the antiquities of the Jews. it is a historical document that was commissioned by the Roman empire written by Flavius Josephus.
3. read the Roman Historical documents written by Pliny the Younger. Pliny the Younger, was a lawyer, author, and magistrate of Ancient Rome
4. read the Roman Historical Documents written by Tactius a Roman historian and Senator
5. also the Book of Acts, now I know you'll dismiss it because it is part of the Bible, but the Book is widely regarded by Roman Historians as an Accurate account of the times.

[Foil]

The problem is that none of the above serve as "evidence god exists".

The first is simply a epistemological limitation. It's a valid argument against someone claiming to have knowledge from before the beginning. [Note that while speculation abounds, the Big Bang model actually makes no claims whatsoever about anything before it.] The usual follow-up, "Well, it must have started somewhere", while convincing as a "common-sense" argument, is too fuzzy and ill-defined to serve as hard evidence.

The rest are evidence showing how the scriptures fit into historical context. They generally show that the scriptures were indeed written by people in the culture and time of Christ, and most scholars accept this. Unfortunately, that's not enough to serve as hard evidence of the more specific events in the narrative (the resurrection, for example).

[flip]

I think it can also be said that the lack of dispute can go towards it's validity. There are alot of wild claims made in the New Testament but none calling them liars. Even darkness over the land or a great earthquake or the Temple Veil being ripped is not disputed elsewhere and even validated in other texts. No it doesn't prove anything except no one else was disputing them either. Take into account that it kept spreading and eventually even became the national religion of Rome goes towards it being a very powerful movement. In one place it even says that it would be preached to all nations and people, a very bold statement at the time I'm sure, yet we see it continuing to this day. Aside from all that, I am of the opinion now that unless someone has a personal experience themselves, it's useless to even discuss it with them.

[CUDA]

ev·i·dence
   [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

By definition everything that I presented is Evidence. it is "Grounds for belief" it is an "Indication or a sign" and it " includes the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects."

When a party has the Burden of Proof, the party must present, through testimony and exhibits, enough evidence to support the claim.

there is enough evidence to support the "claim". and FYI that is just a VERY small sampling of the documentation out there. there are not enough hours in the day to go though all the historical testimony. discounting what is written in the Bible strictly on your "Beliefs" that Miracles don't or cannot happen, as most people do. is based PURELY off an opinion and not on the evidence available. there is enough "circumstantial" evidence to support the existence of God, and I would also say that people have been convicted of Murder for less evidence then is Available here.

[Foil]

Ah, so we're getting into the question of the kind of evidence required, and how much. Is circumstantial/anecdotal/personal/spiritual/archeological evidence sufficient, or is more testable/analyzable/reproducible information required?

It appears vision won't be convinced by anything less than a set of fully-rigorous verifiable scientific experiments, and that Cuda is convinced by a set of personal and historic evidence. I don't think you guys are going to see eye-to-eye on this.

[vision]

...is more testable/analyzable/reproducible information required?

Exactly. We are talking about what would be the greatest aspect of reality. It needs to stand up to the most rigorous criticism. No one should settle for anything less than something independently testable and verifiable. As it stands, I spent years pray, proselytizing, doing good works, and opening my heart to Jesus -- and came up with zilch.

I remember making a comment to a friend of mine about the speed and progress of scientific discovery. Roughly two hundred years ago we knew nothing of the electromagnetic spectrum. Science and our understanding of the universe changed forever once we learned how to measure it. I think it's possible we might one day discover something that equates to a "spiritual spectrum," perhaps a way to measure what is commonly known as spiritual energy or the channels which this alleged mystical information passes. Of course, if we do discover such a thing there will be many people who will say "see I told you so, I knew I was right." The would only be right because they guessed right, not because they had proof. I'll wait until we make that discovery before believing in anything supernatural.

[callmeslick]

there is plenty of evidence. both physical and historical.

Name one.

the Physical
1. where did the matter come from that precipitated the "Big Bang"

evidence of nothing beyond the unknown.

origin of species can and will be debated until we are Blue in the face but the matter that created it all had to have a starting point. where did it come from. saying that it was "ALWAYS" there is circular reasoning and without logic or fact to back it up.

not even an accurate summation of science. And, see the above.

the Historical
2. read the antiquities of the Jews. it is a historical document that was commissioned by the Roman empire written by Flavius Josephus.
3. read the Roman Historical documents written by Pliny the Younger. Pliny the Younger, was a lawyer, author, and magistrate of Ancient Rome
4. read the Roman Historical Documents written by Tactius a Roman historian and Senator
5. also the Book of Acts, now I know you'll dismiss it because it is part of the Bible, but the Book is widely regarded by Roman Historians as an Accurate account of the times.

I fail to see ANY prove of existence of God here whatsoever. What are you suggesting?

[CUDA]

there is plenty of evidence. both physical and historical.

Name one.

the Physical
1. where did the matter come from that precipitated the "Big Bang"

evidence of nothing beyond the unknown.

then answer the question. there is a lot of "UNKNOWN" that science takes as fact. why the double standard?

the Historical
2. read the antiquities of the Jews. it is a historical document that was commissioned by the Roman empire written by Flavius Josephus.
3. read the Roman Historical documents written by Pliny the Younger. Pliny the Younger, was a lawyer, author, and magistrate of Ancient Rome
4. read the Roman Historical Documents written by Tactius a Roman historian and Senator
5. also the Book of Acts, now I know you'll dismiss it because it is part of the Bible, but the Book is widely regarded by Roman Historians as an Accurate account of the times.

I fail to see ANY prove of existence of God here whatsoever. What are you suggesting?

I suggest you read them before you dismiss them, it's kind of self defeating to dismiss something that you haven't read don't you think??
in a court of law they are considered eyewitness and first hand accounts which BY LAW meet the requirements of Evidence for his existence

[Foil]

there is a lot of "UNKNOWN" that science takes as fact. why the double standard?

Not sure I understand you here, Cuda. What is it about "unknown" / "we don't know" / "it's outside the scope of the model" that you have a problem with?

...in a court of law they are considered eyewitness and first hand accounts which BY LAW meet the requirements of Evidence for his existence

This is back to the question about types of "evidence". For your definition of "evidence" (from courtroom law), personal accounts which can be confirmed to be from the proper time/place setting suffices. But for folks who mean rigorous scientific proof when they say "evidence", it's something entirely different.