Thursday, July 03, 2008

"there is no evidence that God has ever existed"

I suggested to the poster that he look up the difference between evidence and proof, but I don't think he bothered. He just repeated his unsubstantiated claims. Here, off the top of my head, and before my first cup of morning coffee, are evidences for the existence of God. (If you have additional arguments, please weigh in. If Vicki is reading this today, she may have something to add.)

1. The Creation. The exquisite design that is evidently all around us in creation and available for anyone with eyes to see (eyes themselves being a wonderful example of design). Aspects of creation that go beyond the darwinian explanation that it's all about procreation, such as beauty, enjoyment, music, the longings of the human heart for significance, meaning, etc. The probability that the universe is not the product of an intelligent designer is effectively zero. Our ability to observe Creation, in and of itself, makes man morally accountable to God.

2. The existence of the Bible. The Bible is a collection of 66 complementary writings, written over centuries by diverse writers, in which God declares Himself and reveals himself through word and deed to his chosen people. The Bible is primary evidence for a holy, just, powerful, faithful God who both judges and saves mankind.

3. The persistent moral sense within the human heart, which goes beyond pathetic evolutionary explanations. That's evidence not just for an impersonal intelligent designer, but for a personal, moral God.

4. DNA, which is encoded intelligence. Intelligence, and encoding are two separate things. Just like ink and paper are different than the thoughts expressed. If DNA encoding appeared in the form of radio waves from outer space, secularists would shout from the rooftops that this was not only evidence, this was proof of intelligent life in outer space. It is only because they don't like the implications that they refuse to acknowledge the separation from intelligence and encoding in DNA. That's evidence.

5. The fact that the universe had a beginning. Try to follow this logic:

5a) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. (The key word here is begins).
5b) The universe began to exist.
5c) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
5d) The cause is God.

What cause does the secularist scientist come up with? Multiverses? Pathetic attempt, without any scientific evidence whatsoever, at getting around the obvious inference that the universe came into existence at the hands of a being who existed outside of the universe. Since the universe includes not only space but time, this strongly suggests that the being is eternal.

This is strong evidence. Before you reject this argument, name me one other thing, other than, supposedly, the universe, that did not exist, came into existence, and yet was uncaused. It is unknown to empirical experience.

6. The resurrection of Jesus Christ. Despite your protestations to the contrary, Jesus Christ did in fact exist as an historical character rather than the "dreams of Paul". Get this, bud: even secular, non-Christian historians acknowledge that Jesus Christ existed. Evidence for Jesus and his resurrection from the dead include:

7-10. The four gospels. The gospel according to Matthew. The gospel according to Mark. The gospel according to Luke. The gospel according to John. Not one, but four complementary witnesses to the mighty works, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Each one of these books exists and therefore constitute evidence. They were written either by eye-witnesses, or friends of eye-witnesses to the events record.

11. The fact that the apostles were willing to die rather than renounce their belief in the resurrection of Christ. As someone has said, men may die for a false belief they mistakenly believe to be true, but men don't die for a belief they know to be false. This is powerful direct evidence that, at the very least, the apostles sincerely and deeply believed that they had seen Christ risen from the dead. And this is powerful indirect evidence for the historicity of the resurrection of Christ from the dead.

12. The rapid growth of the early Church. An indisputable historical fact. Again, indirect evidence for the existence of the apostles, of Christ, and of the resurrection.

13. The words of Jesus Christ. I was converted to Christ by the power and logic and demands of his words. "I am the way, the truth and the life". What kind of man says this? Who could come up with such noble, elevated words? He was either a liar, a lunatic, or he was who he proclaimed himself to be -- the Lord. I accepted Him in my heart as Lord. And do not regret doing so. That's evidence.

14. The testimony of Christians such as myself who claim to have met the Lord and claim to be in relationship with Him. The testimony of radically changed lives. The guy who was a slave-trader and then wrote Amazing Grace. The woman who was condemned to death in Texas for murder, but who showed such evident evidence of transformation of life. Those who have shown peace and bravery at the point of martyrdom for Christ. That's evidence.

15. The Holy Spirit. Non-believers, such as yourself, believe that Christian faith is all an irrational shot in the dark. It is not. God's Holy Spirit is given to those who seek to know and obey God, and knowledge of God takes on an experiential dimension. It is not a shot in the dark. I know that my Redeemer lives. The same holy Spirit who lived and came upon Jesus Christ is with me.

16. Miracles. Numerous recorded in the pages of the Bible. Numerous attested to by Christians over the centuries and in the present day. The current revival in Lakeland Florida appears to be a download of miracles from God. Miracles are evidence.

17. Fulfilled prophecies. The coming of Christ. Prophesied and fulfilled. The details of his death. Prophesied and fulfilled. His resurrection. Prophesied and fulfilled. The restoration of Jews to the land of Israel. Prophesied, and fulfilled -- in 1948. The gospel preached to all the world. Prophesied, and being fulfilled in the present day. The return of Christ. Prophesied -- want to bet against it?

18. The fact that the idea that God and Christ may exist, and may exert moral demands over you, bothers you so much. That's evidence. People are either running to God, or away from God -- which way are you running?

Throughout history, the deepest thinkers, philosophers, scientists, historians, inventors, artists, etc. have believed in both God and Christ.

This topic deserves more than shallow thinking and faulty argument. Where you spend eternity depends on it.

Have a blessed day. Coffee awaits.

27 comments:

Strong Conservative said...

You forgot laminin, the cell adhesion molecule. Laminin is your left hook!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e4zgJXPpI4

Lore_Weaver said...

Can I play too? Incoming Debunking...

Lore_Weaver said...

1. You're arguing the undefined middle. A Creator implies Creation. Creation doesn't imply a Creator. Also, our existence is no accident, due to the anthropic principle. We exist to observe so we can observe existence. A Tautology yes, but hardly evidence that supports God's existence.

2. What about the bits of the bible that didn't make it "in the bible"? The bible is a collection of fairy tales, some even boldly lifted from other cultures. Others are so fantastical that I feel embarrassed for people who take it literally.

What about Homers Odyssey? What makes that not the word of Zeus?

3. There is a concept of evolutionary meme's. Memeology hasn't really been defined or explored, but it is thought that it might explain our capacity to help others. What makes it beyond evolution?

4. DNA is a collection of 4 compounds, abbreviated G A T and C. DNA combines together quite readily, as evidenced by single-celled-life's quick start. There's nothing "intelligent" about DNA, a more correct term would be refined. Refined over 4 billion years.

5. Using the word "begin" implies time. The shifty thing about time is it didn't really exist before the big bang. That pesky Einstein eh?

Science doesn't say the Big-Bang was nothing. There are different theories here, but Science isn't exactly sure what happens. Why? Because the equations get all screwed up. Why? Because there was no time and dividing by 0 sucks. Even God can't divide by 0. Omnipotence can't help him there.

The leading theory is that the Big Bang was an explosion of space itself. But this isn't just a pie in the sky idea. We can look back in time and see the effects of that explosion? How? By looking ~ 14 billion light years away.

6-10: I'm going to need more than someone's writing to prove that there was a sweet Zombie Jesus. Apolonius of Tiana deserves that much.

11. As written years later, and re-edited several times. No proof here. Jim Jones would be so proud.

12. Does this make Scientology true? Scientology is growing faster than Christianity did.

13. Waco Texas is that-a-way. Although I'm sure David's currently in jail.

14. That's zealotry. What of the martyrdom for other Gods? Whose that for? What makes Christ so much more important than Allah, Wotan, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you heard a news story that someone lit themselves on fire for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, would you start believing in him?

15. I don't know what to say here... uhhh no? What about people who worship Cargo Planes in the pacific? The plane lives on in them. THE PLANE THE PLANE.

16. Miracles are random chance. Fluky events that believers are quick to attribute to their God. However, they turn a blind eye to everything else. Is Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich a Miracle? Or is it mere pareidolia?

17. Self fulfilling prophecies. We want the bible to be true, so we put the wheels in motion to see it's prophecies come true. If there was something in the bible that said the word "Plane" or "New York" then maybe I'd listen. No real prophecy here. Before you say "they didn't know those words back then", then they really didn't know the future. Does God have the omniscience and the omnipotence to change his future mind?

18. The ontological argument restated. Well done. If belief in God requires faith, but you prove his existence, allowing for belief without faith, then God cannot exist. QED. Man, I love that book. The God of the Gaps was so huge back in the middle ages that invoking God at your wits end was fitting. However, when Newton discovered the Laws of Motion, the God of the Gaps shrunk. Newton then couldn't figure out how the solar system all worked together. He invoked God. Then Cassini came along and solved that bit of math. Cassini couldn't explain the diversity of life on Earth, so invoked God. Then Darwin came along and solved that... there are still gaps in our knowledge, but they aren't as large as they used to be.

---

In closing, there have always been doubters, but now it's easier to defend doubt from zealotry than ever before.

As Scientists, we must be aware that the path of progress requires eternal vigilance. If we have a religious movement that exclaims that "Math is the Devil" we'll be destined to mediocrity.

(points if you can get all my cultural references, there are loads!)

Red Tory said...

I hope you didn't write that from scratch because I suspect you're wasting your time on this one. Teh Stupid is powerful in him.

RkBall said...

Strong C. -- thanks for the laminin lead. The existence of any other adhesive would be viewed as clear evidence of intelligent design. This adhesive "just happened". I'm going to look it up.

RkBall said...

Lore W.

A general comment. As a consistent atheist, you ought not use logic or rational argument -- for logic and rational thought are both immaterial things which ought not to exist in a purely material universe, and if they do by chance, exist they certainly ought not to be trustworthy -- especially when processed through your undesigned and without purpose brain.

Unless there is a rational being that stands behind the existence of logic and rationality, you are standing on air -- it is irrational to trust rationality or logic in an uncreated, undesigned universe. You have to move onto theist's ground to even discuss the issue.

"In the beginning was the Logos."

1. Anthropic principle -- "we exist to observe so we can observe existence". A belief system, a faith statement. You credit this to a Void, a Nothingness. Christians credit it to an active, powerful, personal, and loving Creator.

5. "Begin implies time". Perhaps. But time itself logically has a beginning based on the following logic:

a. If time were eternal, there would be an infinite number of moments prior to the present, and we could never reach the present moment.

b. The present exists (want to try denying this?)

c. Therefore time is finite.

Anything that begins to exist has a cause. Time began to exist. Therefore, time has a cause. That cause must stand outside of time, and must, therefore, be eternal. That eternal cause outside of time is God.

3. Memes. A scientifically discredited idea.

18. You misunderstand faith. Faith is not belief without evidence or belief without proof -- it is trust in a person. The apostles saw Jesus Christ in the flesh. They witnessed his death and saw him alive "through many infallible proofs" after his resurrection, and yet they still had to have a trusting faith in Christ in order to be saved.

"(points if you can get all my cultural references, there are loads!)"

You're kidding, right?

RkBall said...

And another thing --

4. "That's zealotry. What of the martyrdom for other Gods? Whose that for? What makes Christ so much more important than Allah, Wotan, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you heard a news story that someone lit themselves on fire for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, would you start believing in him?"

It annoys me when posters don't actually read and absorb an argument but just post a knee-jerk reaction from their bag of ready-made responses and think they are saying something either intelligent, or clever, or withering.

The point I made was this (h/t Charles Colson and others): people may die for a (false) belief that they believe to be true (like a Flying Spaghetti Monster or 12 Virgins), but generally will not die for a belief that they know to be false -- which would be true if the apostles concocted or invented the story of Jesus' resurrection. The fact that they did not recant their testimony that they were eye-witnesses to the resurrected Christ is powerful evidence that the apostles actually believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. That was the point I was making, and that was the point that remains entirely unrefuted by the poster's response.

Lore_Weaver said...

"The fact that they did not recant their testimony that they were eye-witnesses to the resurrected Christ is powerful evidence that the apostles actually believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. That was the point I was making, and that was the point that remains entirely unrefuted by the poster's response."

Unless they themselves were invented. Say, several years afterward.

Elvis didn't do drugs!

Lore_Weaver said...

"Strong C. -- thanks for the laminin lead. The existence of any other adhesive would be viewed as clear evidence of intelligent design. This adhesive "just happened". I'm going to look it up."

Evolution doesn't "just happen". Evolution is by definition not random. It's the non-random selection of randomly varying, self replicating things.

Red Tory said...

Citing The Bible as irrefutable proof of God's existence. Very funny.

Lore_Weaver said...

"it is irrational to trust rationality or logic in an uncreated, undesigned universe. "

Just because you say so, doesn't make it so. You can say it thrice and it will still not be true.

This is the undefined middle again. A watchmaker requires a watch to be defined as a watchmaker.

A frozen waterfall requires nothing but water, cold, and elevation.

Life, as we know it, took billions of years to evolve. If there was one perfect eye, God would give it to everything. Not bad eyes for humans, and good eyes for eagles.

Lets not even touch on how badly designed Humans are. If there is a God that designed us, he did a worse job than my 4 yo with balsa wood and super glue.

RkBall said...

Tory the Red: I did write it from scratch, because I enjoy the fact that theists have a rational reason for trusting in logic and reason, and consistent atheists don't.

The vast majority of atheists are inconsistent. It may work in theory, but it never works in practice. What atheist ever held a newborn child in his arms and said to him, "I have feelings of love for you, but these feelings are nothing more than chemical reactions caused by a cruel trick of unthinking, unfeeling, uncaring evolution. And, though my heart may swell with pride and I may wish big things for you, in fact, because you exist in an uncreated universe, you are entirely without worth or value or purpose or destiny. Although I value and prize you highly, this is because of a quirk of impersonal evolutionary forces that make me feel this way. In fact, you are no more worth or consequence than a sack of potatoes or a bag of rocks, and, if someone were to bash your head in, that would be of no more consequence in this materialistic, unplanned, undesigned universe, than someone smashing a bag of potatoes or crushing bunch of rocks -- have a nice life".

As I said, it may work in theory, but it is unworkable in practice.

Atheism at its core has a void and a blackness to it that is matched only by their worship of the Void:

the anthropic "principle" - from a principleless void

the laws of physics - but no law-giver

logic - from nothing

rational thought - from nothing

love - from nothing

beauty -from nothing

life - from non-life

the universe - from nothing

An atheist's motto might be "from the Void to the Void, with glorious, unexplainable life in between".

The Christian chooses to believe the more reasonable, more probable, and more satisfying answer.

Lore_Weaver said...

"5. "Begin implies time". Perhaps. But time itself logically has a beginning based on the following logic:

a. If time were eternal, there would be an infinite number of moments prior to the present, and we could never reach the present moment.

b. The present exists (want to try denying this?)

c. Therefore time is finite.

Anything that begins to exist has a cause. Time began to exist. Therefore, time has a cause. That cause must stand outside of time, and must, therefore, be eternal. That eternal cause outside of time is God."

--

I think I specifically stated that time itself began after the big bang. I think I also said, "That pesky Einstein"

Let me explain this too you. Einstein's big discovery was that Gravity warped the fabric of space-time. Like a marble on a sheet causes an indentation. The big bang started as a singular point of infinitesimal size, with a near infinite mass. This means that there was no time. The warp of space time was so drastic, that time itself was undefined.

This is true today, just past the event horizon of a black hole. From outside, time appears to stop for anything that is inside (assuming it's observable).

This effect has been observed as our own astronauts have aged at a slower rate once they leave Earths warping grasp. Albeit, this effect is much less pronounced in this case.

It's called the twin paradox.

Time isn't some linear thing that goes off in a straight line. I know it's hard for you to comprehend, because you stopped at "God did it".

I'm not saying you should disbelieve in God, what I am saying is that you are denying yourself the truth of our observable reality by invoking God at the limits of your understanding.

Lore_Weaver said...

"I hope you didn't write that from scratch because I suspect you're wasting your time on this one. Teh Stupid is powerful in him."

Ya, I kinda did.

Lore_Weaver said...

cultural references made:

Jim Jones
David Koresh
Apolonius of Tiana (another prophet)
Fantasy Island
Kill Bill
Richard Dawkins
HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy
Wing Commander IV

Lore_Weaver said...

-----
"I have feelings of love for you, but these feelings are nothing more than chemical reactions caused by a cruel trick of unthinking, unfeeling, uncaring evolution. And, though my heart may swell with pride and I may wish big things for you, in fact, because you exist in an uncreated universe, you are entirely without worth or value or purpose or destiny. Although I value and prize you highly, this is because of a quirk of impersonal evolutionary forces that make me feel this way. In fact, you are no more worth or consequence than a sack of potatoes or a bag of rocks, and, if someone were to bash your head in, that would be of no more consequence in this materialistic, unplanned, undesigned universe, than someone smashing a bag of potatoes or crushing bunch of rocks -- have a nice life".
-----

Wow... that's quite insulting. To suggest that I cannot feel a connection to my 4-children because I believe in no God?

Nicely done.

My children defiantly were created. By me and my wife. Creation is fun.

I feel a connection to my Children because it's an evolved response. We aren't going to preserve well as a species if we do not care for our young. But let me explain this to you quite a bit more plainly.

In evolutionary terms, parents of particular animals care for their young in relation to how many young they are capable of having at any given time.

In Humans, this number is relatively small. It's very similar to most mammals. A chimp has a fair degree of caring for it's young. So does a Deer, or a Bear. These animals will go to large lengths to protect their young, but have no sentient mind to question this caring, or analyze it. (We do).

However, if you look at Fish or Insects, they typically have hundreds upon hundreds of young. Caring for them becomes less important for the preservation of the species, so this specific trait isn't as evolved. A fish will often eat their own young, as will several types of insects, and even spiders (which are not insects).

I know you don't really understand my point here, but yes, our love for our young is a selected evolutionary trait.

If we didn't love and care for our young, there wouldn't be many humans, would there. Thus, we wouldn't be around to have this discussion.

I know the Anthropic Principle is kind of annoying, but you can't discard it. You are as you are, and conditions must've been such that you can be, else you wouldn't be here to question such things.

Your belief in God is no more rational than people who belong to Cargo cults.

Lore_Weaver said...

"3. Memes. A scientifically discredited idea."

Completely discredited? By whom? When? I didn't get the memo that this idea is *completely* gone. I think it was modified, wasn't it? You'll have to provide a link or reference for this one, buddy.

RkBall said...

Red Tory: "Citing The Bible as irrefutable proof of God's existence. Very funny."

Apparently you missed the point of the post. The challenge was not to cite irrefutable proof of God's existence. It was to respond to someone who said, categorically, that there was NO evidence for the existence of God -- check out the title of the post.

""there is no evidence that God has ever existed".

I was not trying to provide irrefutable proof of God's existence, but, rather, to demonstrate that evidence does in fact exist, and that belief in God is reasonable and rational.

Red Tory said...

I wasn't addressing the entirety of your post (which is ridiculous and would take all day to debunk properly), just one of the previous comments where you cited The Bible in the manner I described.

Lore_Weaver said...

"You credit this to a Void, a Nothingness. Christians credit it to an active, powerful, personal, and loving Creator."

I do no such thing. Where in Science does a theory presently say there was nothing?

It NEVER DOES. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.

The Big Bang wasn't an explosion of nothing, it was like an explosion of space itself.

Things didn't just randomly combine together either. Abiogenesis is still not well understood, but it goes something like this.

Space itself explodes. Gravity and "Dark Matter" bring matter together to create the first atomss. These Hydrogen atoms collect together to make stars so dense, that they produce the elements from helium to iron (Iron is the heaviest element that can be produced in a fission reaction). They then collapse in on themselves due to their massive weight and create even heavier elements, then scatter it all around.

A new set of stars form out of the remains, they have clouds of matter around them, these clouds of matter form planets. For us, this happened around 4.5 billion years ago.

Temperatures on Earth were quite rosy to allow particular chemical compounds to get together. Over time, they began to combine in such a way that they could self replicate by absorbing things around them.

This replication lead to a process of evolution by natural selection.

Fast forward another 3 BILLION years, and here we are.

--

It's fine that you disagree with this, but you need "Proof" to disagree with it legitimately. You have to be able to say, "That is impossible because of 'X'". To date, nothing has been shown to not be possible given the above theory. That's why it hasn't been discarded yet.

If you want to contribute, you have to provide a distinct, repeatable observation that shows that the above could not have happened.

The above theory wasn't just created out of thin air either. It's a best guess of what happened based on our available observations. It's the only way we can currently describe our observable reality in one cohesive fashion.

That's not to say there aren't more questions, there are. When something is shown to defy it. Then the theory will be tossed.

So far it hasn't been done. Don't interpret this as us being accidents either. We aren't random, we are decidedly not random. Nothing about our existence is Random.

Which brings me back to the Anthropic principle...

Lore_Weaver said...

Red's point RKBall, is that your Evidence lacks legitimacy.

RkBall said...

"To suggest that I cannot feel a connection to my 4-children because I believe in no God?"

I made no such suggestion.

From your responses, it appears that you have not considered the deep logical problem that materialists have with the existence of immaterial things, such as love, or logic, or consciousness.

In a purely material world, they cannot have an independent existence apart from atoms or molecules.

Let me try to put it this way for you: if the last sentient being on earth died, would logic cease to exist? Does it only exist in the minds of human beings? Or, should another sentient being emerge, could it be "re-discovered" by them?

The fact that you even bother to argue suggests that you have some belief in the reality of immaterial things, which in a purely material universe, are unexplainable.

Your comment on the faulty creation of the human being -- if you really believe this, I'm surprised you obviously put so much confidence in your own mind, undesigned and evolved from junkyard DNA parts.

Lore_Weaver said...

This'll be my last post here. I'm moving on to your new post :D Thanks for engaging me, by the way. It shows courage on your part to not delete or edit my posts. Ray Comfort hasn't been as kind. At least the internets preserved my smackdown of Ray. Moving on...

---

"Your comment on the faulty creation of the human being -- if you really believe this, I'm surprised you obviously put so much confidence in your own mind, undesigned and evolved from junkyard DNA parts."


Each bit of DNA is not a "junkyard" of parts. My mind is designed. My mind is designed by the need for humans to develop intelligence to survive. A process that took hundreds of thousands of years. Australopithecus wasn't too bright, but Homo Erectus was much brighter, and so on.

---

"Let me try to put it this way for you: if the last sentient being on earth died, would logic cease to exist? Does it only exist in the minds of human beings? Or, should another sentient being emerge, could it be "re-discovered" by them?"

Logic is defined from a Human philosophy. Constructed around our language, our understanding, and operations that yield Tautology. Logic, as we know it, is mere truth, and operations on phrases that yield truth. I've done a lot of prolog programming, AI programming, and taken a great deal of "logic". Logic is like a belief network multiplied in on itself to produce inalienable truths of our existence. Logic neither provides evidence for God's existence, nor refutes it.

The Existence of logic, logically doesn't provide evidence, or lend credence to God's existence. This is a false dichotomy.

It is possible that a God exists. Not your God, as Omniscience and Omnipotence, and Omnipresence are all logical contradictions. I'm afraid logic sides with my camp :D

Red Tory said...

FYI, I've linked to your post. Not sure if you're interested, but if you want to take your argument over there as well ,you might find a broader audience willing to engage the discussion. Or not.

BEAJ said...

I'll repeat myself after reading this post. There is no evidence that God has ever existed or was ever needed to exist.
The evidence exists for a God as does for a magical Leprechaun who controls the weather from the centre of Pluto's core.

And if everything needs a cause, then so does God. If one wants to say God always existed, I can come back and say that the matter in the universe always existed, although I will admit that I don't know the answer regarding what happened the minute before the big bang, there are quite a few different hypothesis' out there that have nothing to do with God.

Using the bible to provide evidence for Jesus or God is pretty desperate.
It is like saying that L. Ron Hubbards writings are evidence that Scientology is right.

I don't have a lot more I want to add thanks to Lore's rational points.

Mike said...

"In the beginning was the Logos."

You what is really funny about that? The idea of 'Logos' originated with the Hellenized Jew Philo of Alexandria who lived from about 20 BCE to about 50 CE. He was a contemporary of Jesus who was closely related to and aligned with the Royal House of Judea. He was the Jewish Ambassador to Emperor Giaus Caligula in 39-40 CE. Currently in existence are more than 30 of his works totaling over 850000 words, all on the subjects of Jewish apologetic and contemporaneous politics.

In all that, he never mentions Jesus, Christianity or any of the event sin the New Testament even once.

Yep, a well read, important and contemporary Jewish writer and philosopher that the Christians themselves felt strongly enough to "borrow" ideas from, who was certainly in a position to do so, never mentioned anything from the New testament, including the existence of an itinerant preacher.

Because he didn't exist.

That is what is called evidence.

RkBall said...

"Because he didn't exist."

One guy doesn't mention him, and you cite this as proof that Jesus Christ didn't exist? Wow! Philo didn't mention you either. Are you sure you exist?

Even secular historians, based on purely historical-critical investigation conclude that them man Jesus Christ existed. So, to say he didn't even exist is a bit of a stretch.

But thank you for the history lesson -- it would have taken some time to put it together. And the Logos is just a wonderful concept that John appropriated and infused with Christian meaning.

More to the point -- if the Logos, the One who said "I am the way, the truth, and the life - no man comes to the Father but by me" did exist, would you believe in him and follow Him?

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"