Forums / Miscellaneous Discussions / Did Jesus Exist ?

There doesn't necessarily need to be an experiment.  A great majority of the field of astronomy deals with our understanding of physics and mathematics, which is why scientists have a pretty secure idea in regards to the elemental composition of planets, stars, nebula, etc.  String theory is very much experimental, yes, but it is backed by mathematical reasoning and is changing as we learn more about physics and our galaxy.

How does one even begin trying to "prove" the existence of god?  Or gods?  Where is the theory behind it?

I never said god was wrong, and I did not say that ANYTHING figured out with calculations is correct.

Elemental composition is relevant because it is the ability to use math, physics, and chemistry to learn something we cannot see, hear, but rather must infer.  This is where proofs are useful.

When you create an equation, you base it off of what you have already witnessed and adjust it based on more evidence as you learn it.  Again, where do you even begin to define "god?"  Is god a law, a physical phenomenon, what?  Is god energy or mass?  If the bible had not been written or Christianity begun, would there have been any possible way, now or in the future, to infer the existence of a divine humanlike entity?  If so, how?

"Elemental composition is relevant because it is the ability to use math, physics, and chemistry to learn something we cannot see, hear, but rather must infer.  This is where proofs are useful."

wrong, your argument has been that you can prove something with mathematical theory, as i have already said the composition has been proved - not with a load of calculations - by experiments and the like that can be seen in front of you.

"When you create an equation, you base it off of what you have already witnessed and adjust it based on more evidence as you learn it."

exactly, so by definition absolutely every calculation we use is basically useless as - at some point - everything we knew in the past has been wrong so why should now be any different, unless the theory can be shown in front of your eyes, you are being hypocritical,why should anyone belive a theory made of constantly fallable equations if they are not allowed to believe in a supreme being.

"Again, where do you even begin to define "god?"  Is god a law, a physical phenomenon, what?  Is god energy or mass?"

well according to string theory absolutely everything is made of energy :)

"If the bible had not been written or Christianity begun, would there have been any possible way, now or in the future, to infer the existence of a divine humanlike entity?  If so, how?"

if there was no bible then that would mean god did not WANT to be known of, remember christianity basically began with the jews being led out of egypt, and it stemmed from that, being topped up with the appearence of Jesus. God could have remeained ingonito but he chose to reveal himself, just because you cant see something doesnt mean it isnt there.

"Um... yes, it was proven by a load of calculations.  We have only ever landed probes on a few planets that have physically returned material that, for the most part, supported our previous calculations.&nb*beep*ajority of what we know about space comes from our knowledge of physics.  Do you think we've ever actually "experimented" with a star other than earth?  No, it's simply too far away."

would you please stop referring to a purely theoretical calculation as tangible evidence, we do not need to collect matter from stars to determine what they are made of, i hate having to do a physice lecture but here we go, we have determined the structure of planets using youngs slits experiments, i.e looking at the light coming through the planet,sun etc atmosphere with a special telescope with a set of thin lines cut into it, these lines split the light and whatever colour is missing from the visible spectrum indicates what element is present, this has been shown on earth as well. It has been proved by experiment, not just fabricated out of nothing.

"You don't throw out all the old equations when you make new equations.  Our basic understanding of physics works with gravity, and we are able to predict planetary motions and such.  It's when you reach a new level that you must add on to existing knowledge, such as with quantum mechanics.  Just because you learn an expanded set of knowledge does not mean everything you knew up to that point was completely false.  Belief in a supreme being, however, doesn't even build up or modify over time--it is just a human idea one is asked to suddenly believe, when there is *beep*servable cause or effect.  It's purely an assumption that one does exist and taken for granted.  Again, how do you infer god?  Where can you find evidence of god's existence anywhere other than human history (in which Christianity becomes just one religion in many, not the first, not the last, not even the largest)?"

for the most part newly developed phisics theorys do destroy the ones come beforehand, physics is basically "proving" a past theory wrong untill you are - in turn - "proved" wrong. It may seem strange but religion has modified over time, albeit a lot more slowly. Ancient religions are undercut by others when they do not seem to hold any more truth, you are right christianity may not be the last, its followers are dwindling as with every religion beforehend, though throughout time one factor has ALWAYS remained secure, that there is a higher being and it makes sence, theology is not that different from physics or mathematics. In every culture there has been a "higher being(s)" even when they havent had any contact with an outside culture, religion may be beatable but God is not.

"True, but you must admit there is no evidence for god or some other supreme being, and you don't believe in unicorns, the tooth fairy, Thor, or the flying spaghetti monster.  Are they all choosing to remain incognito?  Or might they perhaps be human constructs?"

unicorns and the tooth fairy are seen as folklore, they are seen not as gods or such but as stories to tell children, thor on the other hand is - as iv mentioned - a god and is now seen as the one allpowerful god believed in by muslims, christians, jews and such. Old religions are left behind but the god stays true. Exactly the same as physics.

"would you please stop referring to a purely theoretical calculation as tangible evidence,"

Well, the whole purpose of this argument is to say that yes, theoretical calculations are indeed useful when discovering how the universe works, so it is not "blind" guessing that one must simply have "faith" in, contrary to your earlier argument stating that theistic beliefs are just as reliable as theoretical calculations.

"for the most part newly developed phisics theorys do destroy the ones come beforehand, physics is basically "proving" a past theory wrong untill you are - in turn - "proved" wrong."

Yes, but you don't toss out all past information as being completely bogus and unreliable as you were previously indicating.

"It may seem strange but religion has modified over time, albeit a lot more slowly."

Right, and now we have thousands of religions and sects of the same basic religion, all varying in details.  And then consider the variations individuals make within even just one sect.  Unless there are thousands of gods, then only one person/group is actually "correct" in their beliefs.

"ancient religions are undercut by others when they do not seem to hold any more truth, you are right christianity may not be the last, its followers are dwindling as with every religion beforehend, though throughout time one factor has ALWAYS remained secure, that there is a higher being and it makes sence,"

Oh?  At one point the church was killing people who believed the universe worked differently than how the church claimed, people who turned out to be correct in the end.  Yet Christianity, or Catholicism to be exact, is not dead.  And what of religions that state there are multiple higher beings?  Here you're throwing in millions of "what ifs" and it is impossible to weed any one out.  This is why theology is quite different from physics and mathematics--the universe has its own set of rules that we are observing and attempting to define and narrow down, but theology only increasingly throws out more and more possibilities based on one's individual perception.

"In every culture there has been a "higher being(s)" even when they havent had any contact with an outside culture, religion may be beatable but God is not."

That's because humans are always trying to define the world around us because we know everything happens for a reason.  5000 years ago could the ancient civilizations explain why the sun rises as the heliocentric model now?  Or why certain stars seemed to wander across the sky while a great majority did not?  The ancients used gods to explain natural occurring phenomenon they could not explain on their own and personified them.  So is there still a god of the sky, a god of the underworld, a god of the volcanoes, or wind, or snow, or harvest?  Are we to take seriously all these old beliefs when we know why the wind blows, why the sky appears as it does to the visible eye, why volcanoes erupt, why it snows, or what factors come together to provide a healthy, abundant harvest? 

"unicorns and the tooth fairy are seen as folklore, they are seen not as gods or such but as stories to tell children, thor on the other hand is - as iv mentioned - a god and is now seen as the one allpowerful god believed in by muslims, christians, jews and such. Old religions are left behind but the god stays true. Exactly the same as physics."

And can you not see the similarities between fairy tales and religion?  Both have moral stories using fantasy-based scenarios, both are typically attempted to be instilled in young children who do not have an understanding of math, science, or physics.  Thor was never an omnipotent, omnipowerful god.  He was one of many deities in the old Norse religions.  Consider Loki.  He certainly wasn't a very modern-god-like figure, rather a troublemaker and a trickster because humans knew fortune could quickly change.  Now consider what religions there may be in a thousand years into the future.  Perhaps there won't be one god, but many little gods again, gods of black holes, white holes, wormholes, dark matter, whatever.  Religion can take virtually any direction because unlike physics, there is simply no way to narrow it down, no way to get a "more accurate" model.

"Of course physics is blind guessing, thats what every physicist does to try and find how to solve a problem, as iv already said physicist make up rules that fit the universe and see if they stick, take heat for example, a phisicit thought tiny particles bonded to matter to make it colder and heat was the absence of these, it made sence and fitted the scenario but people would laugh nowadays."

Blind guessing would indicate you made a random statement.  Physics are formed after observing part of nature and modifying the theory for accuracy, which is not at all "blind."  These guesses are typically not made by your average joe or 5-year-old kid.  That is blind guessing.   How exactly does religion emulate this?  Is there any way that theologists can observe god and look for a true form?  Or is a guess 5000 years ago just as good as a guess made now?

"yes you do, at least all the information that was ralated to the subject in argument, as in the example i just gave the previous theory, and all work done on it was ingnored from then on out."

Yes, but that is not representative of how most of physics work.  Take the model of the sun and earth--originally it was thought earth was the center of the universe.  Then it was learned the sun was and that planets orbited in perfect circles.  Then it was learned that the orbits are elliptical in shape, not perfect circles.  Then not only is the sun the center of the universe, but even the sun orbits a supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way galaxy.  You see the ideas of gravity and orbit coming back and back as the ideas are being adjusted and made more broad.  Or take a different idea, why the sun burns.  Regular physics would indicate the sun would have simply burnt out of hydrogen fuel long, long ago, except for a previously unknown physical property--fusion.  Hydrogen still burns the way we thought it did under the conditions we could test it, but when there is an extraordinary amount of heat needed for fusion different properties must be considered in addition to previously gathered knowledge.

You don't draw the slate clean unless your idea has nowhere to advance and wrong.

"or they are in fact all wrong, i am not defending religions here, just the prospect of a higher being. It is human beings making these assumptions, not God himself."

So where does the evidence come from that proves that god or a higher power existed in the first place?

'that is just the same theory of having one god, it may be humans making the wrong assumption about gods, while not being wrong that there may be a god."

Okay, but where is the evidence supporting the theory that any god exists whatsoever?

"You say physicists narrow down, so do the more recent religions, in ancient religions there were mass murders and human sacrifice to the god(s) nowadays people ask why should they kill themselves for a higher being, as with festivals and cerimonies, in the past they were huge and glamorous but now people see it is not necisary to do everything so large. Religions are getting more and more simple to the point it may just end up as people believing there is a god and accepting it, not needing to celebrate or sing about it."

Or as an alternative to gods entirely, perhaps humans are learning to be more kind because of a increased global awareness and connectivity, and learning to be more humanistic which requires no god or higher being, simply a human-created awareness.

"Yes early civilisations blamed higher beings for such things but nowadays people know the phisics, yet they still enjoy a religious life - shown by the vast number of theologan/physisists"

Yes, and you also see a large increase of atheists and agnostics too, or people who try following the ideals of humanism without concerning themselves with a higher being.

"3rd and final time im defending a higher being not religion. and iv explained that religions do narrow down. as for the gods of black holes and such they were founded and explained by physisists, no one has made a god of black holes and the like since they were founded, why should they now?"

Are religions really being narrowed down, though?  Again with global communication, there is a vast array of minor religions that come to light, and further divisions in those that do exist today.

And now let me ask this--what is a higher being?  What does a higher being do?  How has a higher being influenced us as a species?

"500 years ago people observed nature and modified a theory for accuracy which came to the conclusion that there was a god, these guesses were made by philosiphers at the time and it seemed reasonable, nowadays men with IQ's greater than yours or mine, can still come to the same conclusion, seems exactly the same as the idea you just posted."

Yes, but I remain skeptical that if the intelligent religious had not been introduced to the concept of a superior being as a result from their own experiences with churches derived from ancient gods, there would be no belief in a "superior being" with the understanding of the universe we have today.  And don't forget there are also many intelligent men who are atheist as well.

"your argument of the solar system is fair enough but in regards to the sun it is not. "burning" (combustion) and fusion have no connection what so ever all theories of hydrogen being "burnt" were thrown out and fusion was accepted. Just because combustion and fusion both produce energy does not make them similar."

Yes.  My point was that just because the sun uses a different process of releasing energy (fusion) does not mean our knowledge of combustion was incorrect in all given scenarios.  Thus fusion was added into our knowledge of physics when there is enough atomic movement that fusion is possible, in addition to our knowledge of combustion.

"failed suicide attempts, strength to ignore drugs, acting in charity, they happen when a person learns the existence of god be it from a religion or of their own conclusion and wish to accept it. People who have been forgotten by the rest of society after countless attempts of help are given another chance. Why would a false concept have any influence whatsoever?"

You'll need to be more specific about failed suicide attempts.  Strength to ignore drugs can come from strictly non-religious sources, ie belief in one's own abilities as opposed to belief that a higher power is providing strength.  Acting in charity is also done by athiests and, again, need not use religion or a higher being but humanism, a human awareness for human society.  Religion/a higher being is not a false concept.  It is a manmade concept, and there is no scientific evidence that it is anything but manmade.

"you misunderstand i wasnt talking about how terrible some of the actions were i was talking of how gradiose the proceedings were, that they would partake in useless and huge cerimonies when now people see it isnt nesicarry, there was no question some of these actions were horrible but some were also fun, albeit a complete waste of time."

Okay.  Might belief in a higher being also be unnecessary, then?

"yes but that does not change the facts that some of the greatest physisians were theologans, of course there are aetheists and its perfectly fine to be but why whould people with the greatest minds on earth bother joining in if physics was completely contradicory or had no connection what soever with god."

For hundreds of years physicians could ONLY be theologists or believe in Christianity,  Not only was it the social norm, but it was difficult to even get an education or the equipment for research without the church's support.  Yes, there still are theologists physicians out there today, but the respected ones look to nature for explanation of the natural before using personal beliefs to try and explain something.

"of course they are, just because there are more of them does not mean the concept is not being narrowed down, if you look at the religions now you will see most of them are just a handful of literature and the belief in a higher being, this shows an obvious "narrowed down" view of religion in contrast to past ones."

Well first of all, nearly all religions ever had a higher being (or self-awareness) and sacred writing.  Except for perhaps the old religions that existed in cultures without writing or practiced among the illiterate.  And there are more and more bibles, sects, and cults out there as time goes on.  Also, don't forget that social turmoil also leads to religious radicalism or fundamentalism--take for example the rise in radical Islam as a result of Soviet and now American occupiers.  Or that there are churches that label homosexuals as damned compared to churches that accept it.  Religion dances on the whim of society.

"as i explained beore, the one thing that holds true is that the higher being created the universe, wether using the big bang or whatnot, that is task enough. A higher being is just that, a higher being, it may be an evolved entity from another universe, a celestial body or it may simply be the join between two or more 5-dimensional objects. No one has come back from death or perhaps even seen him so no one knows just like noone knows what the big bang looked like, it may have been an explosion, a chord, a splash or a fart. It has influenced the people i mentioned earlier, even the thought of the god is enough to save someone."

Okay.  So the supreme being is, in essence--a name that can be fitted to any idea or law of physics.  Still, where is the evidence that the big bang was anything more than a natural occurance?  Or that the supreme being is an evolved entity?  (After all, if that were the case how did the entity itself evolve?  By nature, or by yet another entity?)  If no one knows what the supreme being is like, why belief that there is an entity in the first place?

see im athiest so my opinion is that some bored shepard made the bible and that when we die is just like our dreams when we sleep. ther eis no heaven or hell, our after life is wat we want it to be its all a dream

err, very very very long argument, anyways this was based on whether jesuses existed so ill start there and say yes jesus was definetly a real person, whether or not his teachings were true or not is for you to decide, personly i believe in christianity, certain things im unsure of but belive in it nethertheless, i believe we most likely did evolve from chimpanzies or watever considering 99% of our DNA is the same, the fossil records show it, etc. but this doesn't mean christianity is wrong, has no one ever thought of how it is explained in the bible in being everythin is made in 7 days not in a real sense but rather meaning 7 stages stretched out over a long period of time??

the fact remains whether god be real or not, what jesus taught us to believe, was how to be a good person, i would not think god really cares if you follow the religion as long as you're a good person which is the basis behind the bible, and many other holy books.

in my mind i say jesus teachings were wrong. apparently all the boring ppl go to heaven and all the fun ppl go to hell. ppl who save themselves for marrige go to heaven.ppl who dont drink or do drugs go to heaven. ppl who never cuss or anything go to heaven right?well apparently those who know how to party and have fun go to hell so i would rather go to hell then go to heaven without alcohol or sex or anything like that.

im not saying i need to have sex to enjoy being with the one i love, but i aint gonna wait yrs for her and i to get married b4 i make love to her. And alcohol has been in my life since i was in the 5th grade so 5 yrs

Ya so technically wat i said about boring ppl going to heaven and fun ppl going to hell is correct adn once again i would choose hell

I know for a fact that there is no heaven or hell. My friend got hit by a car, and died on the way to the hospital. but thankfully the parametics kept working on bringing him back. They did an electric shock on him and his heart started pumping again but very weak. He was dead for 10 minutes. After he got out of surgey for the an artery that was hiit, i asked him wat it was like. he said ther was no light there wasnt anything. just wat he dreamed of the most which was his gf. he said he was sitting in tall grass looking at the night sky with his gf next to him. So really there is no heaven or hell just wat we want it to be.

Justin how do you know it was your friends time to go? How do you know if God didn't place those dreams in his head. God knows all and he knew if your friend was to live or die. He knew your friend was going to survive, maybe he didn't want him to see Heaven or Hell.

Also how do you know he didn't go to Heaven? His "dream" could of been his own version of Heaven. Also he might have went to Heaven, but forgot it and when he was having surgery done he was having dreams.

Besides it is pointless to argue whether there is a God or not, whether there is Hell and Heaven or not. NO ONE will truly know until they are dead and if there is a Heaven and a Hell (which there is) I hope for your sake you're argument of "I was just living my live and having fun" will fly by on your judgment day.

Yeah, but hopefully "Nice car.  Eat lead.  My new car!" isn't a reason you would.  Religion is a way to draw the line.

RThis behaviour is wrong in every culture I'm aware of. Culture draws those lines, not religion. People don't need religion to tell them this stuff and wouldn't kill each other even if there was no hell. Even religious people all have their own reasons for not killing, other than that it is a sin.

Ah, but anger can also cause you to punch your irritating coworker in the face, or envy can cause you to steal or destroy others' property.  It's a double-edged sword.

See above.

Well that's a nice thought but unfortunately that idea isn't even in the bible. That's one of my biggest problems with religion btw: people who recognise there is a problem with their religion so they go ahead and start making up things that sound more reasonable and try to pass it off as the religion. Sorry guys, but the bible is not a nice reasonable religion that works for everyone. It is strict and moralistic with a god that will in fact send you to hell if you don't believe in him.

The way I see it, people ought to either defend their religion as it is or just accept the fact that it is unreasonable for most people and stop trying to change what it says to make it fit everyone.

If I was God, and my book (despite being written by humans to my exact specifications) was reinterpreted according to Joe-blow's opinion of what I MEANT to say, I would be pretty pissed. In fact it would be about the greatest blasphemy. Incidentally, that was the attitude of the church for over a millenium until it became de-centralised and started letting people say anything about the religion just to get people to join. Now every single Joe-blow I meet is talking about a different religion on close examination, and yet they all call themselves christians. It's really silly when you think of it.

It is still possible to be Christian without believing the bible....It is necessary to some degree to "pick and choose" what you want to believe.

Then what do any of these people's beliefs have to do with Christ? Lots of people say the same things about how to be a good person today and Christ was not the first to say them. If a person didn't believe in the bible and picked and chose what they would do to be a good person then why would they need to ever call it religion? It isn't religion to just have ethics and follow them.

They accept the fact the old religion is unreasonable so they do try and change it... there's nothing illogical about that.

It's a paradox. One thing I learned from the religious people on this thread is that they believe in Christ because the bible is "the inspired word of God" and the bible says Jesus is a big deal. Well if the word of God isn't good enough so they just go ahead and do what they feel like, how are these people any different from an atheist or a blasphemer? If you really believe in God the way Christians supposedly do, then who are you or anyone else to decide which ones of his lessons are important and which ones can be left behind? The bible doesn't give a rating system on what is more important than anything else, it says follow all the following things and lists them. Now people just run around picking and choosing, thinking they are better than the guy next to them who chooses to follow none of the lessons. Once you choose not to follow one part of the bible, you're just as bad as I am for following close to none of them.

 "P1)The bible is God's word. P2)God is always correct. Conclusion) Let's not follow the bible because it isn't what God really meant to say." is a perfect example of a lack of logic.

Protestants were trying to bring back old ideas instead of just fabricating new ones.

Protestants are responsible to no one. If you attend a small sample of churches you'll find as many varying opinions on what parts of the bible we should listen to and what parts we shouldn't as when talking to people who haven't even read the bible. Again, what is the point of calling a personal collection of ethics, decided on by yourself, a religion. The bible doesn't say you can pick and choose what you want, so how are Protestants sticking to what it says any more than I am? The answer is: not at all really, except by certain coincidences when individual opinion gained by life experience happens to go along well with ideas in the bible.

What makes a Christian is the general following of the teachings of Christ

I understand that you are obviously a very liberal Christian (which I find far more tolerable than a fundamentalist) but this is just a really broken statement. What makes a Christian is following what he said in particular compared to what the whole rest of the world says.

The entire world agrees on the basic ideas that you do about what is right and what is wrong. As you well know, the rest of the world is not necessarily Christian, so what value is your religion? What does it offer you in terms of ethics that you wouldn't have come up with on your own?

Obviously you've chosen what you feel is right or wrong and so have an idea of ethics, which means you never needed that religion at all. Essentially, you've grown out of your original beliefs (if in fact you ever believed in the bible at all) and become a non-Christian who may perhaps still believe in certain superstitions about the afterlife and existence. To reiterate, this is not religion; it's ethics, so who needs religion?

"Then what do any of these people's beliefs have to do with Christ? Lots of people say the same things about how to be a good person today and Christ was not the first to say them. If a person didn't believe in the bible and picked and chose what they would do to be a good person then why would they need to ever call it religion? It isn't religion to just have ethics and follow them."

Christ didn't write the bible, as we all know.  Yes, he wasn't the first to say them, and certainly not the last, and yes, I believe a person can be perfectly good with religion.  Religion is just an approach to ethics based more on specific figures and ideals as opposed to a general, intangible feeling of "humanity".

I don't know if someone said this but Jesus did exist and the question should have been is Jesus the son of God or just a prophet like in Islam. Religion from certain aspects makes up information at a time where there was little understanding of the world it helped to explain why things are. It teaches good values through parables and other things.

The main problem is that it's two sided. You can't prove God or gods exist or they don't? This varies between person to person it will be hard to convince people on the two extremes to change their believes by debating with them.

Excelsior ur missing the whole point, u live ur life by a book but does a book make it real? does just hearing about it make him an all mighty god? IDK about most ppl but i would rather have proof by seeing it with my own eyes not by some fabile that wasnt even supposibly written by "God".

ty clamps finally someone gets the reason this thread was made. Like i said, just some bored sheap hearder made the bible and said it was "gods"words and everyone was dumb enough to listen to him. I dont believe in god because there is no reason to. he has never done anything from wat i seen. And dont tell me"but he created the world in 7 days" because ive heard it b4 adn u have no proof beside and imaginary book. anf thats not good proof

Unfortunately, my life has made me unable to look at this thread as it has progressed, but I have noticed a few things that I am able to correct people on, and which badly need said correction.

The Bible is not one book. The Bible is a collection of [66)] books compiled over a period of two-thousand years. It contains the writings of sheperds, fishermen, priests, prophets, kings, tax collectors and many others. They all correspond with each other and agree. This alone argues for the validity of the historical accounts of the Bible. (Which have not been disproven at any point in time, rather they have been strengthened and encouraged by archeological evidence. EX: Nebu-Drezzar, a minor Babylonian official who has been archeologically proven to exist at the right time-period and place, is named in the Bible as doing some minor task.)
FYI: Believers in the Bible (such as myself) believe that "All scripture is given by inspiration of god,"[2 Timothy 3:16, excerpt.]

As to the "The Bible has been altered over the years." This is not so, for example, the Gutenberg bible corresponds exactly to modern varients, the only differences being ch@nges in the language due to some words/grammar becoming obsolete. That accounts for 500 years of ch@nges. Now, for the earlier times we go to the Dead Sea Scrolls (And other such documents.). These contain segments of the Bible which correspond exactly to their modern meanings, the differences being in language only. This is because the Bible strictly warns against people changing it's meaning, under pain of hell-fire. This was more than enough to prevent believers from changing the scriptures. Many monks spent their whole-lives painstakingly writing down new copies of the bible word for word. None of them would have dared to change the scripture, or would have wanted to. Again, this is strengthened by the fact that all versions of the Bible today are the same in meaning (except for those changed and utilized by various cults, but I digress). If the Bible had been changed constantly over those thousands of years, wouldn't we have dozens of different "Bibles" popping up everywhere???

Those are just my two bits, hope they were enlightening in one way or another.

Justin, what is your current state of inebriation??? Please, I advise you to step back and assess your current state of incapacitation. If there is even a trace of drugs and alcohol, I advise you go to sleep and reply to posts when you awake. If not, I advise you go to see a mental health doctor, or a special needs group.

Your comment here is completely baseless and groundless. How do you know there were no miracles? How could you possibly know anything of the sort? Do you possess a time machine, or are you omniscient??? You would need to have one or the other of these desirable traits/commodities to "Know" anything about an event that happened in the past, and only he second one could tell you that miracles are impossible... All you can do is make assumptions.

Erunion, u talk about asssumptions as if ur not making any. U say that everything im saying is an assumption, but think about it, ur words of him existing are assumptions as well. Im a smart person, anyone who does any drugs or any alcohol are loser and deserved to get their balls cut off. Also how do u know that there were actually miracles invovled? B/c a book says there were?come on grow some wavos and stop letting a book run ur life. If he did exist why did he only help one part in time and not now adays?there is as much suffering as apparently there was back then?

Justin, I'll respond to you as soon as I can tomorrow, but I gtg.