What did they see that convinced them? What evidence was sufficient to turn cowards into willing martyrs?
FINALLY! Can you prove God exists? If you can I won't ask again!
What evidence was sufficient to turn cowards into willing martyrs?
there wasn't any, they did it on faith.. faith is belief in something without evidence... it's a requirement of christianity..
if they had the evidence they wouldn't have needed faith...
What do you think was going on in the mind of the apostles who gave their lives up rather than renounce their resurrected Lord?
I think they had all the proof they needed to match their convictions.
I imagine it was the same thing going through the mind of the Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse a blood transfusion. The fact that a person is willing to die for a belief, is not proof the belief is true, or even that they had great faith. My ex husband refused a blood transfusion, even though he had been disfellowshipped for 20 years at the time. He was just afraid of transfusions, due to fear because of JW conditioning.
There is no way to prove to others the existence of god. If I experience something that I am certain is the action of god, that story doesn't "prove" god to anyone else.If that is how faith is transmitted then small wonder there are so many religions--MAY THE FIRSTEST AND BESTEST STORYTELLER WIN!
If there is god, then it makes no sense that we should believe by proxy.
A huge problem for me was that i was born into a world that expected me to believe the stories I was told without question. (cradle Catholic) I left my church for some years but down the line I had a series of phenomena and a sinular event that convinced me that there was a being-a god --something --out there.
Being Catholic I "translated" or "interpreted" what I experienced through the lense of my upbringing and culture. And I returned for a while to Catholicism.
The problem is that other people, in other lands, cultures and religious traditions tell of encounters with God and their experience as they tell it sounds like my own. Except when they tell their story, they interpret their experience using their own religious/cultural language.
So, to keep my prejudice with my church, I either have to say that a Hindu, a Muslim, a Boot-strap Arkansas Baptist didn't--COULDN'T-- experience God's mercy. But thre is a problem with this, if I am honest.
Here it is: If the evidence for MYSELF, my personal proof of God's existence, is the acknowledgement through my senses that a supernatural experience has occurred--how do I dismiss what I hear expressed by another person? Just because they don't believe in transubstatiation, call god by another name, never heard of jesus--how can I deny that my experience and their own are materially the same?
I have to wonder if God might extend the same mercy to them even without us sharing the same religion.
If such is the case that god could be that promiscuous, maybe I should divorce Him.
But I can't. Because when I think about it, I have to wonder if all the priests, preachers,mullahs and so on have been wrong --not in telling stories--but in expecting us to believe things that are second-hand allthe time. Thet system is a set up for abuse--as we well know who sat in rows waiting for the latest God-story from the FDS.
We all can tell our story if we like--and I think it is perhaps important to do that. But an "official story" is a real danger. That's my opinion.
If God is there, he is there.
The evidence for God's existence is a done deal.
As Paul put it, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”
Your question should be:
What is going on with those who fail to see what Paul saw in the "creation of the world"?
Especially since we now (today) know and understand the many spectacular nuances of the cosmos Big Bang creation, as well as, the DNA instructions that orchestrate life.
All this has greater gravitas because, we now know (documented) Evolution theory with its abiogenesis fantasy is done (stick a fork in it) over!
Watch for discussions.
so that people are without excuse.”
that being said it would be impossible to see other wise .. so why do they?
That's a clear case of, if you don't see it the way I see it .. you are obviously stupid
If DNA proves that God created man, why is the genome of a lily ten times times larger than a man's? The huge amount of redundancy in the genome makes sense only through evolution. It would be like building a house and garage, then tearing down the house part, because you really only needed the garage. Why would God do that?
Qc - the problem with black and white faith statements like yours is that you need to be able to back them up with facts. Here are some to help.
Fact 1: Evolution is nothing to do with abiogenesis
Fact 2: Evolution - as a broad theory - is proven absolutely. The multitude of various mechanisms at work within evolution are now being explored by scientific methods and we have lots to learn.
Fact 3: Taking the bible as an example of faith based knowledge it cannot be used in any way to perform scientific enquiry because it bases all causitive action in supernatural events that cannot be tested. In addition to talking gibberish about such made up historical events like the global flood it also contains easily disproven concepts such as the firmament.
Fact 4: In the absence of any proof you have failed to provide an adequate justification for your imagined being and must stand alongside other unprovable whimsical fantacists like the Mormons, Muslims and Hellenists. Unless you can justify why your mind and ergo your imagination is superior to the majority of mankind (the ones who have believed in other gods than yours) then yours is as valid as theirs.
<<there wasn't any, they did it on faith.. faith is belief in something without evidence... >>
I would say that faith and evidence. are not mutually exclusive. It took empiracle evidence to convince Thomas. Jesus then instructed Thomas to put away his doubts and believe.
What evidence do you think conviced these fishermen that Christ had actually risen from the dead? The synoptic gospels were circulating during the lifetime of some of the Apostles. Do you think they might have been honest enough to expose the lies about the post resurrection appearances recorded and available to them? Or were they unscrupulously playing along with a hoax for which they were willing to sacrifice their lives?
Van, what evidence convinces Muslims to sacrifice their lives ? That everything they have learned about the Prophet is true ?
There is no difference between such people, and believers in Teapots circling the Earth, or Christians in any period, people of faith not only do not need, but ignore evidence.