Can you prove that God exists?

The human being is devoted to pursuing his own good, based on his model of good or sense of rightness. Our behavior arises in concert and effortlessly from our conceptions.

Harm as a cause is as abstract as thought and it is at the level of conception that we funda mentally change human behavior.

 

Yes, and my post was in response to the idea posed by Shameless that ancient documents/artwork support the concept of a God. My point was that of all the major religions, the Biblical ones are the only ones that actually encompass a real historical timeline that can and has been verified and persons/places/events as recorded in the Bible have been verified.
Now the miraculous aspects I will leave to personal interpretation, that was not my point.
The historical veracity of the accounts do lend the more supernatural aspects more worthy of consideration and investigation then other scriptures that have no basis in a verifiable history, at least IMHO.

Do you know such things to be impossible?
Science has gotten to the point that we have realized that all things are possible, but all things are not probable.
Then if we accept the concept of a deity as offered in the OP, miracles are not that hard to accept.

Faith as written in the Bible, as was the other point of my post, is based upon experience, not suspending of reason and judgement.

So is faith in say the resurrection based on blind belief or verifiable events?

Some would say blind belief, but I'm not of that camp.
There are enough ??? that cause me to be open to the possibility that things occurred as recorded. Don't really care to go into it all here as it is most often futility, but I will give one thing to ponder.

If we are willing to accept the Biblical documents as valid historical documents, then there is one question to consider.

Why did Paul offer up eyewitness' to verify his story of the resurrection?
In 1 Corinthians chapter 15 1-8, Paul is addressing a wavering faith among the church at Corinth and in the mentioned verses he reminds them of the basics of the gospel and of Christ's resurrection and in verse 6 he mentions Jesus being seen by over 500 "brethren" at once (brethren denoting individuals who would have recognized Jesus) and adds that most of those 500 are still alive at the time of the writing of Paul's letter.

Now I understand all the difficulty in accepting something as outrageous as the resurrection, but let me ask this;
if you are selling a lie, promoting a scam or false religion based on a lie, the resurrection, why would you provide eyewitness' to the supposed main event for the doubtful to verify or refute the story????

In mind, if you are pulling a scam/telling a lie, you don't offer the intended victim the means to discover your lie!
It just don't make sense.

It's a lot of those little "in between the lines" type of things that in my mind lend a great deal of veracity to the accounts as recorded.

 

ehhh, see, I even have a hard time accepting them as valid, historical documents considering what we know about their history. I'll explain below.

He mentions 500 men, but doesn't name them. That isn't really offering witnesses. That isn't exactly offering anyone something that could expose the lie.

On top of all of this, the book we know as the bible today was only collected into a single work many years after the events it describes took place. We know that the various parts of that book were translated, again and again, from one language to another. We also know that, at many points throughout its history (often centuries after the fact) it was rewritten by men with political motives (King James, for example).

 

This process is still being undertaken: there are moves afoot to rewrite the bible so that it is gender-neutral and politically correct.

The bizarre thing is that people act as if the bible was cast in stone and is somehow immutable. It wasn't and it isn't. There is no "original" to look at, as with the US Declaration of Independence or the Magna Carta or whatever.

Until the Guttenberg press, all books were copied by hand, and they varied according to a great number of factors. And since the printing press they vary according to the same factors, but there are more copies of each variation, rather than single copies as in the days of the scriveners.

The bible says what the person or organisation producing it wants it say. It carries no authority beyond that arrogated to the producer by the producer.

 

i cannot myself prove that any one particular thing, does or does not exist. others can and have proven however, that we live in a universe so vast, that all of us together, can never know more then the tinyist fraction of all there is to know.

all of us, even "you", can experience things that cannot be proven nor disproven to exist. what we pretend to know about them, is ourselves pretending; but this neither proves nor disproves the existence of anything either.