I've cancelled an evening out for this, I do hope he's not going to let me down, unlike his mate god who seems to disappoint millions on a daily basis

There are 3 main areas:

1. The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth
2. The explosion and emergence of the early church
3. Personal experience - my intimate relationship with the risen Lord.

Well that's me convinced

I'm gonna need an address to send that ale and jam tart to.

That's really not what I asked for, is it? I asked for evidence, not more superstition. Something that would stand up to scrutiny by someone with more than half a brain. Go away, and come back with something much better. God touching your willy doesn't count.

Me too. Certainly puts everything in perspective eh?

Or in reality, it's like one of those Time Team episodes where they dig a new trench in anticipation and find buggerall.

tbh extrapolating an entire roman settlement from a half inch square bit of clayware would be a good analaogy.

You asked me for evidence of God. I have given the 3 main pieces of evidence. What more do you want?

Me too.
If it was just one or two pieces of highly scientific evidence I'd still be a little sceptical, but point three's a real clincher.

Ah see the light!!!

What more...erm. Evidence. It's not complicated.

You want evidence of gravity - I drop something, evidence of the universe expanding - I show you the redshifted light from the first stars. Simple.

Your response seems sarcastic, but you've actually touched upon the most convincing aspect of the Christian faith - our personal experience of Jesus.

A Christian who has received the Spirit knows that Jesus is real as much as I know this computer in front of me is real.

Ok, I'll play along, even though I still think you're probably a troll.

1. No one has ever proved (to a reasonable standard) that Jesus existed. Even if some of the anecdotal evidence of Jesus the man is to be believed, there is absolutely no evidence that he's the son of God. So this first piece of 'evidence' is not evidence at all, merely speculation.

2. The emergence of any Church does not prove the existence of its God figure. If it did, they'd all be real.

3. Your own personal belief does not constitute evidence. At best it's delusion, and at worst it's wilful stupidity.

My first two points can be confirmed by doing only a small amount of research. Your local library should stock a few good books - try 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel for starters.

However, the third point I raised is actually the easiest to confirm. Just invite Jesus into your life - he never says no!

What a person thinks they know does not constitute evidence. I could say I know that aliens live on other planets, but until we actually see one, or prove their existence some other way, it's just speculation.

I asked him round for a coke and hookers party on Saturday and he blew me out. Said he was going dogging with Judas.

Of course it has been proven that he existed. Try looking at Tacitus.



No emerging group has ever suffered the same persecution as the early Christians did. Why would these people spread the Gospel when they knew it would get them killed?



It's evidence to me. I can't show it to anyone else, but people can feel this evidence for themselves anytime they want. All they have to do is ask Jesus, with an open heart, to forgive their transgressions.

1. Historicity is not evidence.
2. The explosion and emergence of the Spice Girls fan base was more universal and explosive than that of the early church.
3. What any of us think, feel or experience in the recesses of our own delusional minds is totally irrelevant to anyone else and certainly can't be construed as evidence. If I genuinely believed that a three-legged goblin named Arthur was the one and only true Creator it wouldn't make it true.

I do beseech you though to let Arthur the three-legged goblin into your life. He never refuses.

It is historical evidence.



Quite different and you know it.



That is your view. I respect that. However, it is a wrong one.

Another book on history written be a person not a supreme being. If your god is omnipitent then show me some current evidence.



Coping quite well with life without a crutch thank you but if you feel you need it knock yourself out. Just don't push it on the rest of us eh?

It hasn't. And it never will be. But even if it is shown that a man named Jesus lived at that time, that most certainly does not prove the existence of God.



Seriously, that's your evidence for God's existence? What about all the Muslims your lot slaughtered in the crusades? Why would they continue to preach their gospel when they knew it would get them killed? Because they were every bit as bonkers as the Christians, that's why.



It's not evidence by any meaningful definition of the word.

Go away, look up what evidence means, then come back and show us the actual evidence for God's existence.

That third leg ?

Its not a leg at all, he had me fooled right up until the moment he asked me to put it in my mouth, then I remembered something the catholic priest had once said to me, he was a bloody liar too.

They're all the same these men of god and your Arthur with his "third leg" is no different.

OM(ficticious)G keep them coming guys....my wife and I haven't laughed this much for bluddy ages.

Answers in Genesis is an organisation which demands it's members to agree to a statement of faith that when science and the bible differ they must choose the bible over the scienctific evidence. The "scientists" who are members of AiG have all long since given up any pretence of doing any actual science instead they spend their time distorting and misrepresenting the work of real scientists who make real contributions to our understanding of the universe. They do this in order to fit the scientific evidence in with their own presuppositions and to convince people who are ignorant of science that their own views are supprted by the scientific data.

All of the arguments that Answers in Genesis put forward to defend the flood have been refuted by real scientists, in many cases these arguments demonstate a lack of knowledge of basic geology, biology and physics on the part of the creationists. The scientific evidence is clear the global flood did not occur and is flatly contradicted by the geological and biological evidence. Answers in Genesis and other similar organisations, however have a dogmatic belief in the global flood and a literal interpretation of the bible and have decided that "when doctrine and reality differ reality is wrong and doctrine is right".

pfft, try being a Southern Rugby league supporter.

There are some witty guys on here with some very intelligent clever ripostes......but it's serious points like this that make you realise how insidiously harmful religion can be and is.

Most people are happy to be led without having to think too much themselves: god help us if these people/organisations manage to wrestle the greater power to rule over us.

You sir are the type of man I respect and admire.