Christians. Would your assertion that god exists stand up in a court of law?

No logical thinker would ask for such proof.

To disprove God one needs to know everything.

A god that could be proved by a finite mind would, by very definition, not be God.

My children grasped that by the time they were 13.

It is not only atheists who 'affirm': so do many Christians (including me). Be careful of ascertaining facts before you accuse others of 'seeming to know less'

Eyewitness testimony, fulfilled prophecies, etc., is evidence enough. To say there is no evidence is inaccurate. It would seem that you just don't like the evidence. In addition the claims are consistent with archaeological evidence, including times and places.

Furthermore, I have been changed and made a new creature through the supernatural works that He has done to me and continues to do me; I have been changed by Him and for His glory.

What is your evidence that God does not exist? If you died today, what happens next, and what is your evidence for that, could you prove in court that there is not an after life, when this life is over. Or is it just wishful thinking? I know it’s just a TV show, but they have some good evidence of ghost and demons, check it out: http://www.travelchannel.com/TV_Shows/Ghost_Advent...

It would stand up in a just court, but not a western secular court. We only have to see the many cases of injustices to doubt very much if truth can ever be accepted by people who do not want it.

How many eye witnesses do you need before you accept something as true?

If more than one person sees the same thing, why are they not to be disbelieved?

But I will use one example and that from a person who was not a Christian. Josephus was a Jewish general, was based in Galilee in the war between Rome and Judea, thirty years after Jesus' death. He stated Jesus did miracles and died and rose again showing himself to his followers just as the Christians wrote- yet non-Christians claim he never wrote this. Where is their evidence to support this assertion? All the earliest historical documents and references of Josephus quote this passage as can be read in modern translations of Josephus' writings.

There is not one single piece of historical evidence to contradict what is written about Jesus Christ in the Bible. Not one. Yet it is taught as if it is not true.

The census reported by Luke at Jesus' birth was recorded by Josephus.

The stars seen by the Magi recorded by Matthew were recorded by Chinese and Korean astrologers.

I cannot spend any more time confirming all the New Testament writings.

So. Where is your evidence to prove that God does not exist?

You speak wisely, but know this;

You can never prove that something does not exist by lack of evidence, but can prove something exists if there is evidence.

And there is evidence that God exists.

He exists in the minds and the hearts of his every follower, and even in those who do not believe in Him. He performs miracles every day - some believe them to be genuine, though some do not - but the FACT that people DO believe in God in every inch of their minds, bodies and souls is a truth. Truth comes without reasonable doubt because it is Absolute.

So to some people, God does not exist - to some he does!

It is a fact that through personal experience and faith that miracles all over have happened, do happen and will happen is the basis of this belief.

And this can never be denied. So in a court of law, where the entire operation relies on truth, the jury must go along with the truth, and the truth is that those people believe in the existence of God, through what they see as evidence.

Evidence, such as the miracles. Evidence such as the power of prayer. Evidence such as the feeling you get when you hear God is with you and loves you. Evidence such as the overwhelming joy you feel when you call out and ask God to hold on to you forever.

Now what of the proof that God does not exist?

There is no evidence - only lack of.

God doesn't show himself, so he cannot be there, right? Wrong.

You can never see the wind, yet you can see it's effects. You can see leaves blowing around the park, you can see the trees swaying. But you can never see the wind, yet you know it is there and believe it with blind faith. You don't question it, you just know it's there.

In the same way, you can never see God, but can always see his effects. You can see people's lives changed for the better by following Him. You can see the joy people express when they talk about their beloved king and creator. You can see a baby born at 23 weeks survive, even though the doctors say it was near impossible.

These things cannot be disproved by reasonable doubt -

To say the people's lives could be changed for the better anyway is not reasonable because if those people did not believe in God, they could never have changed their lives FOR Him.

To say the joy people express is merely the same joy a little girl feels about fairies is not reasonable, because fairy tales come from the imaginative mind of someone, whereas God's message comes from the heart. It is not about saying God exists or not, it is about truly loving him and speaking to him as if he is right next you, and sometimes you feel like he IS sitting next you.

To say the joy expressed whilst conversing about Him is merely cognitive and brought there by the brain's thought of an imaginary being is not reasonable - joy does not come from the brain, but comes from the heart, like every other emotion.

To say a baby born at 23 weeks and survive is purely a lucky coincidence that science helped with is not reasonable - you can have an abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy because doctors and science said the baby cannot survive until after that point. At that point it's too late, it's classed as murder etc - how can anyone say it was the skill of doctor and science that helped that child to survive, when they were the ones who said the baby could not survive to begin with? Surely the contradiction leads to reasonable doubt of the doctor's abilities? Whether to express and opinion professionally, or to act professionally, it collides with each other in one error - that one error leads to reasonable doubt, therefore it is not reasonable to say the baby born at 23 weeks was the work of doctors and science.

So, in my argument, or 'case' I have removed reasonable doubt from my evidence that God does exist, and have proved reasonable doubt against the evidence that God does not exist. With this case, the jury would have no choice but to say God does exist, because they can only decide on something that had no reasonable doubt. As the evidence that God exists does not have reasonable doubt, and the evidence that God doesn't exist does have reasonable doubt, then they have no choice but to say God does exists regardless of whether they believe it or not, thus proving in court that God does exist.

So mt answer is yes....phew, I should totally be a lawyer lol

God bless! xxx

Since God is above all men the court would have to be God's court.

You seem to know little about the Law Courts, all witnesses are required to affirm they will tell the truth whilst holding The Bible which is God's Word.

Greetings, No it will not stand up and the opposite of it "the non-existance of God" will not stand up as well and for this reason I believe in the almighty the mercyful He choose whomever He wish and it has nothing to do with how smart and intelligent and proofs yougot, this is what we cal the divine Justice.

when will you atheist learn that this is not the great question you think it is?

as we keep telling you over and over and over and over again God has decided that all of creation should be enough evidence. Any further proof he provides on an individual basis based on your relationship with him. God is spirit and love and that is how he primarily reveals himself to us.

Anything said in court would be hear say and not be admitted as evidence. What is your point in asking? In the US, we already have the freedom to choose this path or not.

I find it difficult to find 12 jurors with such blind faith to believe in Atheism.

No. It cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.