So called philosophical evidence for god are not really even evidence

That's true, a newer mythology replaced older ones.

So you admit Christianity replaced older mythologies.

So you admit that Christianity is also a mythology?

The reason Christianity replaced older mythologies is because it was less mythology and more facts.

Mythology is mythology, so a mixture of fact and fantasy.

Nonetheless, the basis of Christianity is still a fantasy GOD.

And relative to human social and intellectual development it's a bit silly to compare more recent mythology with older mythologies and conclude that more recent mythology is likely to be any less mythological.

So, people places and their GOD or GODS...Same old, same old...But better quality books perhaps.

God was a mythology until Jesus came around. The Bible and Jesus stood the test of time and the world moved forward.

Yes "stood the test of time" is a favourite of yours and makes me smile.

And a Bible, as in an early second millennium European book based upon Middle Eastern folk tales will stand the test of time if stored appropriately.

Whereas Jesus only stood for 33 years...Supposedly

Jesus only lived for 33 years. But his message has stood the test of time and can be found in the Bible.

Smiles again.

Between his fictionalised execution and the compilation of the European bible there was over a thousand years of non-stood time testing.

And like I stated some very early books when kept securely in a suitable environment will keep for quite a while...And of course the advent of improved printing techniques meant that newer copies became readily available.

So we can apply the notion of stood time testing to various old narratives and not just biblical mythologies.

Time is the ultimate test. The Bible has withstood the test of time.

Smiles again.

Yes the oldest bible is thought to be some 900 years old, and then there are some earlier collections of similar Middle Eastern folk tales.

Such is the stood time testing of written narratives and their component parts, under suitable environment conditions.

They have not found anything that contradicts the Bible. That is how the Bible stood the test of time.

The Bible is very good at contradicting itself...Such is one aspect of stood time testing.

Even the contradictions stood the test of time. That is why they are still quoted.

Sure...And therefore the known non-sense of the bible has stood the test of time too.

Stood time testing has many applications, it seems.

It is all as God intended. Live in the times.

Yes, whether or not the GOD principle is intentional is also a big question.

And yes, the moment is fleeting.

You seem to be in a very agreeable mood today agreeing with everything that is posted.

Well, I always try to be agreeable...Though I can't always agree...

But sometimes things are analogically or metaphorically agreeable...GOD and GOD principle for example.

Fix and God's principles are consistent and cannot contradict each other.

GOD principle is a singularity so therefore unable to contradict itself.

And that is what the Bible is trying to communicate.

Hmmm...European, second millennia, theo-political, subjugative communication may in deed have been based upon old folktales of a singular MANGOD.

But hang on, it then shot itself in the foot by introducing the trinity...Three blokes as it were.

Nope, GOD principle simply utilises a well known reference point and is nothing directly to do with second millennium theo-politics.

That said, second millennium theo-politics does have a lot to answer for.

The concept of the Trinity is found in the Gospels written just after Jesus died. The Gospels are eyewitness accounts of what Jesus taught and said written by his disciples who lived and followed Jesus.

Nope, fundamental error again.

Gospel like bible is a second millennium construct...Not written by 1500 years old men.

Your Bible basics are terrible. The first English translation of the Bible Wycliffe Bible (1382)

Tyndale Bible The first printed Bible (1526) King James Version (1611)

I was just guessing

What constitutes "evidence" since that word is the whole argument for or against God. Well, that depends on whether one is speaking about justice, science, philosophy, religion, or their own justification of existence. Define that much, first, and then follow the separate definitions accordingly, because they are not always the same. Sometimes, they are. Even just in religion, people are hung up on two words: faith and belief. Often, they are used interchangeably, even biblically, or in any other religious texts that contain both words. However, Paul, in Hebrews 11, offers the best biblical definition there is. He draws a distinction between belief and faith in verse 1: "...faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Mere belief of some statement does not have evidence, or it would be something else. It would be faith, for that has evidence. What evidence? Substance, Paul says, of what is hoped for, but currently not seen [or heard, smelled, tasted, or touched]. This must mean we must have more than these five senses, and we do have them available to us. They can be learned, and science is beginning to demonstrate by empirical study that this is so. Echo location, earth magnetic force fields, and others, which are senses other animals have, and some

[all?] can be learned by humans.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=can+humans+learn+senses+demonsttrated+by+other+animals%2C&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

But some animals have sensory organs we do not have, says science. What says we cannot grow them? See Yoda with Luke Shytwalker on Dagoba. ["The

Empire Strikes Back"]

linate wrote:

Arguments like causality or from design are formidable points. But theres equally formidable arguments against these. In philosophy and law and science theres the concept that purely philosophical evidence isnt even evidence. When an idea presents itself like these with being consistent with a proposition then its merely showing its not inconsistent Philosophically.

Arguments for christian miracles are weak evidence and evidence for god from the phenomenon of nde science is strong. But society is so stuck in religious and worldly ways that these points arent usually brought up in these discussions

In law and science, testimony is considered the weakest form of evidence. Spectral evidence fails to meet any legal or scientific standards for reliability, cannot be tested or verified, and constitutes inadmissible hearsay. "Christian miracles" and NDE are literally testimony of spectral evidence. (How does one objectively establish unexplained phenomena is of the Christian deity?)

if youre going to rely on legal and scientific standards, and throw everything else out then you have pretty much nothing left.

Jesus turning water into wine, healing the sick, feeding a crowd of 5000 gathered to hear him speak were all called miracles and the people of his time accepted it as so. Science has no explanation for those miracles and they remain as miracles.