Ever lasting life with or without God.

Not really sarcasm, more a possible explanation for a highly unlikely event. Many people whose state of consciousness is altered claim to have experienced marvelous things. In my experience many people who recieve the Holy Spirit do in fact behave similarly to someone who has been drinking alcohol.Who was this guy and has it been confirmed by an independant body of scientists that he is 'bulletproof'?

Who was this guy and has it been confirmed by an independant body of scientists that he is 'bulletproof'?i never said he was bullet proof ,trying to make it silly wont change anything, what the programme i watched was called 'in depth' he was from India , he is also now a priest in the uk.there were witnesses however what would be proof to a none believer ? i noticed you havent tried to attack me when i say i have experienced Jesus myself? you see if you have true faith God grants you all the proof you need in your own mind , and by the way i have answered your question, here it is again , TO MY MIND I HAVE NOT HEARD OR HAVE SEEN OF ANYONE WHO WAS HEALED BY A FALSE gOD.

Sorry if we seem dismissive but you're asking us to accept a highly unlikely story based on evidence that's less than hearsay, and could just be made up. Not that I'm accusing you of making it up - I'm sure you heard it somewhere - but there's no difference as yet between your story and one I could invent right now:ok how about the fbi man who said it was documented as a miracle that he recieved a new body part. ok one testimony may look silly but when you hear of dozens you start asking 'why would these people who do not benefit in any way from lying tell us these things.'

Because there is a benefit in lying about these things. If one was sufficiently motivated to evangelize their god, their position would be aided considerably by "miraculous" accounts of the power of their god.The thing about documentation is that you have to present it. It's insufficient to say "there's documentation."What body part did he recieve? Was it really missing? Or was it present but non-functional?

What body part did he recieve? Was it really missing? Or was it present but non-functional?to be honest i just cant remember what part it was thats why i keep calling it a part.but i know he was bleading to death ,i thinkit might of been a lung,but whatever it was the doctors had to remove it.
what was fascinating about this case is that he was extremely angry with the preacher and went to this place to expose him , in fact he didn't believe in God at all,so there was no motive , as for documented proof i just cant provide it to you, i guess it comes down to belief again.by the way i havent asked anyone to believe in the 'proof' i have talked about , i only mentioned things which i consider proof in my own mind.

I posted a link that you could read that would make you aware of these healings. You could also investigate the topic yourself.Personally I have not seen or heard of anyone that has been healed by Jesus.Stalemate?PS. Why would I want to attack you? You have your beliefs and I have mine, it is all a part of life's rich tapestry.

tbn europe is a channel which broadcasts a programme called 'creation in the 21st century' anything they claim on this programme is usually scientifically based.similar channels are also available however since i live in the uk you might not of heard of them!a scientist seeks how a philosopher thinks why!

Why would I want to attack you? You have your beliefs and I have mine,fair enough ,ok you might have evidence however healing is not the only reasons i believe,personally i'm not a hunter gatherer ,lol, of scientific proof , and you might have known some good healing cases , but its the personal side that convinces me really , which is proof to me , but ofcourse it wouldn't be to you
this i'm afraid is were faith is needed though................

Yes faith is needed.You see the funny thing is, and I am not pointing the finger at you, but Bible believers are wasting their time looking for secular evidence to support their faith.One thing I have learned from these debates is that when a believer looks for evidence for a certain thing, say the worldwide flood of Noah's narrative, and they find that science disproves it beyond all doubt, they then play the faith card!So there's no point, because no matter the amount of negative evidence the believer is never going to change his/her mind. As far as they are concerned Jesus is God and the Bible is perfect, it doesn't matter that very little of it can be proved, it always comes back to faith.My own opinion is that if someone is looking for proof of the things that were said to have happened in the Bible then their faith isn't that strong.

You see the funny thing is, and I am not pointing the finger at you, but Bible believers are wasting their time looking for secular evidence to support their faith.not only is the bible 100% archealogically backed,and by the way there is scientific evidence for the flood:they have been looking in the black sea recently and it shown buildings made by people and other signs of life from the past and it was on camera so in this case i had to believe what i was seeing.evidence of the flood.'and they find that science disproves it beyond all doubt, they then play the faith card!'are you saying science has disproved the bible?where have you been , i suggest you go to Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied where all questions are answered in the 'evidence ' section
i'm sure you like to believe God has been disproved and evolution prooved but that just is not the case.in fact the part about the evolution of man i find quite amusing , no sir i dont need to play the faith card !!!

That's A flood not the flood. But it is one suggestion for the orgin of the flood myths in the area.There are some topics here that cover the flood, you could go there is you want to discuss it. It just didn't happen.

are you an evolutionists .
if you are nosyned explain to me why there are no apemen alive today but apes are and humans are?
also why has there been ape skulls found and human skulls found but no apemen skulls?and as for the flood just not happening , oh dear is that your argument?

Maybe because there's no such thing as "apemen"? never mind that evolution doesn't say we evolved from apemen, but rather that apes and man share a common ancestor. You're arguing against a straw man.Let me ask you this: could there exist any animal that you would call not an ape or man but an "apeman"? Isn't it disingenuous of you to ask for evidence of "apemen" that we know you'll never accept?New "kinds" don't arise not because something prevents it, but because human language doesn't allow for the naming of new "kinds" of animals. There could never be any new animal that we couldn't crowd into our already pre-existing words for animals.What we do find are skulls in a smooth transition to more "ape-like" forms of human. That's all evolution says there should be, anyway.

What we do find are skulls in a smooth transition to more "ape-like" forms of human. That's all evolution says there should be, anyway.why do the scientists show us the diagram of these 'inbetween creatures' you know the evolution of man pic , like they have found all of these animals when they havent.
and why did we evolve from chimps or apes which is what the media is always suggesting ,when apes have survived and so did not need to evolve ?

They do have evidence of those humanoids. They're human like you and I, only less advanced, crainially. So, they have found these "creatures" - transitional forms, they're called. I'm not sure what your point is, here. The media has it wrong, which is not unusual when it comes to science. Media is driven by writing engaging copy. That tends to conflict with strict scientific accuracy.We didn't evolve from modern apes. Apes and man share a common ancestor. Why is that hard for you to understand? Apes have evolved as much in thousands of years as humans have. Ancient apes were less advanced than modern apes, just as ancient humans were less advanced than modern ones.