That does help, Elzabet! Thank you. I agree that in order for some of these assertions to make sense, one must be on board with the faith concept from the get go. When the premise and conclusions begin and end in the Bible, it's tough to discuss logically.
I do seem to remember, though, that many who witnessed the miracles of Jesus (according to the Bible) were confused and not converted, per se. They marveled but didn't take up their cross so to speak and follow him. Nor did those who had faith necessarily 'see' his work as evidenced by his admonition for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, etc. and resulting frustration with his followers who didn't get it.
Unless one's seeing of his work is ex post facto proof of underlying, unrealized 'faith'?
Here's more of this minister's ideas and where he got this:
A person must be able to be everywhere at the same time to prove God does not exist. For example: If you were looking for your friend and heard that he was in America, you could come to America and visit some of the major cities looking for him. While you are in New York City, your friend could be in Chicago. If you then go to Chicago, you friend could have moved on to Dallas. By the time you made it to Dallas, your friend could have gone on to Los Angeles. You might travel around the whole country and never find your friend. But you would not be able to make the statement, I know my friend is not in America. To make that statement, you would have to be everywhere at the same time.
The word, 'weak' comes to mind. I still don't understand how this is a valid argument for proving God's existence. How is it a valid argument for denying the existence of anything?? Strange.
From the same church's precepts:
|Jesus is a historical character.
a. It cannot be denied that He lived on this earth about two thousand years ago.
b. Almost everybody in the world believes that Jesus lived in Palestine .
Believing something doesn't make it fact. I fully support the choice to believe or 'have faith' but...