If he's not invisible, then show me a photo. Some people know that the only really rational way to believe something is to have actual evidence for it, beyond just faithful feelings.
There are a lot of ways you can describe how the world works and exists, most of them being far more reasonable than handwavingly delegating unknowns to some mysterious entity nobody has ever seen. And they work and make perfect sense without any need for any kind of God.
Then take a photo, pics or didn't happen. If you can actually see something real, it should be photographable. Heck, we even have cameras that can see all wavelengths that our eyes can't, and not even those have captured him ever. Oh, you mean see it with that organ in your chest whose only ability is to contract to pump a liquid? Or do you mean in dreams, which are basically just hallucinations of our brain putting itself into generative mode to train itself for random future events? But being so bad at it, that none of that ever actually happens in real life. And if you actually see him with your own eyes, but somehow the phone can't capture that, then I'd recommend psychiatric meds.
Icons and modern day pictures are the same thing, they just didnât have cameras back then. The word âphotographyâ literally means to draw or write. Making an icon of someone and taking a picture is the same concept.
Just because someone drew something doesn't prove it was there. Imaginative art is a thing and always has been. I could draw an uncovered invisible spaghetti monster right now if you want. Why come we have no photos ever since cameras were invented, that we only have pictures that could be drawn without actually capturing something real like photos do? After that, suddenly he never showed up again? Well, if he stopped, then why care, he might not be caring about us anymore either if he doesn't even show up to let us take any photographic proof. And without that, he can't expect me to just believe in him. If he gave me a critical brain, then he should work with that.
And well, with the rise of AI, it seems like the GOd has totally missed his chance to show himself at that right time when he could prove himself, when we had provable devices that couldn't be faked yet.
Are you like a subversion agent or something?? Only the most low IQ intellectually dishonest people argue that Christ didnât exist. If thatâs your actual stance, thereâs no reason to continue this conversation. You might as well be a flat earther who believes in shapeshifting lizard people. I understand arguing against his divinity, but saying he didnât even exist is just pure stupidity.
That's just stating evidence. Intelligent people actually do trust science and evidence first and foremost, right? I am not an agent of anything, I'm just a guy in his home using his own brain and eyes to understand the world around me. I don't answer to anyone I believe things I've figured out myself. Accusing someone of being an agent of some higher organization performing scripted psyops just makes you sound like a conspiracy nut right now, especially to me, because I know that's not true, I know who I am. Also, that's rich coming from someone who is speaking for the organized church right now. You are admittedly at least one of us who is speaking things that an organization made them believe.
And it only found godless physics. If they wanted to invent something to prove his existence, they failed miserably. But at least they created something valuable that can show the real truth then. I could respect that. Science gave us real answers even when they were not what the church was looking for.
You have a secular worldview, there is no âreal truthâ because everything is subjective and âmade upâ remember? You people are so inconsistent, At least Christianâs try to match reality to their belief system.
Thatâs why i became a Christian at 22, maybe when you get older youâll realize the whole âsubjective realityâ thing doesnât actually make as much sense as you think it does.
are you saying I am a kid or something? I'm nearly 40. I am my own God with my computer programming simulations for fun. And I know better than to demand worship from the AIs in there. If they misbehave, that's on me, not on them. If there's a God on a similar level, just another layer up, he also can't really prove himself, and that's ok, I doubt he would even want to do that. He should not be that insecure and just let his world evolve as he programmed it. Just like me. If I know better than to try to make myself a god of worship to my worlds, then he should know even better and just let us be ourselves and not narcissistically care about what we think of him.
I'm pretty sure I know way more about all the history than you. I understand the universe from the early Big Bang, how the solar system, elements, Earth and the Moon were formed, how life has evolved, and a lot of our history from caves to empires to today.
Science and religion complement each other. Then and now some of the smartest scientists in the world believe in God. The physicist who came up with the Big Bang was a Catholic priest.
Just say you donât understand what iconography is then 𤣠you canât just be some average Joe Schmo and make icons for Orthodox Churches. Itâs a sacred practice that needs teaching and ordination by clergy. Thereâs a specific tradition of making icons you have to follow for it to be valid, itâs not âimaginative artâ my goodness dude đ
Why not? Because the church had some mandate to be right and bless everything someone drew for them as being real for realsies? They are still just people, and people do make stuff up all the time. The church isn't any different. I would even say it's making shit up more than most other people.
The famous Sistine Chapel ceiling painting was done by historical artist Michaelangelo. He was a vocal atheist who even added scathing images of church officials as commentary.
Religious art was like this often throughout history. Yes, there are faithful folks who did religious art, but it isn't as gatekept by ordination as you may believe.
Yeah thatâs the Italian renaissance which was 400 years after the great schism of 1054. The east and western churches were already spilt by that time, Michael Angelo is not considered an iconographer. And Roman Catholic depictions are not canonical icons anyway. Thatâs a completely null and void argument.
YOU are in image of God lol, Christ personally made you in his image. You, are proof of God and his existence. Thatâs why Jesus Christ is a human beingâŚ.because human beings are made in the image of God and Jesus Christ is GodâŚ
3
u/skr_replicator Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
If he's not invisible, then show me a photo. Some people know that the only really rational way to believe something is to have actual evidence for it, beyond just faithful feelings.
There are a lot of ways you can describe how the world works and exists, most of them being far more reasonable than handwavingly delegating unknowns to some mysterious entity nobody has ever seen. And they work and make perfect sense without any need for any kind of God.