Historical and archaeological evidence? So you really believe that someone parted a sea, and rose from the dead, actually died and came back to life?
I always assumed people thought of these things as metaphors etc, I didn't think people believe they truly happened. Is that what people believe?
Absolutely, the fact that you can't comprehend that as being possible does not mean that there is not a higher force who is able to do those things.
But the fossil record evidence does provide very strong proof to me. One thing that Darwin was never able to find was the method of change and hereditary traits, once the discovery of DNA came along everything tied together.
EDIT
Out of interest, do you see the possibility of any evidence changing your beliefs?
DNA has not proved the evolution of man from the animal species.
Do I see the possibility of evidence changing my mind?
There are two aspects to that, firstly is my mind closed? ... No, I am open to the examination of evidence but not just the views of others based on their desire to find an alternative to being subject to a Creator.
Do I think that evidence will ever be forthcoming? ... No because I have examined the scriptures, the archaeological and historical evidence, the fulfilled prophecy, the nature of God, the existence of Jesus Christ and the supreme value of his teachings and the evidence of the benefits of doing things Gods way.
This touches on two of the pro-religion arguments that frustrate me most.
1) The assumption that all people need to have 'faith'. Faith is a belief structure that exists in the absence of sufficient evidence based reasoning. I don't have 'faith'. I have reasoned beliefs, and where there is insufficient reason and evidence to form a belief, I'm content to say I don't know, rather than rely on an emotionally pleasing alternative solution that can't stand up to any objective analysis.
2) That the Bible provides evidence for God's existence. It's a book collaborated from the tales of many humans, told many times to many people before finally being put in writing, and then translated from language to language, where language and meaning of words is constantly evolving and changing, and then interpreted either literally or figuratively by various self-appointed voices of that proposed faith. As far as sources go, that's about as unreliable and inconsistent as they can possibly come.
My beliefs are based on evidence. When the evidence changes, my beliefs will change in line. If someone can show me beyond reasonable doubt that the world is flat, and explain why we once wrongly believe it to be round, then I'll change my opinion as soon as I've exhausted all the arguments to the contrary.
1) I don't think there is an assumption that all people need to have faith in the bible, though everyone exercises faith in something ... you have faith that your brakes will stop your car, that the lights will come on when you flick the switch, that there will be a future for your children etc.
Most people today do not have a spiritual faith and that is generally because they do not have the experience of spirituality that would give them faith ... only after use and experience do you learn to instinctively trust your brakes!
You may be content to say you don't know ... because you don't ... but does that mean that I don't?
How can you be so sure that I am not as convinced of my faith as you are not convinced?
2) Your comment comes from a lack of knowledge of the bible ... the very fact that the same theme of truth runs from Genesis through to Revelation, spanning thousands of years and some 40 bible writers is evidence in itself of a unique author.
My beliefs are based on fact ... and incidentally the bible at Isaiah 40.22 says "God is enthroned above
the circle of the earth; its inhabitants are like grasshoppers." - How did Isaiah know?
