Zeus, Mohammad, Jesus...what's the difference? They're all man made. Why is it so difficult for Christians to understand this simple logic?

Zeus is a god. Mohammad is not. Jesus? That's been debated for millenia. I'm not sure you even know what a god is.

Does it matter? They're all man-made. Just take a step back away from your own religion for just a second. How is this complicated? Zeus was a God created by the Greeks. There are literally thousands of man-made Gods...so why does yours have any validity when all these others don't? Simple logic should dictate that all Gods must be discarded.

There is another way to look at this. Man's understanding of God is imperfect. Thus all of his depictions of God have imperfections. That does not mean there is no God.

After all, there have been many different descriptions of the electron over the years. Does that mean there is no electron?

How can you say that with such certainty? Sounds like a belief to me, unless you can prove it.

We have greater proof of the electron than we do of God.

You are changing the argument of course. Your point was that the existence of numerous depictions of God was an argument against the existence of God. I assume you are now abandoning that argument.

Now we are discussing electrons. I suppose this belongs in SMP now and I am not arguing against the existence of electrons, but you actually cannot see an electron under a microscope. But of course that does not mean there are no electrons.

Hashem ( "G-d" ) can be seen in His Creation as Shaul writes in the first chapter of his epistle to the Romans, but this "seeing" is not with eyes, but with the mind and the "Spirit of Truth".

You changed your post. I guess you realized that microscope thing was a blind alley.

You also seem to have abandoned your argument raised in the OP. Why don't you gather your thoughts and start again with a new thread? This one is not going well.

Not only do you not know what a god is, you are obviously just as clueless about electrons.

You really shouldn't start a thread in which you have no knowledge of the subject matter, or knowledge of anything, obviously.

Are you a practicing theist? A physicist or someone studying physics would know something about electrons and a mathematician or someone studying mathematics something about e, but surely, a theist knows something about Hashem ( "G-d" ).

I'm an Agnostic Deist. I know a few things about belief in God.

My goal is to know something about everything. The OP, to this point, seems to know nothing about anything.

At least you appear to be intellectually honest.

Yes, human beings can't really see electrons and if we could, then we would see something like a probability distribution spread throughout the cosmos.

I told him the same last night. I just hope he doesn't lose his AC

It was only a simple question that I asked which has been completely avoided thus far.

Because maybe there is one God. What's the harm in seaching for him/her/it?

The simple answer has been given, and you haven't accepted it.

But since I'm here, we might as well break it down.

As pointed out, Zeus was a described to be a god, and Mohammad was not. They are not the same.

The scholarly consensus is that a Jesus was a real person. Of course scholarly consensus makes no claim of the particulars of Jesus' life, but that's irrelevant to the claim being made.

I think it's difficult for Christians (and based on the construction, Zeusians and Muslims -- but in reality it's anyone who can think clearly) to understand the logic that two false claims* allows one to conclude anything meaningful.

* I'm presuming that your first statement is not actually a question, but the claim that the three beings mentioned are actually the same.

If there is no definitive proof that any of them exist, what is the difference if they be God, demi-God, etc? They're all man-made, a method of ancient law to scare people into falling in line.

Because it's a false statement to say that they're "the same" even if they're made up. Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty are both made up, but it's far from clear that it makes sense to conclude that they're "the same" as the result of having been made up.

Again, a false statement. Scholarly consensus rejects Jesus-Mythers.

A claim that you've not really supported with any evidence. And I'm willing to bet that the type of evidence you would produce can be applied to governments to support the claim that governments exist for the purpose of scaring people into falling in line as well.

It would be really interesting to see you actually make an argument for something at some point.

There is no argument here. Only a simple question that I stated in my original post, that everyone so far has attempted to weasel out of answering.

Define definitive proof of existence? As RLK said, most historians and scholars agree a man named Jesus did exist. As far as proving whether he is a God in the context you are asking, that can neither be 100% proved for or against.

Groggy, of course all gods are "man-made". What other option is there?

I have a question for you. Why, throughout history, have 90+% of all humans that have ever lived, believed in some form of god, deity, higher power, etc.? Regardless of what they've called it they believed, and still do to this day. Why is that, do you think?

When one creates a sequence of logically connected statements, it's called an argument.

I'm pretty sure I answered that one.

In other words, *this* simple logic is horrendously flawed. This is why it's difficult for Christians (and everyone else) to understand it.

Because the top 10% are the brightest and don't want to be raped/killed/pillaged. So they just made up a bunch of **** about a talking snake and a magical sky palace to keep people distracted.