Does a God exist?

[Angrboda]

You have a bunch of circumstantial evidence.  So do they.  Both cases are weak.  I've yet to see a difference.

You are comparing apples and oranges.I don't think it is reasonable to think the NT authors were simply mistaken (as there is ample reasons to think UFO people are)--especially with the additional evidence of the existing churches. The only plausible explanation of the contents being false is intentional deception. That would have been quite an undertaken and I think we would need to answer the question why?

You don't think it reasonable. Well I guess that settles that.

The additional evidence of the existing churches only demonstrates that people believed, not that they believed rightly.

And then you present a false dichotomy that it was either mistake or deception. And since you don't believe it was mistake, then it had to be deception.

Your claiming the two cases are different doesn't demonstrate that they are different. Believers in UFOs have their rationalizations. Believers in conspiracy theories have theirs. As do believers in Loch Ness, in Krishna, in Allah, etc. You all look the same from the outside. You have an incredible belief with a bunch of mundane, inconclusive evidence. And you all think you are different.

[LadyForCamus]

Not evolution again, please. Ugh....

Oh go on then. Strawman it one more time.

LOL! Sorry, Rob. You're right. I've been away from the forums a bit so I have a feeling of refreshment, Don't worry; I'm sure it won't last. [emoji39]

[RoadRunner79]

Not evolution again, please. Ugh....

Oh go on then. Strawman it one more time.

More specific than "chock full of fallacies"    I don't know that I agree with these, but keep going... .what else do you think of the arguments put forth by the atheists here!

[Veritas_Vincit]

At this point I see people who deny evolution as about on par with people who think the earth is flat.

[pocaracas]

At this point I see people who deny evolution as about on par with people who think the earth is flat.

[Ignorant]

Now you can easily find evidence for your assumption (e.g. I exist because of my parents). [1] But, and this is a HUGE BUT, your extrapolation out that we are created beings dependent on god is an unevidenced assertion. [2]

1) You seem to have already misunderstood EE(a). While it is true in one sense that you exist because of your parents, your current continuing existence does not depend on your parents continued existence. Read my words again: "Some things exist on the condition that other thing(s) simultaneously exist." <= Read it again.

Your parents and their parents before them are not the sort of conditions that are relevant to the demonstration I described. I am not looking at a causal 'history' traceable 'backwards' to initial moment. I am considering the PRESENT existential 'hierarchy' of simultaneous conditions which constitute things as they are here and now.

2) I am not 'extrapolating out', I am 'interpolating within'. Look at anything in the room with you and ask, what is necessary NOW for that thing to be the way it is being. NOT how did that thing come about. RATHER what are the conditions providing for it keep being what it is being.

First of all we have the fact of evolution, all creatures (we know) in existence have evolved from a single common ancestor. [1] Secondly we've got abiogenesis, where the problem isn't, as creatards like yourself suggest, that we don't have a plausible mechanism, but that we've got too many plausible mechanisms. [2] Even if the Miller-Urey experiment has, ultimately, nothing to say about how life began, it is very important, because it conclusively demonstrated that life could begin with just inanimate materials readily at hand here on earth with no outside influence. [3]

Again, causal history is irrelevant to this demonstration. See above.

1) AGREED

2) Your assumption that I am a 'creatard' and against the concept of abiogenesis is unfounded AND UNTRUE. I fully expect an eventual and robust explanation of abiogenesis according to scientific standards. Perhaps it will not come in my lifetime, but I have no doubt that it will eventually be as well supported as evolution has become. I AGREE THAT ABIOGENESIS MOST LIKELY OCCURRED.

3) I agree that this experiment will go down as a fundamentally important one. 

None of these things have any relevance to the demonstration I suggested. 

Finally your "uncaused cause" doesn't hold up at all.

Who said anything about an uncaused cause? What I have suggested proposes unconditional existence, not uncaused cause.

There are multiple threads on this forum which shows that, the main objection being, why is god given a special pass on the condition that everything has to be created, a question that no theist has answered, most don't even bother trying.

Again, this is why defining god BEFORE this sort of discussion is backwards. 

You might read my post again, and you will find that I never asserted that 'everything has to be created'. I didn't even assert that anything is 'created' at all. All I asserted were the actual things I asserted. So when you are finished beating on the straw man, continue reading below.

ALL this demonstration shows is that while some things, RIGHT NOW, depend on the existence of other, simultaneously existing, more fundamental things, something must exist without that or any such condition. It simply exists, and would exist if nothing else existed at all. Call it whatever you want.

[Edwardo Piet]

Does God exist?

Nope.

[Whateverist]

hahahahahahahahahaha God exists because of humanity we created god

So God should be worshiping us.

[Angrboda]

3) Empirical evidence (EE): 

a) Some things exist on the condition that other thing(s) simultaneously exist. (e.g. I exist on the condition that a certain ordering and configuration of human cells also exist simultaneously with 'me', and the 'ordering and configuration' of those cells exist on the condition that a certain amount and quality of cells exist simultaneously with the 'ordering and configuration', and the 'certain amount and quality of those cells' exist on the condition that a certain ordering and configuration of molecules exist simultaneously with the 'amount and quality of those cells', etc.)

These things don't 'exist' simultaneously. We can have different conceptions of things simultaneously, but conceptions aren't existents. The rest doesn't follow because your empirical evidence is not valid.

[Whateverist]

1) Content of the NT is internally consistent within itself and with the OT. 
2) More historical support for more actual documents written by more than one person
3) Historical support of first century church
4) Person of Jesus is a compelling figure
5) Observations of personal effect of Jesus in the lives of other people
6) Personal experience.

I think you are doing well Steve, and maintaining your composure a lot better than I could.   I always take it as encouraging, when the arguments are ignored, 

I doubt if anyone is ignoring them.  People just need a chance to stop laughing.  But seriously I waved dismissively at these back at post #108.  Did I miss something?