Debate: God Exists

[comet]

sticking with the defintion of omni type dude, there is no debate.
sticking with magic, no bebate
sticking with "nothing", a clean slate" there is no debate.

I miss not having to support a belief with real observations. Life would seem so much easier.
I miss not following the crowd. so much easier.

[SuperSentient]

Again, same problem. Every religion claims to be directed towards spiritual needs. They all claim that they have interactions with deities (worship). None of it is evidence of the truth of it. If you expect a person to accept a religion, there must be rational grounds for accepting it.

Really?!?!?

Have you actually studied religion?

Of the top 10 I've actively studied 6, of those Only Christianity claims to put the average person in direct contact with God.

That is not to say other religions 'gods' don't contact people, but when they do there is something special about them which makes them prophets or emissaries, or whatever, or they are used as pawns. Christianity is the only religion that gives you one on one time with it's God. Other religions offer rewards for alliance/obedience. for those followers those 'spiritual rewards' are the reason for their obedience. Christianity offers audience with God, eternally.

If this is appealing or at the very least you want to know if what I said is true then simply A/S/K as outlined in Luke 11 and Allow Him to work with you.

That is not true, people claim to have different experiences with their beliefs, religion, and gods. It doesn't have to be at the collective level either, but individually. The difference of Christianity from other religions is a terrible justification, all sovereign religions are different, otherwise they wouldn't be sovereign religions. 

You simply assume that your religion is true and tell people that they should allow your God to work for them, but this is no justification. 
I can just say that your God doesn't exist and leave it at that.

[Amarok]

Today they call it quantum foam :-)

Quantum foam is nothing like phologistrom but god very much is

---

No. It's saying that a murder was committed and it deserves an investigation, not an 'I donno'.

Correct, except 'I donno' is still not an accurate description. The position is, as you say, 'let's investigate'. And just because one suspect might not be proven to be guilty doesn't automatically convict the other. That would still need a separate investigation.

So with all that down, how would you go about demonstrating your case?

It's simple he can't

[Drich]

Really?!?!?

Have you actually studied religion?

Of the top 10 I've actively studied 6, of those Only Christianity claims to put the average person in direct contact with God.

That is not to say other religions 'gods' don't contact people, but when they do there is something special about them which makes them prophets or emissaries, or whatever, or they are used as pawns. Christianity is the only religion that gives you one on one time with it's God. Other religions offer rewards for alliance/obedience. for those followers those 'spiritual rewards' are the reason for their obedience. Christianity offers audience with God, eternally.

If this is appealing or at the very least you want to know if what I said is true then simply A/S/K as outlined in Luke 11 and Allow Him to work with you.

That is not true, people claim to have different experiences with their beliefs, religion, and gods.

Actually this is what the uniformed think about religions in general. they take the hallmark of Christianity and try and water it down, when in truth Only prophets or popes or apostles interact directly with God. Even Mohammad could only speak to an angel.

Where are you getting that parishioners of other/non Christian religions are placed in front of their gods as a matter of course/something that is supposed to happen to everyone. Examples please, I'm asking for a link not for a one off occourance but a link to rules where followers of a non christian god are to spend time with Him in this life.

It doesn't have to be at the collective level either, but individually. 

No, kinda does if you are comparing apples to apples. as I pointed out only Christians are the only ones who are to be able to directly communicate with God on a personal level. That was my claim, and now you are already back tracking???

The difference of Christianity from other religions is a terrible justification, all sovereign religions are different, otherwise they wouldn't be sovereign religions.

 Which again is my point, specifically the primary difference with Christianity is as a matter of course all Christians come in contact with God. All Christians are given the oppertunity to have a relationship with God here/now. No other religion allows for this. As this would be a blasphemous idea or statement to make.

You simply assume that your religion is true

I don't assume anything sport. that's the part you can't seem to get over. that someone has honestly and earnestly shaken down Christianity and found truth in it.

and tell people that they should allow your God to work for them, but this is no justification. 

Where have I said this?

I can just say that your God doesn't exist and leave it at that.

AYYYEEEE!

No one's ever put it that way!

Do you have proof of your claim?

[Harry Nevis]

If you have no explanations for those things, then by default God is the best explanation.

And here is where you turned off your brain.

---

I don't assume anything sport. that's the part you can't seem to get over. that someone has honestly and earnestly shaken down Christianity and found truth in it.

All you are is one big assumption, including that what you call truth means the same to non-believers.

[Mister Agenda]

Are you going for an argument from ignorance here? If no one can provide a natural explanation, yours is more likely to be true? You KNOW that doesn't have the slightest bearing on whether your explanation is true. I know you know that.

If you have no explanations for those things, then by default God is the best explanation.

By that logic, in your scenario, it's also the worst explanation.

[Angrboda]

If you have no explanations for those things, then by default God is the best explanation.

By that logic, in your scenario, it's also the worst explanation.

Indeed. We have other ways of evaluating explanations other than by comparison, and according to them, God is a very poor explanation.

Philosophers of science have proposed a number of comparative approaches [to evaluating hypotheses], usually involving some combination of the following criteria:

Likelihood. The probability of the evidence occurring given the hypothesis in question.
Prior probability or plausibility. Our degree of belief in the hypothesis prior to observing the evidence, or assuming we had not observed it.
Predictive power. The degree to which the hypothesis determines which potential observations are possible (or probable) and which are impossible (or improbable).
Falsifiability. The degree to which the hypothesis "risks" being falsified by new evidence.
Parsimony. The degree to which the hypothesis observes the principle of Occam's razor: "Do not multiply entities needlessly."11

Other criteria often cited include explanatory power, track record, scope, coherence and elegance.

http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/

Of these, God only registers on likelihood, scope, and parsimony, if that. In particular, it's almost completely lacking in explanatory power.

[SuperSentient]

That is not true, people claim to have different experiences with their beliefs, religion, and gods.

Actually this is what the uniformed think about religions in general. they take the hallmark of Christianity and try and water it down, when in truth Only prophets or popes or apostles interact directly with God. Even Mohammad could only speak to an angel.

Where are you getting that parishioners of other/non Christian religions are placed in front of their gods as a matter of course/something that is supposed to happen to everyone. Examples please, I'm asking for a link not for a one off occourance but a link to rules where followers of a non christian god are to spend time with Him in this life.

Again, differences do not imply any truth at all. If you think that if one religion being the only religion that claims God speaks to people makes it true, then I can just as easily say that any of the distinct religions are accurate because of their differences.
As for a link: http://aboutislam.net/reading-islam/find...-with-god/

No, kinda does if you are comparing apples to apples. as I pointed out only Christians are the only ones who are to be able to directly communicate with God on a personal level. That was my claim, and now you are already back tracking???

There are individuals that claim to talk to God that are Christians, are you challenging that? I would hope not, since that is clearly true. Whether or not these religions claim that God can speak to people isn't going to mean that the individuals are not going to claim God spoke to them. 

Which again is my point, specifically the primary difference with Christianity is as a matter of course all Christians come in contact with God. All Christians are given the oppertunity to have a relationship with God here/now. No other religion allows for this. As this would be a blasphemous idea or statement to make. 

Christianity has prayer, but other religions have prayer to. 

I don't assume anything sport. that's the part you can't seem to get over. that someone has honestly and earnestly shaken down Christianity and found truth in it.

You do assume its true.

Where have I said this?

Here is a quote from you:

This means God ceases to be out of the hands of the specialized/religious and is accessible to everyone. Meaning if you are arguing against the existence of God, you do not understand the basic fundamentals of Christianity. The whole concept is about putting all of us in direct contact with God. If you are not, then you do not worship the God of the bible.

That makes the bible, and our 'testimonies' not an argument for God, but apart of the map to find God. That is the difference between those who know God and those who do not. They do not see an argument but a path to follow. one you can do on your own without the thumb of religion pressing down on you.

 
AYYYEEEE!

No one's ever put it that way!

Do you have proof of your claim?

I know, Christians don't like to hear that. First, do you have proof of God's existence? You are the one postulating that a divine being exists. 
I do have reasons to reject the existence of God, but whether you are actually interested is a different story.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

I'm not attempting to prove that God exists. I am saying that the existence of God is most plausible explanation for the most fundamental questions of human existence.

 
Is this actually the most plausible explanation, or is this explanation only plausible for people who choose to interpret "the most fundamental questions of human existence" through a theistic lens?

If you have no explanations for those things, then by default God is the best explanation.

With all due respect, if an individual does not have an explanation for "the most fundamental questions of human existence", then how is attributing the answers to a god any different from saying "I don't know"?

[Amarok]

If you have no explanations for those things, then by default God is the best explanation

Admitting one does not have the answer and actually seeks one out in the real world. Is by default better Then making stuff up and proclaiming you have answered the question because you have not.

---

I don't assume anything sport. that's the part you can't seem to get over. that someone has honestly and earnestly shaken down Christianity and found truth in it.

Right and I'm  a Jedi master


You religious fanatic whom if the corpse of Jesus were tossed at your feet you would sooner slice your ears off and gouge your eyes out then admit it's his corpse. You do assume. You do nothing but assume so there is nothing for us too get over we have you pegged.