Debate: God Exists

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yes. Unless the defense presents plausible objections, the evidence stands.

Yes. We don't bother with proving someone else innocent to see if your defendant is innocent. We wait for positive evidence to see if your defendant is actually guilty before calling them so....This applies well to many claims. Don't accept a claim until you have enough positive evidence to believe it. Disproving another claim does not make your claim more noteworthy. "I don't believe it" is the default until shown otherwise.

Except theists are presenting positive evidence. We do not consider your objections to the evidence valid and the alternative explanations are not plausible to us.

[pocaracas]

Yes. We don't bother with proving someone else innocent to see if your defendant is innocent. We wait for positive evidence to see if your defendant is actually guilty before calling them so....This applies well to many claims. Don't accept a claim until you have enough positive evidence to believe it. Disproving another claim does not make your claim more noteworthy. "I don't believe it" is the default until shown otherwise.

Except theists are presenting positive evidence. We do not consider your objections to the evidence valid and the alternative explanations are not plausible to us.

How is positive evidence that which can be explained away by simple psychology?

[Nonpareil]

Except theists are presenting positive evidence.

Such as?

[Amarok]

Evidence nope

Empty assertion ,Baseless rambling, Vapid concepts. Yup

And once again saying I don't know and investigating the universe via real methods . Then making up mythology like a bunch of cave men around a camp fire.

[Jesster]

Yes. We don't bother with proving someone else innocent to see if your defendant is innocent. We wait for positive evidence to see if your defendant is actually guilty before calling them so....This applies well to many claims. Don't accept a claim until you have enough positive evidence to believe it. Disproving another claim does not make your claim more noteworthy. "I don't believe it" is the default until shown otherwise.

Except theists are presenting positive evidence. We do not consider your objections to the evidence valid and the alternative explanations are not plausible to us.

The evidence you have provided so far is not sufficient. Until it is, I won't believe the claim. I don't care what you consider valid. You may have already convinced yourself, but that doesn't automatically convince others. Also, as previously stated several times before, alternate explanations are still not needed for others to not accept your claim.

Now either provide your positive evidence or get used to us not taking you seriously.

[Cyberman]

By "every single other possible explanation" I don't just mean all explanations we have, but every possible explanation.

It would only be reasonable to believe in 4 if we ruled out all possible explanations, not just all explanations we currently have.

People cannot move forward with their lives if they will only believe things after excluding all possible explanations. Possible explanations are infinite. That goes for pretty much any belief. Do you believe Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth? In doing so, have you excluded all possible explanations of Lincoln's death, like maybe a time-traveling alien doppelganger of Booth? I doubt it.

Yet - and this is going to shock you to your very core - most people are fully capable of moving forward with their lives without ever worrying about who killed Lincoln. And astonishingly, albeit for a lesser proportion of the population, the exact same goes for the question of gods. It's almost as if the topic is irrelevant to their daily lives.

I know; it's the end of civilisation as we know it.

[Harry Nevis]

Yes. We don't bother with proving someone else innocent to see if your defendant is innocent. We wait for positive evidence to see if your defendant is actually guilty before calling them so....This applies well to many claims. Don't accept a claim until you have enough positive evidence to believe it. Disproving another claim does not make your claim more noteworthy. "I don't believe it" is the default until shown otherwise.

Except theists are presenting positive evidence. We do not consider your objections to the evidence valid and the alternative explanations are not plausible to us.

But you're not, unless "It's in the bible" or It feels right to me" is what your considering positive evidence.  It sure isn't objective or testable.

[SuperSentient]

You can't be this dense

So lets back up the argument to what started all of this: "Your claim that Christianity is like every other in that all God interact with their followers." Then I corrected your statement several times as you've been trying to find a loop hole. You did and still seem unaware that IF say a Muslim 'spoke to allah' then they would be elevating themselves above the status of the prophet Mohammad, or they would be guilty of blaspheme.

So back to How do we know Christianity is true? because it places the individual/follower before God himself. This claim has been vetted by the population of Christian believers at large for over 2000 years. This process is not hidden to anyone, and everyone is welcome.

Simple fallacy. The views of a religion wouldn't have impact on objective truth. Speaking to Allah is not necessarily elevating above Muhammed in Islam, many Muslims believe they do, just like many Christians. You are trying to define Christianity into objective truth, which you can't do.

Citations please. I think you 'feel' that you are right but never researched it. What you fail to understand is to claim contact with God in other religions is a death sentence in most cases.

Again as only prophets can make this claim. As I exampled above To make this claim in most if not all other religions even Judaism is blaspheme and a death sentence follows.

I gave you one source, but I will give another source for individual experience. I have met muslims that claim to speak to Allah, it isn't something new.
http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions...e-directly

I'm not talking about prayer. If you have a friendship do you pray to your friend? If you have a mentor do you always pray or speak in prayer to him?

This is what prayer has been about (talking to God), and it is a major pillar of Christianity. 

No I challenged God in the and He said to challenge Him and I found the Truth.

But you certainly assume God exists, this has been demonstrated by what I said to you earlier.

The quoted bit says the exact oppsite of your intended meaning. It says Under God we are free from the laws of religion.

This quote demonstrates what I meant:

That makes the bible, and our 'testimonies' not an argument for God, but apart of the map to find God. 

Yes I have proof of God's existance, how many times must i say YES!

So now then do you have proof He does not exist???

If you are positing that something exists, shouldn't a burden of proof be on you rather than the person denying it?
I actually do have "proofs" of God's non-existence, I have manually constructed them (many from other ideas) and are still working to have a complete set. 
However, by what you say, it seems it doesn't interest you to be open minded.

[downbeatplumb]

Yes. We don't bother with proving someone else innocent to see if your defendant is innocent. We wait for positive evidence to see if your defendant is actually guilty before calling them so....This applies well to many claims. Don't accept a claim until you have enough positive evidence to believe it. Disproving another claim does not make your claim more noteworthy. "I don't believe it" is the default until shown otherwise.

Except theists are presenting positive evidence. We do not consider your objections to the evidence valid and the alternative explanations are not plausible to us.

You have presented no evidence, not one bit of actual testable evidence has been presented by you or any other theist.

What you have presented are the equivalent of  zenos paradoxes that you have somehow convinced yourself has some bearing on the existence of a supreme deity and would you credit it, it happens to be the one that is worshipped where your from. 

You see zeno has argued convincingly that motion is impossible in one of the paradoxes.
Now we all know that that is false but the logic is sound.

If you apply logic alone to a problem what you get is essentially nothing, what is needed for an argument to succeed is ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

So arguments are not now and never will be evidence.

So when you say you have presented evidence when all you have given us are old arguments forgive us when we roll our eyes and go once more into the breach.

I will say it again.

arguments are not evidence ARGUMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE ARGUMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

[masterofpuppets]

You have presented no evidence, not one bit of actual testable evidence has been presented by you or any other theist.

What you have presented are the equivalent of  zenos paradoxes that you have somehow convinced yourself has some bearing on the existence of a supreme deity and would you credit it, it happens to be the one that is worshipped where your from. 

You see zeno has argued convincingly that motion is impossible in one of the paradoxes.
Now we all know that that is false but the logic is sound.

If you apply logic alone to a problem what you get is essentially nothing, what is needed for an argument to succeed is ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

So arguments are not now and never will be evidence.

So when you say you have presented evidence when all you have given us are old arguments forgive us when we roll our eyes and go once more into the breach.

I will say it again.

arguments are not evidence ARGUMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE ARGUMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

That's correct; arguments are not evidence, evidence supports arguments.

I would also like to expand on the discussion of logic. There are things logic can and can't do on its own. Logic cannot demonstrate that possible things exist. However, it can demonstrate that impossible things cannot exist. When you assign mutually incompatible characteristics to x, then x cannot exist logically. This applies to God as well. God is said to be perfect yet require worship. A perfect being, however, would see no use for worship. These two qualities are incompatible by definition.