Debate: God Exists

[TubbyTubby]

That does seem like it is directed straight to the deity of choice.

This seems to tinkle all over Drichs Xianities exceptionalist  view.

My new prophesy is that Drich will just quietly slip away from the mighty Mystic as though he never noticed the reply.

When differing myths meet head on there can be no winners which is why they tend to avoid as such. It's entertaining to watch though as they both put forward arguments to dismiss an alternative god that can simply be referred back to their own chosen deity.

Quite sad, but scary, I know of at least 5 people that follow different gods in my small office. I'd like to bring them all together so they can deny each others gods between them but they'd shit their pants at the very thought.

[Drich]

how so?

I don't know how you got so absurd.  It's just plain in your posts.

do you have a good example?

[TubbyTubby]

I don't know how you got so absurd.  It's just plain in your posts.

do you have a good example?

Every single line you post is absurd Drich. You will never know why so don't even ask.

[SuperSentient]

If they claim this then by their own holy book they are hertics. Now they most certainly just shout out their feelings or pray or even put their wants into a formal wishing cermony if they like. However their book states it must be a one way conversation, less he sends an angel to his most highest and holy prophets. which is completly different than speaking with someone. That in english is refered to as talking at someone. So your points about allah speaking to people... trollish fantasy. Otherwise provide book chapter and verse please back up what you believe!

Nope, and I already showed you, you simply refuse to accept since you are so determined to demonstrate that Christianity is something unique in a way that shows it can only be superior to every other religion.

This is completely untrue. History is full of examples of documented healing, prophesy, eye witness accounts to hands on miracles. 

Are they testable? Can it be traced back to some divine intervention of a deity? The answer is no, it doesn't provide evidence just as people claiming to see UFOs is not evidence that aliens are watching us.

To doubt the existance of Christ is to doubt the existance of anyother figure in that time period as there is more from that time period written about Christ than there is about anyone else.

I accept the existence of a historical Jesus, but it also must be taken into account that the authenticity and reliability of these Christian texts is very sketchy and not universally accepted by scholars. There is simply no reason to assume that what is said about Jesus here can be compared to what other texts say about other historical figures.

In the end we all simply see what we want to see.

That is the basis of a lot of human subjective psychological experiences, what is interpreted to be a mentally relatable experience.

How so? alot of timing belts being required changing before salvation process is complete? What you fail or seemto be afraid to address is not that fact that these things happened to me.. But they wait for you if you simply bend your knee not to me but to God.

Which is exactly what I said, typical religion, pretending as if the real knowledge "transcends" human rationality and therefore God supposedly is only provable subjectively. 

What if you were privy to daily supernatural occourances? where God seemingly bends nature to get you out of a spot? how long would it take to convince you? Or what if you were sat down in a 'bruce almighty' one on one with God.. Would you demand the circus tricks (seven fingers on one hand)

If I found reason to believe these experiences are actually attributable to God, I would consider it.

THE ONE EXAMPLE YOU GAVE Was Of A Man Taking Direction From His God And Was Rebuked For It!!!

What you want to compare is a feeling verses physical and spiritual interaction/Relationship. Again not the same thing. 

Aha, now I believe we are getting to the core issue here. Why should I deny every other experience that is not connected to Christianity and Jesus and only the Christian based ones? How do you know your experiences are "spiritual interactions/relationship" and not other experiences? 
This is fallacious cherry picking, and isn't going to support your beliefs any more. 

You asked what makes Christianity true. I said because the bible offers a relationship with God if one will simply ABC

But that doesn't make Christianity true does it? Other religions have their own separate claims, why would a specific relationship with some God necessitate the truth of this religion? It doesn't, I want confirmation that this religion is true and God exists and Jesus is authentic as a divine being, after all, what is the point in accepting a faith that is not objectively true? I want it confirmed before I go into it.

Rational is based on supposition a logical WHAT IF or I GUESS that is the most logical

It is based on critical thinking and independent confirmation. You don't seem to understand science and rationality, that is a somewhat common misunderstanding of rationality.

In what world does "I guess" trump "This is what I observed?"

Rational thinking and science is based on observation, that is actually part of the scientific method.

Actually no. Not born into the religion. I experienced the truths and changed what I believe to fit what I learned. As should anyone that would pledge their life to God.

I said what you "currently believe." You do assume that it is true, it is expressed all over your post.

actually no. Rational thinking follows the pattern of popular belief. otherwise The rational 'thinker' would take God up on his offer and allow God to open the flood gates.. To sit the rational thinker down before Him and speak with Him.

It does not base itself on whatever happens to be popular belief. I now see your religious beliefs influence what you think about rationality and critical thinking. This is not good and I encourage you to look into how the scientific method works and the concept of critical thinking.

Aww, how quaint/earth is flat of you.

"Science" even the admission of science is self is limited to the Physical world. That means being stuck in one relative point in time and space will only yield a singular view of the "knowable" (but currently unknown universe)

Science does base its discoveries on empirical aspects of the world we live in. It is also the most accurate form of thinking there is. Science has generally accepted established conclusions worldwide. Religion? You won't get people of different religions agreeing on much of anything, all completely different ways.

(break down for you= Science/scientific method requires several points of data to come to a conclusion. On a cosmic level because we are currently limited to a relitive finite point in time and space, we do not have but a singular point of data to fuel and manage how the rest of a potentially endless universe contains... Not bloodly likly old sport.

We also can make indirect observations and predictions based on established scientific laws and theories. For example, the theory of general relativity predicts deformation of space time, known as black holes. Its pretty cool what science can do.
Religion? It hasn't given us anything to figure out, just that we have to act a certain way and follow some leader or we may suffer.

That is like one man looking at the moon and saying it is made out of cheddar and another with strong glasses able to see the craters and claim it is infact swiss. one data point in an infinite universe does not an expert make. your 'science' is the guy claiming it is swiss because he can see oh so slightly better.

Only, we know the moon isn't a block of cheese.

I'd say what you believe about prayer is wrong. If you look at the Lord's only example of prayer it is about You asking God to Change you into the Person He wants you to be. Not the other way round. Once you become that person or being shapped to be that person then it is easier to petition God for your personal items.

I actually agree with that conception of prayer as related to Christianity, I am not saying you are wrong about asking for change from God.

but again you looking for best logical guess/guessing on how to describe God, and I am trying to show you how to have your own audience before Him. To ask your questions directly to Him and gain your answers. Why would you ever want to play best guess when you can find out for yourself?

I want reason to belief God exists, independent of what my subjective experiences may be.

Not a persumption sport. Maybe you oughta look that word up too: "belief on reasonable grounds or probable evidence. "

I would be persuming if I only saw pictures of the grand canyon and never been there myself. Again I stood before Christ in my judgement, I interact with the Holy Spirit Daily God to me is more real than you are.

You do presume it, all over your posts. You are saying you don't see it?

Wow.. I like analogies because it shows me how much or little people understand abot a given subject. You understand little to nothing about God or religion.

My analogy actually does a good job explaining what you are saying. 

God simply wants you to Ask Seek and Knock as outlined in Luke 11.

Right here you are presuming God exists, you refuse to confirm it but instead say he does exist and it is up to me to seek it.

Again sport not postulating anything. I am pointing out the 'claim' made in the bible, and simply verifying by sharing what was done for me.

But you are assuming the bible is true in this case.

Actually I don't personally care what you do. I simply want you to make an informed desision.

I also want you to make an informed decision, but we will never figure out who is correct here if we don't find common ground so you can verify the truths of your beliefs.

I can't make God do anything sport or i'd be God.

So, you are saying that it is up to God to demonstrate his existence, and not up to you. I rest my case here. This is exactly the nonsense religion (including Jesus and Christianity) is trying to get by with.

Ah, no. Maybe theist in general do, but the followers of the God of the bible do not.

Like any other theist, biblical Christians need to as well.

God is proof of Himself.

I have yet to see it, but would like to. Instead, you tell me to accept his existence first with faith, then God will reveal himself. This is what I find concerning about religion.

Why oh why then would you think it any different with God?

I want proof of God's existence before I accept it. Not accept it and then proof. It doesn't work like that. It is cause and then effect.

[Amarok]

To doubt the existance of Christ is to doubt the existance of anyother figure in that time period as there is more from that time period written about Christ than there is about anyone else.

 Bullshit

1. We a legit reason to accept other persons of history yet renounce Jesus there is no contradiction

2. Yup a lot is written that doesn't what's written is true .

Please stop repeating moronic apologist bullshit it just makes you look all more deranged

[downbeatplumb]

To doubt the existance of Christ is to doubt the existance of anyother figure in that time period as there is more from that time period written about Christ than there is about anyone else.

 Bullshit

1. We a legit reason to accept other persons of history yet renounce Jesus there is no contradiction

2. Yup a lot is written that doesn't what's written is true .

Please stop repeating moronic apologist bullshit it just makes you look all more deranged

Well there is some doubt on the actual existence of Socrates.

But even with people we know actually existed like Caligula we reject the supernatural claims that were made in antiquity for them, because ancient people just used to make shit up and write about it as if it was real, they did it all the time.

Quite a lot of history is sifting through the bullshit and propaganda to get to as near the truth as possible, and the bible is all bullshit and propaganda. The best you can say is that some of the cities it mentioned existed and that's about it.

[Drich]

Drich, please don't interpret Quran without consulting the tradtions of the family of the reminder.

Let us see what those holy leaders taught us to say in the most well reported authentic Du'a (invocation) that we have from them:

My Lord, grant me complete severance of my relations with everything else and total submission to You. Enlighten the eyes of our hearts with the light of their looking at You to the extent that they penetrate the veils of light and reach the Source of Grandeur, and let our souls get suspended by the glory of Your sanctity.
My Lord, make me one of those whom You call and they respond; when You look at and they are thunderstruck by Your majesty. You whisper to them secretly and they work for You openly.
My Lord, I have not allowed my pessimistic despair to overcome my good opinion about You, nor did I ever lose my hope of Your benevolence.
My Lord, if my errors have degraded me with You, You may forgive me in view of my unqualified reliance on You.

Mysticknight please don't assume i quoted the Quran is such a way. Or rather more pointedly if you think I have misquoted the quran highlight the quotation. rather than make accuse me of something I did not do.

The quotation from which you speak of came from one of you. More specifically one of you quoted ask a haji web site. It was his answer His quotation and his admonishment of those physically hearing from Allah are indeed heritics as God has only spoke to man twice. Adam in the Garden and Moses. NOT EVEN MO_HAM Got To Speak with God.
http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions...e-directly

So then the Muslim logic being if our greatest prophet did not speak to God directly, then how is it an average nobody has not only speach but anything resembling what Christianity claims?

---

Drich, please don't interpret Quran without consulting the tradtions of the family of the reminder.

Let us see what those holy leaders taught us to say in the most well reported authentic Du'a (invocation) that we have from them:

My Lord, grant me complete severance of my relations with everything else and total submission to You. Enlighten the eyes of our hearts with the light of their looking at You to the extent that they penetrate the veils of light and reach the Source of Grandeur, and let our souls get suspended by the glory of Your sanctity.
My Lord, make me one of those whom You call and they respond; when You look at and they are thunderstruck by Your majesty. You whisper to them secretly and they work for You openly.
My Lord, I have not allowed my pessimistic despair to overcome my good opinion about You, nor did I ever lose my hope of Your benevolence.
My Lord, if my errors have degraded me with You, You may forgive me in view of my unqualified reliance on You.

That does seem like it is directed straight to the deity of choice.

This seems to tinkle all over Drichs Xianities exceptionalist  view.

sorry to beat down your plumb but...
ﯸﯹﯺﯻﯼﯽﯾﯿﰀﰁﰂﰃﰄﰅﰆﰇﰈﰉﰊﰋﰌﰍﰎﰏﰐ
Sahih International
And it is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a partition or that He sends a messenger to reveal, by His permission, what He wills. Indeed, He is Most High and Wise.
https://quran.com/42/51

What mystic posted I believe (because he did not cite his quote, and I havent committed the whole quran and the side books to memory) was from a Muslim book of prayer or the quran's version of the psalms (Zabur)

What mystic wrote is the devout wish that God calls out to Him/the pray giver. (Keeping in mind the quotation from Sahih that says it is NOT God's intention to reach out to pee ons) Despite that we have in this personal prayer: The personal desire of an islamic prayer giver to want what Christianity has/Relationship with God. But read what he/Misty quoted again. Sadly no where in the quoted material does allah reach out to the people with a relationship. So much IS the Great Allah's silence the writter of this prayer admits falling into pessimistic dispare, because his God has not lift one finger, yet this prayer giver pleads for something some kind of direction and or sign... It's all on page there sport how did you miss all of that?
 

---

You asked "how so" in response to being called absurd?  This load of crap is a perfect example why.  You're so full of shit, you're eyes are brown.

---

[quote pid='1527747' dateline='1490125981']

actually no. Rational thinking follows the pattern of popular belief. otherwise The rational 'thinker' would take God up on his offer and allow God to open the flood gates.. To sit the rational thinker down before Him and speak with Him.

Here's another nugget of crap.  You amaze me.
[/quote]

Again HOW is what I wrote considered to be absurd?

For example let's look at your 'nugget'

I know what you think the term 'rational thought' means. But let's actually break the term down and literally define what the word is actually describing:

ra·tion·al
/ˈraSH(ə)n(ə)l/

adjective

• 1. based on or in accordance with reason or logic: "I'm sure there's a perfectly rational explanation" synonyms: logical, reasoned, sensible, reasonable, cogent, ... more
  
• ▪ (of a person) able to think clearly, sensibly, and logically: "Andrea's upset—she's not being very rational" synonyms: sane, compos mentis, in one's right mind, of sound mind, normal, ... more
  
• ▪ endowed with the capacity to reason: "man is a rational being" synonyms: intelligent, thinking, reasoning, cerebral, logical, ... more
  

define #1 IN accordance with... Meaning follows the pattern of.. (You still with me?) logic and reason.

Rather than say logic and reason, Here I said popular thought. Or what people currently think is logic and reason. So why do I say popular thought rather than logic and reason? because logic and reason is a deceptive 'gold standard of thinking, when in fact it is just the herd's consensus. for example: "logic and reason"/popular thought stated the earth was flat just 700 years ago. Logic and reason told us just 100 years ago Man could not travel faster than the fastest horse could run without flying apart. Logic and reason demanded man could never fly, and on and on and on.

Know it or not you in all of your technical glory and all that you know will be looked at as a simple cave man if we are allowed to go another 1000 years with bombing ourselves out of existence. If your current logic and reason was any real type of gold standard of thinking, don't you think it would hold up, would their be examples that stand the test of time?

I am sorry if my efforts demand I seek out something alittle more solid as a way to broach and try and understand the world around me. Forgive me if I find the ever shifting sands of 'logic and reason' and absurd replacement for truth.

But that's what you guys do isn't it. you replace truth with logic and reason so you can push back the boundaries that truth demands just incase it demands you do something it does not like.

If I am to be considered absurd because I will not follow you of your cliff of 'rational thinking' then so be it. I'd rather be working in truth anyway.

[Drich]

Science is limited to the physical world because it is based on observations (i.e. data that can be collected, interpreted and used) that have so far been limited to the natural world. Nothing has been demonstrated to exist beyond the physical world, by science or otherwise. To make claims beyond that despite the fact that the supernatural has not been demonstrated is fallacious and is merely an act of knowledge gap-filling. A rational, logical thinker does not become convinced in supernatural claims because they are beyond the scope of our investigative abilities, and recognising one's own gaps in knowledge is imperative for success in scientific fields.

It's like you guys were all copies of the same bad arguement. Think about what you just said about the supernatural... left click and highlight it, it now delete it. Why? Let's say for a moment God Created the Natural universe. (rather than a one he is mandated to move supernaturally through)So then why would we then only look for Him supernaturally? Not to say God can't work supernaturally, but why create something that you have to work around just to get done what you set out to accomplish? Why not create something that works with you rather than against?

So then why does the bible only record these supernatural events? To anyone witnessing the use of nature or technology to further that person's or being will, would that not be a supernatural event? Especially if the witness did not understand how nature or technology was used?

Now lets look at the supernatural even itself. Once we have a base understanding of the supernatural, can't it then be classified as natural? isn't that what science does? So then why the pomp and pageantry in proclaiming no supernatural events have ever been recorded? are you to foolish to understand that once they have been recorded they cease being supernatural?

The aim of science is not to seek the "right" answer, it's to account for the data with models that have the greatest explanatory and predictive power.

I full understand the 'aim' and as above I mock it when someone compares the aim/efforts against truth. Especially truth made available to the individual, and yet the individual prefers to seek out the Aim of 'science.'

We can make predictions about what can be and likely is beyond the observations we have made so far, and none of these predictions point to the supernatural. This isn't because science outright dismisses the supernatural, but rather because we are limited to exploring natural phenomena and nothing supernatural has been shown to exist.

Glob..

Your moon analogy is puerile but not even slightly confusing.

It is the "puerile" that often times makes fools of the wise and learned.

Or rather "if one does not know enough about a subject to explain it simply, 'he' does not truly understand the subject being discussed."

[Harry Nevis]

Drich, please don't interpret Quran without consulting the tradtions of the family of the reminder.

Let us see what those holy leaders taught us to say in the most well reported authentic Du'a (invocation) that we have from them:

My Lord, grant me complete severance of my relations with everything else and total submission to You. Enlighten the eyes of our hearts with the light of their looking at You to the extent that they penetrate the veils of light and reach the Source of Grandeur, and let our souls get suspended by the glory of Your sanctity.
My Lord, make me one of those whom You call and they respond; when You look at and they are thunderstruck by Your majesty. You whisper to them secretly and they work for You openly.
My Lord, I have not allowed my pessimistic despair to overcome my good opinion about You, nor did I ever lose my hope of Your benevolence.
My Lord, if my errors have degraded me with You, You may forgive me in view of my unqualified reliance on You.

Mysticknight please don't assume i quoted the Quran is such a way. Or rather more pointedly if you think I have misquoted the quran highlight the quotation. rather than make accuse me of something I did not do.

The quotation from which you speak of came from one of you. More specifically one of you quoted ask a haji web site. It was his answer His quotation and his admonishment of those physically hearing from Allah are indeed heritics as God has only spoke to man twice. Adam in the Garden and Moses. NOT EVEN MO_HAM Got To Speak with God.
http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions...e-directly

So then the Muslim logic being if our greatest prophet did not speak to God directly, then how is it an average nobody has not only speach but anything resembling what Christianity claims?

---

That does seem like it is directed straight to the deity of choice.

This seems to tinkle all over Drichs Xianities exceptionalist  view.

sorry to beat down your plumb but...
ﯸﯹﯺﯻﯼﯽﯾﯿﰀﰁﰂﰃﰄﰅﰆﰇﰈﰉﰊﰋﰌﰍﰎﰏﰐ
Sahih International
And it is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a partition or that He sends a messenger to reveal, by His permission, what He wills. Indeed, He is Most High and Wise.
https://quran.com/42/51

What mystic posted I believe (because he did not cite his quote, and I havent committed the whole quran and the side books to memory) was from a Muslim book of prayer or the quran's version of the psalms (Zabur)

What mystic wrote is the devout wish that God calls out to Him/the pray giver. (Keeping in mind the quotation from Sahih that says it is NOT God's intention to reach out to pee ons) Despite that we have in this personal prayer: The personal desire of an islamic prayer giver to want what Christianity has/Relationship with God. But read what he/Misty quoted again. Sadly no where in the quoted material does allah reach out to the people with a relationship. So much IS the Great Allah's silence the writter of this prayer admits falling into pessimistic dispare, because his God has not lift one finger, yet this prayer giver pleads for something some kind of direction and or sign... It's all on page there sport how did you miss all of that?
 

---

You asked "how so" in response to being called absurd?  This load of crap is a perfect example why.  You're so full of shit, you're eyes are brown.

---

Here's another nugget of crap.  You amaze me.

Again HOW is what I wrote considered to be absurd?

For example let's look at your 'nugget'

I know what you think the term 'rational thought' means. But let's actually break the term down and literally define what the word is actually describing:

ra·tion·al
/ˈraSH(ə)n(ə)l/

adjective

• 1. based on or in accordance with reason or logic: "I'm sure there's a perfectly rational explanation" synonyms: logical, reasoned, sensible, reasonable, cogent, ... more
  
• ▪ (of a person) able to think clearly, sensibly, and logically: "Andrea's upset—she's not being very rational" synonyms: sane, compos mentis, in one's right mind, of sound mind, normal, ... more
  
• ▪ endowed with the capacity to reason: "man is a rational being" synonyms: intelligent, thinking, reasoning, cerebral, logical, ... more
  

define #1 IN accordance with... Meaning follows the pattern of.. (You still with me?) logic and reason.

Rather than say logic and reason, Here I said popular thought. Or what people currently think is logic and reason. So why do I say popular thought rather than logic and reason? because logic and reason is a deceptive 'gold standard of thinking, when in fact it is just the herd's consensus. for example: "logic and reason"/popular thought stated the earth was flat just 700 years ago. Logic and reason told us just 100 years ago Man could not travel faster than the fastest horse could run without flying apart. Logic and reason demanded man could never fly, and on and on and on.

Bullshit.  The earth was known to be round since the ancient Greeks.  100 years ago, we were travelling faster than a horse.  Logic and reason "demanded"?!  Good thing people didn't listen....

Know it or not you in all of your technical glory and all that you know will be looked at as a simple cave man if we are allowed to go another 1000 years with bombing ourselves out of existence. If your current logic and reason was any real type of gold standard of thinking, don't you think it would hold up, would their be examples that stand the test of time?

There are examples.  You're just too brainwashed to accept them.

I am sorry if my efforts demand I seek out something alittle more solid as a way to broach and try and understand the world around me. Forgive me if I find the ever shifting sands of 'logic and reason' and absurd replacement for truth.

You are sorry, but not for those reasons.

But that's what you guys do isn't it. you replace truth with logic and reason so you can push back the boundaries that truth demands just incase it demands you do something it does not like.

What does your "truth" demand?

If I am to be considered absurd because I will not follow you of your cliff of 'rational thinking' then so be it. I'd rather be working in truth anyway.
[/quote]

[masterofpuppets]

Science is limited to the physical world because it is based on observations (i.e. data that can be collected, interpreted and used) that have so far been limited to the natural world. Nothing has been demonstrated to exist beyond the physical world, by science or otherwise. To make claims beyond that despite the fact that the supernatural has not been demonstrated is fallacious and is merely an act of knowledge gap-filling. A rational, logical thinker does not become convinced in supernatural claims because they are beyond the scope of our investigative abilities, and recognising one's own gaps in knowledge is imperative for success in scientific fields.

It's like you guys were all copies of the same bad arguement. Think about what you just said about the supernatural... left click and highlight it, it now delete it. Why? Let's say for a moment God Created the Natural universe. (rather than a one he is mandated to move supernaturally through)So then why would we then only look for Him supernaturally? Not to say God can't work supernaturally, but why create something that you have to work around just to get done what you set out to accomplish? Why not create something that works with you rather than against?

So then why does the bible only record these supernatural events? To anyone witnessing the use of nature or technology to further that person's or being will, would that not be a supernatural event? Especially if the witness did not understand how nature or technology was used?

Now lets look at the supernatural even itself. Once we have a base understanding of the supernatural, can't it then be classified as natural? isn't that what science does? So then why the pomp and pageantry in proclaiming no supernatural events have ever been recorded? are you to foolish to understand that once they have been recorded they cease being supernatural?

The aim of science is not to seek the "right" answer, it's to account for the data with models that have the greatest explanatory and predictive power.

I full understand the 'aim' and as above I mock it when someone compares the aim/efforts against truth. Especially truth made available to the individual, and yet the individual prefers to seek out the Aim of 'science.'

We can make predictions about what can be and likely is beyond the observations we have made so far, and none of these predictions point to the supernatural. This isn't because science outright dismisses the supernatural, but rather because we are limited to exploring natural phenomena and nothing supernatural has been shown to exist.

Glob..

Your moon analogy is puerile but not even slightly confusing.

It is the "puerile" that often times makes fools of the wise and learned.

Or rather "if one does not know enough about a subject to explain it simply, 'he' does not truly understand the subject being discussed."

You still haven't provided evidence for God, miracles, prayers and all the other ridiculous claims postulated by your religion. It seems like you wrote your rebuttal as a vain attempt to distract the discussion from the real issue here.

Also, I was using the term "supernatural" to mean anything that exists beyond the physical Universe (i.e. the natural world). Of course I understand that all phenomena that has some kind of manifestation the Universe is indeed natural. It is the theistic claim that some natural phenomena have some sort of supernatural attribution (e.g. prayer) that I reject.