Debate: God Exists

[pocaracas]

Drich's point does make some sense... but it fails to account many psychological effects.

He says: here's this instruction book. If you follow the instructions, you find the evidence you want.
Of course, the evidence is not of any physical nature, or else anyone would have it, regardless of following the instructions... and that's not the point.
The instructions were laid out on purpose only for those who are willing to go the extra mile.


Nevermind that they only work on some people.... nevermind that they are very similar to hacking into your own mind...
Nevermind that those instructions seem to have been written by people who, even if not understanding the mind hack, they acted with the knowledge that it works.
How did they acquire that information?
Through ancestral observation of human mental behavior, or through an actual god guiding their hand?

[Amarok]

Nope it makes no sense at all and is just special pleading to not have to provide a real case for god or Christianity based on actual standards not sluth sayerism next will be asked to accept magic beans

[Amarok]

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.

Nope Religion is two blind men who have never bothered to look up at the moon blathering about what cheese it's made of and derping on about magic other non natural realms and hidden magic knowledge that must exist somewhere because  . While science is sending probes to it's surface cataloging the mineral content and explorer objective reality as it's demonstrated .

[Drich]

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.

You literally showed me a link leading to this verse:
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.

In Christianity God speaks directly

In Islam allah speak fro behind a partition or through an intermediary.

This is the same level of communication to you? One face to face person to deity with no intermediary and a god/allah who hides behind partitions and messengers. Not to mention This level of communication is Reserved ONLY FOR THE HIGHEST LEVEL of Prophet or emissary. Mohammad Himself only got to speak with an angel.

Verse Christianity where God the Father pours out God the Holy Spirit on whom ever simply Ask Seeks and Knocks for it!

That is why you have been identified rightly as a troll. You are not even make a similar compareson. You are arguing a loop hole that clearly you do not understand enough to be silent about.

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

Are they testable?

is any eye witness account in History testable?

Can it be traced back to some divine intervention of a deity?

If one simply does not assume said a said deity must work supernaturally. After all once you remove the false moniker of a deity's will being only supernatural then anyone can be considered divine intervention so long as a given outcome complies with a deity written law, prophesy or proclamation.

The only think keep us from seeing more God at work is our narrow minded defination of God. It is so Ironic that most of you will concede that a defining characteristic of God is that he is supposed to be infinate, yet when you yourself set out to describe god he is so limited.. Why do you think you hold such a bias? Why does your verion of god so limited?

The answer is no, it doesn't provide evidence just as people claiming to see UFOs is not evidence that aliens are watching us.

You don't seem to understand the term evidence. Evidence is anything upto and including personal experience. infact personal tesitmony is what the word evidence is built around.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

The term your looking for is popularly accepted facts. Not evidence as evidence accepted or not, is still considered evidence.

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.

show me one text of equal scale (nt a single scrap or broken pottery shard with a single word written on it) from that time period that is. The truth is NOTHING from that time period goes uncontested. Christ far above and beyond ANY other historical figure of that era has more period manuscripts written about Him than anyone else.

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.

why not? have you studied the authenticity of these text? the volumes of texts? how the texts support and collectively tell the same stories with minor spelling and grammatically differences? There are over 25K hand written manuscripts and when you break them down they collectively speak of the same person. Nothing in recorded History even comes close. To doubt the existence of Christ is to doubt everyother figure in that time as no one provenance even comes close!

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

So???

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. 

But again rational is not the gold standard of discernment. Truth is. Rational is popularly accepted fact. As I pointed out already, declaring that the earth was flat was at one time a rational statement. Obviously seeing now a contrast between known truth and a 'rational statement.' One need logically ask what safe guards have been put into place to prevent the 'rational' from contradicting truth? What can one put in place to keep the individual from being forced into the hive mind of anything deemed 'rational?' Or is that your intended goal? to train to think as a collective? To squash the truth form a 'rational' mind so that one yeild not to truth but to the 'power' of rational thinking?

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

Well, in part that is what Jesus is offering each indivisual. In essence we will be Granted whatever we need not want but need to transition from blind faith into solid belief. Not only that we will be given the tools and understand required to maintain what we believe, even if that warm and fuzzy 'feeling' has long since left you. You will know not only that there is a God becaue of what He has already done, but you will know in the darkest trials He is working on your side.

[quote='me']
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?

In that very specific example is because the rules of his very own religion did not allow for what he had experienced. That's what you guys don't get. If in islam your God is talking to you as with Christianity you are not practicing by the book islam.

Likewise If you are a Christian and you experience the things Allah offers then your not following by the book Christianity.

That is what I am promoting and witnessing to be true here. I followed the book and found the God the book said I would find. I am not going off reservation as with your islamic examples did. What I received has been offered to everyone to one degree or another.

How do you know your experiences are "spiritual interactions/relationship" and not other experiences? 

Again consistant with a book that at the time I knew nothing about.

This is fallacious cherry picking, and isn't going to support your beliefs any more. 

Do you have an example?

But that doesn't make Christianity true does it?

Kinda does.
How wouldn't it?

If the Christian God says do ABC and I will give 123 and you receive 123 then what the Christian God says is indeed true.

Other religions have their own separate claims,

and you have yet to demonstrate 1 anyway shape or form similar to Christianity.
This is where your 'rational thinking fails you' and you do not know enough truth to see it when I tell you nothing comes close. You just assume the 'rational religious narritive is indeed factual.' This is what I mean by hive mind thinking. You are will to sacrifice truth for the sake of being deemed rational.

why would a specific relationship with some God necessitate the truth of this religion?

You would know the answer to that question if you knew the fundamentals of the christian Gospel.

In essence sin keeps us all from God (this is true across the Abraham religious spectrum; Judaism, Christianity and in Islam) the end two religions do not recognise Jesus, therefore there is no way for man to ever be righteous enough to even come face to face with God let alone speak. unless God specially prepared a vessel/prophet to channel his words through.

Christianity on the other hand states that Jesus died to atone for sin. thus lifting the need for any intermediary or any vessle to stand between us and God.

Jesus also tell us if we simply A/S/K for God the Holy Spirit, God the Father will give us access to Him "Pour Himout on us" The idea being generously over filling our every nook and cranny with God.

So then If Jesus says do ABC and God the Father will Pour out the Holy Spirit on us that means the 'gospel' is true that our sin debt is Gone and God can indeed fellowship with us once again.

That sport is the reason no other religion can claim the same thing as biblical Christianity. Everyother religion and even some major Christian religions are under the law of sin still, we are free from it. Meaning we no longer get our righteousness from following the law (meaning we are not judged 'moral' by what we do or do not do) we are judged by the fact Jesus was 'moral/perfect.'

Therefore because Jesus was perfect and we fall under Christ when we put on the atonement he offers (apart of the ABC) we before God are as righteous as Christ.

That Christ like righteousness is what allows All Christians direct access to God.. Now whether we all use this access or have the fundamentals to accept it or not is another matter reconciled by the parables of the talents.

It doesn't,

yah-huh it does so.

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.

I really don't care what you want..

I'm here to offer truth.

If you want to know God I can only point you in the direction He wants us to be marching in to meet Him.

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.

As I did for the last two I point to the definition of Rational thinking. While it represents the pinicale of modern thought, it does not always represent Truth.

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.

You mean observation is apart 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.

But again there is no assumption needed here. I discovered or witnessed truth. Confirmed in in scripture, and now live by it.

It does not base itself on whatever happens to be popular belief.

cough*Global warming.. The current global warming doctrine is an example of a 20 year old  popular belief superseding 500 years of scientific study and research. Now would a 'rationally thinking man' support or deny the current doctrine of global climate change??? Now what of the 500 years of scientifc study before 1997 (when this doctrine first came out) that the current climate change was apart of a cycle?

Do and try and suspend the urge to argue your personal position and look at the subject from a popular thought perspective. In that you have 20 years of purposed/specificlly collected data being used to over turn 500 years of data collection and daily records, and the final conclusion of that 500 years of data collection lead us to.

Tell me again how pop culture has no influence on 'rational thought.' Then we can talk about how being gay is a scientific fact with the absence of any gene's to support it, while being obese with 15 'known fat genes" is a choice. Maybe you can 'rationally think your way through that mess.

I now see your religious beliefs influence what you think about rationality and critical thinking.

No.. Truth is the only factor that succeeds what you think is the gold standard of discernment. Truth will always trump your rational and our ability to think critically. Or rather it should lest you think hive minds should take precedent over independent thought.

Science does base its discoveries on empirical aspects of the world we live in.

It also bases it discoveries on who pays the bilz!
what did the scientist at C.E.R.N. discover?!??! Exacly what they were paid to discover... Never mind the fact they didn't really discover anything but after spending like a trillion euros claim that they did.

It is also the most accurate form of thinking there is.

precise would be a better word. Again with money/enough of it You can get the whore 'science' to say anything

Science has generally accepted established conclusions worldwide.

To those living in a hive mind/collective I agree.

Religion? You won't get people of different religions agreeing on much of anything, all completely different ways.

Apples and oranges sport. unless you are saying science is indeed a form of religion.

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.

And when "Rational thought" said it was??

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.

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

Why?

So that you will have first gain approval of the collective?

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?

define presumption then or do you not understand that Though the Holy Spirit I have direct knowledge of God? Direct knowledge is not a presumption sport.

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

Right here you are presuming God exists,

No I am not presuming anything. I may have presumed and walked that path by faith, but know that I've been down that road no presumption needed I've 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 did all of what the bible said kinda naturally and apart from any assumptions or presumptions. The bible simply outlines what an honest person would ultimately do if they wanted to know God. I did that on my own while beating up Christians. Once I did that I indeed found God.

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.

But again these are not my promises nor my claims. God made the promise to pour out the Holy Spirit I didn't and can't. I'm simply verifying that He did this very thing for me. And even though I'm going through a pretty big trial

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.

From the very beginning !

I rest my case here. This is exactly the nonsense religion (including Jesus and Christianity) is trying to get by with.

What changed? I've been arguing this fact from day one.

I have yet to see it, but would like to.

Then Ask, Seek and Knock as outlined in Luke 11.

Instead, you tell me to accept his existence first with faith, then God will reveal himself. This is what I find concerning about religion.

When have I ever said that?

I did not believe in God when I went looking for the truth of it all, so then why would I tell you that? or are you just 'critically thinking out what my answers would be based on what the collective knows of religion?

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.

good luck with that sport.
[/quote]

[SuperSentient]

is any eye witness account in History testable?

It can't be connected back to the supernatural.

The only think keep us from seeing more God at work is our narrow minded defination of God. It is so Ironic that most of you will concede that a defining characteristic of God is that he is supposed to be infinate, yet when you yourself set out to describe god he is so limited.

What definition are you referring to.

You don't seem to understand the term evidence. Evidence is anything upto and including personal experience. infact personal tesitmony is what the word evidence is built around.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

Not what I am talking about. You are attempting to define evidence in your favor so it can be applied to subjective religious experiences.

The term your looking for is popularly accepted facts. Not evidence as evidence accepted or not, is still considered evidence.

Nope, evidence as in discoveries of facts in the world through the scientific method and critical thinking. I see you are narrow minded about this. I encourage you to look into the scientific method and rational thinking.

show me one text of equal scale (nt a single scrap or broken pottery shard with a single word written on it) from that time period that is. The truth is NOTHING from that time period goes uncontested.

Again, not what I am talking about. The discoveries from a time period aren't uncontested, it is what the texts say that are widely contested.

Christ far above and beyond ANY other historical figure of that era has more period manuscripts written about Him than anyone else.

However, the confirmation of what is said about him is very sketchy and it is also true that Christianity became a large and powerful religion, with many forms of forgeries following.

There are over 25K hand written manuscripts and when you break them down they collectively speak of the same person. Nothing in recorded History even comes close.

However, the main accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus are third party narratives that were written years after his death. Also, it is commonly accepted that Mark was the first gospel and other gospels drew from that one gospel and another unfounded source. There is strong evidence that these other non-canonical sources were derived from previous sources.

Truth is. Rational is popularly accepted fact.

Again, that is incorrect. It is true that science and rationality have widely accepted facts, but it gets that way by enormous confirmation and repeating of tests and methods, so it is not that we accept something and call them facts but that we got to these conclusions by means of rationality and methods of confirmation and justification, and then they are widely accepted into scholarship.

As I pointed out already, declaring that the earth was flat was at one time a rational statement.

But then it was demonstrated that it was false.

Obviously seeing now a contrast between known truth and a 'rational statement.'

Rationality has given us known truths.

Well, in part that is what Jesus is offering each indivisual. In essence we will be Granted whatever we need not want but need to transition from blind faith into solid belief. Not only that we will be given the tools and understand required to maintain what we believe, even if that warm and fuzzy 'feeling' has long since left you. You will know not only that there is a God becaue of what He has already done, but you will know in the darkest trials He is working on your side.

I want reason to believe God exists and Jesus is divine before I accept it. No excuses will put it the other way around.

In that very specific example is because the rules of his very own religion did not allow for what he had experienced.

It certainly did, that is common understanding in Islam today. 

Likewise If you are a Christian and you experience the things Allah offers then your not following by the book Christianity.

Yes, and if Islam is true, then I would favor that over Christianity.

Again consistant with a book that at the time I knew nothing about.

So it seems you have no reason to believe Christian experience is any more valid, just that they are consistent with some book you currently believe in.

Do you have an example?

If a person claims to have talked to their God, but a person who belongs to a different religion claims to have experience of their God, which one is actually having experiences or are they both just having subjective brain dependent experiences rather than divine connection?

Kinda does.

How wouldn't it? 

Because maybe the bible is not a true book, maybe the Qur'an is not really what it says it is, maybe the Tao Te Ching is not actually spiritually accurate. Maybe, the biblical claims about the supernatural are not actually authentic.

If the Christian God says do ABC and I will give 123 and you receive 123 then what the Christian God says is indeed true.

Again, that is a pure presumption that God even exists in the first place.

and you have yet to demonstrate 1 anyway shape or form similar to Christianity.

That isn't my attempt here, and that exactly goes with my point. All religions have their differences, Christianity having its own differences doesn't make it superior to Buddhism for example. Also, Islam has its similarities to Christianity.

This is where your 'rational thinking fails you' and you do not know enough truth to see it when I tell you nothing comes close. You just assume the 'rational religious narritive is indeed factual.' This is what I mean by hive mind thinking. You are will to sacrifice truth for the sake of being deemed rational.

Not at all, I am making an observation, which is part of rational thinking. There are many religions with different claims.

You would know the answer to that question if you knew the fundamentals of the christian Gospel.

It doesn't matter because I do know this: In order for there to be truth to any religion, it must already be true. What the gospels say would be meaningless if God didn't even exist and Jesus didn't supernaturally resurrect. So, the question becomes, does God exist and did Jesus supernaturally resurrect? If you think so, then demonstrate that it is true. Instead, you assume it is true and tell me I need to allow God to prove it to me if I want truth.

In essence sin keeps us all from God (this is true across the Abraham religious spectrum; Judaism, Christianity and in Islam) the end two religions do not recognise Jesus, therefore there is no way for man to ever be righteous enough to even come face to face with God let alone speak.

Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet, and they don't believe we need a messiah to die for us.

yah-huh it does so.

How do you know that other religions require what Christianity has to be true? What you say here is pure ignorance.

I really don't care what you want..

I'm here to offer truth.

If it is true, then you can surely provide me justifying evidence.

As I did for the last two I point to the definition of Rational thinking. While it represents the pinicale of modern thought, it does not always represent Truth. 

It is the most accurate way to determine truth. It has succeeded over and over.

But again there is no assumption needed here.

Obviously there is, otherwise, you wouldn't be saying what you are telling me here.

cough*Global warming.. The current global warming doctrine is an example of a 20 year old  popular belief superseding 500 years of scientific study and research. Now would a 'rationally thinking man' support or deny the current doctrine of global climate change??? Now what of the 500 years of scientifc study before 1997 (when this doctrine first came out) that the current climate change was apart of a cycle?

But does it base itself on what happens to be popular belief or actual scientific research? It bases itself on scientific research.
Scientific study today doesn't dispute that there is a climate change cycle, it demonstrates reason to believe that current anthropocentric emissions and CO2 are contributing to the climate change of today, unlike 300 years ago. 

Tell me again how pop culture has no influence on 'rational thought.'

Rational thinking is based on a process that verifies conclusions, nothing to do with current opinion polls.

Then we can talk about how being gay is a scientific fact with the absence of any gene's to support it, while being obese with 15 'known fat genes" is a choice. Maybe you can 'rationally think your way through that mess.

Actually, now I see your opinions and biases are causing you to believe that there must be something more to the fact that what many political parties believe line up with what is determined in science. 
The belief that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice is not influencing science, but may be concluded by science. If you can't get your mind around something you disagree with being countered by science, then I find a form of rational thinking lacking in this respect.

Truth will always trump your rational and our ability to think critically. 

We determine truth through rationality and critical thinking.

It also bases it discoveries on who pays the bilz!

what did the scientist at C.E.R.N. discover?!??! Exacly what they were paid to discover...

Now you are bringing in conspiracy. What next?

precise would be a better word. Again with money/enough of it You can get the whore 'science' to say anything

Rational thinking acts independent of money.

To those living in a hive mind/collective I agree.

They confirmed truths with science, so of course there is agreement. 

Apples and oranges sport. unless you are saying science is indeed a form of religion.

No, I am saying that science gives us facts and religion gives us nothing but a set of unconfirmed morals and culture.

And when "Rational thought" said it was??

It doesn't.

Why?

Because If God exists, I may want to know God.

define presumption then or do you not understand that Though the Holy Spirit I have direct knowledge of God? Direct knowledge is not a presumption sport.

A presumption is an idea taken to be true and certain, especially independent of any justification.

The bible simply outlines what an honest person would ultimately do if they wanted to know God.

 
An unjustified presumption again.

What changed? I've been arguing this fact from day one.

You finally told me that in a clear matter.

Then Ask, Seek and Knock as outlined in Luke 11.

If I find out it is truth, then I may.

When have I ever said that?

You told me to ask, seek, and knock as is said in Luke 11. 

 good luck with that sport.

I see that you are basically admitting that there is no justification for God's existence.

[The Valkyrie]

No, he doesn't.

[Amarok]

The manuscript argument is a massive non sequitur. and one easily dispatched

---

Your surprised dirch is a conspiracy not that thinks anything that disagrees with him is an evil plot ?

[Fred Hampton]

Evolution/natural selection exists, ergo, God cannot exist.  Checkmate.  Thanks for playing.   

[Drich]

Evolution/natural selection exists, ergo, God cannot exist.  Checkmate.  Thanks for playing.   

says who? I both are plausible, at the same time no less:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-14190.html

[The Grand Nudger]

Not even in the least, lol.  Maybe some other little g god, not described in magic book. No point in twisting yourself into knots over it. You don't think that evolution mumbo jumbo is real in the first place.