Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?

[Purple Rabbit]

I don't see any point in arguing for the existence of "God." Can anyone see any point in arguing for the non-existence of God?

I might answer your question if you tell me what a "god" is. Is it better than a garglemoth?

[leo-rcc]

I might answer your question if you tell me what a "god" is. Is it better than a garglemoth?

I thought that was a Ghlieb?

[David Henson]

I don't see any point in arguing for the existence of "God." Can anyone see any point in arguing for the non-existence of God?

I might answer your question if you tell me what a "god" is. Is it better than a garglemoth?

The Hebrew word for god is el, and it means anything that is considered mighty or is venerated. The Bible refers to Jehovah, Jesus, Satan, the angels, men such as Moses, the judges of Israel, false gods such as Dagon, Molech, Baal, Ashtoreth, Tammuz and others as gods, as well as idols, sticks, stones . . . anything can be a god.

My definition, as well as most dictionaries are in agreement with the Bible on what a god / goddess is.

Seems kind of pointless to argue about it, doesn't it? A myth can be a god. A god can exist solely upon the religious veneration of anyone. Anything can be a god.

[Purple Rabbit]

So pick a bible and a god, state your absolute claim now and get a refund later. You'll love it.

So sad to see your sorry ass leave the building already since I just love to see you beat up yourself with illogic. Shit happens.

---

I might answer your question if you tell me what a "god" is. Is it better than a garglemoth?

I thought that was a Ghlieb?

Of course not. Not a Ghileb and not a Gila monster. Garglemoth it is. But I better warn you up front that a garglemoth has attributes you cannot even begin to understand. And even that you cannot understand.

[tackattack]

---

The god concept, like any other, can be abused. Peoples beliefs may define their actions up to a point in a negative way, but not necessarily. Beliefs are not exclusive to the god concept. God didn't mislead scientist in the inquisition of 1633. A trinity of dogma of a scientific, theocratic, and philosophical variety did. That is what sabotages our capacity to learn and understand our universe and reality.

You speak as if there is only one true god concept and that you have access to that one true concept. As it happens all 3000+ denominations of christianity, each oddly enough showing strong geostatistical correlation, claim the same. Furthermore non-christian theistic believers equally mashed up in all kinds of schizophrenic siblings claim the same. Still furthermore, many christian believers, so called non-denominationals, pick and choose their own version of the concept from various elements within or outside the dogmatic framework of the institutionalized denominations. Still furthermore there is metaphorical interpretation of the one true god concept that can act as a final cop out. All these claims share the fact that they are utterly unfalsifiable and they all share the fact that they offer no unambiguous unbiased straightforward method for settling truth claims among them or even to identify less probable claims from more probable claims. The sheer number alone of god concepts around should sound humongous alarm bells in your head and in the head of every theist on the planet. Yet theists claiming their unique truth choose to simply ignore that fact. So from what other than arrogance do you claim that your god concept, whatever it is that you mean by a god, is the true one and what evidence for that do you bring to the table? Please elaborate.

---

Question PR, how to you feel about the productivity and reliability of mathmatics, psychology and similar methododlogies not based in the tangible? As far as picking and choosing the beliefs or concepts we feel applies; We only choose to accept the interpretation that seems the most accurate based on our understanding. Creationists use the same Bible I do. The Bible is the living word of God, but it's word in print, our interpretation may change, but don't make it seem like we're writing our own rules. It's, most likely, far more immutable by nature than science... (I'll await the hatemail)

[Ohsleeper]

When I read these post not only am I submerging myself in complete ignorance and terrible attempts at humor, but I I just have a great deal of frustration and am so annoyed that no one seems to bother Actually trying to understand the word. Y'All rather try to prove you're better than the world by being "freethinkers". Sorry kids but you're not. No worries God loves us all the same.




As he trains my hands for battle, let my fingers make war.

[Tiberius]

Might I suggest you point out the apparent flaws in our reasoning rather than have a complain and a moan?

[Minimalist]

When I read these post not only am I submerging myself in complete ignorance and terrible attempts at humor, but I I just have a great deal of frustration and am so annoyed that no one seems to bother Actually trying to understand the word. Y'All rather try to prove you're better than the world by being "freethinkers". Sorry kids but you're not. No worries God loves us all the same.




As he trains my hands for battle, let my fingers make war.

By all means, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[starbucks]

Those who believe in God probably have no better way to prove God's existence than those who don't believe in God.

There are things you just know and there isn't any good way to explain it (this applies to both sides).

[Edwardo Piet]

I have no idea how can anyone can 'just know' - does anyone ever know they can? How? If they don't know how they know then why do they believe they 'know' as opposed to just believe/disbelieve? This is what I wonder.

EvF