Evidence for god? Convince me! [CHALLENGE]

[shep]

In the postmortem heaven and hell God serves justice not met in life.

You think sending someone to hell for not believing is just, do you?

[fr0d0]

Ugh! :S

[Phatt Matt s]

You can prove that God doesn't exist about as well as A believer can prove He does. Find a higher power! Even if it's your old ladies paps

[Rampant.A.I.]

Ugh! :S

What is it you idiots have against answering questions and supporting claims?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Ugh! :S

What is it you idiots have against answering questions and supporting claims?

What is it with you, idiot, for passing out atheistic cliches like a PEZ dispenser.

[Rampant.A.I.]

What is it you idiots have against answering questions and supporting claims?

What is it with you, idiot, for passing out atheistic cliches like a PEZ dispenser.

Less whining, more evidence.

[psychoslice]

Oneness is like the body, we can divide the body into its parts, but still its a body, its one, just like we are one with the Source, or Consciousness.

I'd like to divide your body into parts.
(this is not a serious post btw)

As long as you handcuff me and whip me first.

[MindForgedManacle]

Thanks for the correction about my misuse of the word.

No probs.

To be clear, you aren't saying that God is solely physical right?

Assuming he exists (which I don't believe), I leave that an open question. I'm not even sure what 'non-physical' is supposed to mean if one isn't talking about abstract objects.

There have been differing views on faith, sure. I fully acknowledge that. You haven't addressed my objection that they either a. don't address the route to belief , or b. are simply incorrect.

I did address them.

They actually do, most notably Kant and Kierkegaard. For the latter, go read his book "Fear and Trembling", which is all about Kierkegaard's unique take on the story of Abraham and Isaac, and the latter's existential dilemma (in Kierkegaard's eyes) on the road to faith in obeying God's command.

Secondly - and I've pointed this out seriously like 6 times to you with no response -, you're assuming there is a "the Christian view" on this topic by which you can adjudicate who is definitively wrong. This is both arrogant and indefensible, even on a historic ground, which was my point in bringing up those 4 Christian philosophers, 3 of which were very influential on Christian theology.

The standing of the philosophers bears no relation to their correctness.

And no where did I claim it did. As I've repeatedly noted, this was brought up in the context of me rebutting your claim to some "true" Christian view on the relation between faith and rationality by demonstrating there were major Christian thinkers who flatly rejected this claim.

Much of philosophy, I find, is simply wrong. It lacks basic common sense answers.

Again, this is kind of a stupid objection to a discipline, especially when that discipline underpins and developed the very things you believe in.

Why should you expect "basic, common sense answers"? Based on that criterion, you might as well reject all of science. Physics says time does not actually exist? Not a basic, common sense answer so I guess you reject it. Neuroscience indicates our decisions are predictable via brain imaging seconds before we become consciously aware of them? Naw, no a common sense, basic answer.

For me, the mainstream view as presented by Ryft is true for me and most Christians that I know. So in my immediate sphere of experience it is true, and national and international speakers confirm it also. I don't find, therefore, that I'm either arrogant or blind on the subject.

Self-refuting, especially given that you've essentially given me my point. You and Ryft are ensconced in a socio-religious moray wherein your peers (and necessarily narrow experience) affirm that X is the true view of the religion. But when this entrenchment is revealed and demonstrated to be no such thing (even historically), you have no rebuttal to speak of, save responding that "it's not the proper view". Classic no true Scotsman. We can all ad hoc away to justify our preconceptions, so yours is a fundamentally weak position if you must continually resort to it.

[orangebox21]

well is the earth a sphere?

Yes

science has photographs and we can see it from different angles, do you deny that?

No

and my belief is different from a xians, belief is accepting something as true based on evidence

So is it fair to say you believe the earth is a sphere because you have seen photographs?
If yes, why do you trust both the photographer and your senses as reliable?

[MindForgedManacle]

So is it fair to say you believe the earth is a sphere because you have seen photographs?

Well, I can do the relevant geometry to demonstrate the Earth's spherical shape, so I don't need photographs myself.

If yes, why do you trust both the photographer and your senses as reliable?

1) Reproduceable.
2) Can be validated personally, given the opportunity.
3) Multiple lines of convergent evidence (geometry, physics, photography, direct experience).


4) As for the senses, what do you mean by "reliable" here?


I know you weren't responding to me, but I interjected here because I have a feeling you're going to try and troll with your, likely, surface understanding of philosophy. I hope I'm wrong, but that seems to be a direction plausibly interpretable from your post. ._.