Debate: God Exists

[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.