Debate: God Exists

[Drich]

It can't be connected back to the supernatural.

And who says God need only work in the supernatural?
Again if God created the natural universe, why would He create it in such a way that He could only move supernaturally through it?

What definition are you referring to.

The one you just used.. The one that says God must work and leave supernatural evidence.
The only thing your 'rational and logic has proven is no God operates this way. So then why not Check the bible to see if that is the only way God works?
Why do that when the collective mind assures you this is how all gods work eh?

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
[/quote]

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

I did not attempt to change anything I simply show you the discrepancy between how you used the word evidence and how it is offically used in the english language.

If anything I'm reclaiming the word, and forcing you to speak honestly so rather than say you seek evidence (because again evidence by its literal definition includes and almost is always dependent on eye witness testimony) You see popularly accepted facts that prove the existence of God. You seek Hive mind approval. Don't pretend you don't. you need the approval of your peers to think positively or even to consider God. That is what you are asking for.

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.

Again not evidence sport you are looking for predigested narrative (Someone/one of your peer's explanation) of said evidence. Otherwise know I have conclusively shown you that your use of the term evidence does not support it's core meaning. Which often includes eye witness testimony.

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.

But again with no other histroical figure nor book has so much been written, and yet contested. Especially when we all now have a way to yet for ourselves what the bible says.

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.

However, the main accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus are third party narratives that were written years after his death.

Says who? Mat and John were first hand accounts, Mark was peter's scribe (as he could not read or write) and luke wrote Paul's Gospel as He was a disciple of Paul (per what he says in Acts)

The Gospels were compiled because it was becoming evident that Jesus may not come back when first thought, so the same men who have spent a life time in a ORAL SOCIETY (Where the spoken word had great impact and value than written word does/because only about 4% of the population could read) They the oral keepers of the gospels put their experiences down.

Also, it is commonly accepted that Mark was the first gospel and other gospels drew from that one gospel and another unfounded source.

Only by idiots. The time line in the book of acts puts the book of Luke first. Those who say Mark comes first are forinsically looking at or for evolutionary properties in story telling. the problem with that? their finding are not congruent with the actual content and time line built into the gospel and the book of acts which ties them all together. Most mark firsters only look at the gospels and do not consider the book of acts. The book of Acts is a narrative that ties the whole gospel together with the start and evolution of the church If mark's gospel came first Paul would have had time to write his gospel as he would have already been martyred. No luke gospel came first as per his introduction Luke was a slave/doctor to Theoliphus (we don't know much about Him) other than he sent luke to find out about this Christ, So He met up with paul and wrote down what was to be considered the book of Luke. Then sent the letter back Luke is still found with Paul documenting the start of the church. This is known as the book of acts. Luke about 1/3 of the way through goes from second person to first person in describing church milestones or events. Meaning at this point Luke was observing things for himself.. 40 years before Marks gospel is supposedly written.

Now before Luke could be retained in the service of Paul he must have been released or bought from theoplius. The man luke wrote his gospel account to.. do you get it??? Before luke could write of the church he has to be Paul's servant/deciple before he could be that he has to be freed from his master the one he wrote his first gospel to maybe 40 years before mark.

This is what I mean by truth trumping hive mind thinking or rational thought.

I have read the articles that put marks gospel first. I see collected and understand all f the evidence. However I also see the limited way evidence was gathered. Again it was done as a forensic deconstruction looking for story evolutionary ques, because someone had a theory and then they set themselves out to be proven right rationally or plausibly.. and all the drones said amen..

I approach things quite differently I want to know the absolute truth no matter where it leads me. If it leads me away from God so be it. however if it leads me to God, then I will be read for that as well. As again I do not hide myself from the truth behind a cloke of what rationally could be. I unlike the mark first-ers did not start out with the theory that the gospels were plagerized or canablized from one another. I simply read them, then as a matter of course read the book of acts which more or less contains enough information to construct a basic church timeline/history. Looking at the evidence left in the book one can conclude Luke had to have written his gospel long before he took up service with Paul which was decades before his or peter's death which most agree is what triggered mark to write down and distribute Peter's account.

There is strong evidence that these other non-canonical sources were derived from previous sources.

No there isn't there is strong unsupported conjecture (histroical evidence wise) that non canonical material was used.. The only problem is no ne can seem to find a valid source.

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.

Brother I am not asking how the sausage is made I am only point out it is indeed sausage. In other word it does not matter how facts become popularized, the remain popular facts. or more specifically popular interpretations.

But then it was demonstrated that it was false.

EXACTLY!!!! Effectively showing that rational thought may not always represent what is true. It is simply thought to be true.
What kind of hypocrite demands to know the absolute truth of God, before he will believe, and yet "what is thought to be true at the moment' when it comes to the BS science sharts in your mind???

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

So did I. How ever I wasn't hypocritical in my search. I did not favor a side. I simply sought the truth, and God litterally had me standing before Christ.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-15622.html

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. 

proof citation please


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?
It depends on God doesn't it?

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

How would this be any different than proving or falsifying a theory?

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

Indeed but it seems you want to lump all those claims together. rather than deal with the unique aspects of each religion and call the jumbalia "rational thinking.'

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.

Asked and answered in the post. that is why you've red herring off in a different direction. Wow what an intellectually dishonest move. What does it say about your position when you have to rest the conversation to try and avoid the point I make?

If your position was indeed strong then why not address what I said line by line?

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.

Actually there are several beliefs of Jesus ranging from he did not exist, to prophet status, to Jesus was a Muslim prophet who's teaching were corrupted.

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

Not me but God absolutely can

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. 

actually sport there isn't one scientific model for global climate change. it varies from region to region. (not going to argue google it) The point being this 'rational idealism/popular thought that can't fully be agreed on has superseded 500+ years of scientific study and research.

That's my point, that is where i get the working definition of 'science' and rational thought from. As things like global warming are for sale. why? because people like you seek to be 'rational'/hive minded rather than seek the truth.

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

Then again how do you explain 'global warming' over turning 500 years of Real science, in under a decade?

If you can not answer I will for you. it's money and the programming of our people to be 'rational thinkers' who seek collective approval rather than truth seekers.

We determine truth through rationality and critical thinking.

filtered thinking. fixed that for you.

Rational thinking acts independent of money.

I gave you a list of high profile science being bought to change 'rational thought.'
So no Rational 'thinking' is not immune to being influenced by money.

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.
[/quote]

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

And as I explained... justification came before I presumed anything to be true. I got to meet God before i heard anything about Him. Once I met God once I faced my judgement I began to read the bible. I literally witnessed things from the bible of Heaven and Hell before I knew anything about them. The bible simply became a way to confirm what I had previously witnessed.

Now if you wish to troll on and insist I presumed the bible was true first because you are not smart enough to under stand what has been communicated to you then maybe ask a question first. However if you are just trolling because your back is against the wall and you do not know how to respond then maybe just delete this paragraph and not answer back.

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

 

An unjustified presumption again.

how so?

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

Again, the president does not beg you for an audience or sends flourishes of his power to get your attention. If you wish to speak to Him it is on his terms. He sends you an invite, and you have to meet his dress code, location requirement and must meet the reason he has summoned you.

If the leader of a single nation demands this much respect in a meeting, then why would you think you could get away with anything less than what God has demanded?

Before you cop out with unjustified presumption on God again I would point out the president's invitation comes in the way of a small letter, and not always from the white house. I would say The same presumption is needed to discern the authenticity of the president's invite.

I've been fortunate enough to receive 2 invites from two different sitting presidents. One from W.Bush declining my invite to Him to my wedding but a invite to use to join him at some fancy dinner (that happened a week before we received his response), and two an invite from Trump to one of his inauguration parties. (we were doaners)

The presumption of truth here is not in the president but in the authenticity of the the invite itself.

A mustard seed's worth of faith is all that is needed, or a simple honest determination to find the truth no matter what that means.

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

None that I can provide.

However though a/s/k God Himself has promised to stand before/with/in you. God independently of any biblical knowledge you have will tell you and show you thinks that you can spend the rest of your life discovering in scripture.

---

Nope the bible and evolution are 100% in contradiction this was already demonstrated on that very thread so nope

can you at least provide a link to said "pawning"