Debate: God Exists

[Drich]

Another misunderstanding. Miracles cannot be connected back to the supernatural. If I have a vision and claim it is Allah speaking to me about being a prophet of Islam, I cannot verify it since I have no access to the supernatural. People who claim to have subjective experiences are not independently verifiable.

---

We are told in Revelation this very thing will happen in the end times. (what you described) do you know what it prescribes to vet said dreams and visions? The bible. It explicitly says their will be no NEW revelations outside this cannon of scripture. So If you like Mohammad (Who received his revelation from an angel not God Himself) says you are the new leader of Islam.. then all you need do is check scripture.

Like I did with what I was shown in Hell. Imagine experiencing something that sears into your memory and then find what you experienced recorded over 2000 years ago..

So then why not Check the bible to see if that is the only way God works?

Have you not heard of the parable of the wise and foolish builders? Imagine Our requirement to meet God is to invite Him over to your house for dinner. Imagine that house is a belief/faith built proper understanding of God. One that must be tested by the winds and rain/trials of life. When you say god should be omnibenevolent or when you say god should have answered my prayers because I was sincere when I asked.. You are not building a faith on a foundation that reflects who the God of the bible is. Therefore when the winds and rains come your house on the sand/your faith falls flat.

That however does not mean there aren't people who do indeed have homes that stand the winds and rains. People who God is not silent to. You and your version of the God of the bible simply are not among those in whom who have walked far enough along the path to walk hand in hand with God. It doesn't mean you couldn't be saved with your version of Christianity, it simply means you can truly benefit or cash in completely.

And your God has proven nothing to us. It turns out that he is either silent or doesn't exist (I know you can't comprehend the bold).

Very nice.. now let's say I do understand this, and I even can bring another possibility to the table via what I just said about the wise and foolish builders.
You say God is silent or He does not exist.

What if the parable of the wise and foolish builders is true?

What if God does exist and if we can simply build a faith based on what the bible tells us about God we will be brought into a world where God is extremely active and interactive.

What does that mean/how would life look to the FOOL who builds his house on the sand, the Fool who automatically things the version of Christianity he was born into was the right one, and if he simply followed the rules God would appear and do tricks per his religion? God would send trials to test this fool's idea of God. The God of the bible would make this little fool's life really hard so the Fool would cry out to his version of god for help... Now because the fool created his own version of God... All the God of the bible need do is remain silent, and sooner or later the fool would come to the conclusion that his version of God does not exist.. That is unless the fool was not also prideful. If we were talking about a a Prideful fool he would because his efforts did not yield God his very first time he tried then no efforts would ever yield God, because a prideful fool often times thinks the universe revolves around his snow flakedom.

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.

Again, I am referring to the most accurate and reliable way to gather evidence, scientific method and rational thinking. 

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.

Well, there is no discrepancy with what I said, you are trying to apply it to subjective religious experiences.

Actually there is. The word evidence allows for personal testimony. You do not. That is the descrepency between your use of the word evidence and it's official definition.

So when I say you are not looking for evidence of God. You are not looking for the proper definition you are not willing to consider personal testimony. Therefore it is not evidence you seek but popularly accepted facts. You are not even intellectually honest enough to admit this (that by definition you are not looking for evidence) truth. So how then can you expect to be honest enough if the presence of true evidence of God? Again you have closed your mind to everything NOT popularly accepted fact.

What I am saying is a path to truth, but you refuse to accept it.

You would not know how to identify truth if I spent the last 4 posts beating you over the head with it. Why? Because "Science" does not seek 'truth' Truth is all relative in that realm. There is only one truth sport, and science a long long time ago shed it.

You seek Hive mind approval. 

If I did, I would be a Christian.

Ask any of the other Christians if any of them believe the exact same thing.. So tell me genius how is that a hive mind thought process?
We are allowed/commanded to love God with all of our being. This means we will all worship and understand God differently This get expressed differently in our doctrine and out methods of worship. So again how does all of this diversity the bible allows for= a hive mind???

Maybe I have yet to have any good reason to accept God's existence. 

Hey Stupid... Then ASK for a reason IF you want one. Don't wait for your peers to give you one.

It is contested, but you refuse to open your eyes to it, since you rely on theologians and apologists to telly you about the bible.

I have personally studied the bible for almost 24 years now. there is not one out of the thousand upon thousands I have looked at that has remains unresolved. I really really hate it when someone who has spent next to no time studying anything picks up a mindless commentary and just believes it because that is what that sheep wants to believe. I came into this 24 years ago looking for answers to contradictions I thought I had. I have spent the last 10 years on line answering other people questions contradictions and concerns even those of world renoun status where one of you would take a hitchens or dawkins argument and post it... Not one sport Not one objection stood up to a very simple understanding of the bible and or how God works.

This is why you are I are going it alone/why 5 other old timers are sniping from the wings. They know where this conversation is headed.

Early oral traditions and accounts are accepted to have preceded the gospels, which were written many years after the death of Jesus. The gospel of Matthew has an unknown author, it is generally accepted that the title "according to Matthew" was added in the 2nd century. The gospel of Matthew drew upon Mark and an unknown source. Little is considered to be historically accurate in the gospels (few events are uncontested). The Gospel of John is considered to be independent of the 3 synoptic gospels (but may be a contestable statement). However, the gospel of John has much theological significance, drawing upon Jewish texts and past traditions, some small parts may be more accurate than the synoptic gospels and John the evangelist is likely not the original author of this gospel. These accounts are not as accurate as you are claiming, much was drawn from folklore and other sources.

You really did not read what I originally posted did you, or was it all too far above your head? If so why bring up what I have already addressed?

True, and the sources are largely unknown, but it is doubted that the compiled gospels are historically accurate (except for some limited parts of it).

Why only some parts?

So, a lot of what you are saying here is based on the Acts of the Apostles, which are considered to have been a two part work with the Gospel of Luke, and have the same dating (80-90 AD), while Mark (68-73 AD) and Matthew (80-85 AD) are accepted to have been written earlier or around the same time. Of course, there is sketchy evidence for these dates, so a lot is unknown here. The Acts of the Apostles has evident similarities with the Gospel of Mark, being evidence that some of the gospel of Mark and other source influenced the Acts of the Apostles along with the Gospel of Luke. The death of Paul wouldn't have impact on the writings of the Gospels.

How dos Acts end?
Then google that event

Then google Paul's death

If acts is part two of Luke, then wouldn't luke have been written first? If Acts was written at the end of the book shows furthest point of the progression of the church to be 20 or so years short of Paul's death (which is what triggered mark)

The view that Luke is the author of the Gospel of Luke is problematic because of the contradictions between acts and the authentic letters of Paul (example: Paul's conversion in Acts as compared to Paul's statement in Galatians.

citation please, Because no one doubts the authorship of luke or acts. except the history channel "Aliens" guy.

Acts was authored with the gospel of Luke, after Paul's death. Paul's viewpoints are not exactly represented accurately by the author.
There isn't support for that view, not even consistent with the two-gospel hypothesis.

That's not even remotely true.
https://carm.org/when-was-acts-written

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.

That is Pseudo-History, I am not sure where you get that from. Luke likely didn't even write the Gospel of Luke and was independent of Paul as a personal source.

Coming from a guy who has very obviously NOT read the book of acts or anyother part of the New testament. Because Acts, Philemon, Colossians and the first letter to timothy record Luke as being a scribe/disciple to Paul.
Do try and at least google what you think before you blindly challenge me

So do I, but you keep bringing up nonsense

What a prideful arrogant ass. If something I say makes absolutely no sense, then your the one who lacks understanding... ASK A FRIGGEN QUESTION.

that could only be consistent with your personal beliefs, so I have no reason to accept that you are truly trying to reach truth.

Outside the fact that I found God... and You haven't ? And what I am offering costs you nothing to check out for yourself
Again, it is disputed that the author of the Gospel of Luke had direct personal influence by Paul and even was Luke. The gospel of mark provides evidence of drawing upon as a source with other sources.

citation please

That is not what I meant, I meant that the non canonical sources that came were derived from previous sources that could include the canonical Gospels.

such as??? give me 3 of you very best and lest see if they hold water

It does matter how we get facts, as we need to know that they were verified.

Indeed.. but verified by whom?
Do all facts only come from the collective?

Science has beaten God every time. No contest. You can't even compare.

except with the whole evolution thing..

So did I.

I don't care how you got where you are, I want reason for me to get somewhere, if you refuse to give me any, I am not justified in accepting it.

You have stopped reading what you responding to

proof citation please

I already did, you refuse to look at it. 

then link me to the other post or give me a post number please.
You tend to misrepresent yourself and your vetting process a lot.

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?

Then you just admitted we can't know, just give a presumed and unjustified God as holding the burden.

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

Science confirms with tests and conclusion (scientific method), you haven't once justified God's existence to me. You just said that it is up to God. You would never see a scientist telling someone it is up to the universe itself to prove to them Dark matter exists to a person.

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.'

I do, it is you that dismisses all the other claims of the different religions and stays on Christianity.

Asked and answered in the post. that is why you've red herring off in a different direction. Wow what an intellectually dishonest move.

It never was, stop lying.

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

I do, and I haven't found any reason to accept your religious views.

Not me but God absolutely can

Why not? You just said it is just like rationality.

actually sport there isn't one scientific model for global climate change.

Uh, yes there is. Wow, your ignorance is very apparent here. Unless you mean that there is more than one scientific model, but it sounds like you are saying that there isn't one.

The point being this 'rational idealism/popular thought that can't fully be agreed on has superseded 500+ years of scientific study and research.

It doesn't contradict it.

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

Its not, you are attacking a straw man here, there is nothing up to what you are implying.

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.

I said that the acts of rational thinking and the scientific method are something that work independently of something with money labels. 

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.

God randomly appeared to you one day?

Not randomly..
Again if you were not so busy looking for info to fit your definition of evidence, maybe you would have saw the link or hear me one of the 10 I mention being stood before Christ.

I am not trolling, and I am pointing out that you presume the bible is true and God exists without justifying it, nothing to do with your previous experience that happened years ago. This is an example of your dishonesty here, I am a bit concerned with this kind of thinking existing in our 21st century.

No you've made that claim several times and it has been refuted. as I witnessed what the bible had to say long before I read anything in it.

Again, the president does not beg you for an audience or sends flourishes of his power to get your attention.

False analogy.

Sorry sport can't just say false anaology when you don't want to contend with something. you must give a viable reason.

How can I get him to tell me right away and before accepting his existence? The answer is that I can't, God has to exist before he can reveal himself to me, and as far as I know, God doesn't even exist, you can't have God talk to you if he doesn't even exist, that is nonsense.

Just like I did. I did not believe in God till I stood before Christ in Judgement.

---