Debate: God Exists

[SuperSentient]

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.

---

Muslims don't agree with the bible. 

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.

This misses the point.

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.

If he does, there should be evidence, but you refuse to provide any, so why should I believe it is true?
When you say "build a faith", I assume you mean I need faith for God to be active and interactive to me, but as I said, it is only fair that I require reason to believe God exists before I "build a faith".

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. 

Evidence requires reason to believe something is true independent of a subjective experience. 

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.

I am looking for justification of the truth of what these people claim to experience and claim to be true, if that makes me intellectually dishonest, then I guess you are using a different definition. I am not closing my mind at all, asking for evidence means I am willing to accept, but I need to know it is true first.

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.

Wow, I now have a hard time believing you are being sincere about this, because if you replaced the term "science" with "religion" in the phrase above, it would be absolutely correct! Better than I could have said it too. Religion doesn't seek truth, it is all relative to each religion. Science has established objective facts since the same process is used to gather evidence and conclusions. 

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?

The majority agree with it (in my country anyways), and is the world's largest religion. 

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

I did, I asked you. I need an independent reason since in order for God to give me a reason, he must exist, which is exactly the question I am dealing with here, so I can't refer to the being that is already in question.

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.

What makes you think I haven't studied the bible? There is only one explanation, its because I disagree with your fallacious beliefs about it.

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?

I did, and part of it assumes that what is written must be so.

Why only some parts?

Because much of the gospels were from forged stories and folklore, but few remains independently verified.

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)

They were written around the same time. 

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

The account on Paul's conversion in Acts 9:1–31, 22:6–21, 26:9–23 is inconsistent with Paul's statement in Galatians 1:17-24, that is part of the reason that Luke as a companion of Paul being the author is contested. This strongly suggests that there wasn't a connection.
The author isn't even named in both Luke and Acts, the idea that the author is Luke originated in the 2nd century church tradition. 
There also is evidence of substantive revision of acts occurring throughout the 2nd century church*.
Yeah, I know you don't trust scholarship or historians unless they are Pro-Christianity theologians and apologists.
*Introduction to the synoptic gospels Pheme Perkins pg. 250-253

That's not even remotely true.

https://carm.org/when-was-acts-written

This further confirms that you rely on apologists for your claims.
Much of the arguments here include the lack of mentioning specific events, however, there is no reason to believe that acts would include the destruction of Jerusalem since it was a writing on what supposedly happened before this and the gospel of Luke (which was its counterpart) shows knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:12). As for Paul's death, it doesn't say how any of the apostles died and has no reason to (discounting James here). 

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.

And Luke likely didn't even write acts of the apostles or the gospel of Luke, so it doesn't prove anything to say that.

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

No question concerning this, your nonsense is nonsense because it makes no sense of actual history.

citation please

The gospel of Mark has similarities with shorter length compared with the other Gospels, the best explanation for this is the drawing upon Mark and another source that makes up for the differences. Also, there is reason to believe that part of the gospels evolved by intervening change after they were already written, including for example, the birth and infancy and possibly the first two chapters of the gospel of Matthew and Luke.*
*Citation: Funk, Robert Walter. The acts of Jesus: The search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. Harper San Francisco, 1998.

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

I will say that many of the other non-canonical gsopels could be independent of the canon but may be based on oral tradition instead. One non canonical gospel that I would say is influenced by the other gospels would be the Gospel of Thomas. Gospel of Peter is probably independent.

Indeed.. but verified by whom?

Do all facts only come from the collective?

They come from a universal applied to our world that derives consistent facts that may be universally accepted. Which is great since it doesn't rely on what some person happens to think.

except with the whole evolution thing..

Yeah, apparently science is all good to these religious people but the same method then concludes biological evolution and we should just pick that one out of there. This is the nonsense religion gets people to think like.

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.

Trail back to the post where I put that link to the page yourself, you refuse to accept it, so it is up to you to change your mind about it if you are willing.

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 already knew what I said, didn't try to cram my definition in. It is you that tries to add your own definition to it, not me, my definition is universal.

No you've made that claim several times and it has been refuted.

You just lied (I don't like dishonesty), not once did you refute that and you know it.

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

That is all there is to say, its just a false analogy, nothing more.

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

How could you stand before Christ in judgement if God doesn't even exist?

---

Moderator Notice
Please use hide tags if you are going to quote like this.
~SteelCurtain