Debate: God Exists

[Drich]

Muslims don't agree with the bible. 

Very Good! Now finish your thought... "As a direct result of their disbelief they do not worship the God of the bible."
Rather they worship a God based on the God of the bible as many other's do.

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.

See that wasn't so hard was it! you missed the point and I am more than happy to reframe it in a more simple context for you.

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

So what I did was in essence 'check the bible and spelled out how God works with people.'
You go to God with a bad understand of who He is. Maybe just good enough not to burn in Hell, but still not Good enough that God want to open the flood gates of Heaven's blessings towards you. And He tests it with the trials of life. So if you have a picture of God if you had faith and something happened to cause you loose your faith, that is because the wind and rain took it away... Foolish man builds his house on the sand.

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?

There is evidence and I have shared it, but gain it is not evidence you want. you want something the other lemmings approve of. God hates lemmings, that is why he sends them over the cliffs. Why being the human version of a lemming would you expect God provide you with anything other than the lemming infront of you to follow?

God seeks individual relationships. as such is willing to work with us person to person.

If you forgo the personal attention for something a heard of lemmings wants to see... then just know God will indeed see to it you get that cliff to jump off of.

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".

no. I'm saying God will give you what you will need to start and build a faith, a faith that will evolve into evidence based belief. I know it is easier for you the other way but this way is what I meant.

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. 

Show me a proper definition using those parameters of the word evidence. The TRUTH is you can't.
Why? Because "testimony" (sworn) is specifically what the word refers to
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

You live in a delusion. there is what words means, and how you use them. Many people lke you simply do not truly understand what words mean anymore. as you use them incorrectly all the time.

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

Then stop saying your looking for evidence! If you are looking to vet the truth then believe in God or not you are going to have to vet it the prescribed way. It's again like meeting the president. You are not going to vet your invitation your own way. You are going to have to follow protocol if you want to know for sure whether or not he wants to see you.

of what these people claim to experience and claim to be true,

Who care what people claim if God is willing to work these very same things through you?!?! I've never understood why people would argue whether someone has a spiritual gift or not especially when those gifts are offered to them.

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.

What makes you intellectually dishonest is claiming to want evidence when again the term allows for personal testimony. But you will not accept personal testimony. Then the only other prescribed way to vet God is to meet Him on His terms. to refuse and have God meet you on yours is dishonest.

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. 

Now what if what I said was true about science as well as religion, what if a great deal of science has become religion??? Believe it or not I do work in an engineering field that requires a fair amount of scientific knowledge, and I see or have seen for a very long time a slow shift that is transferring the legitimacy of applied sciences (science that makes computers and cell phones work) verse theoretical and even fringe science to be taken or rather spoken of with the same merit.

Granted the fringe or theoretical stuff tends to attract the scientifically religious. it is paired with practical and applied sciences, giving stuff like Darwinism the same standing in the community as gravity. Now because it seems to have the same validity Science becomes truth that attracts the fanatical.

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. 

Which brand of Christianity That's my point. there is no one specific hive mind brand as their once was and as it is with 'science.'

I did, I asked you. I need an independent reason since in order for God to give me a reason,

and I demonstrated how I got independently verified, but again that is not enough as you seek information your peers would accept.

Here's a bold thought.. what if your master peers got together and came to the conclusion that no matter what facts are presented non will ever do! What fate with the collective thinkers face when the hive mind decides no matter what Christianity has to offer it will never be good enough... Here a bolder thought... What makes you think you and the peers who determine popular thought/fact are not already here?!?!? Here a way to test yourself.

List 5 acceptable peer approved proofs that would vet the existence of God. Something your peers can not refute. something uncontestable.

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.

And I keep telling you that only you and God can work that out. I can tell you He is alive and well in my life and can tell you how to present yourself before God inorder for Him to welcome you into the fold. Now whether or not he sees and hears you before you bend that knee will determine on what he thinks about who you are and who you will be. God does not 'like' everyone equally.

What makes you think I haven't studied the bible?

Exegetical error. lots of it. oh, and the whole inability to identify the gospel when presented, and you copy and pasted effort when dating the books of the bible. there is no depth in your statement and when I ask for a citation you side step it. Everything I say can be backed by three independent sources. You do not have that. It doesn't even feel like you know your supposed to have that. nor have I seen you quote anything. I've seen a lot of plagiarism (no citations/ to inference or mention to reference material) you just keep repeating a broken definition of 'evidence' even though I have broken your use of that word with a greater source.

There is only one explanation, its because I disagree with your fallacious beliefs about it.

no.. when you have 20 of study behind something there is a heck of a lot more... substance. There is no need to play the snow flake argument card (just keep repeating what you think is right no matter how many times you've been legitimately refuted.

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

Again. How can that possible be given the context of the story? The written text did not come till after the experience..

This is what I mean by lack of substance and you just keep repeating what you think is right. My experience does not fit your formula, yet you insist that it does. I ask how, you refuse to explain. Said you did, upon closer inspection, again your analysis fails to properly address the parameters of my experience. it's like your think all stories fit under the canceling argument. when one/mine doesn't. You don't know what else to say or do. you just keep insisting that I must fit your paradigm.

That sport is why I know you have not studied much of anything. you can not venture off the atheist or even religious path. It has nothing to do with out disagreements, but more to do with how you are not able to handle a subject not beaten to death by other trail blazing atheists. You like so many other pretenders just repeat yourselves hoping one of your peers will save you.

Again there is a reason you are out here with me by yourself trading blows.

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

examples and citations please.

They were written around the same time. 

So the book of Acts and the Book of Mark were written at the same time... Now again when was the book of luke written if Acts came first before or after Mark?

See... someone with little to no exegetical experience does not know what to say because the same reference material that says what you said says luke came after even though it says acts comes after luke.

That my friend is why I told you there are two views. One is a forensic view that looks for evolutionary traits in the 4 gospels to date them/place them in order. However the thing is they/forensic view does not look at the rest of the bible to try and decern truth. They simply want enough evolutionary evidence to make a claim that would disrupt Christian tradition. But When you seriously study you'd see Acts is in direct contradiction the forensic view, that most douche atheist quote. (And also the other 5 books I mentioned yesterday Not just acts) Acts plus the other books I mention puts Luke's gospel first, and it refutes the forensic/evolutionary view of the gospel.

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.[/quote]
I don't see a problem here.. maybe you could explain the problem you see.

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. 

That's not true at all sport. Are you in the business of just making crap up? that what any exegetically educated person would think since you seem to be plagiarizing from the skeptics annotated bible. They take open ended liberties like this one. saying it was second century church tradition. when in Fact the reason we know Luke wrote the book of luke is because we can trace one complete manuscript and several fragmented copied that predate the 2nd century copy by at least a generation with the signature: "The Gospel according to Luke." Grant, Robert M., "A Historical Introduction to the New Testament" (Harper and Row, 1963)

There also is evidence of substantive revision of acts occurring throughout the 2nd century church*.

Not according to any serious sources I know.. do you have a link?

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). 
[/quote]Like I read it out of the skeptic annotated bible my self... But without quotations. just empty commentary and meaningless conjecture. Look sport just because this is what your heros wish to be true does not make it true. show me some "evidence"

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.

Again No one who is taken seriously in exegetical studies even remotely doubts this to be true.
Evidence sport. where your paper trail?
(Again how I know you've never seriously studied anything in your life. you don't even know where to begin unless you are standing on someone elses' coat tails. (like your wiki search)

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.

Ok so then how does your 'quotation' trump the one I left that said luke was written first?
Are you just in the business of thrown poop on the wall and seeing what sticks?

I will say that many of the other non-canonical gospels 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.

and where would someone like you be given an opinion like that??
Or I'll call you bluff and ask what specifically sets these gospels apart?

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.

the please show citation for this definition

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

You just lied (I don't like dishonesty), I showed it when I provided the merrium Webster definition for evidence, and then follow suite with a written testimony that sits said definition.

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.

You can say how you believe it is a false analogy. otherwise why communicate anything on this forum what so ever??? why not just say false statement than clam up??

It's like I'm writing to multiple people at once.

I see 4 or 5 personalities here.
pick one, or rather what does it say that you have to shift so many gears just to keep up. That you can't be consistant and go line by line and refute everything I say as I do you.

EG:"false analogy, there is nothing else to say!"

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

Nice of you (this version of you) to finally catch up!

Your question is telling on you..

What is your fav argument?? you know the one you go to all the time that says we must believe before God. Aren't you presuming something you shouldn't? or is this version of you not there yet?

So why do I feed trolls?

The one's that semi try lke you. Help me get the message out.

So keep on keeping on. If you want me to give up simply go incoherent that way you can have the last word. andwin.