Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?

[Watson]

We're observing the same world, therefore if there are differences between two different definitions, they are likely to be minor or unimportant at best.

You don't get definitions from observing the natural world though. That is the point. A definition is a statement about the meaning of a certain word. If someone defines that word one way, and another person defines it another way, you have no way of telling which definition is correct. This is why standards were developed. A word had a standard array of definitions, depending on the context in which the word was used.

A.) Please excuse me if I sound rude, but this is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. "You don't get definitions from observing the natural world." Then where do you get them? How can you get a definition without first having something to define? X does not equal X because you have a bunch of people who agree to it, especially if said people have never even observed X in the first place. It's as ridiculous as saying God exists because a bunch of people agree to it.

B.) You cannot properly create a definition without first having a clear understanding of the defined. To have that, you have to have encountered the thing in question in real life.

That was my point. If you don't understand the point of view of another, you cannot hope to believe it too. Thus if you have two people of separate beliefs, neither will truly know why the other believes the way he does unless they share that belief. You can understand what that belief is, but you can never understand why they believe the way they do. That is a personal thing, and you are simply incapable of knowing it unless you have the same belief as they do.

C.) Your first statement is true, to an extent. You cannot hope to believe in something you do not understand, and if you do try to believe in it, then you are likely to have a warped concept of it aka a Fundamentalist Christian.

D.) However I disagree with your second statement. You can understand the person and their reason for believing as they do, but not their belief if you do not share it. However, if you accept that person as a friend and don't view them as against you simply for thinking differently than you, you can have better insight and understanding into their train of thought.

As I said before, you don't make up definitions from observances and perceptions. Definitions are standardised. The only time you look to observation and perception for a definition is when you are making a new one for the standard collection. Otherwise, you refer to the standard collection and see which definition best matches your observation. Not the other way around.

See A.) Are you suggesting that we should view reality based on definition, rather than create definition based on reality? That's ridiculous.

Assumptions are useful in arguments. Science is based on an assumption (that materialism is true), as are most ways of thinking. It isn't reasonable to assume there is a God because an assumption alone doesn't do anything. However, assumptions can lead to places. The assumptions of materialism in science have led to some of the best discoveries in the universe. Likewise, if you assume God, you can say some things about such a being. Whether the being exists or not, or materialism is true or not, is irrelevant. What matters is the places assumptions lead to.

E.) I agree with this and will concede a bit on the subject. However, if you work from the basis of their being a God, then you can understand that being(God) much better than if you work from the assumption that there is not a God.

Try to ease up on the sarcasm, it makes you seem pompous and, well, arrogant. For the sake of correctin gmyself, however, we'll substitute where I said 'accident' and replace it with the word 'coincidence' again.[/quote]
You misunderstand. I *am* pompous and arrogant. Don't lecture me on what way to speak on a forum *I* run, thank you very much.[/quote]
I'm not lecturing you, but admitting to a character fault is not absolving of it. You would do well to speak to people respectfully in a discussion. Otherwise, why would they want to understand your side at all?

You don't know the meaning of the word coincidence either. Look it up for fuck's sake. Coincidences have causes too! Look:

a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance

Notice the word "apparently". That is only the way it seems, not what actually happened. The example they give is "Our meeting in Venice was pure coincidence.". It's a coincidence because the two events (A going to Venice and B going to Venice) seemed completely separate to each other, yet they joined at some point (in Venice). There are causes behind both events (both A and B got on a plane at some point I presume). A coincidence happens when two events are seemingly mutually exclusive, and yet happen at the same time.

F.) This is a fairly nice representation of 'coincidence', the example you provided, and I cotend that it appears by mere chance that the two people took the course of action they did. But look at the bigger picture; why did A and B both go to Venice, and why did they meet up? I submit to you that, regardless of whether they simply bumped into each other or had a prior engagement with each other, the meeting itself was a planned course because A 'knew', in a sense, that he/she had to meet B, and vice versa for B.

When you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be truth. Read my prior posts, not just the one you responded to.

I contend that you have not eliminated the impossible. There are many other explanations other than "God did it" which have to be evaluated. The problem with this statement, is whilst it is all very well in literature, it bears no resemblance to reality. In reality, with a universe so big, with perhaps an infinite amount of possibilities, you cannot hope to eliminate them all.

Thus you are left with a number of different possibilities, of which most you know too little about to conclude that they are "impossible". If you think you can prove all other possibilities false, by all means don't let me stop you. I think you'll be there till the end of time, but hey, that's just my opinion.

G.) What was the quote I saw somewhere around here in a signature? It was something to the effect of "science is not a study of what is impossible or possible, but what is less likely and more likely." Observing the facts of the matter and the scenario that night, I can see no more likely explanation that does not jump through hoops and use flawed definitions than to say that God and the universe itself were conspiring to help and advise my friend that night. And that does not just mean 'God did it.' There is beauty in simplicity.

The story itself was proof and evidence, but notthe kind which you want. It's all the proof I need.

Oh dear. I can just picture you now jumping up and down shouting "The Bible is true because God wrote it, and we know God wrote it because the Bible says he did!!!".

H.) Then you have completely misunderstood the message I am delivering and I may do just as well to be speaking with a brick wall. You barely understand what I am talking about, so don't let your imagination run wild with theories on what I am like or how I act, please.

The story isn't proof of anything. Do you believe Harry Potter also exists? How about your Sherlock Holmes buddy? Stories are just that...stories! They are subjective to the highest degree, subject to inaccuracy and errors, and often have a multitude of ways of interpreting them. Stories are hearsay, anecdotal, and almost worthless because of this.

I.) No, I do not believe they exist in the sense that they are physical people who have existed and who can be traced back as having ancestors/decsendants or any living relatives. Do I believe that stories, words with which we humans use to express our feelings, can communicate on a level deeper than literal or metaphorical? Ah, yes I do, and therein lies my answer.

Oh, and just for shits and giggles, I'd like to point out that Sherlock Holmes' personality and mannerisms were based around a real person, Dr. Joseph Bell, and Dr. John Watson was essentially a self-insert character on Doyle's part.

By all means, share you explanation. I'm open to it and I will listen intently. But once again you misinterpret theidea of what 'evidence' is, because thre is not just one kind of evidence. To say that there is would be to close one's mind to, and write off an array of possibilities. This, I have covered in previous posts.

13.7 billion years ago, the observable universe was contained within a singularity. There was no space or time. Then, the Big Bang occurred, and the universe started to expand. It's been doing it ever since, and we have the background radiation, red & blue shift, and a plethora of other evidence in support of this fact. No Gods needed.

J.) ...How does this relate to what happened to my friend that night, at all? That's all well and good to say that the universe came into existance through the Big Bang(a theory I'm not quite keen to believe, but oh well), but how in the holy mother of anything does that account for what happened to my friend? I presented you with evidence in the fom of what happened to him, you refuse to see it as such, however, and thus block your mind off to the idea that there may be more than one kind of evidence.

You'll probably argue that God caused the Big Bang, because you keep using this mantra of "everything has a cause". Well, if everything has a cause, what caused God? Don't give me some bullshit answer like "God is eternal". Either accept that your argument "everything has a cause" is untrue, or explain what God's cause is.

K.) God was, and God is everything. When the universe came into existance, so to did God. When the Big Bang occured, so to did God. Now if you're little singularity can exist suddenly out of nowhere, and if God was also part of that singularity, then he is there. Don't give me ultimatum before you observe and think about my response.

It's based on evidence, alright. Just not the kind of evidence you wish to perceive. My explanation is not just an insert, and is certainly not ignorant. Don't take me for a fool.

Great, another fallacy. Ad hominem this time. Somehow it's *my* fault that I don't get your argument. Sorry, but that isn't how logic works. Better luck next time.

Ad hominem? Really? Where did I insult you at all, I merely pointed out that it is you who chooses to ignroe certain kinds of evidence because your perspective and perception is that there only is one kind of evidence. So yes, that is your fault, but no, that is not meant as an insult.

Present your evidence, and then we'll see if it stands up to rational thought. I didn't call you ignorant, I said you used the "argumentum ad ignorantum" fallacy. In other words, you formed an argument where you assumed something was true because it hadn't been disproven. In this case, you made the claim that "since there seems to be no more likely explanation, the arranger must have been God".

L.) No, I did not assume it was because it hadn't been disproven, I assumed based on my understanding of God, and because there was no more likely explanation, that the arranger was God. If you have some other arranger which you can present, that seems more likely than God(and this is working from the assumption that you even understand God), then by all means, I would be willing to examine that idea.

Uh, a working understanding of the Bible...

I got that much. I wanted you to enlighten me with the appropriate passage.

M.) Go back and re-read H.) & I.), they demonstrate effectively the proper way of reading the Bible. You cannot hope to understand even one word of that book if you take it as bits and pieces to be taken ltierally or metaphorically. You must look at the underlying message of the book entire, and then perhaps you can understand it. Look at the bigger picture, it is much simpler than you would think.

Then what causes gravity to work? I firmly believe that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, regardless of, as you mentioned, how quantum physics works. So prove to me that gravity will work every time by specifying it's cause.

According to Einstein's general theory of relativity, gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime around matter. That is what causes gravity. If an object curves spacetime, you get gravity, The bigger the object, the larger the curve, and the larger the pull of gravity.

Black holes are a prediction of this theory, since super-massive objects collapse in on themselves, and spacetime collapses with them, forming a gravity well so powerful that light can't escape.

[/quote]
N.) Eintstein's theory of relativity is something, correct me if I am wrong, has been brought into contention time and time again. As such it is still a theory, becaue it is a hypothesis supported by several 'facts' which may or may not be true. (Assumptions.)

A universal law such as gravity is something we do not understand, but which we know to work and be true. We may speculate and come rather close, but for the time being there is no certain 'fact' of gravity. On top of that, what do black holes have to do with anything we've been talking about?

I can't help but feel all this is a digression from the initial topic at hand, anyway. xP I was asked to present my very best evidence for the existence of God, and I did. However, it was taken in bits an pieces and cut up into billions of ways so as to look at it 'closer' when in doing so, the original evidence itself was destroyed completely. Look at what I said in M.) above. It's not the tiny parts which make it up, but the simplicty of the overall thing as a whole. You must look at the bigger picture.

And it seems, Tiberius, that you also address my posts in a similar fashion. Instead of taking them as a whole, a message delivered in it's entirety, you have taken to xamining each piece of my posts one-by-one, without examining what they look like together. So you have missed the underlying message.

You also asked me to specify certain passages from the Bible which would back up my point. Do you really want me to do that? It's impossible, because then I'd be breaking the Bible down into bits and pieces and tearing down the original message of the book as a whole. That doesn't mean you have to read the entire Bible, by the way, because guess what? I have not ever read on single page frm the Bible. Not a one.

But with my understanding and knowledge of it's message, I can see the big picture and what the Bible is trying to communicate. If you want a basic answer for this, here it is; peace, love, and understanding. That's it. That's the Bible.

-Watson