Debate: God Exists

[SuperSentient]

And who says God need only work in the supernatural?

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.

The only thing your 'rational and logic has proven is no God operates this way.

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).

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

The bible is collection of folklore, it doesn't tell us anything about objective reality (nothing accurate anyways). That is like me grabbing a story book and telling you to refer to it to figure out why the earth revolves around the sun, I would be unreasonable to do that.

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.

If anything I'm reclaiming the word, and forcing you to speak honestly so rather than say you seek evidence

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

You see popularly accepted facts that prove the existence of God.

You admitted earlier that only God could prove himself and seemed to think it is ridiculous to demand proof for God. Now you are pointing to something I was looking for all along, justification for theism. I have yet to see proof for God.

You seek Hive mind approval. 

If I did, I would be a Christian.

you need the approval of your peers to think positively or even to consider God. That is what you are asking for.

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

Again not evidence sport you are looking for predigested narrative (Someone/one of your peer's explanation) of said evidence. 

Yes, that is evidence. Science is based on examining of objective reality and testing it for conclusive results, it has proven itself again and again.

But again with no other histroical figure nor book has so much been written, and yet contested.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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).

Only by idiots.

It is accepted by contemporary new testament scholarship, not a bunch of idiots.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

You just got farther from truth.

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..

It did, and the direct similarities provide strong evidence of similar origins. It is consistent with the accounts of the time and correlation between all the differences and similarities of the texts.

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.

So do I, but you keep bringing up nonsense that could only be consistent with your personal beliefs, so I have no reason to accept that you are truly trying to reach truth.

As again I do not hide myself from the truth behind a cloke of what rationally could be.

That is how you get to evidence and truth, focusing on the possibilities rather than supposed Dogma. 

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.

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.

No there isn't there is strong unsupported conjecture (histroical evidence wise) that non canonical material was used.

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.

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.

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

EXACTLY!!!! Effectively showing that rational thought may not always represent what is true.

Part of the scientific method is skepticism, constantly being skeptical because there is always the possibility of being false.
Religion doesn't have that and therefore cannot be trusted at all, it has been shown to be opposed to truth.

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???

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

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.

proof citation please

I already did, you refuse to look at it. 

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?

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.

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.

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

False analogy.

Before you cop out with unjustified presumption on God again

Please stop trying to turn this around on me, it is you that is presuming God, not me.

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

But in this case, your are assuming the being in question exists, and I want you to demonstrate that this being (God) exists.

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.

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.