Debate: God Exists

[SuperSentient]

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.

Yes, they don't believe in the bible, so they don't worship God as described in the bible. 

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

I looked through the post before the one you quoted and I don't see myself saying that. Where did you get that from?

There is evidence and I have shared it, but gain it is not evidence you want.

You provided no independently verifiable evidence, subjective experiences are not evidence, they are only something true to one person, but not true to me.

God hates lemmings

Hates proof to me? I guess he want me to rely on whatever other people tell me. I shouldn't need that, God should be evident independent of what people say. If not, then there is no reason to accept him. 

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

God has to exist to seek relationship, so I will put that for later after I find out God exists. However, you refuse to demonstrate God's existence to me. So, relationship will have to wait.

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.

But how do I get God to give me it? He refused to hand me anything so far. 

Show me a proper definition using those parameters of the word evidence. 

The scientific method, the scientific method, the scientific method, the scientific method, the scientific method, the scientific method. 
I hope that was enough. If that is above your head, then I will provide the simple google definition of evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
It also doesn't need to be specifically scientific, just use the same standard as the scientific method when demonstrating God's existence, there is no other way to verify it. 

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.

I am looking for evidence.

Who care what people claim if God is willing to work these very same things through you?!?! 

Exactly! Now stop pretending personal testimony is "evidence", it needs to be independently verified, it doesn't matter to me what people simply claim, truth is what matters.

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 just said right before that that it doesn't matter what other people claim, if what people claim (personal testimony) is true, then there should be a rational justification of the existence of the source of it. I want to meet God, but I don't even know if he exists, so I need to figure that out first.

Now what if what I said was true about science as well as religion, what if a great deal of science has become religion???

It hasn't. Science and religion are separate things.

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.  

Biological Evolution is constantly verified by the same method you trust in to give you the science you work with. Evolution is a theory because it is an explanation of the facts and is constantly verified. Why do some people deny it? Religion. People feel it threatens their genesis account that is based on religious dogma. 

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.'

General Christianity, but of course includes Catholicism (its pretty large), Orthodox church, and all the other thousands of denominations that all claim to be Christian.
This actually further proves my point though. Religions all have disagreements. Science does not vary by place. Truth isn't relative, science isn't either, but religion is.

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

Again, and like you said, it doesn't matter what other people say, but needs to be independently verified. Your subjective experience is not independently verifiable, it is only part of you. Independently verifiable means verification for everyone regardless of whether God actually decided to talk to them.

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!

You can't claim that if you don't even have evidence to give me, no rational justification= nothing to go off of

And I keep telling you that only you and God can work that out. 

But that assumes God exists, God has to exist to work anything out, demonstrate to me that God exists without assuming that he exists and he just needs to work it out with me.

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.

the whole inability to identify the gospel when presented

False.

you copy and pasted effort when dating the books of the bible.

I refer to the evidence, yes. The evidence is independent of what I think.

there is no depth in your statement

I guess that is up to you to determine.

when I ask for a citation you side step it.

I gave two citations in my previous post.

Everything I say can be backed by three independent sources.

You have yet to give me any except for an apologetics site.

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.

Again, I cited, and you didn't cite anything you said besides referring to me a page that gave some reasons to believe that Luke was written earlier. 
The scientific method is my source for evidence.

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.

You haven't refuted me once except by using scripture which isn't evidence of how scripture was actually written.

examples and citations please.

*“The Historical Figure of Jesus," Sanders, E.P., Penguin Books: London, 1995, Page 3
*Craig Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology," Theological Studies 54 (1993) Page 5
*Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee, Mark Allen Powell, Westminster John Knox Press, 1998
*Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (4 Jul 2005) Pages 1–6

Basically, you will find reason to believe little in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable and there are few facts that can be derived about the historical Jesus.

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?

The answer is that it didn't. Luke and Acts were written around the same time and after Mark.*
*Burkett, Delbert (2002). An Introduction to the New Testament and Origins of Christianity. Cambridge University Press.
*Boring, M. Eugene (2012). An Introduction to the New Testament: History, Literature, Theology. Westminster John Knox Press.
The second source here provides the commonly verified dating of acts. The earliest possible date would start where Acts ends, but is much more likely to have been written later.

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.

I am not sure what you mean by the bold here.

 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.

No, it is based on the powerful similarities and considering the coincidences, not an attempt to disprove Christianity.
Acts of the apostles doesn't disprove this at all, since Acts was written to target earlier times, it has nothing to do with the other gospels. 

I don't see a problem here.. maybe you could explain the problem you see.

They both give the details of the conversion Paul had, in Galations, Paul stated that he remained unknown to the Christians after the event. This is inconsistent with the verse I pointed out to you in Acts, which implied that Paul was known.

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.

Nope, I didn't use the skeptics bible. 
What I said is true.
*Burkett, Delbert (2002). An Introduction to the New Testament and Origins of Christianity. Cambridge University Press.
*Theissen, Gerd; Merz, Annette (1998). The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Eerdmans.

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." 

You made that up, that isn't even true. Dishonesty.
The oldest fragment dates back to the late 2nd century*

*Ellis, E. Earl (2003). The Gospel of Luke. Wipf and Stock Publishers.

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

I provided one, there is a star next to that claim.

Evidence sport. where your paper trail?

Just like I just provided.

Ok so then how does your 'quotation' trump the one I left that said luke was written first?

The evidence actually supports it, you just deny it outright as if something written in the book of Acts and your faith disprove it, a simple red herring.

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 doubt you are being serious about the non-canonical gospels (that in many cases go against the christian faith) being independent testimony. 

the please show citation for this definition

The scientific method, the scientific method, the scientific method, the scientific method, the scientific method, the scientific method. 
Source: http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fa...thod.shtml
and the basic google definition.

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.

Your Webster definition doesn't refute my definition. Please stop repeating the same stupidity. 
The definition you found is related to criminal law court, not determining truths about nature and potentially the existence of God.

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??

Its a false analogy, what else can I say? There is no use responding to a false analogy.

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?

You still are trying to get around my point that I was making all along, this is worthless.

So why do I feed trolls?

I am not a troll, just because I provide evidence and ask for justification that you cannot give doesn't make me a troll.
I mean, despite the fact that you repeat stupidity, I clearly recognize you are not trolling, you are just sadly mistaken. 



This is a waste of time, you just repeat the same Dogma over and over. I decided to not respond anymore if you refuse to be reasonable.