I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Ace Otana]

Sure, God in himself is outside our direct detection ability, like if I see some footprints in the snow and no animal, the animal is outside my direct detection ability. That doesn't mean there are no ways to know that the animal exists. You can still evaluate the aposteriori evidence that the animal was here, like you can evaluate the aposteriori evidence that God created the universe

But we already know about animals and their footprints. God doesn't leave any. What makes you think god created everything? What makes you so sure he exists? Just because the univurse exists doens't automaticly mean god did it. Not everything needs a designer or creater. Evolution is a process that requires no outside intelligance. Planets, solar systems and galaxes can form on their own.

How did god come into existance? How did he create energy? What makes you so sure he exists and done what you think he did. I don't believe in this fairytale of yours. It's too simplistic, it lacks details and it lacks evidence.

Even if there was a god, which god and why? Also why should I believe it?

When I look around I see formation not creation. Things can form on their own.

[Jon Paul]

But we already know about animals and their footprints. God doesn't leave any.

God is not an animal, like a car is not a brush, and a mind is not a rock. It was a metaphor. And the point was exactly that God does, metaphorically speaking, leave "footprints".

What makes you think god created everything?

I have provided many answers to this question and elaborated on them in countless posts now. I have provided two kinds of arguments, one is the epistemological argument, which I have already spent hours elaborating on, notably on page 16. But what is relevant to the metaphor of the footprint of an animal, is the a posteriori argument. I have provided an a posteriori argument that bases it self on the reality of the universe and it's nature, and thus utillises a "footprint"-approach (a posteriori / after the effect) by taking it's premise in what is known to be actual before coming to the conclusion of what explains it. That is opposed to, for instance, the ontological argument, which is an a priori argument (before the effect).

Just because the univurse exists doens't automaticly mean god did it. Not everything needs a designer or creater. Evolution is a process that requires no outside intelligance. Planets, solar systems and galaxes can form on their own.

Of course, but all those things already presuppose the existence of reality and the universe.

How did god come into existance? How did he create energy?

How did God come into existence?

The question asks for temporal account for the ontogenesis of a nontemporal being whose ontogenesis is accordingly nontemporal. The question is, in other words a fallacy, because it applies a standard to something to which that standard in and of the nature of the thing does not apply. It's like asking "What exists outside of the totality of all existence?". The question is meaningless because it contradicts itself by positing existence outside of "the totality of all existence", a self-referential self-contradiction. Like the question of "When/how did God come into existence?" is positing temporal existence in "God", a word which implies, by definition, a nontemporal being.

How did he create energy?

Energeia (greek) is the word that in Latin is translated into actus. The conception of God as actus purus means that God, in his essence is pure energeia. In other words, any energy in the universe is the actualising (or energizing, in the Greek) principle of God at work. So he created the universe out of nothing, but the power (energy) to do so lies in his own nature.

What makes you so sure he exists and done what you think he did. I don't believe in this fairytale of yours. It's too simplistic, it lacks details and it lacks evidence.

There are many details in it, but I did not come here to pour out details, but rather to sketch a general picture of some reasonable grounds on which to accept Gods existence.

Even if there was a god, which god and why? Also why should I believe it?

The God that my argument establishes. If you are asking what attributes he has, then the answer is the attributes emanating from our understanding of God as transcendent, that the argument necessitates (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, maximal perfection, immutability, eternality/nontemporality, immateriality, nonspatiality, etc).

When I look around I see formation not creation. Things can form on their own.

Formation and creation are not contradictions. In fact, some of the words used for "creation" in Hebrew and Greek in the Bible also mean to "form". But it's also true that even when things in our world apparently form on their own, they never really form own their own independently of the rest of the physical universe. It's rather an interplay of forces that already have been formed and already have received their existence which continues the cycle and procession of new formations.

[Ace Otana]

In other words he made everything, I cannot detect him in any form. That makes it very hard to believe in such a thing. No evidence and no detection possibilities. I'm being told that there is an invisible flying man in the sky that cannot be found but is there somehow. Sorry if I seem skeptical but I don't believe that for a moment.

This is why I reject religion. I don't think this arguement is going to shift anything soon so I guess we might as well call this one a agree to disagree.

[Jon Paul]

In other words he made everything, I cannot detect him in any form. That makes it very hard to believe in such a thing. No evidence and no detection possibilities. I'm being told that there is an invisible flying man in the sky that cannot be found but is there somehow. Sorry if I seem skeptical but I don't believe that for a moment.

Well, no, that is not what you are being told.

Evidence does not mean "direct detection". Evidence means something that testifies to and makes evident the truth of a thing. And there are such things in the case of God. There are footprints. Just like my metaphor, of a scenario where you see footprints in the snow of an animal, which is outside the reach of direct observation, but there are still things that testify to and makes evident the presence of that animal.

This is why I reject religion. I don't think this arguement is going to shift anything soon so I guess we might as well call this one a agree to disagree.

But you have not refuted my arguments. You have just repeated a typical atheist straw man, and repeated the sentence "evidence of God is impossible", because direct observation is. Though I certainly disagree. Evidence does not mean direct observation.

[Ace Otana]

You have evidence of god? Please show.

No evasions. Plain and simple. I still see no reason to believe.

[Jon Paul]

You have evidence of god? Please show.

No evasions. Plain and simple. I still see no reason to believe.

You come in on page 18 of this thread and expect me to reiterate what I have spent already hours of writing in the thread.

Instead, I expect you to read through the thread first and understand my argument, and then clearly refute my argument before you start putting into question whether I have presented evidence for Gods existence.

If you are not interested in that, that's your own problem, not mine.

[Ace Otana]

You have evidence of god? Please show.

No evasions. Plain and simple. I still see no reason to believe.

You come in on page 18 of this thread and expect me to reiterate what I have spent already hours of writing in the thread.

Instead, I expect you to read through the thread first and understand my argument, and then clearly refute my argument before you start putting into question whether I have presented evidence for Gods existence.

If you are not interested in that, that's your own problem, not mine.

To be honest, I am very tired of theists claiming to have evidence. I've seen it so many f**king times I could no longer be bothered arguing about it. I don't want words, I want scienctific findings. I've seen it and heard it all before. I have looked through your posts and remain an atheist. I still remain unconvinced. Theists have used the bible, space, earth, nature and books as evidence. Some use clever words and bring up links. Religion has a terrible habit of evading questions.

Sorry but I remain unconvinced.

[Jon Paul]

To be honest, I am very tired of theists claiming to have evidence. I've seen it so many f**king times I could no longer be bothered arguing about it.

Then what are you doing in this thread? Wasting your own and my time.

I don't want words, I want scienctific findings. I've seen it and heard it all before. I have looked through your posts and remain an atheist. I still remain unconvinced. Theists have used the bible, space, earth, nature and books as evidence. Some use clever words and bring up links. Religion has a terrible habit of evading questions.

Sorry but I remain unconvinced.

I don't care whether you are convinced or not. I never claimed to be able to convince you of anything. Convincing is a subjective matter, not a matter of truth.

What I claimed was that I have evidence and a properly justified epistemic foundation for affirming Gods existence, and that you have no epistemic mandate to positively deny that I have presented evidence until you have refuted it.

What you should have done from the beginning was stay away from this debate, because you say yourself that you are not interested in arguing. You have come here without any openness to an argument, with no reason to actually participate in the debate and you have admitted it yourself.

[Jon Paul]

Ace, you signature really reveals your naive scientific realism, something that is not at all implied by the principles of the scientific method.

"God does not exist until I see evidence (scientific evidence) that says otherwise."

Of course, the problem is that the question of Gods existence is outside the boundary of scientific method and investigation, just like the question of whether reality exists.

The naive evidential-subjective realism is also laughable. Whether you see and accept evidence or not, is not the same as whether there is evidence or not, or whether God does exist or not. If that was so, then a caveman thousands of years ago would be equally entitled to repeat your arbitrary demand that, if he does not see and accept evidence for this or that or not, then surely that thing does not exist. And then we are commiting a fallacy we can right call subjective evidential realism.

Further, what you define as "scientific" evidence does not embody all kinds of evidence or knowledge there is; it was never meant to do so, either. The scientific method was never meant to be an epistemic pantheon covering all kinds of knowledge and evidence. It was meant to be a method to investigate the natural world and reality by developing theories on empirical grounds to explain and predict various empirical facts. But there are many kinds of knowledge which are not scientific; which are not the result of a scientific investigation, and which are not supposed to make predictions or explanations of other empirical epistemes, such as should scientific knowledge. The scientific method has developed strictly as a matter of the research of various natural causes in the pursuit of understanding of empirical data. So the scientific method does not itself cover all kinds of knowledge. And nor should it.

Your mind does not exist until I see scientific evidence that says otherwise. The problem is, that whether anything exists outside of your mind, or whether reality exists at all, is not covered by the scientific method, but is one of the presuppositions (like the scientific method itself) which is needed for rational integrity to make reasonable judgements in accordance with empirical reality. Even more so, the epistemological argument establishes God to be such a presupposition, necessary for rational integrity and coherence.

[Minimalist]

the question of Gods existence is outside the boundary of scientific method and investigation,

How convenient.