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

[fr0d0]

---

All faith is blind otherwise it would have evidence, because arguments automatically equate to evidence if they are valid reasons to believe that God exists, because that would be evidence because that's what evidence is and what it does.

Having reasons that do not support God's existence to have faith still doesn't give any valid evidence/reasoning for God's actual existence, meaning the belief in God is still delusional.

Please quote where exactly I have used invalid wordplay. This wordplay of 'my own' that you speak of.

The point of faith is that there can be no knowing either way. We have personal evidence and that is corroborated by others holding our faith.

What do you mean by personal evidence? If you have evidence you cannot have faith. Does this "personal evidence" actually evince God's existence at all? If not then your belief in Him is still delusional.

So we have logical reasons to adopt faith, which cannot be logical in itself, and believe.

Whether you think your reasons are logical, reasonable, rational or valid or not - you can't get away from the fact that if they don't provide evidence for God's existence then your belief is delusional. And if you claim evidence at any point OR rational arguments for Him then you are contradicting yourself.

EvF

---

You've just confused everything again Evie with your wordplay.

Lets re-define faith to be blind faith. Lets re-define not being able to know as delusional. Tell you what ...LETS NOT!

[Ace Otana]

No not my truth, a truth or the truth. Do you feel you're unbiased in the realm of religion?

Who's truth is it then? A truth or the truth still doesn't mean it's true. In the realm of religion I consider all religions. None of which has provided any evidence or any kind of logical argument.

[tackattack]

No not my truth, a truth or the truth. Do you feel you're unbiased in the realm of religion?

Who's truth is it then? A truth or the truth still doesn't mean it's true. In the realm of religion I consider all religions. None of which has provided any evidence or any kind of logical argument.

If it's not absolute truth then it'd have to be relative or universal truth. I do believe you consider all religions ...equally biased. You still haven't answered teh question, it's yes or no: Are you unbiased when speaking about religion?

---

You mean the bible was ment for reading? All this time I thought it was toilet paper. A very cheap and uncomfortable toilet paper filled with childrens fairytale stories in them.

You telling me people actually read and BELIEVE the shit in there? Oh Frodo's god

The world has gone nuts!
Jumping to a god conclusion is just silly.
I've heard that people back then were a little shorter. So if we were to look jesus in the face, we'd be looking down at him.
That's quite funny. Jesus is a virgin, preacher, shortie, liar, who fathered himself and got a little lippy with the romans. Then unintentionly ended up becoming a martyr to abunch of religious freaks.
Classic!

They happen to be the most closed-minded bastards you'll ever incounter. Also they contradict themselves far too often.
Freedom of thought doesn't exist in religion.

Impossible if he is non-temporal. God to me is just an adult version of santa. People who just can't let go of their imaginary friend. Also nothing personal, but I think those who still hold onto made up beings for comfort and guidence should really grow up. If people hold onto such beliefs for comfort when it comes to death and such then just don't dwell on it. Death is inevitable and so unpreventable, I can understand why some people hold onto beliefs because of death and tend to use their beliefs as a way out of death. Would be nice if it was true but it's plain and simple wishful thinking.

---

I don't have time to grab more than the first page of your posts I need to go to bed

[Edwardo Piet]

Lets re-define faith to be blind faith. Lets re-define not being able to know as delusional. Tell you what ...LETS NOT!

No redefinition is required. I mean all faith is blind in the sense that it's without evidence. Agreed?

You believe without evidence, that is delusional by definition because that's choosing to believe without logical basis because if there was a logical basis that would of course be valid evidence - this all logically follows it isn't "wordplay".

EvF

[Ace Otana]

If it's not absolute truth then it'd have to be relative or universal truth. I do believe you consider all religions ...equally biased. You still haven't answered teh question, it's yes or no: Are you unbiased when speaking about religion?

---

You mean the bible was ment for reading? All this time I thought it was toilet paper. A very cheap and uncomfortable toilet paper filled with childrens fairytale stories in them.

You telling me people actually read and BELIEVE the shit in there? Oh Frodo's god

The world has gone nuts!
Jumping to a god conclusion is just silly.
I've heard that people back then were a little shorter. So if we were to look jesus in the face, we'd be looking down at him.
That's quite funny. Jesus is a virgin, preacher, shortie, liar, who fathered himself and got a little lippy with the romans. Then unintentionly ended up becoming a martyr to abunch of religious freaks.
Classic!

They happen to be the most closed-minded bastards you'll ever incounter. Also they contradict themselves far too often.
Freedom of thought doesn't exist in religion.

Impossible if he is non-temporal. God to me is just an adult version of santa. People who just can't let go of their imaginary friend. Also nothing personal, but I think those who still hold onto made up beings for comfort and guidence should really grow up. If people hold onto such beliefs for comfort when it comes to death and such then just don't dwell on it. Death is inevitable and so unpreventable, I can understand why some people hold onto beliefs because of death and tend to use their beliefs as a way out of death. Would be nice if it was true but it's plain and simple wishful thinking.

---

I don't have time to grab more than the first page of your posts I need to go to bed

If it's not absolute truth then it'd have to be relative or universal truth. I do believe you consider all religions ...equally biased. You still haven't answered teh question, it's yes or no: Are you unbiased when speaking about religion?

I am unbiased when it comes to religion. That doesn't mean I can't comment on them.

If it's not absolute truth then it'd have to be relative or universal truth.

Universal truth from a theists viewpoint.

So am I getting this right? Because I comment and criticise religion that some how makes me biased does it? hock:
I do it to every religion, every silly belief system. If you got an argument/claim then I will consider it. Doesn't mean I won't criticise it.
News flash for ya. I won't consider the muslim religion without considering the christian religion as well and I won't consider the christian religion without considering the existance of the flying invisible wardrobe in the sky. If I am to consider one magical flying thing in the sky that has no evidence for it's existance then I will consider all possible imaginable beings too. Evidence is vital because without it I cannot tell if god is more real than santa or the tooth fairy ect ect. Just because I don't believe in your god or any other and that I criticise it, doesn't mean I'm biased or I just don't understand. It simply means I'm not convinced by your argument.

[fr0d0]

---

No redefinition is required. I mean all faith is blind in the sense that it's without evidence. Agreed?

You believe without evidence, that is delusional by definition because that's choosing to believe without logical basis because if there was a logical basis that would of course be valid evidence - this all logically follows it isn't "wordplay".

EvF

---

Why redefine then? I already said.. this isn't blind faith.. or faith taken without reason. there are reasons to adopt the faith, and none of those negate the need for faith.

If I ask a complete stranger to fetch my kids in my car without knowing anything whatsoever about that person.. then that'd be blind faith. If I asked other people for their opinion of the stranger first that wouldn't be blind faith would it?

If I believed WITH evidence, that'd be idiotic. For only idiots really know if there's a god or not right? Therefore ~ equally you're one of those idiots to consider belief without evidence delusional.

[Edwardo Piet]

I am not redefining as I already explained. I mean "blind" in the sense of lacking evidence (can't get much 'blinder' than that when it comes to believing)..... so "blind faith" is tautological from my perspective.

If I asked other people for their opinion of the stranger first that wouldn't be blind faith would it?

No, that would be evidence based. Based on the fact that most people don't lie habitually (like when you ask for directions and it's actually worthwhile doing because the majority of people don't lie in order to get you lost).

If I believed WITH evidence, that'd be idiotic.

How would that ever be idiotic? Unless the evidence was invalid?

For only idiots really know if there's a god or not right?

I don't see how they do.

Therefore ~ equally you're one of those idiots to consider belief without evidence delusional.

I consider it a little bit bat-shit-crazy to willingly and knowingly believe in something that lacks any evidence whatsoever - meaning that you therefore have no valid reasoning to believe it actually exists, yes. That's like rational-suicide.

EvF

[fr0d0]

I am not redefining as I already explained. I mean "blind" in the sense of lacking evidence (can't get much 'blinder' than that when it comes to believing)..... so "blind faith" is tautological from my perspective.

Fact is Evie you redefine to make it work in your mind.

If I asked other people for their opinion of the stranger first that wouldn't be blind faith would it?

No, that would be evidence based. Based on the fact that most people don't lie habitually (like when you ask for directions and it's actually worthwhile doing because the majority of people don't lie in order to get you lost).

So by the same token, I can tell you about God and what you can expect, and you no longer can have blind faith.. correct?

If I believed WITH evidence, that'd be idiotic.

How would that ever be idiotic? Unless the evidence was invalid?

BECAUSE FAITH CAN'T HAVE EVIDENCE ...had you considered even for a moment??

For only idiots really know if there's a god or not right?

I don't see how they do.

No shit.

Therefore ~ equally you're one of those idiots to consider belief without evidence delusional.

I consider it a little bit bat-shit-crazy to willingly and knowingly believe in something that lacks any evidence whatsoever - meaning that you therefore have no valid reasoning to believe it actually exists, yes. That's like rational-suicide.

YES WE FUCKING KNOW you do!

It's called faith Evie. Think about it or don't. Just don't vomit words all over here when you don't want to fucking think about it.

[Edwardo Piet]

Fact is Evie you redefine to make it work in your mind.

As I already explained, I'm not redefining anything.

So by the same token, I can tell you about God and what you can expect, and you no longer can have blind faith.. correct?

If I believe in something without evidence then I believe on blind faith. I don't see how this applies to me?

BECAUSE FAITH CAN'T HAVE EVIDENCE

Which is why I consider it an idiotic thing to believe with. No evidence= no valid reason to believe because valid reason to believe equates to evidence.

...had you considered even for a moment??

I know that faith can't evidence. That's why I consider it - crazy.

YES WE FUCKING KNOW you do!

Well I'm just trying to make myself clear is all. As I'm sure you are too.

It's called faith Evie.

I know what it's called, and I know that I don't understand how it is considered at all reasonable when it is belief that lacks evidence. Surely belief without evidence shouldn't be held if we are to be rational here?

Think about it or don't. Just don't vomit words all over here when you don't want to fucking think about it.

I am thinking about it. I'm trying. My point is that if you believe in the existence of something without evidence then that is believing in something for no valid reason - because if it was valid it would equate to evidence (how many times have I said this)...

So... whatever valid reasons you may believe you have for having faith in God.... faith itself lacks any evidence, your belief in God is without evidence, so your belief in God is irrational/unreasonable - and seen as the complexity of God and the amount of evidence that would be required for the belief to be rational... if that doesn't equate to a delusion then I don't know what does.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Fact is Evie you redefine to make it work in your mind.

As I already explained, I'm not redefining anything.

Yes you bloody well did!

So by the same token, I can tell you about God and what you can expect, and you no longer can have blind faith.. correct?

If I believe in something without evidence then I believe on blind faith. I don't see how this applies to me?

You said "No, that would be evidence based. Based on the fact that most people don't lie habitually (like when you ask for directions and it's actually worthwhile doing because the majority of people don't lie in order to get you lost)."

Which I take to mean you would believe people because most don't lie habitually? I certainly wouldn't be lying to you, not that it matters. You consider that to be evidence based in your own words.

It's called faith Evie.

I know what it's called, and I know that I don't understand how it is considered at all reasonable when it is belief that lacks evidence. Surely belief without evidence shouldn't be held if we are to be rational here?

If we're talking about things we can evidence, yes. talking about God, no.

Think about it or don't. Just don't vomit words all over here when you don't want to fucking think about it.

I am thinking about it. I'm trying. My point is that if you believe in the existence of something without evidence then that is believing in something for no valid reason - because if it was valid it would equate to evidence (how many times have I said this)...

So... whatever valid reasons you may believe you have for having faith in God.... faith itself lacks any evidence, your belief in God is without evidence, so your belief in God is irrational/unreasonable - and seen as the complexity of God and the amount of evidence that would be required for the belief to be rational... if that doesn't equate to a delusion then I don't know what does.

EvF

You're an AI bot and this is your program:-

"I won't think about it because there is no evidence, and if there's no evidence, how can I think about it [loop to 1st word in sentence ad infinitum]"

Let me know if you manage to break the loop.