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

[tackattack]

---

I don't believe God exists, I have faith in that.

You don't believe God exists? Then how are you a theist?

You don't believe he exists and yet you have faith in him? Uh oh... sounds like fr0d0, God just 'IS' - with his nonsensical statements. If God doesn't exist then he can't do or be anything by definition. It doesn't even make any sense to say you don't believe he exists but you have faith in him. What, so you have faith in something non-existent? But it isn't even something if it's non-existent! That makes no sense!

I do however believe that God does affect reality, and while subjective, I see evidence for it, although not up to scientific standards.

God cannot affect reality if he doesn't exist. If he doesn't exist he can't do or be anything because there is no "he" if he doesn't exist - get it?

EvF

---

Sorry for the delayed response EvF.
1-I have faith that God exists, not based on empirical evidence or proof, therefore not belief.
2-My faith is based of reason , experience, and a set of subjective proofs that lean to a conclusion that a God is more liekely to exist than not.
3-I'll restate it better here: I have no proof God exists as more than a thought or ideal that is verifiable and not subjective. I do believe God exists for other reasons. Is that stated a little better?

[tavarish]

I don't believe God exists, I have faith in that.

I do believe God exists for other reasons.

I love a nice contradiction in the morning.

[Edwardo Piet]

1-I have faith that God exists, not based on empirical evidence or proof, therefore not belief.

How therefore not belief? Faith is belief that lacks evidence, but it's still belief is it not? How can you trust or have faith in something without actually believing in it at all unless you're merely pretending?

2-My faith is based of reason , experience, and a set of subjective proofs that lean to a conclusion that a God is more liekely to exist than not.

'Subjective proofs' - how is that not what you believe to be your evidence for God's existence?

3-I'll restate it better here: I have no proof God exists as more than a thought or ideal that is verifiable and not subjective. I do believe God exists for other reasons. Is that stated a little better?

Yes, that makes more sense. And is a complete contradiction of the above when you have said you don't actually believe that God exists. When you said you have 'faith in God' but you don't believe he exists, that made no sense. Just as it makes no sense when fr0d0 says he believes God 'is' but he doesn't believe God exists. How can something non-existent be or do anything at all?

EvF

[tackattack]

Fair enough it was a good contradiction... I am fairly doped up though so please allow me to reitterate. I tend to use belief as more of a know and faith as more of a hope.

I have no proof for God's existence therefore I can't know that God exists without a leap of faith. Therefore I believe God exists without proof, resting on my faith.

I know God exists at the very minimum as a concept therefore God does exists as an abstract thought. However further evidence for God would require a definition of God, which can't be amicably reached.

My subjective proofs only point to what a definition of God would entail, not wheter that being exists or not. Since they are subjective reaching a universal defintion is highly unlikely, therefore we (many Christians) say God is unknowable (plus it's in the scripture).

I hope this is a much better explination. I'm going to take a Vicodin now.

[tavarish]

Fair enough it was a good contradiction... I am fairly doped up though so please allow me to reitterate. I tend to use belief as more of a know and faith as more of a hope.

Ok, instead of using words how you see fit, let's define them first so we don't get confused later on.

Belief:

1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/belief

Faith:

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

I have no proof for God's existence therefore I can't know that God exists without a leap of faith. Therefore I believe God exists without proof, resting on my faith.

Which is the great divide between theists and atheists. I contend that I wouldn't believe something existed if I didn't have evidence for it, even if I really wanted it to be true and it gave me comfort. I really don't understand why anyone else would do such a thing. Without evidence, you're quite literally willfully lying to yourself.

I know God exists at the very minimum as a concept therefore God does exists as an abstract thought.

Yes, but I doubt anyone has any issues with God existing purely as a concept. The issue is when people make decisions based on the belief that he exists objectively. I make the point that perhaps God doesn't go any further than that, and is purely a concept.

However further evidence for God would require a definition of God, which can't be amicably reached.

You would require a definition of God first, before existence can be verified.

My subjective proofs only point to what a definition of God would entail, not wheter that being exists or not.

So if you have no good reason to assert that such a being exists, why believe in the first place?

Since they are subjective reaching a universal defintion is highly unlikely, therefore we (many Christians) say God is unknowable (plus it's in the scripture).

No you don't. Christianity is based on the tenets that God is indeed knowable. He has specific qualities and performed specific actions to achieve a specific result based on specific intentions which are necessarily part of his character.

Scripture:

Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, Let not the mighty man glory in his might, Nor let the rich man glory in his riches; But let him who glories glory in this, That he understands and knows Me, That I am the LORD, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight,” says the Lord (Jeremiah 9:23-24)

And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent (John 17:3)

[tackattack]

1-I wasn't using them as willy-nilly as you make it seem. As a definition for believe I usually use "conviction of the truth of some statement " or to know something. And for faith I tend to use "firm belief in something for which there is no proof " If yoou couldn't gather that from my abbreviation, I apologize.

2-That would, of course, depend on what you define as evidence. Big seperation between theist and atheist here usually as well. Remember it's not evidence to the contrary.. that would be intellectually dishonest or wilfully lying, but an agreed level of evidence.

3-I left out "first" in my statement, but yes, experience, define, establish relevance to reality, determine value would be the order I do things usually

4- To answer your question: I believe my subjective evidence of what aspects of God I can percieve through revelations lead me to a general definition of what God is, therefore I use God as a valid jumping point for further assertions and assumptions on various subjects, IMO.

As much as I hate to quote, (At least I don't force people to read it)

---

1 Corinthians 1:21-22 (KJV) 21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
or more succienctly from the NLT 21 Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. 22 It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom.

---

---

Matthew 24:36 (KJV) 36 “However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself.[a] Only the Father knows.

---

Even as I quote it I will have to say it's a little dishonest for me to say God is unknowable, I'll say, I don't personally know ALL of what God is, but I have a generally agreed upon idea with my peers. Christians are a little more sceptical about saying they know God, mainly due to the old Jewish practice of seperating the people from God. I would say it is possible for those whom he has revealed himself to know some aspects of God. Actually one of the key principles that Jesus taught was that you'll never know when judgement is coming and jews idea of who God was and how to worship him was wrong. They sepeated the people from the experience of knowing God. He literally ripped down the barrier. Bottom line to know God is to experience God. Any Christian who gives you a hard time for not knowing God you can simply say ,"Well he hasn't revealed himself to me and I'm not waiting around for him" I think that will go over pretty well and still not be as confrontational as fuck off bible thumper.

[KichigaiNeko]

Your god must really hate you .....

All you have proven so far is that you belive in fairies at the bottom of the garden with no evidence.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I tend to use belief as more of a know and faith as more of a hope.

I think you are conflating certainty and personal certitude. When a believer says " I KNOW there is a God" My understanding is he is referring to Gnosis,which is very different from scientific evidence based knowledge..

If I understand you,it seems to me that your position is based on Neo Platonism,in that you assert truth may be inferred though reason alone.That is a position I reject outright. A materialist, I assert that knowledge must be based on evidence, or it remains an hypothesis.

My position on the existence of God(s) is simple but as yet unsatisfied: You believe in God(s)? Fine; show me.


From wiki on Gnosis ,which is pretty much how I understand your claim to 'know'. Are we on the same page or in different books?

Gnosis (from one of the Greek words for knowledge, γνῶσις) is the spiritual knowledge of a saint[1] or mystically enlightened human being. Within the cultures of the term's provenance (Byzantine and Hellenic) gnosis was a special knowledge or insight into the infinite, divine and uncreated in all and above all,[2] rather than knowledge strictly into the finite, natural or material world which is called Epistemological knowledge.[


Gnosis is a transcendental as well as mature understanding.[4] It indicates direct spiritual experiential knowledge[5] and intuitive knowledge, mystic rather than that from rational or reasoned thinking. Gnosis itself is obtained through understanding at which one can arrive via inner experience or contemplation such as an internal epiphany of intuition and external epiphany such as the Theophany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis


Here I am not mocking or arguing with you,but trying to understand your position. I have never seen religious belief as a matter of choice. I am neither anti theist nor anti religion. (although I consider organised religion as parasitic)

[tackattack]

@ padriac, nor would I infer you were. No, I'm not gnostic if that's what you're asking. I'm more agnostic in many of my philosophical views. I was reading the wiki on neoplatonism and that is nowhere near my stance. Belief can either be with or w/o evidence. Faith is beief in the absence of evidence not despite evidence to the contrary. I accept subjective and objective evidence as evidence for subjective truth. I validate that personal truth through reason, logic, peer verification, eliminating as much bias as possible, and constant testing and review. I'm not sure what "societal construct" you would call that. But I know I'm not a materialist for many things. I am a reductivist for some things. Mosre than that, I'll need to study. I'll say if I were to say, "I know there is a God", That would mean I'm probably dead and in front of him. When I say "I believe there is a God" I'm saying there's evidence that I see as relevant, valid and compelling indicating a more than likely scenario of God's existance.

You've never seen religious belief as a matter of choice? I thought you used to be a theist, and then you chose to question and found evidence lacking, thus leaving you and agnostic atheist that's anti-organized religion? That's a choice. I chose to question , found evidence lacking, new evidence presented itself, I reevaluated and thus my stance as theist.

edit- removed

[KichigaiNeko]

@KichigaiNeko - wow, and why must he hate me? If you're going to be just as dismissive .. you're really not worth the keystrokes. Chime in with something productive next time, or at least something funny or relevant.

As opposed to the drivel you have been coming out with???

You are right ...not worthy of the keystrokes ....I Win !! Thank you

(personal attacks only PROVE your argument is weak)