Debate: God Exists

[Amarok]

Because no one in that religion ever did.
Speaking to an angel and speaking to God is two very different things.

Muslims believe they can speak to God, as I have demonstrated.

Swing and another miss 'smart guy.'

What I am saying is because Christianity hangs on a testable/falsifiable "unique view," Christian can and has been vetted over and over for two thousand years. It's not the claim that makes Christianity true it is that claim can be tested.Again when doubting thomas said he would not believe until He put his hand in the side of Jesus or his finger in the holes where the nails had been, is it your contention that Thomas did so from his "heart?"

Historically, Christianity can not be tested since it relies on untestable claims, and it is funny that you try to bring some rational method into here since you don't seem to be interested in whether your religion is actually correct but that as long as you have some religious experience than you are satisfied with it.
If you are talking about the historicity of biblical texts and Jesus, then I recommend you push past what just Christian theologians and apologists tell you.

I get to see/watch how thing could have played out in a waking dream. Or another I was in over my head working on a car putting a new timming belt on and when I slacked the belt all four cams turned a different way. Prayed over that then physically watch each cam click one tooth at a time back into position. I locked them down and the car fired right up. (on a interference motor/Really big deal) Not to mention my contacts with 'messengers.' Again which is a completely different experience. Then in prayer/petition I know there is nothing I can't truly ask for and not receive. How ever I am fully aware of consequence, and the price to be paid for foolish things.  But more often than not I seek His will over mine.

This is typical religion. 

That sport is why I know Christianity to be true. I've experienced what has been promised. The 'other religions' you mention do not promise what Christ does. if so then pleae provide book chapter and verse. or concede the point.

I know they don't, but they do claim divine revelation and experiences of their own. Christianity doesn't have enlightenment from meditation and reincarnation, why should I accept it if it doesn't contain these specific eastern views?

why would I need to rationally plot a line of thought when I can draw on direct personal experience?

That is the difference between what you are doing and what I am. You are trying to rationalize the bible/Christian with a life experience that does not include God and presupposes that the rest of the world is so unfortunate.

What I am trying to do is broach the same subject with life experience that includes God's direct intervention.

That is why you rely so heavily on rational, logic, thought, science, because you can not see the map or directions that take you to God. Again what good are those honorable disciplines if your use of them do not allow you to see, you do not need them to simply follow to vet the instructions on the map for yourself.

Well said, and you are right. Religion tends to look up to supernatural revelation, experience, and interaction with some god. Rational based thinking looks for reasons to accept these beliefs and independent ways to confirm truths. You assume the truths of what you already currently believe and see unbelievers as denying a truth that could be confirmed by supernatural experience. Rational thinking doesn't assume this but tries to examine it skeptically and find ways that could confirm truths.
The latter is based on scientific thinking. It is the most accurate way to determine truths, and needs to be used for any belief, or else it is meaningless to believe, since accepting an untrue faith destroys the purpose of it.

My claims simply match the direction Christ left. Luke 11:1 Jesus teaches us how to pray. What He teaches is what I summarized (what you identified as not being mainstream)

So what if I were to ask you what if your idea of "Mainstream Christianity" is wrong? Is God then obligated to honor it, Honor/answer your prayers?

My point was that prayer is commonly believed to be a means of talking to God or get to know God. I wouldn't say God would be obligated to give you anything.

The experience of God is not outside what we can experience.

I mean that God is a supernatural being, so it is outside what we empirically determine. 

Again not a postulation. I am describing an experience of going to a place or more like meeting a person. The experience is a static one meaning it requires the same humility from us all. If we can humble ourselves to ask Seek and knock as outlined by luke 11 We have the opportunity to physically be set before God.

I am talking about the existence of God here, atheism is the absence of a belief in any god. When I ask, Does God exist?, it is up to the person postulating his existence to justify it, which is the theist. Also, you are presuming God exists here, but you can't presume something exists to justify its existence. That is like asking me to prove Sasquatch exists and I tell you that if you refuse to accept it exists, you won't find it, since it only appears to those that accept its existence.

Now re imagine my roll if I had been there. I saw the depth and beauty of it all. I can only describe what I saw. this is not some theory nor some guessing together patch work cobbobble. It is an experience. a very finite one at that. one that moves at a quick pace, even though you've been set on your heels by the whole thing and have a hard time taking it all in.

Your problem is you are arguing principles and ideologies when I am trying to get you to a physical place.

It is also something you would have the burden to prove, since you would be postulating its existence. If you want to get me to god, then fine, demonstrate that he exists, if you can't, then why should I accept it? 
In the end, it doesn't matter how many ways you reword it, the theist will always be the one that has the need to demonstrate the existence of their god.

Indeed you can't give someone a road map to an imaginary place

[SuperSentient]

Indeed you can't give someone a road map to an imaginary place

I just want justification for it, but instead, I get told that I need to just get a subjective experience from faith. They talk about it as if it is something that proves God to people and does it outside of rational thinking.

[Amarok]

Indeed you can't give someone a road map to an imaginary place

I just want justification for it, but instead, I get told that I need to just get a subjective experience from faith. They talk about it as if it is something that proves God to people and does it outside of rational thinking.

The best you'll likely get is blather about comparing it to experiences that are in no way like the one there describing. Or just continually blaming you for it. I have  had that with mystics of all strips like ghost believers saying" if I want proof of ghosts go to a haunted house" but then they will say oh but" I can't say you'll see a ghost "It's never them who might be mistaken about the experience it's you whos at fault for supposedly not having it.

[SuperSentient]

I just want justification for it, but instead, I get told that I need to just get a subjective experience from faith. They talk about it as if it is something that proves God to people and does it outside of rational thinking.

The best you'll likely get is blather about comparing it to experiences that are in no way like the one there describing. Or just continually blaming you for it. I have  had that with mystics of all strips like ghost believers saying" if I want proof of ghosts go to a haunted house" but then they will say oh but" I can't say you'll see a ghost "It's never them who might be mistaken about the experience it's you whos at fault for supposedly not having it.

And I am tossed a burden of proof for God's non-existence since God is there, but I supposedly refuse to accept him.

[Minimalist]

God in Luke 11 set conditions to have the Holy Spirit poured out or joined with us. If you do ABC God will do XYZ

"Luke" is a pile of shit.  Now where are you?

[Amarok]

The best you'll likely get is blather about comparing it to experiences that are in no way like the one there describing. Or just continually blaming you for it. I have  had that with mystics of all strips like ghost believers saying" if I want proof of ghosts go to a haunted house" but then they will say oh but" I can't say you'll see a ghost "It's never them who might be mistaken about the experience it's you whos at fault for supposedly not having it.

And I am tossed a burden of proof for God's non-existence since God is there, but I supposedly refuse to accept him.

Yup that's there favorite it seems "gods there you just deny because " Then it's usually some rant about not wanting to follow his laws or some nonsense .As if acknowledging he exists would make his laws any more desirable. As for he must be there we generally get stuff like "gods like other minds" or presup with it's bs of " gods my starting point" or " I get revelations the magically allow me to be sure and you can't prove it's not impossible that he can"  the mental acrobatics are just incredible

---

God in Luke 11 set conditions to have the Holy Spirit poured out or joined with us. If you do ABC God will do XYZ

Lol a God who puts conditions . A poor God indeed .

[Alex K]

The more you think about it the sillier it seems that the existence of the allmighty creator of the universe, of all things, is so not obvious that it requires millenia of debates and schisms and inquisitions.

[masterofpuppets]

Theists always seem compelled to shift the burden of proof in the most subtle of ways. As was pointed out earlier they will say something like "you're the one refusing to accept the evidence that God exists, which needs to be justified".

There are two problems with this line of thinking. One is that it assumes that atheists are consciously refusing to accept the evidence, and therefore the claim that God exists. This is done to make atheism appear as if it were not a neutral/the default position. The truth is that atheists are UNCONVINCED (hence lack a belief) that the claim "God exists" is true. It doesn't require an active effort to lack a belief in something, and it's certainly not a "refusal" to accept the evidence, all it is is that the evidence is unconvincing to atheists. Atheists may give their reasons for why they are unconvinced (which they definitely should), but no one is "trying" to be an atheist.

Second is that such a statement is used to distract the discussion from the real problem, which is that the evidence itself is seriously lacking in substantiating theistic claims. It's as if theists are claiming that atheists are refusing to accept the evidence as an excuse to lower the standard of evidence that they see appropriate in justifying their beliefs. Fortunately, most atheists are quick to point out the flaws in the theists' tactics.

[downbeatplumb]

There are two problems with this line of thinking. One is that it assumes that atheists are consciously refusing to accept the evidence, and therefore the claim that God exists. This is done to make atheism appear as if it were not a neutral/the default position. The truth is that atheists are UNCONVINCED (hence lack a belief) that the claim "God exists" is true. It doesn't require an active effort to lack a belief in something, and it's certainly not a "refusal" to accept the evidence, all it is is that the evidence is unconvincing to atheists. Atheists may give their reasons for why they are unconvinced (which they definitely should), but no one is "trying" to be an atheist.

But this messes with the theist mind set that is convinced that we must secretly believe in god but reject the truth because for some reason we hate god.





This is because they cannot conceive of anyone not believing. To them god is so obvious that we must believe but actively reject the truth.

I find this quite strange as to me the whole god concept is ridiculous and I simply can't see how anyone takes the idea seriously. 

So I come at this from the reverse of the theist stand point their whole thought process is a s alien to me as that of of chip monk. I cant even imagine how they view the world.

[Cyberman]

The more you think about it the sillier it seems that the existence of the allmighty creator of the universe, of all things, is so not obvious that it requires millenia of debates and schisms and inquisitions.

That's why the presupposition exists that we are the closed-minded denying ones afraid of The Truth™.