Best Theistic Arguments

[GrandizerII]

Except what VL said cannot apply to your worldview ...

Sorry, I didn’t think it would be that difficult to figure out what I meant, and what I would say differently.

Never mind if this is difficult for you.

You mean to say "be honest and just know God is on your side"?

[Mystic]

Theists do have the burden of the proof but now that I'm finally understanding, if and only if those listening are actually trying to understand and listen.

Argument tends to be an adversarial process, largely as a result of biases of which we are not conscious.  Given the biases propelling the dynamic seem to operate subconsciously, it's hard to imagine argument working out any other way, even with the best of intentions.  Some methods, like the Delphi method, aim to get around this, with some success, but a Delphi is the exception, not the norm.   There appear to be strong evolutionary reasons why our social habits of argument evolved this way.

I think what you mean by "actually trying" is that unless they agree with you, they are lying and subject to "dark forces."  On top of that, you don't bother to apply the same standard when you're evaluating opponent's counter-arguments.  You've effectively said that if you don't agree with such, you just dismiss them.  That essentially makes your complaint here an example of hypocrisy.  You're a dishonest cad, MK.

It doesn't matter about bias. If people just want to be argumentative and aren't will to digest your information and constantly try to side track the discussion and don't try to understand your proof and do their best to manipulate the conversation to make it ambiguous rather then seek clarity, it's not binding a person with such proof to present to such people.

Yes Theists have the burden of proof, as does God foremost have the burden of proof to prove his religion and himself if he exists and there is true path and way to him. But it's not upon either God or Messengers or Guides or their followers, to be burdened with convincing anyone and they can if they please turn away from presenting proofs they know to a crowd that has proven no interest to learning them but just want to argue and bicker no matter what truth there is.

What you said is probably true about me,  but if I know the truth and you guys are interested, from my perspective, I should present it, otherwise, if people are only interested in trying to put the proof and light manifested by their mouths and mock the sacred truth manifested in the dialogues I provide, I am not required to convince people or even present further clarification when people are interested in confusion only.

[GrandizerII]

Argument tends to be an adversarial process, largely as a result of biases of which we are not conscious.  Given the biases propelling the dynamic seem to operate subconsciously, it's hard to imagine argument working out any other way, even with the best of intentions.  Some methods, like the Delphi method, aim to get around this, with some success, but a Delphi is the exception, not the norm.   There appear to be strong evolutionary reasons why our social habits of argument evolved this way.

I think what you mean by "actually trying" is that unless they agree with you, they are lying and subject to "dark forces."  On top of that, you don't bother to apply the same standard when you're evaluating opponent's counter-arguments.  You've effectively said that if you don't agree with such, you just dismiss them.  That essentially makes your complaint here an example of hypocrisy.  You're a dishonest cad, MK.

It doesn't matter about bias. If people just want to be argumentative and aren't will to digest your information and constantly try to side track the discussion and don't try to understand your proof and do their best to manipulate the conversation to make it ambiguous rather then seek clarity, it's not binding a person with such proof to present to such people.

Yes Theists have the burden of proof, as does God foremost have the burden of proof to prove his religion and himself if he exists and there is true path and way to him. But it's not upon either God or Messengers or Guides or their followers, to be burdened with convincing anyone and they can if they please turn away from presenting proofs they know to a crowd that has proven to interest to learning them but just want to argue and bicker no matter what truth there is.

What you said is probably true about me,  but if I know the truth and you guys are interested, from my perspective, I should present it, otherwise, if people are only interested in trying to put the proof and light manifested by their mouths and mock the sacred truth manifested in the dialogues I provide, I am not required to convince people or even present further clarification when people are interested in confusion only.

You assume you have the truth, RR assumes he has the truth, Neo assumes he has the truth. Your truth contradicts theirs. None of you know the truth.

[Mystic]

It doesn't matter about bias. If people just want to be argumentative and aren't will to digest your information and constantly try to side track the discussion and don't try to understand your proof and do their best to manipulate the conversation to make it ambiguous rather then seek clarity, it's not binding a person with such proof to present to such people.

Yes Theists have the burden of proof, as does God foremost have the burden of proof to prove his religion and himself if he exists and there is true path and way to him. But it's not upon either God or Messengers or Guides or their followers, to be burdened with convincing anyone and they can if they please turn away from presenting proofs they know to a crowd that has proven to interest to learning them but just want to argue and bicker no matter what truth there is.

What you said is probably true about me,  but if I know the truth and you guys are interested, from my perspective, I should present it, otherwise, if people are only interested in trying to put the proof and light manifested by their mouths and mock the sacred truth manifested in the dialogues I provide, I am not required to convince people or even present further clarification when people are interested in confusion only.

You assume you have the truth, RR assumes he has the truth, Neo assumes he has the truth. Your truth contradicts theirs. None of you know the truth.

No one is saying you have to believe the other side is true before the dialogue, the problem, is there hasn't been a sincere dialogue for humanity regarding the truth, and you guys take the culture and traits of insincerity to the truth from my perspective.

I am not required to provide proof to people who don't have interest in understanding but just bickering.

[RoadRunner79]

It doesn't matter about bias. If people just want to be argumentative and aren't will to digest your information and constantly try to side track the discussion and don't try to understand your proof and do their best to manipulate the conversation to make it ambiguous rather then seek clarity, it's not binding a person with such proof to present to such people.

Yes Theists have the burden of proof, as does God foremost have the burden of proof to prove his religion and himself if he exists and there is true path and way to him. But it's not upon either God or Messengers or Guides or their followers, to be burdened with convincing anyone and they can if they please turn away from presenting proofs they know to a crowd that has proven to interest to learning them but just want to argue and bicker no matter what truth there is.

What you said is probably true about me,  but if I know the truth and you guys are interested, from my perspective, I should present it, otherwise, if people are only interested in trying to put the proof and light manifested by their mouths and mock the sacred truth manifested in the dialogues I provide, I am not required to convince people or even present further clarification when people are interested in confusion only.

You assume you have the truth, RR assumes he has the truth, Neo assumes he has the truth. Your truth contradicts theirs. None of you know the truth.

Are you making the leap to solipsism?

[The Grand Nudger]

Your abject ignorance of one subject hardly leads to solipsism.

[Amarok]

Those who say theists are wrong to believe and yet opine that God does not exist without defending their position are pussies.

Nope there is no conflict between saying theists are not justified in their proclamations and lacking belief . And you only resort to pathetic name calling because you can't refute it wooter and you lash out in impotent frustration . And FYI who gives a fuck if all atheists agree . This has been explained to you nob job .

[Whateverist]

You assume you have the truth, RR assumes he has the truth, Neo assumes he has the truth. Your truth contradicts theirs. None of you know the truth.

No one is saying you have to believe the other side is true before the dialogue, the problem, is there hasn't been a sincere dialogue for humanity regarding the truth, and you guys take the culture and traits of insincerity to the truth from my perspective.

I am not required to provide proof to people who don't have interest in understanding but just bickering.

I will defend your right not to provide a damn thing.  Let God do the convincing.  If He decides to speak, we'll listen.

[Succubus]

I tend to ask..

Can you show me anything here tonight that show me an observable and provable difference between god and no god ?

And I tend to ask.. Are there any Christians anywhere in the world who can show which parts of the bible are obviously true and which parts are obviously not true. Emphasis on the obviously not true of course. For some reason they are most reticent to provide examples.
For instance:

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Three hours? Did or did that not happen?

[robvalue]

I tend to ask..

Can you show me anything here tonight that show me an observable and provable difference between god and no god ?

And I tend to ask.. Are there any Christians anywhere in the world who can show which parts of the bible are obviously true and which parts are obviously not true. Emphasis on the obviously not true of course. For some reason they are most reticent to provide examples.
For instance:

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Three hours? Did or did that not happen?

The criteria seems to be that things that didn't happen aren't meant to be taken literally. The more science advances, the more metaphorical the bible becomes. Funny that. It's the kind of confirmation bias people always have when they work backwords from conclusions.