Why do christians believe in god?

[kilese]

I want to know how, in this modern world, people still worship a god. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't even try to believe it. I see no logic in it at all, to believe in a magical being that lives in the clouds. You can't possibly truly believe in it all. If you do, then humans are more clueless than i thought. Why worship someone who lets children starve everyday? If he has the power to stop it, and doesn't, then he is malevolent. But if he doesn't have the power, he is not a god. And if god created freewill and is omnipotent, then he would already know about all the horrible things in the world that would happen, and could have stopped it. And if he's omnipotent, whats the point of praying? Your prayers would have already been heard. And no one's prayers have been answered, so he is not worth worshiping, and therefore, is not a god. I'm not try to attack anyone, i just can't understand how anyone can believe all this.

[Skyangel]

.
According to Christian lore, Jesus WAS “personified� (defined as: to conceive of or represent as a person or as having human qualities or powers). Do you disagree?

How can any man who is already a person, ( regardless of whether the man is a real man or a fictional man ) be personified?
Do you mean according to Christian lore that Jesus was "God personified"?

.
Kindly identify “the Truth� and give evidence that it exists AND that it is personified (citing sources other than religious promotional literature and personal opinion).

According to the dictionary definition of Truth, http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=truth
Truth is...
* a fact that has been verified
* conformity to reality or actuality
* accuracy (the quality of being near to the true value)
The evidence of Truth is that which exists. All that exists is evidence of itself. It verifies itself. Truth verifies itself.
"I am that I am" is an example of a statement of truth verifying itself. All living things " say " or convey those words merely by existing.
Truth personified is when a person says those words or when those words apply to a living thing.
"I am that I am" is an example and evidence of Truth in me. I am evidence of the Truth regardless of whether I say anything or not.

.
Perhaps it is just me, but your “explanations� of your thoughts and ideas do not seem at all “self-evident� (to borrow a phrase) or coherent.

I am aware that some people cannot understand me, some people don't want to understand me, so they never will because they won't make any effort to do so, but some people do understand me, some do want to understand me and they will if they try. It all depends what "wavelength" you are on and whether or not you want to understand or not.

.
Stating that something that is “self-evident� and is also “hidden� or “camouflaged� seems like a contradiction in terms. Evident is defined (by Merriam Webster) as:

Evident: capable of being perceived especially by sight : distinctly visible : being in evidence : DISCERNIBLE

That eliminates hidden or camouflaged.

No it does not eliminate camouflage since camouflaged things are indeed capable of being perceived especially by sight, distinctly visible to those who understand what they are looking for, discernable by those who understand camouflage. Something that is self evidence is self evident. or self evidence. It is evidence of itself regardless of whether anyone can see it or not. If you are blind and cannot see something, it does not mean there is no evidence of it or it is not self evident, it means you are blind to it or unaware of it or simply ignoring it because you don't know what to look for and even if you were looking straight at it you would not see it, if you did not know what you were looking for. Many treasures in nature have been overlooked by people who were not aware of what to look for.
Sometimes people need to be taught what to look for before they can see it or discern it.
Can you tell the difference between a fake diamond and real one? The fake and real are self evident but unless you know what to look for you will be unable to discern between them, especially when they have been cut to look exactly the same on all outward appearances.

.
“Truth camouflages truth� sounds nonsensical. Kindly explain to readers what that means.

I am talking about camouflage in nature where the self evident stick insect which you can call Truth is hidden by the self evident tree which you can call truth which has self evident branches which you can call truth that look like the self evident stick insect which you can still call truth. The Truth of nature hiding Truth is about one reality hiding another reality. This process of nature can be perceived as camouflage or natures deceptions or natures protection, depending on what angle you are looking from.

That which is hidden or camouflaged is NOT evident.

It is to those who understand camouflage. Are a magicians tricks hidden or does he display them in full view of the audience? Some people understand how the tricks are done and others do not. The magician is not being deceitful but being truthful in creating an illusion which deceives and confuses those who do not understand the illusion.




------------------------------------------------------
***
The following has no bearing on the heading of this thread, however since it is asked here I will answer it here... any further questions about this need to be addressed on a new thread.

That is correct in casual conversation; however, in debate there are policies, practices, rules and guidelines that REQUIRE a member to substantiate their claims. See Forum Rule # 5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

Do you disagree with that Forum Rule?

I agreed to the rules when I joined. The challenge put to me had nothing to do with the thread heading. Am I obligated to reply to a challenge that has nothing to do with the thread topic?
See rules....
3. When you start a new topic in a debate subforum, it must state a clearly defined question(s) for debate.
4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread.

Who is obligated to begin the new topic, the challenger or the one who is being challenged?
This whole conversation about who is obligated to prove what, is also sidetracking from the heading of this debate. You really should have begun a new thread for it according to the rules and anyone who challenges something which brings up a different topic should have started a new thread for the challenge not challenged me on a thread which had nothing to do with the easter story. I am obligated to abide by the rules which tell us to stick to the topic on the heading of the thread and so are you. ( 4. Stay on the topic of debate.)

As far as I am aware. Truth is self evident and proves itself. It needs no other proof or explanation than its own existence.

***

------------------------------------------------

[Flail]

Skyangel wrote:

I am talking about camouflage in nature where the self evident stick insect which you can call Truth is hidden by the self evident tree which you can call truth which has self evident branches which you can call truth that look like the self evident stick insect which you can still call truth. The Truth of nature hiding Truth is about one reality hiding another reality. This process of nature can be perceived as camouflage or natures deceptions or natures protection, depending on what angle you are looking from.

It is to those who understand camouflage. Are a magicians tricks hidden or does he display them in full view of the audience? Some people understand how the tricks are done and others do not. The magician is not being deceitful but being truthful in creating an illusion which deceives and confuses those who do not understand the illusion.

"When my old barn blew down I could see the horizon."


------------------------------------------------------
***
The following has no bearing on the heading of this thread, however since it is asked here I will answer it here... any further questions about this need to be addressed on a new thread.

That is correct in casual conversation; however, in debate there are policies, practices, rules and guidelines that REQUIRE a member to substantiate their claims. See Forum Rule # 5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

Do you disagree with that Forum Rule?

I agreed to the rules when I joined. The challenge put to me had nothing to do with the thread heading. Am I obligated to reply to a challenge that has nothing to do with the thread topic?
See rules....
3. When you start a new topic in a debate subforum, it must state a clearly defined question(s) for debate.
4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread.

Who is obligated to begin the new topic, the challenger or the one who is being challenged?
This whole conversation about who is obligated to prove what, is also sidetracking from the heading of this debate. You really should have begun a new thread for it according to the rules and anyone who challenges something which brings up a different topic should have started a new thread for the challenge not challenged me on a thread which had nothing to do with the easter story. I am obligated to abide by the rules which tell us to stick to the topic on the heading of the thread and so are you. ( 4. Stay on the topic of debate.)

As far as I am aware. Truth is self evident and proves itself. It needs no other proof or explanation than its own existence.

***

------------------------------------------------[/quote]

[I AM ALL I AM]

------------------------------------------------------
***
The following has no bearing on the heading of this thread, however since it is asked here I will answer it here... any further questions about this need to be addressed on a new thread.

That is correct in casual conversation; however, in debate there are policies, practices, rules and guidelines that REQUIRE a member to substantiate their claims. See Forum Rule # 5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

Do you disagree with that Forum Rule?

I agreed to the rules when I joined. The challenge put to me had nothing to do with the thread heading. Am I obligated to reply to a challenge that has nothing to do with the thread topic?
See rules....
3. When you start a new topic in a debate subforum, it must state a clearly defined question(s) for debate.
4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread.

Who is obligated to begin the new topic, the challenger or the one who is being challenged?
This whole conversation about who is obligated to prove what, is also sidetracking from the heading of this debate. You really should have begun a new thread for it according to the rules and anyone who challenges something which brings up a different topic should have started a new thread for the challenge not challenged me on a thread which had nothing to do with the easter story. I am obligated to abide by the rules which tell us to stick to the topic on the heading of the thread and so are you. ( 4. Stay on the topic of debate.)

As far as I am aware. Truth is self evident and proves itself. It needs no other proof or explanation than its own existence.

***

------------------------------------------------

As you have made the claim "I figured out how scriptures which appear to be opposite and opposing, fit together like night and day, which although they are opposite do not contradict each other at all", would you please provide prof of your claim by showing how the contradictions in the text below "fit together like night and day" and "do not contradict each other" ?

Would a moderator please make a ruling on this issue ?

I ask for this ruling because I believe Skyangel to have avoided giving evidence for the claim that has been made. The challenge is in direct relationship with both the claim and the thread topic, which is being disputed by Skyangel, in what I believe, is an attempt to avoid supporting the claim made with direct evidence.

As the bible is the religious literature used to promote the christian god, any claim of reconciliation of the contradictions in it and a challenge to verify the claim made, directly relate to the thread topic of "Why do christians believe in god?". It is the bible text that christians directly learn about the god presented within it.

It is ingenious to suggest that it "has nothing to do with the thread topic".

Here is the claim in context from post #146 ...

The fact that I perceive the bible as the Truth in no way means I see it in the same way Christians do. Most christians still cannot explain or reconcile the apparent contradictions in the bible when asked to do so. That is why they do not impress me one bit.
Personally I do not have any problems with any apparent contradictions in it because I figured out how scriptures which appear to be opposite and opposing, fit together like night and day, which although they are opposite do not contradict each other at all.

[Flail]

Skyangel wrote:

According to the dictionary definition of Truth, http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=truth
Truth is...
* a fact that has been verified
* conformity to reality or actuality
* accuracy (the quality of being near to the true value)

What facts that have been verified and that accurately conform to reality do you proffer as evidence of God?

Skyangel wrote:

I am aware that some people cannot understand me, some people don't want to understand me, so they never will because they won't make any effort to do so, but some people do understand me, some do want to understand me and they will if they try. It all depends what "wavelength" you are on and whether or not you want to understand or not.

To whom in particular are you referring for your claims that 'some people cannot understand me',... 'some people don't want to understand me'?


Skyangel wrote:

Can you tell the difference between a fake diamond and real one? The fake and real are self evident but unless you know what to look for you will be unable to discern between them, especially when they have been cut to look exactly the same on all outward appearances.

Appearances are deceptive to the undiscerning...which is why credible,verifiable evidence should be required to support all 'truth claims', particularly those that defy 'known' or expected conditions...trees are known conditions..diamonds as fake are known conditions...but...supernatural 'gods' rising from the dead and books 'authored' by them are not known or expected conditions...and if no verifiable evidence is forthcoming from the claimant of such, and regardless of cries of 'self-evidence', it must assumed that we are indeed dealing with 'fake diamonds'.