Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

[Zzyzx]

.
Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?

This is NOT asking if you accept that he performed miracles or was supernatural – only that he existed, preached, was executed.

All are encouraged to explain why they do or do not accept



This thread / poll replaces an earlier one that was poorly worded.

Apologies to those who contributed to the previous thread (which is now in the Trash Can)

[For_The_Kingdom]

I know you need it to say what you understand as "taxes," but in Latin, tax and tithe are the same word.

Yeah, but do they share the same meaning?

But the problem is: Paying taxes to a god who isn't Yahweh is blasphemy.

The act of paying taxes/tithes as mandated by the ruling authority and TO the ruling authority has/had no religious significance whatsoever.

Not to mention the fact that the author of the book would have to be a complete dumbass to have Jesus advocating the payment of taxes to Caesar if such an act was idolatry or blasphemy to the Jewish God, who is ultimately his FATHER.

[For_The_Kingdom]

So you disbelieve the claim "nature exists"?

I know that is not what you meant, but look at how you worded your response to Blastcat. He says he has evidence that theists exist, but no evidence to support what the theists believe.

And I have evidence that naturalists exist, but no evidence tuo support what the naturalists believe. If you like it, I love it.

Then here you are apparently saying that likewise, you too have no evidence for what an atheist believes.

Good catch.

Where you're going wrong is that an atheist is NOT saying "There is no god".

Oh, but they used to say just that. It wasn't until the past few decades that the atheists realized the implications of saying such a thing, so they've softened their approach to it all.

The atheist is saying "I don't believe your god claims" (with your meaning whoever that atheist is talking to at the time). There is a distinct difference. You yourself are an atheist with respect to Hindus. You would say (I presume) "I don't believe your Hindu gods exist".

Point?

Now that is strange, since you are a human, are you not? How is it that as a human, as a flawed human with an imperfect understanding of reality, you can somehow calculate something as being 100% true? How is it you have managed to defeat hard solipsism?

Is there a such thing as absolute truths?

You promised us several MONTHS ago to create a thread about the KCA. Where is it? You said you were waiting on something, I recall, but you never divulged what.

I don't want to make excuses, but I am just not ready yet.

I take it you don't remember the dozens of ways your MOA was shredded?

LOL.

3. Argument from Consciousness
4. Argument from Entropy
5. Argument from Language

Perhaps you could create threads on each of these, but since you have yet to do your promised KCA, they would have to go into a queue.

As long as we are living, we have nothing but time.

As a sceptical atheist, I don't care at all what it is you are convinced of. A person saying to me "I am convinced of X" doesn't mean anything to me. At all. I am not exaggerating.

Cool.

I want to know your reasons. They are what interest me.

You sound like Blastcat.

You just gave a list of 6, but of those 6, you have only gone into detail on one (the MOA, and as I said, that was shredded six ways from Sunday).

LOLLLL. Stop it, will ya?

Then please, explain to me why it is I hear from many a Christian that they believe due to evidence that convinces them, but that their 'evidence' simply wouldn't work for me. i.e. they speak subjectively about God.

I want one-on-one conversations in REAL time.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 129 by For_The_Kingdom]

Do tax and tithe share the same meaning? in Latin they do, yes. What is the tax to a god? A tithe.
But that isn't really the point is it? The point is that Augustus was God. Tiberius claimed to be the son of God. This is printed on the coins expected in the tithe, holy coins, if you will.
The point is that Jesus would have given his famous speech, where he omitted the use of tithe in answering the question.

He was asked about a payment, and and instead of saying "pay the tax," he said "worship Caesar in the way Caesar wants to be worshiped, worship god how he wants to be worshiped." Because that is how Caesar wanted to be worshiped, don't you think? He was perfectly OK with you giving anything he didn't want to God. If a god wanted you to give them calfs or coins or anything, it is blasphemous to give that (false) god what they desire, isn't it?

The act of paying taxes/tithes as mandated by the ruling authority and TO the ruling authority has/had no religious significance whatsoever.

This is where you are wrong; again, imagine you are one of the people living in Jerusalem at the time, you would be a native or a Greek/Roman.
If you were Jewish, you would hear: Give to the Divine Caesar what is Caesars, give to god what is gods. You might have heard it outside a temple of Zeus. Are you going to tell me doing this doesn't violate commandments 1,2 & 4?

If you were a Roman, polytheist, would would find the advice very reasonable. Sacrifice doves to Venus for love, coins to Tiberius for water, winter food and protection, and lots and lots of money to Yahweh for his priests to tell you are a sinner.

Not to mention the fact that the author of the book would have to be a complete dumbass to have Jesus advocating the payment of taxes to Caesar if such an act was idolatry or blasphemy to the Jewish God, who is ultimately his FATHER.

Well, I keep pointing out to you that this little ruse didn't work on the Jews, that is why there was the famous insurrection, which was violently squashed, and ultimately the Jews were dispersed.
So, yes, it was a pretty dumb idea, but it worked really well on non-Jews, didn't it? Those with the same views you hold? Such as, it is OK to pay a tax to pagan god's son? Not being Jewish, they didn't see the conflict.

So, if we assume Jesus was a real person, a bad assumption given the evidence, this explains why the Jews killed him, he blasphemed. It also explains why the Romans washed their hands - doesn't it? If he were a Roman agent, for example, then they would have to disavow him.

In either event, Jesus, was false, and there is no way around it.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 130 by For_The_Kingdom]

Is there a such thing as absolute truths?

You didn't answer my question. You made the claim, in fact, let me requote it here so readers know exactly where I'm coming from...

Now, me personally, I believe the evidence for God (in general) is overwhelming and is 100% true.

You apparently have evidence for God (in general) that is 'overwhelming' and '100% true'.
To explain my point when I asked the questions before...we are humans with flawed, imperfect minds. We cannot know anything as 100% true. There is always, literally always, the possibility that what we believe, even if one is absolutely confident in it, is false.
For example, I believe quite strongly that the man who married my mother is my biological father. I'm quite confident in it, or to use your wording, it's 'overwhelming'. However, I could be mistaken. It could be that my mother slept with someone else (I don't know, I never asked them about their early lives, was never interested enough to ask).
Not only that, but I mentioned hard solipsism. Solipsism, to put it roughly, is the philosophical theory that the self is all that can be known to exist i.e. I think therefore I am, is the ONLY thing that can actually be 'known' for a fact, 100% true (because the logical opposite of that statement {I think not, therefore I am not} doesn't make sense, since in order to think that statement, you would have to be, to exist).
In philosophy, hard solipsism has NEVER been defeated (at least, not to my knowledge) and it is thought that hard solipsism can actually NEVER be defeated, that we can actually know for a fact that something other than the self exists.

Yet we have you saying that the existence of God (i.e. something other than the self) is '100% true'. Wow. So somehow you have managed to defeat hard solipsism.

So I will repeat my questions

Now that is strange, since you are a human, are you not? How is it that as a human, as a flawed human with an imperfect understanding of reality, you can somehow calculate something as being 100% true? How is it you have managed to defeat hard solipsism?


I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you never realised that hard solipsism is a barrier to claims of something being 100% true.

Now to answer your question

Is there a such thing as absolute truths?

I dunno. If there are absolute truths, we as humans can never know them, being the flawed creatures that we are. We can know certain things with a high degree of confidence, but we can never move away from the possibility of what we believe being false or mistaken in some way.
There are things that I believe in quite strongly, just like there are things that you believe in quite strongly, but unlike yourself, I do NOT assign that magic 100% number to them. There may be things that I can go as high as 99.999% but I will not move to 100%.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 128 by For_The_Kingdom]

!

[center]Double red herrings
Challenged accepted[/center]

It's great that you can change the subject like that. It would be greater if you actually addressed the QUESTION. But in any case, why don't I pursue that red herring?

It isn't a red herring, I was just drawing a parallel between the atheist/naturalist position towards my belief which is equivalent to my position towards their position.

Great subsequent red herring on top of the first red herring. I still wont be distracted.
I have noticed that you STILL have not replied to the question.

I've always been a bit easy to distract, after all.

Naturalism distraction:

Does one have to subscribe to naturalism in order to be an atheist?
I don't define myself as a "naturalist".

If naturalism is the view that "nature is all there is and there is nothing beyond it", and atheism is the view that "God/supernaturalism doesn't exist".

IF and IF
Hope you get your definitions agreed with.

I can agree with the first, but not the second.

Then yeah, one does have to subscribe in naturalism in order to be an atheist.

The terms defined that way, sure.
Good luck with trying to get people to agree with your two definitions.

I don't.

End of the distracting non sequitur.

It wasn't a non sequitur, because I specifically said "atheist/naturalist", and you already admitted that you are an atheist, so instead of focusing on the "naturalist" part, your focus SHOULD be on the term that applies DIRECTLY to you and your worldview, which is atheism.

4 wrongs do not a right make.

FIRSTLY I did admit to being an atheist. I also QUALIFIED that label, in a way that I think is pertinent and CRUCIAL. You seem to not have noticed. IF you recall, I call myself an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST.

It's an important distinction that I don't think you have considered.

SECONDLY.. and for heaven's sake.
Atheism is not a world view.

ATHEISM IS NOT A WORLDVIEW. THAT'S IN BOLD AND IN ALL CAPS.
And I explained why I do not consider naturalism a world view, either.

THIRDLY.... We were talking about what FACTS are available to defend the proposition that God exists. NOT about naturalism. So the leap from one subject to another like that is a non sequitur... it doesn't FOLLOW from one to the other, you see.

FOURTHLY, You seem to want to label ME. GO ahead and label ME any which way you like. I wont CARE about your label if you get it WRONG.

( maybe you should check with me? )

If you insist on being wrong, I will quickly lose interest. IF you DO have my position wrong, the BEST you can do is make up straw men about my positions.

But whats the point of that?

So, you say we cannot prove the historicity of Jesus with 100% certainty, and I would have to agree. IF you say that history can't give you 100% certainty of your religious beliefs, what DOES?

That is why I made a distinction between my theism (belief in God in general), and my Christian theism (belief in Christ). Even if I wasn't a Christian, I would still be a theist...because as I said, I believe with 100% certainty that there is an intelligent designer of the cosmos.

Ok, at best, you have NO IDEA about any characteristics of this intelligent designer. ( agnostic ) Why ASSUME it's a god at ALL?

Seems to me preposterously presumptuous.
A few quick questions about ID.....

What is your level of confidence that :

1. There IS a designer?
2. That it IS a "god"?
3. That this designer god is the god you happen to believe in?

Could the universe as we perceive it also possibly be the clever work of interdimentional beings of extraordinary technical abilities?
Couldn't we all be living in a Matrix, minds in vats.. controlled by robots from the future?
Could it be SATAN deceiving us all for his evil pleasure?

4. Have you ruled out all the other possible intelligent designers ( gods or no ) and HOW have you ruled them out?
5. How have you ruled out the possibility that NATURALISM is true?

It isn't until I examine the historical record of Jesus that I am lead to who/which intelligent designer it is. In other words, the historical record for Jesus actually puts a face to the intelligent designer.

You gave an 75% probability on the historicity for Jesus as a person, correct?
Right?

I give about ... 49% ... I'm skeptical.

What is your estimate for Jesus being GOD?
I give a small percent over ZERO. I'm very skeptical of there being any god.

How did you establish that probability?
I didn't arrive at the same likelihood, oddly enough.

Well, the flat agnostic approach would be a 50/50 (maybe the Resurrection is true, maybe it isn't) approach.

Agnostic means having 50?50 belief?
Who told you that?

I suggest that you a bit of research on what agnosticism means. I've heard this fallacious but common misconception of the word before. I even had that false idea about it for a while until actual agnostics corrected me.

But if you are willing to take my word for it, here is a quick definition you might find useful:

"Agnosticism is the belief that the nature and existence of gods is unknown and inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience. Technically, this position is strong agnosticism: in popular usage, an agnostic may just be someone who takes no position, pro or con, on the existence of gods, or who has not yet been able to decide, or who suspends judgment due to lack of evidence one way or the other (weak agnosticism).

"Agnosticism maintains that the nature and attributes of God are beyond the grasp of man's finite and limited mind. Agnostics generally claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God or gods, or that, while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. In both cases this involves some form of skepticism.

The earliest professed agnostic was Protagoras, although the term itself (from the Greek "agnosis" meaning "without knowledge") was not coined in English until the 1880s by T. H. Huxley.""

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_agnosticism.html

Agnostics, properly, either say that it's impossible to know about gods ( not my position ) or that they just don't happen to HAVE knowledge of gods. That second one is my position.. I don't currently have any knowledge of gods. And my agnosticism ( I started with agnosticism ) LEADS to atheism.

How can I say that I believe in something that I don't know anything ABOUT?

Atheism.. not having a belief in god.
Agnosticism .. not having knowledge of god.

I'm both agnostic and atheistic.

I don't have any knowledge OR belief in any gods.
Hence, I'm an agnostic atheist, to be precise.

Atheist for short.

But since I am well beyond the maybe/maybe not approach, I will estimate my certainty to be around the 75% -80%, with any arguments against the Resurrection given a fair 20%-25% of being true.

You are nothing if not fair.
I don't know what you mean by "maybe/maybe not approach." So, I don't use it. ( knowingly, anyway )

I base my 75%-80% certainty on the totality of everything that has to do with Christianity...from the history, the doctrine, the Bible, and personal experience.

Ok, I base my 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% on the same data.

Odd, don't you think?
How do you account for such a big difference?

I give the probability of it being false a fair 20%-25% based on a few decent arguments against all of the things that were previously mentioned in FAVOR of Christianity.

So, I think that is a fair/honest approach to it all.

It all makes mathematical sense, anyway.

You have arrived at what you think is a fair assessment.
Good. Me too.

How do you account for the vast difference in our conclusions?

That's an absolute certainty, isn't it?
Not a shred of a reasonable doubt possible?

Sure, coming from a guy who, in a previously post stated he was 99.999999999 % convinced of his atheism. LOL.

But no, no shred of doubt.

See, you say LOL.. but I DO have a shred of a doubt.
I'm a skeptic. That's what skeptics do.. they doubt.

What is your approach to knowledge?

Someone here has SHUT the door to knowledge completely, ( about ID anyway ) and the other has left a itsy bitsy CRACK open about the god hypothesis.

Care to speculate which is which?

That evidence is overwhelming to you.. got that.
So far, all the evidence I have been given for any gods at all has NOT been overwhelming to moi.. ( French for "me" oh yes, I'm a world traveler )

I'd say it's almost NON-EXISTENT.

Then that is to ignore the evidence.

WHAT EVIDENCE?

When I don't SEE any evidence, I say that it's ALMOST non-existent.
If I would SEE some evidence, then I would say that it IS existent.

How can it be said that I ignore something when I can't SEE it?

Please, I've been asking you for FACTS.
Remember that?

I am LOOKING for the evidence, I am asking for the evidence, I am PLEADING you for the evidence. I keep not GETTING the evidence. I do not SEE any evidence.

Where are the facts?

Ok, I guess my figure would be lower than 50%... a fail, in my estimation.
But so far, your certainty should not be MORE than 75%. Right?

Between 75-80 %....

Fine. How about we split the difference and make it 78%?
Does that new estimate make your beliefs TRUE?

Would that be in your unbiased OPINION , or theirs or of some outsider to both?

I guess we all have our biases.

I think it's safe to say that we are all fallible.
What are your biases?

I say that I don't know if there is a god and that therefore, I can't believe there is one. What do you consider the above assertion says what my biases are, exactly?

You aren't the only one who has tried imputing confirmation bias or dogmatic atheism onto me. I always wonder why they do that?

I wonder why you would?

I give all other religions historical claims about the same probability as yours.. less than 50%.

I give their supernatural god claims even less. I give all supernatural claims a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% probability of being true until further notice. If there are any FACTS about the supernatural, I will revise that estimate way UP.

( I don't put an outright ZERO probability, because I don't believe in absolutes, I think it's important to keep an open mind about serious matters )

You call 0.0000000000000-->1% an open mind? LOLLLL.

If it aint closed, it's open.

It's more than zero. Some people have zero doubt.
Be careful what you lol at.
Irony is a harsh mistress.

If you aren't a skeptic, then what is your approach to knowledge?

I don't question the validity of your subjective feelings or opinions. I DO question the validity of any OBJECTIVE claim about your god beliefs. You can make a good case... again, it would be good in whose estimation, your own. I have listened to a lot of God cases.. I don't arrive at the same likelihood for gods or the supernatural anything.

Odd, don't you think?
Kinda makes of me an atheist.

Well, my belief that Jesus is the Messiah and redeemed mankind from the wrath of God, and by believing in him we have eternal life....kinda makes me a Christian.

Cool.
You believe this on what facts?

Right, that yummy subjective goodness IS good for you, isn't it? No dispute there.
That's what I was talking about.

Your evidence is NOT objective for everyone. but subjective to the PERSON in this case, for YOU.. it's good enough for YOU, no question. I agree completely.

Actually, no, it isn't subjective.

So, your god belief is objectively true for everyone?
How come I don't think so? I'm a part of "everyone".

I think you should revise your estimation of having objective truth about gods down a bit. Especially when you stated that your evidence was good enough for YOU.

When it comes to ice cream, chocolate is good enough for me. But is it good enough for EVERYONE? ... objectively, they do seem to sell other flavors.

( BTW, I changed ice cream religions.. I used to worship Rocky Road )

The argument that I can make for a first cause is objective, with no possible way to be otherwise.

Such confidence you display!
Does your confidence guarantee the truth of your beliefs?

But then again, I think that you are struggling a bit with the word "objective". I think you mean "valid", which is not the same as "objective".

When it comes to discussing religious beliefs and other complex topics, words are important.

Despite this, there are those that still won't believe....but the evidence itself is objective and cannot be disputed by any reasonable person.

By your measure, I mustn't be a very reasonable person.

Please, refrain from ad hominem.
It does nothing to advance your position, but rather, diminishes it substantially.

I will be convinced by a sound argument.
And I will be corrected if need be.

That's how I learn.
So, if I am wrong, help me out.

Don't imply that I disagree because of some character flaw.
Blastcat no like.

Now, the belief in Christianity, sure, is subjective.

Ok.
Case closed then.

Your belief in Christianity is not objectively true.
Christianity is subjectively anything that you desire it to be.

Beliefs vs. true beliefs.
You have a belief.

It's not an objectively true belief, but an subjectively true belief.
That's like your preference for ice cream flavors. Subjective to YOU.

You might prefer chocolate over vanilla.
Your choice would be true FOR YOU.

Not necessarily for everyone else.
I can't debate your preferences.

Like what you wanna like.

I COULD, however, debate your generic Intelligent Designer god concept.. whatever that is. You seem 100% certain THAT'S objectively true.

You must have facts for what you claim is 100% true.
I'm still a bit skeptical.

But an objective belief is at least debatable.. your subjective belief in Christianity is not.

But are your beliefs based on evidence that is good enough for OTHERS?

The belief in theism SHOULD be good enough for others.

Could you elaborate on why should it be?

I am convinced that it isn't about the evidence, or lack of evidence...some people just don't want/like the idea of a God...point blank, period.

Is conviction a guarantee of the truth?

But about being antithetical towards GOD..

I might not like the IDEA of poison ice cream, but I think it would be good to FIND OUT about it. I might not like the idea of god ( not a big fan of the biblical god, by the way ) But that's what makes it important for me to find OUT...

Curious people wanna know.

Hating something might be a better reason for some to go out and do their best to find out if it's true or not. Really hating god might be the best reason.. I don't really see how an antipathy towards what we are investigating ( like grrrrrrr the zika virus ) means that we wont do our best to be objective in our quest for knowledge.

Do you?

So, if you don't want/like the idea of a God, then of course no evidence would be good enough for you.

I guess that's true.
People who are CLOSED minded wont be OPEN minded.

BUT, fortunately, you have found someone who is at least going to have a LITTLE bit of opening.. focus on that opening. That teeny itsy bitsy opening. It's there, and it's open, that small opening. That's why I call it an opening.

That opening will widen if FACTS are inserted.

If it's ONLY true in a subjective way, then it's like your preference for ice cream flavors. I don't really CARE if you prefer one flavor over another.. but one thing I DO care about is.. IS THE ICE CREAM REALLY THERE?

I get your point about the ice cream...and yes, the ice cream is OBJECTIVELY there.

Ok good. It's always a great moment when a theist and an atheist can agree.
I'm going to stretch that metaphor REALLY thin now.... Hold on to something.

Some ice cream is really there, and some isn't really there.
Some people ARE delusional or lying or lying delusionally. OR.. just honestly mistaken. OR being duped.

Some people right now might be buying ice cream online ( ? ) and are being duped.
Admittedly, these would be VERY gullible people.

The existence of claimed ice cream has to be VERIFIED.. yes?
What are the FACTS?

I take the existence of chocolate ice cream VERY seriously.
There is NONE in my freezer right now.. and I find that rather disturbing.

AS TO GOD:

Ok, where is this GOD.. creator god, first cause, ID.. who, where, why.. what are the FACTS?

Like ice cream, the existence of claimed gods has to be VERIFIED.. yes?
What are the FACTS?

Well, first off, I'm sorry to say that arguments are not FACTS.
And the conclusions to these arguments are hotly CONTESTED.

Someone can contest anything. The question is; is there any objection(s) that will undermine any of the arguments. No, there isn't.

Certain about that too, are we?
Got to hand it to you.. you sure are CERTAIN about a lot of things.

I wonder why you bother asking a question that you already seem to have the answer to? One of the best ways to preserve a belief is to NOT question it. So, good for you if preserving your belief is your intention.

Facts are not so hotly contested... that's why we call them facts. The "truth value" of these fine arguments are DEBATABLE.. and not facts that everyone agrees is true.

Each premise of the argument are facts. The problem is, again; people can/will systematically reject anything.

Another problem is that SOME people can/will systematically accept anything that seems to support their conclusion. I would amend your statement to make it more likely true thus: "Each premise of the argument are CLAIMED to be facts."

The truth of the premises of these arguments is contested.

We should find a way to agree on what IS a fact and not just an opinion.
There are mechanisms for that.

A methodology, if you will.
Welcome to Critical Thinking 101

Remember that my definition for FACT is "A thing that is known or proved to be true."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fact

Let me know if you have a better definition than that one.. I'm not claiming definitional perfection.

Lets just say I can prove all premises of the arguments true, so based on what I can do and the actual REQUIREMENT of what I must do (by definition), I would call that a fact.

If you could do that.. I would consider theism, for sure.

HOWEVER,

I would call a fact something that most people consider true. It's no good calling something a fact if many people do NOT consider it true. For example, I did my BEST to find a way to accept the premises to all the arguments you have listed except for the language argument, which as I have said, never encountered.

I didn't find a way.
So I could only agree the the arguments for god's existence are logical valid at times.
Never could I say that they were sound.

A valid argument has to follow the rules of logic, but doesn't have to be TRUE.
A sound argument is logical valid AND the premises are all true. And that's where all the arguments come to die for me.. they don't prove what they set out to. They only prove a POSSIBLE truth not a necessary one.

Well, Santa is a possibility, and so is the Loch Ness Monster.
I don't waste a lot of time with arguments for what can be POSSIBLY true.

I want to believe in TRUE things.. not anything else.

That little speech might have saved you a bit of time.
But if you are willing to take a go at proving that your premises are true, be my guest.

I suggest that you pick the best argument, and focus on the TRUTH value of the premises. If your opponent cannot accept one of your premises as true.. then you cannot say that your conclusion has been demonstrated to be sound.

And there is the rub with these apologetic arguments. No outsider seems to AGREE that the premises to these arguments ARE true. So, these arguments can ONLY ever hope to convince theists. But theists believe in God already. It don't do a THING to convince an outsider.

AT LEAST SO FAR.. maybe you can do better.
A one on one with you will change my life, apparently.

How can I say no to that?

( By the way, I am not aware of the 5th argument. It doesn't seem that it's a biggy, so, I'm thinking it's not a goody )

No one heard of the kalam argument, until it was formulated LOL.

Hey, maybe the argument from language IS the best argument ever.
I just never heard of it.

Odd, because I am SO interested in these kinds of arguments. Musta missed that important one.

That's skepticism 101

I would dispute the reasoning that leads you to your conviction... and dispute that you have facts that support the reasoning. I would ask you how are your beliefs TRUE ones, and not just beliefs.

They are true.

Is an assertion of the truth a guarantee of the truth?

I told you, agree to have a one-on-one IM chat with me, and you will be a theists in no time.

Ahhh your wonderfully amusing bravado.
It's quite charming.

How long is "no time"?
But I agree to a one on one debate.

PERSONALLY?

You mean subjectively compelling to me personally? Who cares about my personal tastes? My taste is inconsequential.

Facts are facts.

Bro, the entire genre of history is based completely on subjectivity.

Great, super, fine.
Now what?


CHOCOLATE is the best flavor

That assessment is completely based on subjectivity.
Convinced about chocolate being the best flavor now?

I said I need OBJECTIVE evidence, that would be TRUE for most people, and not just the believers, and NOT JUST the non-believers. True for ALL people.. like all people think that "the wind blows" is a true proposition.. or that "birds fly" is true.

That's the kind of OBJECTIVE facts that I am asking for.

Ok, so do you subjectively believe that George Washington existed, or objectively believe that George Washington existed?

I have no idea how you are using the words "subjectively" or "objectively" .
Could you clarify?

But for the record I give the probability of George Washington having existed as being HIGH.

If you subjectively believe, then you have a believe based on history that you have no problem subjectively believing.

No idea what that means.
Sorry.

Subjectively believe?
I don't think I objectively OR subjectively believe anything.

I believe lots of things.
But I don't know what you mean by subjectively or objectively.

So I would ask, what is the difference between that subjective belief, and the belief in Jesus? Is this a double standard?

I'd like to answer your question, but it's incomprehensible.
Sorry.

If you objectively believe, then I will ask how do you know if the story of GW was concocted by or for whatever reasons (I could come up with anything).

Again, no idea whatsoever.
I don't like to guess.

If this is an important point, please make it more comprehensible.

I don't like to guess, but I will... ( don't fault me if I guess wrong )

The story of GW could have been partly concocted, I'm ok with that, politics are part fiction, after all. ALL concocted is a bit of a stretch. I'd ask for facts supporting the theory. I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it if there wasn't any facts from the conspiracy theorists, though.

But, facts are facts.
Some conspiracies ARE real.

My point is, you have subjective beliefs about a lot of things that you have absolutely no problem with believing...but once it comes to religion, oh, it is time to be a super-skeptic?

It's a subjective truth about me that chocolate ice cream is best. It's an objective FACT about me that I have this subjective truth about me.

Does that mean that chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream for EVERYONE?
The way that I use "subjective" I mean to say that it's good for ME.. but not necessarily for anyone else.

I still don't think you have much appreciation for what the terms "subjective" and "objective" mean.

Not only that, but we do have objective reasons for believing in God, anyway.

The way you use that term, I am HIGHLY doubtful that you do.
( and I would prefer if you talked about YOURSELF, as some Christians might not agree with what you say.. save yourself the embarrassment of including everyone and be WRONG )

But observable facts. I don't question that people have feelings. I DO question when someone has feelings about something for which I have NO evidence for. I look at what they look at and don't SEE what they claim to be seeing.

On what observable facts are you basing your subjective beliefs?

I don't categorize any of my beliefs as subjective. ( at least not that I'm aware of )

Maybe you mean subjective experience or subjective truth.

So, what are the facts about my taste?

I can poll my feelings.
Do I like chocolate ice cream?
YEP, I do.
Case closed.

Got my empirical evidence.
That I prefer chocolate ice cream is a FACT.

( probably not at all a permanent fact, so check in later )

I don't doubt for a MINUTE that you believe.. I doubt that what you believe is TRUE.

Do you see the difference?

Do you need observable facts for abiogenesis?

Yes, of course, if I say I believe in abiogenesis, I had better have facts.

Are you perhaps imagining that I somehow BELIEVE in the objective truth of abiogenesis? I don't have FACTS...

I have inferences about abiogenesis. And THOSE are not facts.
I told you about how I believe... I require FACTS.

So, what do you imagine my position on the TRUTH of abiogenesis to be?

Can you guess?



However, I did notice that you have managed to reply to my question without actually answering it.

So, the question remains:
Do you comprehend the distinction I was trying to make?
YES or NO?

( by the way, I am MUCH better with a one-on-one, face to face discussion than I am in writing ) It's sad because around here.. there are few Christians or other kinds of theists willing to debate their lovely beliefs. )

Profess, yes, all the time, debate... hardly ever.

This is what I do!!

Profess or debate?
I'm having a bit of trouble figuring that out right now.

But I have accepted your challenge.
Debate with you, and I will be a theist in NO TIME...

I say go for it.

I think you got the wrong guy. The question of "what is truth" isn't exactly my cup of tea, so I doubt I would have ever agreed to such a thing.

FACTS, I need FACTS..
Let me look at the facts here for a sec...........

OH you are quite right.
I mistook you for someone else.

Sorry, forget the stupid allusions to that other debate then.

SORRY.

If you want a debate with me about something off topic, I suggest that you create a new thread. And we can discuss it in PUBLIC.

What do you mean off topic? It will be about some of the same stuff we are talking about now.

Well, this thread is ACTUALLY supposed to be about if Jesus existed. We are already way off the topic.

But be warned. My interest is about true beliefs.
I couldn't care less for false ones.

For once, I'd like to have a private/public one-on-one discussion with someone in REAL TIME. Above, you mentioned the fact that most Christians don't want to debate, at least in your experience.

Sure, I can do that. I really did have you confused with someone else.
That other and I had a TIME of it.. I can assure you.

Didn't at all work out.

You are someone else with a nickname.. that is somewhat similar.

Well, in my experience, most unbelievers don't want to have REAL time discussions. Why?

No idea.
I rather love one on one.. but in person is best.
Text has its problems.

I'm game for a one on one with you.
Id still rather have witnesses... I like feedback, you see.

I want a real time discussion with someone, preferably via IM. We can do voice chat or video chat, whatever.

Accepted.
PM me in here for starters.

Now, I already told you that I wasn't the person that you had the unpleasant experience with, so it shouldn't be any excuses.

TRUE !! You got me THIS time !!
And I thought it was such a GOOD excuse, too !!

But the Blastcat wont be held for long, so enjoy this victory whilst thee canst.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 130 by For_The_Kingdom]

!

[center]Blastcat, the real thing[/center]

So you disbelieve the claim "nature exists"?

I know that is not what you meant, but look at how you worded your response to Blastcat. He says he has evidence that theists exist, but no evidence to support what the theists believe.

And I have evidence that naturalists exist, but no evidence tuo support what the naturalists believe. If you like it, I love it.

I love it too.
I think that my reasoning is SO good at times...
So TASTY good .... it's the real thing.

Then here you are apparently saying that likewise, you too have no evidence for what an atheist believes.

Good catch.

Hmmm atheists BELIEVE?

Where you're going wrong is that an atheist is NOT saying "There is no god".

Oh, but they used to say just that.

Maybe you should go in the past and debate them?

It wasn't until the past few decades that the atheists realized the implications of saying such a thing, so they've softened their approach to it all.

I'd say clarify and elaborate on what they meant.
We live, we learn.

I've changed my position on the existence of gods a LOT.. from full blown loving theist to full blown hard core "hatheist".

I wonder what that means about the position.. it changed, so therefore it's wrong?

Now that is strange, since you are a human, are you not? How is it that as a human, as a flawed human with an imperfect understanding of reality, you can somehow calculate something as being 100% true? How is it you have managed to defeat hard solipsism?

Is there a such thing as absolute truths?

If you say that you believe something is 100% true, you are saying you believe in it absolutely.

100% is about as absolute as we can get, right?

I think that you mentioned that you believe in a god 100%
Was that you?

You promised us several MONTHS ago to create a thread about the KCA. Where is it? You said you were waiting on something, I recall, but you never divulged what.

I don't want to make excuses, but I am just not ready yet.

We await with anticipation.

I take it you don't remember the dozens of ways your MOA was shredded?

LOL.

We might take that LOL for a YES, you know.

3. Argument from Consciousness
4. Argument from Entropy
5. Argument from Language

Perhaps you could create threads on each of these, but since you have yet to do your promised KCA, they would have to go into a queue.

As long as we are living, we have nothing but time.

Time to consider people who promise without delivering the goods as "BLUFFERS".

As a sceptical atheist, I don't care at all what it is you are convinced of. A person saying to me "I am convinced of X" doesn't mean anything to me. At all. I am not exaggerating.

Cool.

Cool back.

I want to know your reasons. They are what interest me.

You sound like Blastcat.

No, I sound like Blastcat.
He might be a wanna be Blastcat.

( tasty, but not THAT tasty )

You just gave a list of 6, but of those 6, you have only gone into detail on one (the MOA, and as I said, that was shredded six ways from Sunday).

LOLLLL. Stop it, will ya?

We did stop it, remember?

Then please, explain to me why it is I hear from many a Christian that they believe due to evidence that convinces them, but that their 'evidence' simply wouldn't work for me. i.e. they speak subjectively about God.

I want one-on-one conversations in REAL time.

YES SIR !!!
Hop to it, riku.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 130 by For_The_Kingdom]

I want one-on-one conversations in REAL time.

I'm just curious, what point do you think you can make in real time that you can't via these posts. Are you hoping to corner someone live and show you have quicker wit? It would probably work with me. I'm not that fast on my feet in live conversation.

I personally prefer non real time for debates. It allows time to think, research, and cool off if the conversation is getting heated. Just my personal opinion of course.

If you do manage to convince someone to have a real time discussion, I hope one or both of you will report on the outcome. It looks like blastcat might be interested. I guess we'll know if the chat was successful if the rocket propelled cat avatar grows angel wings and a halo

[Talishi]

[Replying to post 130 by For_The_Kingdom]

I want one-on-one conversations in REAL time.

I'm just curious, what point do you think you can make in real time that you can't via these posts. Are you hoping to corner someone live and show you have quicker wit? It would probably work with me. I'm not that fast on my feet in live conversation.

I'm game for it. I've a battle-hardened veteran of bible chatrooms on IRC since 1996, where you thump the Bible by invoking a bot. I'll see your Ephesians 2:8-9 and raise James 2:14!

[For_The_Kingdom]

Great subsequent red herring on top of the first red herring. I still wont be distracted.

Actually, the red herring is the fact that you are making this an issue, when really, it isn't.

I have noticed that you STILL have not replied to the question.

What question?

The terms defined that way, sure.
Good luck with trying to get people to agree with your two definitions.

I don't.

That's ok, because you had already defined the definition of naturalism as it is defined in philosophical circles, and that is the definition that most atheists adhere to, and that is the one that I oppose.

Now, if you don't don't hold to that definition as your personal worldview, then you should be glad that you don't a concept that is absurd as naturalism.

End of the distracting non sequitur.

4 wrongs do not a right make.

FIRSTLY I did admit to being an atheist. I also QUALIFIED that label, in a way that I think is pertinent and CRUCIAL. You seem to not have noticed. IF you recall, I call myself an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST. It's an important distinction that I don't think you have considered.

On judgement day, there won't be a distinction between an atheist and a agnostic. The distinctions are completely irrelevant, either you are a follower of Christ, or you aren't.

Plain and simple.

SECONDLY.. and for heaven's sake.
Atheism is not a world view.

ATHEISM IS NOT A WORLDVIEW. THAT'S IN BOLD AND IN ALL CAPS.
And I explained why I do not consider naturalism a world view, either.

Hey, you can call it whatever suits your fancy.

THIRDLY.... We were talking about what FACTS are available to defend the proposition that God exists. NOT about naturalism. So the leap from one subject to another like that is a non sequitur... it doesn't FOLLOW from one to the other, you see.

Well, my thing is to give arguments for the existence of God while also attacking the opposing view, which is of course, against the existence of God.

Kinda like the martial art, Wing Chun. You block/deflect an attack while simultaneously attacking the attacker...like walking and chewing gum at the same time.

If your belief/worldview is worth a damn, you should welcome the concept, which is DEFENDING YOUR SHIT

FOURTHLY, You seem to want to label ME. GO ahead and label ME any which way you like. I wont CARE about your label if you get it WRONG.

( maybe you should check with me? )

If you insist on being wrong, I will quickly lose interest. IF you DO have my position wrong, the BEST you can do is make up straw men about my positions.

But whats the point of that?

Bro, as I said before...either you accept Jesus Christ, or you don't. Now, if I had you wrong about which kind of atheist your are or whatever, I apologize.

But you all look the same to me...unbelief is unbelief. The atheist is no different than the Hindu. The naturalist is no difference than the Buddhist. The materialist is no different than the Muslim.

You are all the same...you are not accepting of Jesus Christ.

Ok, at best, you have NO IDEA about any characteristics of this intelligent designer. ( agnostic ) Why ASSUME it's a god at ALL?

Actually, I do have an idea. Again, back to the arguments...if the kalam argument is true, then this intelligent designer is obviously able to create from nothing. That lets us know that this designer is extremely powerful. That is a characteristic right there. Need I say more?

Seems to me preposterously presumptuous.
A few quick questions about ID.....

What is your level of confidence that :

1. There IS a designer?
2. That it IS a "god"?

What part of 100% didn't you understand?:)

3. That this designer god is the god you happen to believe in?

About 175% out of a possible 200%.

Could the universe as we perceive it also possibly be the clever work of interdimentional beings of extraordinary technical abilities?

These beings would have had to be able to create from nothing (according to the soundness/validity of the kalam cosmological argument), and if that is the case, then these beings would be what we'd call....gods.

Couldn't we all be living in a Matrix, minds in vats.. controlled by robots from the future?

Sure, then these robots would have to be...gods. Geez, Blastcat, you are doing the same thing that certain posters were doing in the MOA thread.

All you are doing is stripping the traditional "god" of his characteristics, and applying it to other "beings"...but if you do that, those other beings would be...god(s)....which is the same as saying "what if it isn't your god, what if it is some other god(s)?"

Well, even if that was the case, that would undercut your position, wouldn't it?

Could it be SATAN deceiving us all for his evil pleasure?

Could be. But what reasons do we have to believe this to be true?

5. How have you ruled out the possibility that NATURALISM is true?

Naturalism is impossible and self refuting.

You gave an 75% probability on the historicity for Jesus as a person, correct?
Right?

I give about ... 49% ... I'm skeptical.

Oh, for Jesus being a person, historically speaking? I would give that a 90%.

What is your estimate for Jesus being GOD?

Also about 90%.

I give a small percent over ZERO. I'm very skeptical of there being any god.

Staying true, I see.

Agnostic means having 50?50 belief?
Who told you that?

I suggest that you a bit of research on what agnosticism means. I've heard this fallacious but common misconception of the word before. I even had that false idea about it for a while until actual agnostics corrected me.

But if you are willing to take my word for it, here is a quick definition you might find useful:

"Agnosticism is the belief that the nature and existence of gods is unknown and inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience. Technically, this position is strong agnosticism: in popular usage, an agnostic may just be someone who takes no position, pro or con, on the existence of gods, or who has not yet been able to decide, or who suspends judgment due to lack of evidence one way or the other (weak agnosticism).

"Agnosticism maintains that the nature and attributes of God are beyond the grasp of man's finite and limited mind. Agnostics generally claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God or gods, or that, while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. In both cases this involves some form of skepticism.

The earliest professed agnostic was Protagoras, although the term itself (from the Greek "agnosis" meaning "without knowledge") was not coined in English until the 1880s by T. H. Huxley.""

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_agnosticism.html

Even with that definition above, it seems to me that if agnosticism is the idea that "god is beyond the grasp of man's finite and limited mind", that strikes me as "maybe he does, maybe he doesn't".

But heyyy, what do I know.

How can I say that I believe in something that I don't know anything ABOUT?
Atheism.. not having a belief in god.
Agnosticism .. not having knowledge of god.

I'm both agnostic and atheistic.

I don't have any knowledge OR belief in any gods.
Hence, I'm an agnostic atheist, to be precise.

Atheist for short.

You could just kill 2 birds with one stone and just say "I am an unbeliever".

You are nothing if not fair.
I don't know what you mean by "maybe/maybe not approach." So, I don't use it. ( knowingly, anyway )

*Maybe God does exist /maybe he doesn't.*

Ok, I base my 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% on the same data.

Odd, don't you think?
How do you account for such a big difference?

You don't feel as strongly about the data as I do, apparently.

It all makes mathematical sense, anyway.

You have arrived at what you think is a fair assessment.
Good. Me too.

How do you account for the vast difference in our conclusions?

I dunno.

That's an absolute certainty, isn't it?
Not a shred of a reasonable doubt possible?

See, you say LOL.. but I DO have a shred of a doubt.
I'm a skeptic. That's what skeptics do.. they doubt.

I doubt too...other religions.

What is your approach to knowledge?

Critical thinking...open mindedness...common sense...logical reasoning....experimentation...stuff like that.

Someone here has SHUT the door to knowledge completely, ( about ID anyway ) and the other has left a itsy bitsy CRACK open about the god hypothesis.

Care to speculate which is which?

Nope.

WHAT EVIDENCE?

When I don't SEE any evidence, I say that it's ALMOST non-existent.
If I would SEE some evidence, then I would say that it IS existent.

How can it be said that I ignore something when I can't SEE it?

Do you want to see it, is the question.

Please, I've been asking you for FACTS.
Remember that?

I am LOOKING for the evidence, I am asking for the evidence, I am PLEADING you for the evidence. I keep not GETTING the evidence. I do not SEE any evidence.

Where are the facts?

Well, the simple approach is...simple LOL. All I have to do is lay one simple fact on you...and it goes a little something like this..

The Universe (all physical reality) Could Not Have Existed for Past Eternity.

Now, that is a direct, straight forward approach...a fast fact, if you will. Now, if/since such a proposition is TRUE..based on the nature of the proposition, that would make it a necessary truth, which means that its negation is necessarily false.

Thus, concluding that the universe necessarily finite in its existence, and began to exist at some point in the finite past.

Ahh, that was easy. Now of course, there is more to it than this, but what you have is the foundation, the framework for the fact(s) that you've been harping about.

That, my friend, is a fact.

Fine. How about we split the difference and make it 78%?
Does that new estimate make your beliefs TRUE?

No, but it is enough for me to put all of my eggs into the Christian basket.

I think it's safe to say that we are all fallible.
What are your biases?

My biases are mainly against other religions.

I say that I don't know if there is a god and that therefore, I can't believe there is one. What do you consider the above assertion says what my biases are, exactly? [/quote]

Maybe biases wasn't the right word to use.

You aren't the only one who has tried imputing confirmation bias or dogmatic atheism onto me. I always wonder why they do that?

I wonder why you would?

I think what I was trying to say is, you are an unbeliever because you don't want theism to be true. I don't think it is a matter of evidence, it is a matter of people not wanting/liking the mere idea of a Cosmic creator, especially one that holds people accountable for their actions.

This is of course my opinion.

If it aint closed, it's open.

It's more than zero. Some people have zero doubt.
Be careful what you lol at.
Irony is a harsh mistress.

Bruh, of course it is more than zero, but a penny in your bank account and no money in your bank account is about as close as you can get. You can't even give theism a solid 1%, yet you claim this is open mindedness?

LOL.

Kinda reminds me of that episode of Coach where Coach Hayden is rebuking his assistant coach for not being very optimistic about their team winning the game...it went a little something like this (paraphrasing).

Coach Hayden: You didn't think that your prediction of us losing 27-3 would be considered negative?

Assistant: I thought we would lose 27-0, I only threw in the "3" to be positive.

It seems like to me you are the assistant with your "I don't think that God exists at all, I only threw in the .00000000--->1% to be open minded".

LOL.

So, your god belief is objectively true for everyone?
How come I don't think so? I'm a part of "everyone".

I think you should revise your estimation of having objective truth about gods down a bit. Especially when you stated that your evidence was good enough for YOU.

When it comes to ice cream, chocolate is good enough for me. But is it good enough for EVERYONE? ... objectively, they do seem to sell other flavors.

( BTW, I changed ice cream religions.. I used to worship Rocky Road )

Bro, sure, the evidence is good enough for me...but I don't believe that most unbelievers are non-believers based upon the evidence (as I mentioned previously). It isn't about the evidence, it is about the idea of God and most unbelievers not wanting such a being to exist.

Again, my opinion.

Such confidence you display!
Does your confidence guarantee the truth of your beliefs?

As long as the premises are and remain true, yup.

But then again, I think that you are struggling a bit with the word "objective". I think you mean "valid", which is not the same as "objective".

When it comes to discussing religious beliefs and other complex topics, words are important.

No, I am not struggling with anything, sir. The arguments that I defend are all logically sound/valid....and the mere existence of God is objectively true, meaning that the truth value of the proposition will stand regardless of what individual minds "think".

By your measure, I mustn't be a very reasonable person.

Then you must not be.

Please, refrain from ad hominem.

No, a ad hominem would be something like the Bible saying that only a FOOL says in his heart there is no god. (Ps 14:1)

I merely stated that it takes an unreasonable person to reject the idea of a Cosmic Creator, considering all of the evidence there is for one.

No one is attacking you personally, so no need to get caught in your feelings here.

It does nothing to advance your position, but rather, diminishes it substantially.

Mannn please, my position is already advanced and elevated, sir.

I will be convinced by a sound argument.
And I will be corrected if need be.

That's how I learn.
So, if I am wrong, help me out.

I already told you what to do...holla at me on IM.

Ok.
Case closed then.

Your belief in Christianity is not objectively true.
Christianity is subjectively anything that you desire it to be.

Beliefs vs. true beliefs.
You have a belief.

It's not an objectively true belief, but an subjectively true belief.
That's like your preference for ice cream flavors. Subjective to YOU.

You might prefer chocolate over vanilla.
Your choice would be true FOR YOU.

Not necessarily for everyone else.
I can't debate your preferences.

Like what you wanna like.

I don't know why you make it seem as if the fact that my belief in Jesus is subjective, as if the fact that it is subjective makes it an end-all/be-all situation.

Of course you don't think that, do you? If you do, then how about just flushing the entire genre of history down the toilet, then.

I COULD, however, debate your generic Intelligent Designer god concept.. whatever that is. You seem 100% certain THAT'S objectively true.

You must have facts for what you claim is 100% true.
I'm still a bit skeptical.

Again, I told you what to do..IM. Real time. You act as if you are so open to having a discussion and whatever...well, lets have a discussion in real time, and I will drop some gems on you.

But an objective belief is at least debatable.. your subjective belief in Christianity is not.

Um, yes it is, otherwise there wouldn't be any debates that have taken place on college campuses, scholarly journals, books, etc...on the very subject of Jesus and Christianity.

I don't know where you are getting your standards from regarding these kinds of things...but they could use some touching up.

Could you elaborate on why should it be?

Because all necessary truths that can be proven to be necessarily true should be believed by EVERYONE.

I might not like the IDEA of poison ice cream, but I think it would be good to FIND OUT about it. I might not like the idea of god ( not a big fan of the biblical god, by the way ) But that's what makes it important for me to find OUT...

Curious people wanna know.

I think unbelievers know deep down inside that God exists...but they don't want him too...so they spend their time in forums like this trying to convince themselves that God doesn't exist.

They tell themselves this, and they fight against their own subconscious every single day.

I guess that's true.
People who are CLOSED minded wont be OPEN minded.

BUT, fortunately, you have found someone who is at least going to have a LITTLE bit of opening.. focus on that opening. That teeny itsy bitsy opening. It's there, and it's open, that small opening. That's why I call it an opening.

That opening will widen if FACTS are inserted.

IM.

If it's ONLY true in a subjective way, then it's like your preference for ice cream flavors. I don't really CARE if you prefer one flavor over another.. but one thing I DO care about is.. IS THE ICE CREAM REALLY THERE?

Ok good. It's always a great moment when a theist and an atheist can agree.
I'm going to stretch that metaphor REALLY thin now.... Hold on to something.

Some ice cream is really there, and some isn't really there.
Some people ARE delusional or lying or lying delusionally. OR.. just honestly mistaken. OR being duped.

Some people right now might be buying ice cream online ( ? ) and are being duped.
Admittedly, these would be VERY gullible people.

The existence of claimed ice cream has to be VERIFIED.. yes?
What are the FACTS?

The fact is; God objectively exists.

Another problem is that SOME people can/will systematically accept anything that seems to support their conclusion. I would amend your statement to make it more likely true thus: "Each premise of the argument are CLAIMED to be facts."

I cannot be modest with you, sir. Not claimed, ARE facts.

The truth of the premises of these arguments is contested.

Contest them in an IM format with me.

If you could do that.. I would consider theism, for sure.

HOWEVER,

I would call a fact something that most people consider true.

It's no good calling something a fact if many people do NOT consider it true. For example, I did my BEST to find a way to accept the premises to all the arguments you have listed except for the language argument, which as I have said, never encountered.

Again, I can't share your modesty. I am saying that it is impossible for God to NOT exist...and the best argument to demonstrate that is the kalam cosmological argument. No need for me to be modest when the truth is on my side...therefore, I can boldly say, God exists whether you like it, believe it, accept it...or NOT.

On that note, I will leave this particular conversation there. But before I do that, I took the liberty of reading the latter part of your post....the argument from language, I'd love to discuss with you....and I am glad that you decided to have a discussion/debate with me in real time.

We can iron out the details later...

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 137 by For_The_Kingdom]

Bro, as I said before...either you accept Jesus Christ, or you don't. Now, if I had you wrong about which kind of atheist your are or whatever, I apologize.

But you all look the same to me...unbelief is unbelief. The atheist is no different than the Hindu. The naturalist is no difference than the Buddhist. The materialist is no different than the Muslim.

You are all the same...you are not accepting of Jesus Christ.

And this right here is a major problem. It shows that you do not value nuance or differences in reasons. Does your god value nuance or reasons? An atheist living in the USA is different to a Hindu born and raised in India; the atheist has completely different reasons for his non-belief in any gods compared to the Hindu who believes Vishnu exists and doesn't believe Jesus Christ is divine.
Being this dismissive of nuance seems to me to be nothing more than a justification to be lazy, to generalize all those who do not believe as you do into one amorphous vague group, an 'other'.
Do you really think your god is going to be impressed at your unwillingness to look at nuance, your willingness to group all non-believers together?