Okay, Let's Cut To The Chase!

[POI]

Dear Christians of all flavor(s),

I trust it is no surprise there exists a populous here, which lay claim to 'atheism', 'deism', or maybe other... In a nutshell, for me, this ultimately means I do not believe any such claimed Christian God exists - trying though as I might.... Which-is-to-mean, I was raised in a Christian house hold. However, after much study, I cannot get myself to belief such a claimed agent actually exists. Chalk it up, ultimately, to the topic of 'divine hiddenness' I guess...?

It is also evident there exists devout 'Christians' in this arena, of all flavors, who may feel they are 'fighting the good fight'; by defending their belief(s)/faith/rationale in the assertion of the existence to the "Christian God".

That being said, I am laying down the gauntlet, so-to-speak... Some here, as well as outside of here, are as sure as anything, that not only does God exist, but the Christian God! Well, I politely disagree. Meaning, I don't believe the "Christian based" assertion/claim.

I can't imagine this request will be anything new. Nor, can I imagine that I will encounter any new sort of enlightenment. But, being this is a rather large and important topic; I will continue to search, optimistically, that there exists some sort of 'concrete evidence(s)' to demonstrate that not only a God exists ---> but also the Christian God.

For Debate:

Please demonstrate the mere existence of the Christian God?

[Purple Knight]

maybe Christians can pray for God to provide me, and all other unbelievers, with sufficient revelation?

We could always pray ourselves for this same thing. I have to be honest and admit I'm not open enough to it to see a revelation if I was given one.

If there really is a door in my consciousness that will open my entire being to that being, I won't pretend I'm willing to open it. I'm not. Because if that thing exists, to me, it's 50/50 at best that it's a positive force in the universe or just plain sadistic, so I would prefer to go on my own reason than take the chance of slaving myself out to some cosmic evil.

Maybe it's not evil. Maybe it's good and I just can't understand. That might be the case. It also might be the case that it really is evil. Even if it does exist, I don't know.

[POI]

maybe Christians can pray for God to provide me, and all other unbelievers, with sufficient revelation?

We could always pray ourselves for this same thing.

True-blue Christians, who pray in earnest, claim God intervenes. If this is the case, and God desires to establish relationships with His creation, then I do not find it unreasonable to ask that earnest Christians pray for Him to contact unbelievers.

I have to be honest and admit I'm not open enough to it to see a revelation if I was given one. If there really is a door in my consciousness that will open my entire being to that being, I won't pretend I'm willing to open it. I'm not.

Well, if God is what the Bible claims, God has the ability to change even your mind, like "Sal of Tarsus' or "Doubting Thomas", just for starters. He could certainly present Himself in a way for which you could no longer deny His existence. Sure, you could 'deny' it, but you would be lying to yourself. The fact of the matter is that you do not need any special 'preparation'. God's power could transcend any/all <mental blocks> you think you have.

Because if that thing exists, to me, it's 50/50 at best that it's a positive force in the universe or just plain sadistic, so I would prefer to go on my own reason than take the chance of slaving myself out to some cosmic evil.

This would make a GREAT Christian argument, or excuse, as to why God will not reveal Himself to you

[TRANSPONDER]

THANK YOU! This why I ask... Do you Christians, (which may not yet have responded), have anything to offer, (or), does it boil down to the topic of 'faith' ---- which can ultimately just as easily be applied to ANY other assertion?

The one thing I can say for them is that Christianity has at least proven over time that adopting the belief doesn't win you a Darwin award. This doesn't mean it is true but it might mean that it's still rational to believe it.

For example, you might have a population of extremely rational, logical individuals who probably well know that God isn't likely to exist, but they all recognise that if we all behave as if there is one (in other words, not screwing one another over even when we logically should) then, we all benefit. But because there is not really this Great Omniscient Rewarder and Punisher, people are essentially stuck with the otherwise logical conclusion that they ought to cheat whenever they can get away with it.

I'm not putting it past people to have this going on in the back of their heads.

And I have shown how intentionally believing something untrue can actually be rational.

I'm not sure that it is. I know the idea has been dinned into us that Christianity is good for us as individuals, family and community, but I see people being deluded, families being exploited and nations held back because it suits religion, not the individual, family or nation.

I know that the West had gained a lot of traction in other countries and Christianity may like to claim the credit for that, but what has been copied is technology, science, democracy and human well being, which is rather down to science and humanism than religion which rather has pushed back against these things until it is seen how well they have gone down and then of course, it wants to take the credit for it.

[1213]

...
Please demonstrate the mere existence of the Christian God?

Please explain what do you think would be sufficient demonstration?

How would you demonstrate to me that you exist and you are not just a bot?

[Tcg]

...
Please demonstrate the mere existence of the Christian God?

Please explain what do you think would be sufficient demonstration?

How would you demonstrate to me that you exist and you are not just a bot?

I know you asked this of POI, but my answer would be quite honestly, I have no idea. If, however, there is a Christian God and if it is omnipotent, omniscient, and all loving, as some claim, it would know what it would take and if it wanted me to believe, it could reveal itself in a way in which I would. If there is such a God, it has chosen for me and a great many others to not believe.

Your second question is irrelevant here. If one of us had the attributes that typically get applied to God, we'd know how to do it. Of course, if you're suggesting the Christian God is no more capable than us, we'd have to reevaluate the use of the title God.


Tcg

[brunumb]

...
Please demonstrate the mere existence of the Christian God?

Please explain what do you think would be sufficient demonstration?

Given that you believe in this God, what did you find was sufficient demonstration of its existence?

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm trying to put on my Christian hat here but it doesn't fit. Just as Christian is stuck once it tried the arguments I posted and they were inadequate. A theist can make a case like 'How would you prove the Christian God did not exist' and we'd be stuck after we tried the usual arguments and were met with flat denial.

The fact is that nothing can be known 100% because one could always use a solipsist or brain in a vat argument. That applies to the real world, too, but we never use them but act as though the real world was real, and we could rely on it. We never use 'you have Faith that your car will start'. This isn't on faith - it is on understanding of how the world works, and even if it was all in the imagination, it works to the rules.

This is why I say that Reality is reliable repeatability and not what one can bang on a table, because matter is made of atoms made from an near 100% nothing as we live in as near to 100% reality. Solidity is an illusion, but it is a convincing one (Didn't Einstein say that?) and even if our existence is on an alien (or a god's) computer, it works, if reliable and has Rules.

That is also why appeals to unknowns are not an argument because ANYTHING could be true. Christians think it is valid because they assume there is only one god - the god of the Bible. All other possible gods are dismissed out of hand. That plainly is a false argument.

Unless they argue on evidence that the Christian god is the most likely (Because the Bible looks factual). That's why I say the Gospels, and specifically the resurrection -accounts - are the only argument that matter. All the others are either irrelevant because they only lead to "Which God?" (all the ontological and ID arguments) or they do not (like the recent and previously well - worn extra Biblical validation of Jesus) stand up to scrutiny.

I was tempted to review some of the best counters to Bible demolition, like Otseng for the Flood and tower of Babel, or JW in trying to make the 'Passover discrepancy' work, and they did the best job that anyone could do, and wasn't it Venom who did the best job for the James passage in Josephus? The point is that they made the case that it couldn't be disproved that languages developed rather than suddenly became different when the tower collapsed, we just accept the 'science' that languages evolved. It can't be entirely thrown out that Passover was a week long and that people could eat the Seder on one day and the priests could still be 'preparing' to eat it a day or so later. Not even if all Jewish scholarship is against that. Nor that the Jesus in the passage was a different Jesus to the son of Damnaeus and James was the brother of Jesus (the Christ) not Jesus son of Damnaeus.

Those were the best that could be done, just as Tam is arguing that Jesus could (legitimately) have quoted the Septuagint in the Temple. And I ought to get over there and respond but the question is: which is the most probable explanation, not which one can be disproved 100%. Because appeal to far -fetched undisprovables is not the winner, but which is best supported by the evidence.

That's the Rules (I should know, I just made them up) of Epistemology and 'How do we know what we know' and is why appeals to unknowns and gaps for God do not win arguments but only provide an excuse for denial.

We saw a discussion on the daylight of Genesis switching on and off before the sun (as the Bible says) was created (or formed, if we must nod to an irrelevant nitpick). That failed on many levels. Starlight does not provide daylight, nor switch on and off as morning or evening. Genesis - apologists know this denied the science and rewrites the Bible and just makes the theist apologetic look silly and ignorant of what the Bible says. So they use the 'cloud cover' apologetic to make the Bible fit the science. This is a nod to credibility of science, and the limits to Denial. Yes, we can't be 100% sure that God didn't make a daylight that he switched on and off before there was a sun, but it is just going to sound too far - fetched and too denialist of science to assert that the sun really was made later than the earth.

Yes, Epistemplogy can be denied with Brain in a vat or far - fetched undisprovables, but we do not use them. I use the bush and boulder or Banana in a drawer mind experiments to show that the banana not being there and the bush still being there (when hidden) are the best explanations and the banana is invisible or the bush vanishes when anyone looks are not the best explanations and will not be valid argument, only denialist ones by those whop want to believe them for some faithbased reasons.

That is why negative evidence is valid and Occam's razor is based in Reality and is not just a human rule. Probability based on evidence and logical reasoning is what is reasonable to hold as the best theory, and denialist undisprovables held to for reasons of Faith is not.

Here endeth the lesson.

[POI]

...
Please demonstrate the mere existence of the Christian God?

Please explain what do you think would be sufficient demonstration?

Well, for starters, I already believe you and I share the same reality. I'm also willing to believe that both you and I accept that billions of humans inhabit this planet, for which we both also live upon. Heck, I'm willing to bet that both you and I believe a great many things, alike. And I'm even willing to bet it takes both of us little evidence to do so....

"Sufficient demonstration"? I guess <personal revelation> would suffice. And apparently, He offers this sort of proof quite often? And yet, I've asked for it myself, as well as asking countless others to query Him on my behalf. And thus far, I feel like I am merely speaking to myself, in my requests. And I also hear crickets, when someone else states they will pray for Him to get in touch with me.

So I now ask, how do you know the Christian God exists?

[Purple Knight]

The one thing I can say for them is that Christianity has at least proven over time that adopting the belief doesn't win you a Darwin award.

I'm not sure that it is. I know the idea has been dinned into us that Christianity is good for us as individuals, family and community, but I see people being deluded, families being exploited and nations held back because it suits religion, not the individual, family or nation.

Yes, but at least they have families to be deluded and exploited. At least they have a nation to be held back.

With my IQ I should be ashamed of this, but I'm not handy. The main reason I'm not handy is because I won't take something apart on the assumption that I can put it back together. I don't know that piece that looks like it's just in the way isn't somehow vital. With some piece of junk that can be easily replaced, this mindset is foolish, and I admit it's foolish, but I just can't overcome my instinctual repugnance toward breaking something. As far as whether we should discard something that might be supporting society, perhaps not so foolish.

[Wootah]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Bible
Historicity
Symbolism
Results
Wisdom
Psychology
Mental health
Spiritual health

Then the real closers are when you examine your own beliefs (gods). That makes the choice easy.

I prefer being conscious of my God rather than unconscious.

But it is faith.