The Topic of God Has Been Settled!....

[POI]

...According to a theist....

Otseng: Cumulatively, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of God existing than not existing.

POI Therefore, the agnostic/atheist/other is:

a) uninformed
b) inept
c) in denial
d) other

Meaning, the theists have won. At this point, it's as futile as debating the shape of the earth with a flat earther. In this scenario, the doubter is the 'flat earther.' Is this how settled the topic is regarding God's existence?

For debate:

1) If the skeptic/doubter does not agree with the title of this thread, they are one of the given options in <a) though d)> above, maybe like that of a "flat earther"? Please agree or disagree and explain your given response.

2) What piece of evidence would be the first and/or strongest, in this cumulative string of evidence(s), to support the conclusion that God exists?

*******************

As a side note, I may or may not engage myself with this topic. I'd rather see what everyone else has to say, since I personally feel all such arguments are nothing new. I guess this makes me the 'flat earther', since I remain unconvinced

[Mae von H]

...
2) What piece of evidence would be the first and/or strongest, in this cumulative string of evidence(s), to support the conclusion that God exists?

To me strongest evidence for God is the Bible and that life exists. I don't believe we would have those without God.

That is fine but the same evidence leads atheists to disbelieve that God exists. It is also not a point of evidence that the writers of the Bible used, simply that we live. I would encourage you to find more solid reasons. They are there and in abundance.

[Mae von H]

...According to a theist....

Otseng: Cumulatively, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of God existing than not existing.

POI Therefore, the agnostic/atheist/other is:

a) uninformed
b) inept
c) in denial
d) other

Meaning, the theists have won. At this point, it's as futile as debating the shape of the earth with a flat earther. In this scenario, the doubter is the 'flat earther.' Is this how settled the topic is regarding God's existence?

For debate:

1) If the skeptic/doubter does not agree with the title of this thread, they are one of the given options in <a) though d)> above, maybe like that of a "flat earther"? Please agree or disagree and explain your given response.

2) What piece of evidence would be the first and/or strongest, in this cumulative string of evidence(s), to support the conclusion that God exists?

*******************

As a side note, I may or may not engage myself with this topic. I'd rather see what everyone else has to say, since I personally feel all such arguments are nothing new. I guess this makes me the 'flat earther', since I remain unconvinced

The problem with the title is that it only a point that can be applied to you. The matter is definately NOT SETTLED for the vast majority. It is rather narcissistic.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
2) What piece of evidence would be the first and/or strongest, in this cumulative string of evidence(s), to support the conclusion that God exists?

To me strongest evidence for God is the Bible and that life exists. I don't believe we would have those without God.

That is fine but the same evidence leads atheists to disbelieve that God exists. It is also not a point of evidence that the writers of the Bible used, simply that we live. I would encourage you to find more solid reasons. They are there and in abundance.

I totally agree. We already did ID (the cetan sequence is the clincher it evolved and God is not necessary) and our pal simply dismissed the evidence on excuses, all of which I debunked. The fact is that evolution is supported by ALL the evidence and the dissenters can only raise objections and problems, which is ok, but that is just 'appeal to unknowns'.Which is 'we don't know the answer - yet', not 'It must be a god (name your own) until you prove it's evolution." This is of course the false and invalid thinking of ID which they do so love to call reason, logic and evidence, when it is none of those.

The Bible exists, but so do other holy books and even old legends. We no longer believe the Mesopotamian myths, but you know during the 'Chariots of gods' cult it was Interpreted as a record of ET space scientists visiting earth and making man genetically, but written 'the way it was back then'. That is what the apologists do with the blood -soaked bronze age Book of the Bible. It is cast in a historical enough form that it looks more 'Historical' than others. Though the Tripitaka has a historical and geographical narrative. And the Quran has a lot of historical and geographical references. The Bible is actually no more reliable than any other Holy Book.

As you might have gathered, the OT is just Wrong and we saw the attempts to save the Tyre prophecy. It faileth ever, and once the Bible fails on a prophecy, it can be questioned on everything.

The Bible is evaluated as we would any other book. Even claims about George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, which are regularly used by Bible apologists as evidence that no evidence can be trusted.

Of course their foggy apologetic goes like this: 'You cannot prove that Washington or Lincoln existed and did any of the things claimed, yet we accept that as true. Well, we should accept the gospel record of Jesus on the same basis'. That's for sure the mindset behind this rather odd questioning of the historicity of these significant Americans.

But it's more like Pilate who was hardly doubted and an inscription proved his existence. But it bothers me that the two records (Josephus and Philo) differ in some ways. But they do depict a brutal and venial prefect which is unlike the gospel version of a decent and well meaning governor blackmailed into condemning Jesus by the Sanhedrin. The history does not support this.

I could go into that, but there are more serious doubts about the NT, from the nonsense of the Nativities to the Fiddling of Paul's few 'historical' remarks in Acts. The Bible is not reliable, and demonstrably is not, even if every darn apologist I ever came across, tried to excuse, invent, fiddle, lie and deny to find a way of ignoring, dismissing and denying the clear evidence that the Bible is not reliable, trustworthy or true.

[Mae von H]

...
2) What piece of evidence would be the first and/or strongest, in this cumulative string of evidence(s), to support the conclusion that God exists?

To me strongest evidence for God is the Bible and that life exists. I don't believe we would have those without God.

That is fine but the same evidence leads atheists to disbelieve that God exists. It is also not a point of evidence that the writers of the Bible used, simply that we live. I would encourage you to find more solid reasons. They are there and in abundance.

I totally agree. We already did ID (the cetan sequence is the clincher it evolved and God is not necessary) and our pal simply dismissed the evidence on excuses, all of which I debunked. The fact is that evolution is supported by ALL the evidence and the dissenters can only raise objections and problems, which is ok, but that is just 'appeal to unknowns'.Which is 'we don't know the answer - yet', not 'It must be a god (name your own) until you prove it's evolution." This is of course the false and invalid thinking of ID which they do so love to call reason, logic and evidence, when it is none of those.

The Bible exists, but so do other holy books and even old legends. We no longer believe the Mesopotamian myths, but you know during the 'Chariots of gods' cult it was Interpreted as a record of ET space scientists visiting earth and making man genetically, but written 'the way it was back then'. That is what the apologists do with the blood -soaked bronze age Book of the Bible. It is cast in a historical enough form that it looks more 'Historical' than others. Though the Tripitaka has a historical and geographical narrative. And the Quran has a lot of historical and geographical references. The Bible is actually no more reliable than any other Holy Book.

As you might have gathered, the OT is just Wrong and we saw the attempts to save the Tyre prophecy. It faileth ever, and once the Bible fails on a prophecy, it can be questioned on everything.

The Bible is evaluated as we would any other book. Even claims about George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, which are regularly used by Bible apologists as evidence that no evidence can be trusted.

Of course their foggy apologetic goes like this: 'You cannot prove that Washington or Lincoln existed and did any of the things claimed, yet we accept that as true. Well, we should accept the gospel record of Jesus on the same basis'. That's for sure the mindset behind this rather odd questioning of the historicity of these significant Americans.

But it's more like Pilate who was hardly doubted and an inscription proved his existence. But it bothers me that the two records (Josephus and Philo) differ in some ways. But they do depict a brutal and venial prefect which is unlike the gospel version of a decent and well meaning governor blackmailed into condemning Jesus by the Sanhedrin. The history does not support this.

I could go into that, but there are more serious doubts about the NT, from the nonsense of the Nativities to the Fiddling of Paul's few 'historical' remarks in Acts. The Bible is not reliable, and demonstrably is not, even if every darn apologist I ever came across, tried to excuse, invent, fiddle, lie and deny to find a way of ignoring, dismissing and denying the clear evidence that the Bible is not reliable, trustworthy or true.

Those who CHOOSE to find reasons to feed their preferred position will have no trouble finding them. Whether they are true or lead one to find truth is an entirely different matter.

But I see more and more clearly that the truth sets one free. The untruth requires constant attention and work to maintain it.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
2) What piece of evidence would be the first and/or strongest, in this cumulative string of evidence(s), to support the conclusion that God exists?

To me strongest evidence for God is the Bible and that life exists. I don't believe we would have those without God.

That is fine but the same evidence leads atheists to disbelieve that God exists. It is also not a point of evidence that the writers of the Bible used, simply that we live. I would encourage you to find more solid reasons. They are there and in abundance.

I totally agree. We already did ID (the cetan sequence is the clincher it evolved and God is not necessary) and our pal simply dismissed the evidence on excuses, all of which I debunked. The fact is that evolution is supported by ALL the evidence and the dissenters can only raise objections and problems, which is ok, but that is just 'appeal to unknowns'.Which is 'we don't know the answer - yet', not 'It must be a god (name your own) until you prove it's evolution." This is of course the false and invalid thinking of ID which they do so love to call reason, logic and evidence, when it is none of those.

The Bible exists, but so do other holy books and even old legends. We no longer believe the Mesopotamian myths, but you know during the 'Chariots of gods' cult it was Interpreted as a record of ET space scientists visiting earth and making man genetically, but written 'the way it was back then'. That is what the apologists do with the blood -soaked bronze age Book of the Bible. It is cast in a historical enough form that it looks more 'Historical' than others. Though the Tripitaka has a historical and geographical narrative. And the Quran has a lot of historical and geographical references. The Bible is actually no more reliable than any other Holy Book.

As you might have gathered, the OT is just Wrong and we saw the attempts to save the Tyre prophecy. It faileth ever, and once the Bible fails on a prophecy, it can be questioned on everything.

The Bible is evaluated as we would any other book. Even claims about George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, which are regularly used by Bible apologists as evidence that no evidence can be trusted.

Of course their foggy apologetic goes like this: 'You cannot prove that Washington or Lincoln existed and did any of the things claimed, yet we accept that as true. Well, we should accept the gospel record of Jesus on the same basis'. That's for sure the mindset behind this rather odd questioning of the historicity of these significant Americans.

But it's more like Pilate who was hardly doubted and an inscription proved his existence. But it bothers me that the two records (Josephus and Philo) differ in some ways. But they do depict a brutal and venial prefect which is unlike the gospel version of a decent and well meaning governor blackmailed into condemning Jesus by the Sanhedrin. The history does not support this.

I could go into that, but there are more serious doubts about the NT, from the nonsense of the Nativities to the Fiddling of Paul's few 'historical' remarks in Acts. The Bible is not reliable, and demonstrably is not, even if every darn apologist I ever came across, tried to excuse, invent, fiddle, lie and deny to find a way of ignoring, dismissing and denying the clear evidence that the Bible is not reliable, trustworthy or true.

Those who CHOOSE to find reasons to feed their preferred position will have no trouble finding them. Whether they are true or lead one to find truth is an entirely different matter.

But I see more and more clearly that the truth sets one free. The untruth requires constant attention and work to maintain it.

I agree, or I think wedo.But the question is 'What is Truth?". It was a fair question and Pilate never got an answer, or rather John does not supply the answer and I reckon I know why. "Truth" in Biblical terms is "Faith" and faith does not ...in fact this is an atheist apologetic meme "Faith is not the best way of getting to the truth".

Research, reason and in fact discussion is the better way to do that, and that is where we seem to agree.

Where I an Bible apologists differ is that I go with evidence and reason and what the Bible says, not excuses, denial and making stuff up, which is what Bible apologetics does, even before we get to abuse and accusations of those who will not swallow the lies, misrepresentations, denial and inventions of the Bible apologists. We have seen science denial, invention of stuff not in the Bible to excuse it, and of course misrepresentation of the atheist apologetics and mud slinging accusations that in fact apply much more to the Bible apologists.

In fact I am every day thankful that i don't have faithbased beliefs forcing meto do that, but I can happily watch the JW telescope throw cosmology into the air as the Truth (whatever it is) matter more than saving the Big bang. Science (knowledge an truth/facts) thrives on being proven wrong and moving forward.

Religions survive on the intellectual dishonesty of denying evidence that undermines the Dogma and of slowly and grudgingly playing catch up and then claiming that was what it said all the time.

[benchwarmer]

Dear Benchwarmer, it is a pleasure to interact with you, despite having different views. You think about matters to some depth and I appreciate that, I would like you to know. I decided to answer in one block instead of piece by piece which does get tiresome.

Dear Mae, it is also a pleasure to interact with you. This is a debate environment, so we should all be expecting opposing views and not getting personal about it. If we didn't have any opposition, there would be no debate and this site wouldn't exist. So please don't think that because I'm disagreeing with you that I don't like you or anything of that sort. We are (or should be) debating ideas only.

Starting backwards, gravity is not a matter of believing. What alternative is there? We do not believe in gravity same as we do not merely believe we need to eat and sleep. That is not a matter one believes but instead knows. It requires no explanation (which is good because even Newton could not explain what gravity is.)

I disagree. Are you saying you know for a fact what gravity is because you personally did all the research to confirm it? Or have you perhaps simply learned about gravity in science class and done some simple experiments to prove to yourself that it seems to be real? My point here is that you believe in the God of the Bible. Perhaps this God is the one that pushes objects around in a way that appears to be gravity i.e. instead of matter having some intrinsic property that interacts with other matter, it's actually your God doing all this and perhaps there is some point where 'gravity' would break down because God decides He doesn't want to push something one day.

I realize I may appear to be splitting hairs here, but we have to be careful in debate so that we are clear what we mean.

I know I just saw a ball fall to the ground. I observed it. I believe it was the effect of gravity (attraction of large bodies of matter with other matter). I don't believe it was fairies, gods, invisible goblins, or anything else. I don't know this beyond all doubt, but I'm reasonably confident in my belief (99.99999% confident, but if we scientifically observed 'gravity fairies' then science would change and so would my beliefs).

We are getting into the area of blind faith and beliefs based on evidence, but that's another discusssion.

Regarding God healing, if one asks God to heal and healing occurs, seems logical to assume He had a hand in it.

Ummm, no. How many children have asked Santa for a toy and then got that exact toy on Christmas morning?

People of all cultures and religions pray to their favorite dieties and witness what appear to be miraculous healings. Are you saying now that all these gods are real based on this?

If a dead person rises and walks around, definately.

Definitely what? I will agree that something happened, but claiming this or that god did it is pure guess work unless you observe this or that god actually doing it.

Same as someone lame who suddenly walks. Is there any other logical conclusion?

Yes. The logical conclusion is that something happened to cause this 'miracle'. Jumping to your favorite deity is NOT logical given we have no observable evidence of any gods (if we did religion wouldn't be religion, it would be science).

And I work in medicine, and even doctors do not always how how someone ill is no longer ill. Sometimes they know and often they guess and sometimes they do not know at all. Doesn't make them doubt the sick person is now well.

Agreed! People recover for unknown reasons all the time. Maybe it was Vishnu. If someone prayed to Vishnu right before it happened would you convert on the spot? Be honest.

You are still divorcing the process of coming to believe something is true from the conclusion although you do see that this process is a choice. Why then is the concluding process not a choice for you?

No, we are still not understanding each other clearly.

It is a choice to read this or that.

It is a choice to listen to this or that.

I believe something is true because I am currently convinced by x, y, z. i.e. I find x, y, and z convincing. I likely find these convincing based on all of my previous lived experience.

Now, I cannot just say to myself "You know what, even though I find this completely convincing, I'm going to simply choose to ignore all that and believe the opposite because Mae told me I could".

I think we both know this is not how it works. I already proved this in my first reply to you. You cannot simply choose to believe Santa is God. Therefore belief is not a simple choice. Belief is an accumulation of convincing (to the person in question) evidence.

I really feel like we are going in circles here, but it's important to understanding each other. I did not wake up one day and simply start not believing in Bible God. It was an accumulation of convincing (to me) evidence that slowly eroded the belief until one day (and I can't even remember the exact time/day) the last straw finally broke the camel's back and it all fell apart.

It was a much longer process, but the analogy is that one day I found my "presents from Santa" under Mom and Dad's bed a week before Christmas. The evidence against overrode any previous convincing evidence for. A belief was changed.

Ten or more people can hear the exact same evidence and some believe and some do not. How is this possible if there is no choice?

Easy. Each of these 10 people have completely different lived experiences, education, etc. One piece of evidence may be convincing to person A because they understand what that evidence means, while person B is not convinced because they have no clue what the evidence really means.

We see this in the evolution debate. Person A has no clue about the science behind all of it and just reads apologetic materials from people they trust. Person B is a trained biologist and knows what the evidence says and what it doesn't. Person A is not going to choose to believe in evolution based on apologetic materials and person B is not going to choose to reject evolution based on DNA evidence (at least not supporting DNA evidence - if it was refuting they would be salivating at a possible Nobel).

Some people choose to believe lies and some choose to believe the truth.

Completely disagree and I think this is unfair to people in general.

Though you and I disagree, I don't think you are just purposely choosing to disagree with me because you choose to believe in lies.

I think everyone believes they are choosing the truth. It may not be the actual truth, but I like to think most people are not simply choosing to believe what they believe are lies just for giggles.

It is possible because some believe the obvious conclusion of the evidence and some do not choose to believe the logical conclusion of the evidence.

Same as above.

To me the obvious conclusion to the evidence is that the Bible was written by men. Just look at all the ridiculous laws that don't comport with a loving God.

On the other hand, the obvious conclusion to you is that the Bible is the inspired word of the one true God.

Neither of us are choosing to lie and just pick one or the other because we feel like it. What is obvious and logical to one person is clearly not to the other. That is why we are here debating right?

Or do you think so highly of yourself that you can never be wrong and will always choose the actual truth? I certainly don't believe that of myself and am quite willing to admit when I'm wrong. I had to do it when I became an atheist after being a devout Christian.

Can you see that your divorcing this choosing to believe the evidence from choosing does not work in real life? I think if someone you know decided to believe lies about you, you would not conclude that it was not their choice to believe lies about you. Do you see that your version does not work in real life?

See above.

Now pigs do not fly and pigs do not have wings.

What? Really???? C'mon, are you really going to die on this hill? My entire point was to come up with something you don't currently believe. It's called a thought experiment. Surely you've heard of those?

I am trained in science and do not use my imagination to come to understand matters presented to me in life

If you are trained in science then surely you've heard of a hypothesis? If you saw 'something' (clearly flying pigs are really not working for you) you had never seen before, how do you process it? God did it? Maybe there is a natural explanation? Remember your science training. Does God show up in any science textbooks (reputable ones anyways)?

Lastly, I cannot speak as to why you chose to focus in on things that were not clear in the Bible

LOL. Not clear in the Bible? You jest. What I pointed out are things that ARE clear in the Bible, but incongruent with "God inspired". I pointed out things that are clearly "man inspired and/or man confused".

, but one thing that seems to be the case and that is, you did not walk with God.

Sigh.... We were doing so well, but I guess I can take this as the first sign of 'a win'. The good old ad hominem and one of the favorite things to lash out with at former Christians. The "You were never a true Christian!". If this makes you feel better then you go with that. It's so funny watching people toss this out and then see some of them on the other side years later.

We disagree but I hope we can still cordially interact. You are a cut above the others on your side of the fence.

I would love to keep it cordial if you can steer away from what just happened above. It's ok though, I forgive you. You believe 1 John 2:19 is true and that's where you are coming from. I can't fault you for sticking to your Bible while you are "a true Christian". Just realize that it may not be the actual truth at the end of the day. Please at least be that humble.

[TRANSPONDER]

There definitely seems to be a problem of approach, and I have to say it's the old one - a priori Faith. That would mean that some out opf that 10 mentioned will approach with a faithbased mindset and will fit whatever they see, experience or are even told about in terms of that Faith.

Whereas the others of the 10 with a grounding in science or logic or something rational will evaluate the evidence and the only bias or presupposition will be that reason rather than doctrinal Faith is the best way to Truth, and that the materialist default (database of validated science) means that natural (as science has shown no god) is the preferred expected answer, even before we know what it is.

But the Believers assume that "God" (whichever one) is the default until the explanation turns out to be a natural one, and that is invalid even before interpretation of raw data (see the discussion on the moving rocks) but the apologists persistently present the presuppositionalist interpretation of anything unknown as down to a god,aside from denying the explanation if it isn'tone they like.

Of course the Religious apologist will accuse the materialists of doing the same, but that's where we are into science -denial.

That's the real choice - which method one uses to arrive at conclusions - science or science denial? Generally and as a rule, Bible apologetics comes down to denial of science, history, logical reasoning and even what the Bible actually says.

[POI]

The problem with the title is that it only a point that can be applied to you. The matter is definately NOT SETTLED for the vast majority. It is rather narcissistic.

Otseng states it IS settled. This would mean it applies to all, not just me. You disagree. Meaning, you may not think it IS settled. Great!

Then I guess you can start with debate question 2):

What piece of evidence would be the first and/or strongest, in this cumulative string of evidence(s), to support the conclusion that God exists?

[Mae von H]

The problem with the title is that it only a point that can be applied to you. The matter is definately NOT SETTLED for the vast majority. It is rather narcissistic.

Otseng states it IS settled. This would mean it applies to all, not just me. You disagree. Meaning, you may not think it IS settled. Great!

Then I guess you can start with debate question 2):

What piece of evidence would be the first and/or strongest, in this cumulative string of evidence(s), to support the conclusion that God exists?

If the question of God were settled for all, there’d be no discussion between people anywhere including this one. That there is such a thread, it means it is definitely NOT settled.

[TRANSPONDER]

The problem with the title is that it only a point that can be applied to you. The matter is definately NOT SETTLED for the vast majority. It is rather narcissistic.

Otseng states it IS settled. This would mean it applies to all, not just me. You disagree. Meaning, you may not think it IS settled. Great!

Then I guess you can start with debate question 2):

What piece of evidence would be the first and/or strongest, in this cumulative string of evidence(s), to support the conclusion that God exists?

If the question of God were settled for all, there’d be no discussion between people anywhere including this one. That there is such a thread, it means it is definitely NOT settled.

It is definitely not....sorry, I had to re-read the OP...the claim that the evidence is more in favour of a god than not is far from a given. Argument from morality fails, the ID claims fail, the Bible is most arguable, if not demonstrably wrong.

Just from where I'm standing, recent discussion on ID, evolution and the cetan sequence, or the Gospels, resurrection accounts and contradictions haven't been met by good counter - evidence, but denial, invention of excuses and proposed events that are nowhere hinted in the book.

It is obvious that the Bible does not look reliable or true and that god looks equally doubtful. The arguments that don't tell us which god we might be talking about (Christian assume, illogically, that there is only one god it could be) ID, morality, Kalam, have failed to be the evidence for a god that the Theists wanted.

There is (I do declare ) no good evidence for a god of any kind, and positive evidence against Biblegod being real.