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?

[Inquirer]

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?

It is my position after many years pondering this subject myself, that one cannot discover God, find God, prove God to other people. Only God can cause us to become aware of God. God reveals knowledge including knowledge that God exists, has mind and so on.

It is fruitless to ask questions like "show me evidence" because we innately have no way of understanding what evidence for God is, until God wants you to understand you will not understand.

It is written:

The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.

We cannot know God, cannot perceive the reality of God on our own, only God can reveal himself to us and that often happens slowly, painfully, one must undergo a change of mindset, and we cannot do so of ourselves.

All knowledge of God is revealed knowledge, one can look here and look there for evidence but it is fruitless, God is unlike anything we deal with in our fleshly lives and so seeking God on fleshly, material terms is doomed to fail.

It has meen my experience that Theists make one line claims and the atheist side have to write 250 words to refute it. I do that myself. It's not often I find a long post that is an inflated way of saying "I have no evidence".

What claim did I make? what are you referring to? What is evidence anyway, have you never asked yourself that question? All "evidence" is interpreted relative to some defined model or viewpoint.

Change the viewpoint and what was evidence for X suddenly becomes evidence for Y. It's not evidence you seek, it is a viewpoint from which to interpret evidence, choose that viewpoint carefully.

Where did I say that you made any claim? I was talking about other claims made by Christians, Theists and bible -apologists which are very short, but take a lot of words to refute them.

Very well, but replying to me with "Theists make one line claims and the atheist side have to write 250 words to refute it" did imply - to me - that it was something I'd written.

If you require lots of words to rebut (we can't say refute as that's often a matter of opinion) something, does that not imply its somewhat challenging to rebut?

In your case, you wrote a load of stuff that added up to Nothing .

A blanket dismissal of what I said to you hardly shows that what I wrote was "nothing", if that's an example of a rebuttal it isn't very impressive.

Essentially you have no evidence or you'd present it.

More flawed logic, how can you possibly argue that my refusal to disclose something proves that I do not have anything to disclose?

Please, do feel free to use as many words as you need.

I won't need too many. At least after I refute or rebut (show it's false anyway) the above: "If you require lots of words to rebut (we can't say refute as that's often a matter of opinion) something, does that not imply its somewhat challenging to rebut?" Possibly but not because it made a good case, for example, it is easy to post 'The Bible is a reliable record'. It would be easy to just post "No,it isn't." but of course that invites a challenge. posting the reasons why the Bible cannot be taken as reliable may take (as I said) 250 words. But not because it's a challenge beyond having to know the rebuttal to make the rebuttal, but that doesn't mean it's a good argument the theist made. In fact, it's merely a faith -claim.

Now I've spent some time on that (you deserved a full response). And there it is, I do challenge - 'where's your evidence?' You have none, or you'd present it instead of tap dancing around,trying to pull rhetorical tricks and trying to fiddle epistemology so that not presenting evidence somehow means that you have evidence but aren't in the mood to present it, even though a debate is going on.

One line will do to debunk you.

cue...loads of evidence. Cut and paste from apologetics sites, post Christian apologetics videos, links to religious propaganda websites. Easy to do. But I guess there is a reason you prefer to post stuff that isn't evidence at all. I can't read your mind, but I can read evidence - you have some problem why you prefer to post evasions. I can only guess. Arguing evidence invites a response; posting evasions will get a challenge.

I've tried to explain to you, asking for evidence is futile since it isn't through lack of evidence that you ask, it is through lack of viewpoint from which to interpret (or rather reinterpret) said evidence. You can't see the forest for the trees, so to speak.

Lets imagine I selected some thing as being "evidence for God" what steps would you take to evaluate the truth of that claim? the claim that it is evidence?

You say "but I can read evidence" well, explain the process please, the steps you'd execute in order to decide if something is or is not evidence for God? Because if that process cannot be defined or if it is flawed then why bother even asking for evidence in the first place? why should I bother even presenting any?

Think over what I say.

[TRANSPONDER]

There's no way around this - Science and the methods it uses, is the way to evaluate evidenc e, or logical reasoning. it has earned that by producing results, where religion has lost ground all the time.

You produce the evidence, I'll produce the evidence, and we'll use science and logic to evaluate it. If you don't recognize that, they it's up to you, but, if so, you can't ever appeal to your claims or 'evidence' as being supported by science and logic, should you pull that one.

[POI]

I've tried to explain to you, asking for evidence is futile since it isn't through lack of evidence that you ask, it is through lack of viewpoint from which to interpret (or rather reinterpret) said evidence. You can't see the forest for the trees, so to speak.

Lets imagine I selected some thing as being "evidence for God" what steps would you take to evaluate the truth of that claim? the claim that it is evidence?

You say "but I can read evidence" well, explain the process please, the steps you'd execute in order to decide if something is or is not evidence for God? Because if that process cannot be defined or if it is flawed then why bother even asking for evidence in the first place? why should I bother even presenting any?

Think over what I say.

I have to ask. Are you planning on replying to my last response to you, or not? If not, why not? (Post #84 please)...

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

And now to address your response above... Rather than go through the already gone over mundane steps, in evaluating evidence, it will be much shorter to watch this 4 minute video. For which the take-away question would be.... Who, in the're 'right mind' would refute the claim in this video? I mean, really... If your rebuttal is to water it down, by asking, "what is evidence", then quite frankly, I see you as merely playing games. And now to the video... And frankly, I can't believe I have to resort to such tactics; but as they say, you now leave me no choice.

The (evidence based) claim: "A drunk guy drove through your house!" Would it be fair to say we share the same 'viewpoint'?.?.?.?.?

[wannabe]

No one can prove God, only God can do that and he sometimes does.

1. Based upon what criteria, does He or does He not do so?

2. Is it possible the recipient can completely miss the Christian God's given personal revelation or proof?

3. Why doesn't He just prove Himself to all?

4. How do you know the Christian God has actually proven Himself to anyone?

5. Is self delusion possible?

6. Has He proven Himself to you? If so, how do you know?

1. The criteria : would be that you give as much respect to gods existence as the person standing next to you, as a way for God to review your worth.

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/ ... uman-Heart

2. I have no idea.

3. Your missing the point of creation.

4. There are testimonies all over the internet.

5. Sure - why not ?

6. Here is one example:

When I was 17 I purchased a raffle ticket from my brother who was helping raise money for his school.
From the moment I'd purchased the ticket I immediately had the understanding that I was going to win the first prize. Also it came to no surprise when
I was informed I had won.

So I can't explain my 100% of assuredly of knowledge, but it made me believe in the possibility of prophecy and that miracles could be true.
Then many years later I found Jesus and it all just clicked.

1. I tried that for decades, and nothing. Maybe I'm not 'worthy'? But wait a minute..... In the Bible, God apparently revealed Himself to many people who were deemed unworthy? Maybe you might want to take another crack at the question?

What criteria does God use to provide evidence for you?

2. You have no idea if God is or is not able to assure His proof is being conveyed to each and every person He attempts to give His evidence to?

3. You've missed the point of the question. I'll rephrase. He apparently gives proof to some, and not others. Why is that? Especially since we know, from the Bible, that not all ask for His proof and are deemed 'worthy' of His proof of existence.

4. We have countless testimonies for opposing deities as well. Do we count those too?

5. My point here, is maybe you are mistaken. Is that even possible? If not, why not?

6. Please elaborate here... "many years later I found Jesus".

1. The criteria: asking the right question, answering the right question.
The true reason for the question, might qualify as part of God's criteria for considering an answer.
One should understand , truly understand where they are coming from, because God will surely know where you are coming from.

2. Well I know God has no trouble putting his presence forth, however I can't account for the ignorance of others.(unless you can convince me that ignorance does not exist.)

3. God is going to prove himself to all. Your just impatient. All who have existed will know Jesus. But if you want to know Jesus in your time on earth you just have to get his attention, and
appeal to his grace, to sustain your request.

4. I wasn't aware of countless testimonies for opposing deities as well. That's because I haven't looked. I would be interested to see some evidence. (You should only represent yourself in a
debate.)

5. Not from my point of view, one of the most prominent events in my life.
I cant prove it to you any more than I can prove God. However if you want to label me as delusional on the small amount of evidence you have on me . So be it.

6. It took many years of observation, and understanding answers to questions I needed answering before I would accept Jesus as my King.
Probably about 40 yrs.

[otseng]

...People make stuff up....

I can believe that in the case of atheists.

Moderator Comment

Best not to make comments about certain groups of people.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[POI]

1. The criteria: asking the right question, answering the right question.
The true reason for the question, might qualify as part of God's criteria for considering an answer.
One should understand , truly understand where they are coming from, because God will surely know where you are coming from.

2. Well I know God has no trouble putting his presence forth, however I can't account for the ignorance of others.(unless you can convince me that ignorance does not exist.)

3. God is going to prove himself to all. Your just impatient. All who have existed will know Jesus. But if you want to know Jesus in your time on earth you just have to get his attention, and
appeal to his grace, to sustain your request.

4. I wasn't aware of countless testimonies for opposing deities as well. That's because I haven't looked. I would be interested to see some evidence. (You should only represent yourself in a
debate.)

5. Not from my point of view, one of the most prominent events in my life.
I cant prove it to you any more than I can prove God. However if you want to label me as delusional on the small amount of evidence you have on me . So be it.

6. It took many years of observation, and understanding answers to questions I needed answering before I would accept Jesus as my King.
Probably about 40 yrs.

1. Allow me to elaborate here. The OP debate question is essentially... "Can you please demonstrate the mere existence of the Christian God?" Your given response makes no sense, if you are answering from the 'Christian worldview.' Bare in mind that 'Satan' is not an unbeliever. He is merely not a follower. I, on the other hand, am an unbeliever. In the Bible, God has apparently revealed, or given evidence of His existence, to many whom are deemed unworthy. So your entire line of reasoning, in this response thus far, makes little sense, as a professed Christian.

According to the Bible, God reveals, or gives evidence, to both followers and scoffers. So the claim of needing to be 'worthy', to be made aware of His existence, is incorrect.

In conclusion, either admit you have no idea of what the Christian God's criteria is for providing evidence, or, please furnish a coherent response.

2. You look to be attempting to raise a red herring argument, in instead attempting to get me to argue the topic of ignorance. So please allow me to rephrase the question. Is the Christian God capable of demonstrating His existence, in a way all can understand? Yes or no? If yes, then He is skipping some, and we do not know why? If no, then is He even a God?

3. Your response is baseless; and can be said of any unfulfilled claim. Telling me He's going to 'someday' is unfalsifiable; as you can tell me I will find out after I die. Again, the Bible God looks to be selective, but we have NO CLUE as to the criteria for whom He does and does not decide to provide His evidence for existence?

4. Your prior response was, and I quote "There are testimonies all over the internet". My response points out that we have testimonials for all sorts of external agencies. The question then becomes.... Do we ignore the ones made about other deities? If not, then your claim is again baseless. If we do ignore all the others, then you present extreme conformation bias here. My point being, anecdotal experiences, made about differing 'external agencies', also exist. Hence, your initial statement, quoted above, gives us very little to go upon

5. Oh, I know you believe it. So here's a follow up observation. I've spoken to earnest folks who claim they have received revelation from a completely different external agency. At the very LEAST, either you or them are completely delusional. And at most, both of you are. HOW THE HECK do I go about determining which one of you, at least, is completely mistaken? What is the standard?

6. What was the linchpin, which tipped the scales?

[TRANSPONDER]

Essentially, it seems, the point is, "If there is a wag that God could make us all believers, why not do it?.

And if there is no way for a god to make us all believers, why should we believe?"

We know why - they appeal to evidence, and when that fails, they fall back on Faith.

See above - why have the faith in the first place? Because we were indoctrinated into it. I know - as our pal here claims, the old 'I used to be an atheist, like you...until..." And what usually happens is that (at best) they were tabula rasa (1) and were sold the well - crafted evangelical package because they did not get the other side of the argument. The number of times I've heard 'I was an atheist -like you - and then, when I put the counters, they seem to have forgotten everything they knew as an atheist and even the mindset. Even if they were an atheist as they claim, they did not get to hear both sides. I'm tempted to call this the 'Strobel fallacy' as his version of it is the most blatantly false and the most heavily marketed. Heck, he even made it into a film.

(1) Latin for 'clean table' and not a Brazilian drum as many have thought.

[1213]

What exactly does "when he drew a circle on the face of the deep" mean?
How about "stretched out the earth above the waters"?

I understand it means, in the beginning this whole planet was covered with water. And then at some point God drew a circle on surface of the planet and from that line stretched the earth above the water. And as I think I have already said, earth means dry land.

[1213]

There most certainly is a credible natural force to do that. Convection currents in the magma are what drag the thin layers of solid crust and push them against each other. When two continents push against each other with such tremendous force the only natural response is for the edges to buckle upwards. By the way, how do you suppose all that heavy molten rock we call lava manages to rise up out of holes in the crust we call volcanoes?

In the case of volcanoes I think the reason is that the surrounding material is pushing down and if there is a weak spot in the crust, the pushing causes magma to burst out. And that the magma is hot helps in this case. But, if we are talking about entire continents, the situation is different and eventually everything should level up like concrete in this test, because of the weight:

[1213]

.... but the mid east is not, as I say, a circle...

I don't claim it is.

And this is where you get bit. Bible apologists have to 'interpret' the Bible to make it say what they want it to say and the Bible - critics are more honest in taking it as it is, and never mind nit picks about spellings. You have already Interpreted the 'circle of the earth' (and you are the only one I have ever heard talk of a circle drawn on a globe - most say it IS the globe, and you just made something up to keep the circle AND the globe) to mean Eden/the middle east -Tigris to Cush (Gen.2 10-14) which hardly makes for a circle. You are Interpreting the Bible and cherry - picking and fiddling the evidence like nobody's business in order to keep your argument afloat.....

Bible says directly "he drew a circle on the face of the deep". There is no interpretation needed there, it can be taken directly as it is said. Why do you think it is correct interpretation to think it means flat earth, when circle can be drawn as well on any other form also?

...where do you get your apologetics from?

From the Bible and I believe with the help of God.