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?

[1213]

It is incorrect. Geology indicates that earth was ALL dry land before the seas formed, not the other way around.

Why do you believe "geology" is correct on this?

We know this because of the old sea beds that now form parts of mountains.

If water covered everything as told in the Bible, those areas would as well be former sea beds. Doesn't necessary mean they were formed as "geology" claims. And I don't believe the plate convection theory, because it doesn't understand the fores needed to lift mountains. Perhaps "geology" should do some studying in engineering and basic physics.

[brunumb]

And I don't believe the plate convection theory, because it doesn't understand the fores needed to lift mountains. Perhaps "geology" should do some studying in engineering and basic physics.

It doesn't matter if you believe it or not. That doesn't change the fact that plate tectonics accounts for the forces involved in the formation of mountains. The experts in the field have done all the relevant studying and know what is involved. Perhaps you should study the subject a little deeper before you dismiss it all so readily in favour of an ancient story. No God necessary.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is incorrect. Geology indicates that earth was ALL dry land before the seas formed, not the other way around.

Why do you believe "geology" is correct on this?

We know this because of the old sea beds that now form parts of mountains.

If water covered everything as told in the Bible, those areas would as well be former sea beds. Doesn't necessary mean they were formed as "geology" claims. And I don't believe the plate convection theory, because it doesn't understand the fores needed to lift mountains. Perhaps "geology" should do some studying in engineering and basic physics.

You see, you have retreated from sea shells on mountains as evidence for a flood to denying that they are evidence against a Flood. It's a change (of who has to prove their case) that is often missed. But suppose Flood sea floors is as good an explanation as ancient sea floors. They had to be raised up as mountains, yes? They had to be fossilized, otherwise they'd slip down the sides of the mountains as they were raised up, yes? And the tectonic plates are understood and rate of movement measured, and geology shows that land masses collide and push up strata and invert it and roll it over and this can be seen in geological strata. This is known and your Science Denial does you no credit. It is you rather who needs to do some study.

[TRANSPONDER]

And I don't believe the plate convection theory, because it doesn't understand the fores needed to lift mountains. Perhaps "geology" should do some studying in engineering and basic physics.

It doesn't matter if you believe it or not. That doesn't change the fact that plate tectonics accounts for the forces involved in the formation of mountains. The experts in the field have done all the relevant studying and know what is involved. Perhaps you should study the subject a little deeper before you dismiss it all so readily in favour of an ancient story. No God necessary.

I hate to kick a dude when they are down, but I already pointed out the retreat from presenting evidence for a Falood that bemomes trying to support it as evidence for a Flood when Not a Flood works just as well. The Emphasis has changed. If Ancient geology is just as good an explanation, Natural explanation has become the default and Creatiosm has actually lost. But the believers don't see it - it is about defending bttheir Faith. If they can deny the evidence and avoid saying "Shoot. Genesis can't be right after all" they reckon they won.

Arq Axiom "To the believer a draw is a win."

so we get what looks like ad hoc explanations, like they could be Flood sea beds, which of course would still be soft sand or mud, not the fossil strata that these actually are. They do not know the evidence, but are doing ad hoc 'make it up as you go along' improvised excuses to try to keep the Creationist case going. This involves of course science denial. Now, apart from Believers (not just Creationist, Bible apologists deny the 'science' too) appealing to science as supporting evidence when it suits them and then binning it when it turns and bites them in the botty, and relying on it to work every day (of course they cherry pick science as they do their own Bible at need) science denial is a risky strategy as it relies on the majority being willing to dismiss science, not to say assuming that because they don't know the science, nobody else does.

I'm not trashing our pal here, but the evidence case is won. It is just that nobody gets to hear it. Evangelical Creationism gets funded, the atheist side doesn't. But 1231 here was one of the best "Good, Bas examples" I have seen in a while, of the Theist Faithbased mindset affect their argument and how it works in practice. It's ...

[Clownboat]

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.

That's fascinating! Usually it only takes being indoctrinated into the geographic religion of an area for a person to find their god concept. Get em when their young and it won't take 40 years.

[Inquirer]

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

But science presupposes cause and effect, it rests upon the unprovable assumption that what is observed is caused, that the observable world is deterministic. So by adopting your viewpoint we exclude the possibility of non-determinism, God. I don't see how one can evaluate evidence for God by assuming beforehand there is no God, this won't do.

We're discussing evidence for God, this question has nothing to do with "religion", you can't argue that the detrimental aspects of religions serve as evidence against the existence of God.

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.

No, this is far too soon to speak of specific examples of evidence, as I said the viewpoint that science is the only means of explaining what we observe is the core of your problem, asking for evidence for X when you assume that all evidence can only be attributed to not-X is fallacious reasoning, it is the viewpoint where you err.

[Inquirer]

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.

This response sounds quite convenient.

God reveals knowledge including knowledge that God exists, has mind and so on.

Since you have been pondering this subject for years:

1. How do you know "God" reveals anything to anyone?

I can no more answer that than you can answer how do you "know X is true" whatever X may be, so its a fine question but it is there lurking in the shadows for all of us.

2. How do you know the Christian God even exists?

Ditto, the term "know" is used often glibly in these kinds of discussions. Take anything you "know" (other than a self evident truth) and ask yourself, how do you know it?

3. What 'knowledge' did the Christian God reveal to you; and, how do you know it was Him at all?

That our natural state of mind is materialistic, that we strive to understand the world materialistically, that we even insist everything can in principle be explained materialistically. I was unaware of this deep truth when I was studying theoretical physics yet it was through that subject that I began to see the assumptions I'd been making subliminally for years.

It is fruitless to ask questions like "show me evidence" because we innately have no way of understanding what evidence for God is

Then how the heck would anyone know if/when they were receiving evidence for the Christian God?

They won't, only when it is revealed, only when you are compelled to self-reflect and examine your own thinking, your own assumptions, that's when you'll begin to see things differently.

until God wants you to understand you will not understand.

Baseless claim -- noted.

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.

You already expressed, above, "we innately have no way of understanding what evidence for God is". Thus, your above statement is pointless.

Further, your statement is also wrong --- as "Satan and a third of the angels", as well as 'Sal of Tarsus', etc etc etc, all have/had the incorrect "mindset", BUT still acknowledge the Bible God's existence What evidence did they receive?

I can't speak for anyone else.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

But science presupposes cause and effect, it rests upon the unprovable assumption that what is observed is caused, that the observable world is deterministic. So by adopting your viewpoint we exclude the possibility of non-determinism, God. I don't see how one can evaluate evidence for God by assuming beforehand there is no God, this won't do.

We're discussing evidence for God, this question has nothing to do with "religion", you can't argue that the detrimental aspects of religions serve as evidence against the existence of God.

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.

No, this is far too soon to speak of specific examples of evidence, as I said the viewpoint that science is the only means of explaining what we observe is the core of your problem, asking for evidence for X when you assume that all evidence can only be attributed to not-X is fallacious reasoning, it is the viewpoint where you err.

No, the logical or evidential flaw in on your side, because science proves its' case, tests, checks, validates, makes predictions and they pan out. Tiktaalik was predicted - what it should look like and where it would be found. And theists and non -theist alike rely on it working every day. And even if Science couldn't be relied on, that wouldn't do a single thing to validate any god -claim, never mind which god.

You have nothing if you reject science, and you have no logic if you misuse it in that way.

[Inquirer]

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)...

My apologies, this has now been taken care of!

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'?.?.?.?.?

A fun little cartoon, it might appeal to the philosophy novice or a devotee of scientism. The case made by that cartoon though is that what we observe is always governed by cause and effect, that the world around us is governed by determinism, science rests upon this assumption - it is though an unprovable claim, if you think you can prove it though I'm all ears.

How do you know that the universe is deterministic? how can you explain the existence of determinism? what caused cause and effect to exist?

So the video is fine, it is fine to reason that way for things that are deterministic but how do you know that everything is governed by determinism?

(See? I too can ask lots if "How do you know" questions).

[Inquirer]

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

But science presupposes cause and effect, it rests upon the unprovable assumption that what is observed is caused, that the observable world is deterministic. So by adopting your viewpoint we exclude the possibility of non-determinism, God. I don't see how one can evaluate evidence for God by assuming beforehand there is no God, this won't do.

We're discussing evidence for God, this question has nothing to do with "religion", you can't argue that the detrimental aspects of religions serve as evidence against the existence of God.

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.

No, this is far too soon to speak of specific examples of evidence, as I said the viewpoint that science is the only means of explaining what we observe is the core of your problem, asking for evidence for X when you assume that all evidence can only be attributed to not-X is fallacious reasoning, it is the viewpoint where you err.

No, the logical or evidential flaw in on your side, because science proves its' case, tests, checks, validates, makes predictions and they pan out.

Lets see if any others here call you out when you say "science proves its' case" because you should be called out, science doesn't lead to proof.

Tiktaalik was predicted - what it should look like and where it would be found. And theists and non -theist alike rely on it working every day. And even if Science couldn't be relied on, that wouldn't do a single thing to validate any god -claim, never mind which god.

You have nothing if you reject science, and you have no logic if you misuse it in that way.

Who's rejecting science? I'm a scientist, so what on earth are you saying here?