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]

Consider:

[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.

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?

Ok so you are not rejecting science. So it appears that you are saying (especially with the video you posted) that it can't explain everything. So what? Gap for god? Unknowns do not prove a god (name your own) but only unknowns that have yet to be answered. Maybe a god will prove to be the answer, maybe not. But until it is, there is NO evidence for a god, and flipping off science as the valid and default answer so far is no case.

Science (especially as you don't deny it) is the default, not a god.

[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.

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?

Ok so you are not rejecting science. So it appears that you are saying (especially with the video you posted) that it can't explain everything. So what? Gap for god? Unknowns do not prove a god (name your own) but only unknowns that have yet to be answered. Maybe a god will prove to be the answer, maybe not. But until it is, there is NO evidence for a god, and flipping off science as the valid and default answer so far is no case.

Science (especially as you don't deny it) is the default, not a god.

[POI]

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?

Reducing the exchange to a flavor of 'solipsism' looks to be your game play here Welp, looks like we may not have much further to discuss -- (between you and I)..? Basically, you came on here to clarify that we cannot 'know' anything, this includes God's existence. Thanks for that...

And yet, the Bible disagrees with you --> (Rom 1). Assuming you are a Bible Christian, you now have to reconcile that 'truth'.

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.

This response may not of answered my question? Allow me to rephrase for clarity.

Assuming you have received some sort of <revelation of sorts>, how do you (know) this <revelation> came from the Christian God? Or wait, is everything reduced ultimately to being faith-based?

[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?

Ok so you are not rejecting science. So it appears that you are saying (especially with the video you posted) that it can't explain everything. So what? Gap for god? Unknowns do not prove a god (name your own) but only unknowns that have yet to be answered. Maybe a god will prove to be the answer, maybe not. But until it is, there is NO evidence for a god, and flipping off science as the valid and default answer so far is no case.

Science (especially as you don't deny it) is the default, not a god.

There is no "default" if there is then its a personal choice for each of to decide for ourselves, some might assume God some might not, this a free choice not a rule to be imposed by others.

Tell me, how would you even begin to go about explaining something if you knew it could not be scientifically explained?

[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)...

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.

Another game tactic, I see. You look to be practicing novice philosophical tactics here. "Hey POI, demonstrate an absolute instead of an objective." Kool.

Further, I think you missed the point of the video. Being you have been studying for years, as have I, I would assume that our 'viewpoints' are very similar, in MANY cases. So the 64K dollar question then becomes....

Why do you feel the Christian God reveals anything to you when I feel there is no Christian God providing anything at all; because He likely does not exist (via years of pondering)? Meaning, why do we diverge HERE so drastically. And yet, our viewpoint on virtually any other topic likely coincide.

[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?

Reducing the exchange to a flavor of 'solipsism' looks to be your game play here Welp, looks like we may not have much further to discuss -- (between you and I)..? Basically, you came on here to clarify that we cannot 'know' anything, this includes God's existence. Thanks for that...

And yet, the Bible disagrees with you --> (Rom 1). Assuming you are a Bible Christian, you now have to reconcile that 'truth'.

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.

This response may not of answered my question? Allow me to rephrase for clarity.

Assuming you have received some sort of <revelation of sorts>, how do you (know) this <revelation> came from the Christian God? Or wait, is everything reduced ultimately to being faith-based?

You never told me what you understand by what it means to "know" something, if I don't know what you understand by that then how I can answer your questions?

[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.

Another game tactic, I see. You look to be practicing novice philosophical tactics here. "Hey POI, demonstrate an absolute instead of an objective." Kool.

Further, I think you missed the point of the video. Being you have been studying for years, as have I, I would assume that our 'viewpoints' are very similar, in MANY cases. So the 64K dollar question then becomes....

Why do you feel the Christian God reveals anything to you when I feel there is no Christian God providing anything at all; because He likely does not exist (via years of pondering)? Meaning, why do we diverge HERE so drastically. And yet, our viewpoint on virtually any other topic likely coincide.

Let me ask you, where does understanding come from? what does it mean to understand something? This is not games, if you want to discuss questions that deal with understanding, knowing then you'll need to have a very very very clear meaning for these terms.

[Tcg]

Assuming you have received some sort of <revelation of sorts>, how do you (know) this <revelation> came from the Christian God? Or wait, is everything reduced ultimately to being faith-based?

Not everything is but believing one has received revelation from the Christian God most certainly is. It's also a bit arrogant is it not? God speaks to me but not to you and it's your fault. Well not you and not me but you know. Of course, it does match the record of the Bible. We're dealing with a God who (according to the myth) practices favoritism. No reason to think that is gonna change anytime soon. I'm rather glad to not be chosen. I'd hate to accept absurdities for the sake of comfort and having a big daddy god whose gonna take care of me. I can take care of myself.


Tcg

[Inquirer]

Assuming you have received some sort of <revelation of sorts>, how do you (know) this <revelation> came from the Christian God? Or wait, is everything reduced ultimately to being faith-based?

Not everything is but believing one has received revelation from the Christian God most certainly is.

So then, what isn't based on faith or trust?

It's also a bit arrogant is it not? God speaks to me but not to you and it's your fault. Well not you and not me but you know.

To describe what I said (if that's what you are doing) as "arrogant" is to admit that you feel somehow excluded by what I said, well quote me and lets see if I excluded anyone, lets see if I implied I was special or privileged or better than anyone else, go on, quote what I said and support the accusation of "arrogance".

Of course, it does match the record of the Bible. We're dealing with a God who (according to the myth) practices favoritism. No reason to think that is gonna change anytime soon. I'm rather glad to not be chosen. I'd hate to accept absurdities for the sake of comfort and having a big daddy god whose gonna take care of me. I can take care of myself.

You can't take care of yourself, you're going to die and there's absolutely nothing you can do about that.