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?

[TRANSPONDER]

We were all born without any knowledge of god concepts.

Is that a scientifically demonstrable claim or just something you believe?

It is a true claim for everyone reading it. You're being silly. If I'm wrong about you being silly, please explain the god concept you had knowledge of at birth.

So its fine to make up claims unsupported by any data or evidence and simply call people silly when they ask for it, OK I this was one of the main objections raised by atheists for claims made by theists, but never mind.

THEIST: "Everyone can see that God exists".

ATHEIST: "No, not without evidence, you don't have a shred of evidence".

THEIST: "It's a true claim for everyone reading it, you're being silly".

My work here is done.

ahhh.... That looked like you just demolished the Theist argument. Surely you were going to add to the theist making a faith -claim and calling anyone who disagreed 'silly'. If that was it, your work is indeed done, and so is ours in refuting the theist rationale.

btw - the hypothesis (or claim) that we are all born atheist is supported in the need to teach kids theism as soon as possible and keep dinning it into them. Has anyone a counter =claim to make with evidence that debunks that?

[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?

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?

Hahaha. Are you asking, in the sense of 'knowing', by way of: empirical "knowledge", rational 'knowledge, or creational knowledge'? Which-is-to-mean, you seem to still be playing games.... I can't imagine you would have ever pulled this stunt/response, when a 'knowledge' claim was made in your field of study Convenient you do it here....

So are we, again, reducing the likes of this discussion, to the category of "solipsism"???

Again, HOW do you 'know' the Bible God not only exists, but has interfaced with you in ANY capacity? If the answer is, you don't "know", and it's faith based, we can then go from there....

[Clownboat]

So its fine to make up claims unsupported by any data or evidence and simply call people silly when they ask for it, OK I this was one of the main objections raised by atheists for claims made by theists, but never mind.

THEIST: "Everyone can see that God exists".

ATHEIST: "No, not without evidence, you don't have a shred of evidence".

THEIST: "It's a true claim for everyone reading it, you're being silly".

My work here is done.

Don't leave, your helping in more ways then you may ever know!

Will you address what I actually said?
Copy/paste: If I'm wrong about you being silly, please explain the god concept you had knowledge of at birth.

Turns out I was right and you were being silly. If not, you would have informed us all about the god you believed in a birth. You made your bed, so you need to sleep in it.

[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.

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.

Your given a priori demonstrates nothing but fallacious reasoning - of the circular reasoning flavor. Looks as though your fundamental argument for 'god's' existence is that we need a 'source' for 'knowledge'. But the problem with your demonstrated argument from ignorance, is that EVEN IF this were true, how do you come to the Bible God as being this source? Why not a countless bevy of other passed and present asserted and unfounded deities?

Again, our viewpoints likely coincide on MANY things. And yet, we diverge about the Bible God quite severally. Why is that, being our epistemology is likely quite consistence -- outside the Bible God claim? One of us likely represents a cognitive dissonance, where the Bible God is concerned. The question remains, which one of us likely fits that conclusion?

[TRANSPONDER]

So its fine to make up claims unsupported by any data or evidence and simply call people silly when they ask for it, OK I this was one of the main objections raised by atheists for claims made by theists, but never mind.

THEIST: "Everyone can see that God exists".

ATHEIST: "No, not without evidence, you don't have a shred of evidence".

THEIST: "It's a true claim for everyone reading it, you're being silly".

My work here is done.

Don't leave, your helping in more ways then you may ever know!

Will you address what I actually said?
Copy/paste: If I'm wrong about you being silly, please explain the god concept you had knowledge of at birth.

Turns out I was right and you were being silly. If not, you would have informed us all about the god you believed in a birth. You made your bed, so you need to sleep in it.

Damm Was that two Flounces in One day? Must be Wednesday...

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Tcg in post #54]

Well, cut to the chase, send that email and find out. My words don't matter to you. Ask a Jewish Christian.

The Jews have a term for such folks - Christian.

[Wootah]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #156]

When you study the Bible it sometimes feels impossible to read a paragraph in the new testament that doesnt rely on knowing the old testament.

Anyway the history of the Jews is proof of God.

[POI]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #156]

When you study the Bible it sometimes feels impossible to read a paragraph in the new testament that doesnt rely on knowing the old testament.

I would agree. The "NT" writers borrow heavily from the already circulating "OT".

Anyway the history of the Jews is proof of God.

Correction... It's more likely the Jews invented a religion, where the God of the Torah places favor upon them specifically. (Even though millions of them were not protected by God - in being murdered ). How convenient, and also, how ungodly-like... A ruler of the universe creates everything, also creates multiple races on one small planet, and then places favor upon one of those races --- (where humans cannot control what race they are born into). Using Occam's Razor, what's more likely:

A: The Jews invented a self-serving religion, later robbed by Paul and the anonymous
B: Apply many (ad hoc / post hoc) explanations and assumptions galore

[POI]

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

I figured it was only a matter of time before we landed here....

Would you agree there exists differing types of 'faith'? Meaning, you can have: Blind faith - by adopting and/or accepting a claim or assertion without virtually any inquiry at all.

Or, you can instead interchange the word 'faith' with (hope, trust, confidence, etc). But wait, you can also apprehend or infer some type of given input. The take away here then becomes....

Both yours, as well as my epistemology, probably parallel one another in virtually all realms of <'science'/etc/etc>... We also likely both do not believe many claims of other external sources. We lack 'faith' in them. Likely, for many of the same reasons (give or take). Our <viewpoints> are very similar, I reckon....

BUT, when it comes to Christianity, ONE OF US harbors a cognitive dissonance. You possess some sort of not-yet-clarified 'faith' that the Christian God is real. I do not. Just like I, as well as you, do not possess 'faith' in the many other asserted passed and present deities.

So, which one of us possesses the cognitive dissonance, me or you?

[brunumb]

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

I figured it was only a matter of time before we landed here....

Would you agree there exists differing types of 'faith'? Meaning, you can have: Blind faith - by adopting and/or accepting a claim or assertion without virtually any inquiry at all.

If everything is based on faith/trust as Inquirer suggests, then there is a need for a spectrum on which to place any claim. At one extreme we have fully justified faith/trust that the claim is true while at the the other end we have totally unjustified faith/trust that the claim is true. The scientific method helps us place observed phenomena and explanatory theories on that spectrum with a fair degree of confidence. I wonder how religious claims fare.