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]

By its very nature love must be shared, hence His reason to create. Love is best when it is shared so, yes, He would want us to return that love. But how could we learn to love while in the presence of God?

The same way you grow to love anyone while in their presence. Loving an absent God is like a teenager falling in love with a pop star through the poster on their wall. As intense as it might feel, it's not real love. It's infatuation based on wishful thinking.

It's still real to me, dang it!

I never got over it that Marianne Faithfull turned me down for Mick Jagger.

...
it might be that a spherical earth is the best explanation of the evidence, it might be that Jesus Resurrection is the best explanation of the evidence.

It might be that I'm Teddy Roosevelt.

"It might be" is a poor means of establishing truth.

Ain't it amazing how far less probable undisprovables are considered good reasons to believe? But this is absolutely what faithbased thinking does.

[DaveD49]

Obviously there are many different levels of love, and unfortunately what most people to mean when they talk about love is the lowest form of "love" which is sex which is most often essentially self love.

<bolding mine>

Got a cite for that ‘most’?

No. But I think common sense speaks of it.

It is unfortunate that many people enter a sexual relationship not thinking really at all about the other but just thinking about themselves.

I agree.

I talk about "pure selfless love" and then you link it to a site about lust gods.

Could this be a ‘no true love god’-type fallacy, I wonder…?

Sure it is true that you can pick any negative desire and you can find a (sic) ancient god linked to it.

You’ll be thrilled to hear I’m in agreement with you here.

But we do not live in those places and times, do we?

No, we don’t.

And we are not talking about ancient gods which few if any worship today but rather the one true God and the properties that He has been shown to possess.

<bolding mine>

Just highlighting the parts where you got a teensy bit ahead of providing any evidence for your claims.

"Evidence" for my claims are being given in my "Evidence for God #x" series.

And this I know from my own personal experiences which, of course, means nothing to you.

Well, I haven’t been given any details, so it’s kinda hard to find any meaning in such a vague statement.

I can't tell my entire history in such a small space.

What you apparently fail to see is that NONE of those so-called gods are worshipped today

Oh, I do see - and approve of the general declining belief in gods around the world.

Actually, that is incorrect. A PEW study found that by 2050 the only religion to exceed the world population growth statistic will be Islam. Christianity is projected to remain at the same percentage of the population as now, 35% world population growth, and 35% increase in Christians. However the unaffiliated population, including atheist, is projected to shrink in regard to the percentage of the world population. They predict a 9% increase in the number of unaffiliated (includes agnostics, atheists, and those who believe in God but are not part of any religion), but a world population growth of 35%. So, according to the study the unaffiliated will lose a good portion of their percentage of the world population.

except by people which we might call "depraved".

I suggest such broad-brush derogatory labelling is unproductive.

Perhaps you are right.

Most of those thousands and thousands of god-centered religions that people worshipped in the past are gone

We share the same level of unbelief in thousands and thousands of gods, then.

and in their place remain mainly just Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism. All of which are centered on God as pure love.

I’d like to see a case made for the Hindu pantheon as ‘centred on pure love’. You may be over-reaching again.

I knew someone would bring up Hinduism. You may be correct there but despite the numerous negative "gods" found in Hinduism I believe the main focus centers on love.

Why are these the only ones left?

Actually a great question, and worthy of its own debate. I don’t have a particular view at the moment but suspect there’s a lot of geopolitical factors in play.

Because through time when people have found greater truth in a different religion than their own they switch.

Isn’t there a possibility of accidentally switching to a ‘lesser truth’ - like, say, from Christianity to Islam?

Why would anyone switch to a faith that contains a lesser truth than another?

And that development through time is the "maturity of thinking" you should be talking about, not trying to compare modern religions to ancient ones.

But Christianity is an ancient religion. It’s two thousand years old. Wouldn’t Mormonism therefore be ‘more mature’ in its thinking?

Age doesn't make a person or a religion more mature. I, and I am certain that you have as well, met some 40 year old children as well as 16 year old adults.

[Diagoras]

No. But I think common sense speaks of it.

(in relation to ‘most people’ talk about the lowest form of love)

Simply one person’s opinion about what others think, then.

"Evidence" for my claims are being given in my "Evidence for God #x" series.

Then either embed a link or copy and paste specifics into this thread, please. Don’t assume everyone knows where to look.

That goes double for a thread which explicitly asks for that evidence to be presented here.

I can't tell my entire history in such a small space.

Is it an ‘all or nothing’ deal? You allude to personal experiences but don’t elaborate. On a debate site, this doesn’t help.

A PEW study found that by 2050 the only religion to exceed the world population growth statistic will be Islam.

Is this the study you are referencing? Again, generally good form to include a link when in debate.

I note:

In the United States, Christians will decline from more than three-quarters of the population in 2010 to two-thirds in 2050

The overall trend (more Muslims) seems to be driven by different fertility rates across the world - unless God is directing things slowly but surely toward Islam as his ‘preferred’ religion, do you think?

I knew someone would bring up Hinduism. You may be correct there but despite the numerous negative "gods" found in Hinduism I believe the main focus centers on love.

So, opinion again. Ok.

Why would anyone switch to a faith that contains a lesser truth than another?

You would have to ask them - but people do turn from Christianity to Islam or Buddhism, for example.

Age doesn't make a person or a religion more mature.

Agreed. I think we had our wires crossed regarding who or what was ‘maturing’. But your ‘switching to a greater understanding of love’ argument is too simplistic: people likely switch religions for all sorts of reasons. To take one example: inter-faith marriages often result in one partner converting.

[Shem Yoshi]

...
it might be that a spherical earth is the best explanation of the evidence, it might be that Jesus Resurrection is the best explanation of the evidence.

It might be that I'm Teddy Roosevelt.

"It might be" is a poor means of establishing truth.

nothing wrong with that. I look at it as an open discussion instead of asserting things that people reject.