The Topic of God Has Been Settled!....

[POI]

...According to a theist....

Otseng: Cumulatively, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of God existing than not existing.

POI Therefore, the agnostic/atheist/other is:

a) uninformed
b) inept
c) in denial
d) other

Meaning, the theists have won. At this point, it's as futile as debating the shape of the earth with a flat earther. In this scenario, the doubter is the 'flat earther.' Is this how settled the topic is regarding God's existence?

For debate:

1) If the skeptic/doubter does not agree with the title of this thread, they are one of the given options in <a) though d)> above, maybe like that of a "flat earther"? Please agree or disagree and explain your given response.

2) What piece of evidence would be the first and/or strongest, in this cumulative string of evidence(s), to support the conclusion that God exists?

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

As a side note, I may or may not engage myself with this topic. I'd rather see what everyone else has to say, since I personally feel all such arguments are nothing new. I guess this makes me the 'flat earther', since I remain unconvinced

[1213]

That is fine but the same evidence leads atheists to disbelieve that God exists. ...

It is weird how can it be so, when there is nothing in nature that indicates that life could begin spontaneously from non organic material.

[Mae von H]

That is fine but the same evidence leads atheists to disbelieve that God exists. ...

It is weird how can it be so, when there is nothing in nature that indicates that life could begin spontaneously from non organic material.

Atheists ignore that question. I’ve asked them. Their view requires restricting scientific inquiry as some questions one may NOT ask. That’s one of them. Ask it and risk an onslaught of insulting rejoinders.

[TRANSPONDER]

That is fine but the same evidence leads atheists to disbelieve that God exists. ...

It is weird how can it be so, when there is nothing in nature that indicates that life could begin spontaneously from non organic material.

Well, abiogenesis has always been a gap for a god (though it doesn't tell you which one), and the point of evolution in the religion - debate is that it refutes the Bible, not so much a creator of Life.

That said, there is a hypothetical mechanism for abiogenesis, even if it hasn't actually been shown to make a replicating molecule from biochemicals. The claim that a god did it is purely appeal to unknowns or enexplained, even though there is a hypothetical explanation. Creationism has no mechanism but just a stopgap claim for'we don't know'.

The problem with evolution deniers is they are forced to argue that Abiogernesis is impossible. Not just not seen to happen in everyday life, never mind not having a plausible explanatory mechanism, but it cannot possibly have happened. Because without that, it remains a possibility and the god - claim has no force, even without it not telling you which god it was.

That argument really is no case for Theism, never mind not for Christianity.

[benchwarmer]

That is fine but the same evidence leads atheists to disbelieve that God exists. ...

It is weird how can it be so, when there is nothing in nature that indicates that life could begin spontaneously from non organic material.

Atheists ignore that question. I’ve asked them. Their view requires restricting scientific inquiry as some questions one may NOT ask. That’s one of them. Ask it and risk an onslaught of insulting rejoinders.

We do? First I've heard of atheists ignoring this question.

We don't know how life began, but given every creature alive is made up of the basic atoms that are the building blocks of all matter, it seems clear there was some mechanism for it to happen. Whether a god forced the basic atoms into self replicating molecules, a pink fairy did it, three mad invisible unicorns did it, or it was just a natural mechanism requiring some unknown as yet process we simply don't know.

I find it quite silly that you can claim atheists ignore this question. I've just proven this wrong. I'm not ignoring it. Not having a definitive answer is a far cry from ignoring it. "I don't know" is perfectly valid and much better that making something up (like a god) and declaring that to be true.

[Difflugia]

Atheists ignore that question. I’ve asked them.

Here's a whole paper not ignoring that question: "The Origins of the RNA World".

[POI]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #19]

Does this mean you concede that the skeptic/doubter/atheist/other has a legitimate case to question the assertion of "God"? As the OP points out, this doubt would not be legitimate, when questioning the general shape of earth as being spherical.

[Mae von H]

That is fine but the same evidence leads atheists to disbelieve that God exists. ...

It is weird how can it be so, when there is nothing in nature that indicates that life could begin spontaneously from non organic material.

Atheists ignore that question. I’ve asked them. Their view requires restricting scientific inquiry as some questions one may NOT ask. That’s one of them. Ask it and risk an onslaught of insulting rejoinders.

We do? First I've heard of atheists ignoring this question.

We don't know how life began, but given every creature alive is made up of the basic atoms that are the building blocks of all matter, it seems clear there was some mechanism for it to happen. Whether a god forced the basic atoms into self replicating molecules, a pink fairy did it, three mad invisible unicorns did it, or it was just a natural mechanism requiring some unknown as yet process we simply don't know.

I find it quite silly that you can claim atheists ignore this question. I've just proven this wrong. I'm not ignoring it. Not having a definitive answer is a far cry from ignoring it. "I don't know" is perfectly valid and much better that making something up (like a god) and declaring that to be true.

You didn’t answer this question but ignored it. “There was some mechanism” is not an answer. Please give us an answer that isn’t springing from imagination. You insist evolution is science, from evolution, how did life start? Let’s have the scientific experiments that demonstrates this not a college creative fiction response.

[benchwarmer]

You didn’t answer this question but ignored it. “There was some mechanism” is not an answer. Please give us an answer that isn’t springing from imagination. You insist evolution is science, from evolution, how did life start? Let’s have the scientific experiments that demonstrates this not a college creative fiction response.

If you think I didn't answer the question, then you are clearly not paying attention. My answer was "We don't currently know". I'm sorry this answer is not satisfying to you, but it is an honest answer. To answer otherwise is classic "God of the gaps" thinking if you are just going to insert your favorite deity without evidence.

Let's try this:

How did my pencil end up under my desk?

Please provide the answer otherwise by your logic you are ignoring the question. You have no access to my room where the desk is or any access to any data that shows how it happened (no video, no written statements, and no ability to ask anyone in my house).

Are you going to claim "I don't know" isn't an answer? That means you have ignored the question by your own logic.

Or are you simply going to actually ignore answering this showing you don't want to reveal the double standard?

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #19]

Does this mean you concede that the skeptic/doubter/atheist/other has a legitimate case to question the assertion of "God"? As the OP points out, this doubt would not be legitimate, when questioning the general shape of earth as being spherical.

That people doubt the truth or believe the lie doesn’t mean that position is legitimate.

[fredonly]

...According to a theist....

Otseng: Cumulatively, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of God existing than not existing.

What properties does this "God" have that are overwhelmingly supported by evidence?

One might argue that it's most reasonable to believe there is an ultimate ground to reality, that accounts for everything that exists. So if one defines "God" as that ultimate ground, I have no argument. But this does not entail a being who chose to create a universe or anything it contains. It just means there's a bottom layer of reality. This doesn't preclude this thing being a "God of religion", but it certainly doesn't entail it. So I'd need to see more details about what Otseng believes to be overwhelmingly supported.