Do Gods Exist? Can You Prove Gods Exist? Do They Even Have To Exist?

[Data]

Definitions

God: (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being; (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity; an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; used as a conventional personification of fate; an adored, admired, or influential person; a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god; the gallery in a theater.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves in the existence of God or gods.

Veneration: great respect; reverence:

Existence: the fact or state of living or having objective reality; continued survival; a way of living; any of a person's supposed current, future, or past lives on this earth; all that exists; a being or entity.

In essence a god is anything or anyone who is venerated. A mortal man, an object, a fictional or mythological character, real or imagined, a concept like luck. Good or bad. To exist as a god could involve any of a number of specific applications. To exist literally, metaphorically, figuratively, as a fictional, metaphysical or mythological being, object or concept. In what specific sense any alleged god may exist may depend upon such context.

Questions for debate: Do gods exist? Can you prove they exist and do they even have to exist?

[Data]

[Replying to Data in post #149]

In essence, your arguments are as follows:

Wait a minute. You asked me, I answered, and now you are going to tell me my argument?

1) "We cannot really know anything".

Not true.

We all use faith, as a believer or an unbeliever.

Yes.

It's a deliberate ploy to put skeptics and doubters on the very same playing field as believers.

I'm a skeptic. I'm a doubter. I'm a believer. I'm not a player and I'm not on the field.

"We all have to ultimately put our trust into what we think we know"

What else? God?

2) "Gods ways are higher than ours".

Subjective. But yes. Obviously.

It's a convenient answer, when you have absolutely no evidence for your faith-based belief.

I have more evidence for my faith belief than you do your logic. By a substantial margin. If fact, I dare say, I have more of both. You only have ideology. Expectations.

See how long you survive without your logic. Is that stop light really there? Really?

[laughs] Oh, man! See?

[POI]

[Replying to Data in post #149]

In essence, your arguments are as follows:

Wait a minute. You asked me, I answered, and now you are going to tell me my argument?

You revealed your argument(s). I'm just summing it up for you, and placing a bow on it, so others know your games.

1) "We cannot really know anything".

Not true.

Then care to redact your statement? "No, we could not, because the argument won't be accepted. Was what is logical now logical 100 years ago? Will it be logical a hundred years from now? 500? 1000? 6000?"

Again, I know the world is not a flat disk. I know you cannot go north of the north pole. I know you cannot get colder than absolute zero.

If God had to first create it, then where was God before he first had to create it? It's a rhetorical question. Again, it's like asking the other 2 aforementioned nonsensical questions. But apparently, as with going 'norther' or 'colder', "God's ways are just higher than ours"

We all use faith, as a believer or an unbeliever.

Yes.

Bingo! Part of the pretty little bow I placed on your argument(s), for others to easily read and see right through.

It's a deliberate ploy to put skeptics and doubters on the very same playing field as believers.

I'm a skeptic.

Of Jehovah, I doubt it?

"We all have to ultimately put our trust into what we think we know"

What else? God?

Does confidence and certainty have levels? I'd say so. Is having faith in God's existence the same as having faith that I even exist?

2) "Gods ways are higher than ours".

Subjective. But yes. Obviously.

Another one of your arguments, where I placed a pretty little bow upon.

It's a convenient answer, when you have absolutely no evidence for your faith-based belief.

I have more evidence for my faith belief than you do your logic. By a substantial margin. If fact, I dare say, I have more of both.

Do tell. I'm ready for your evidence. Bring it.

See how long you survive without your logic. Is that stop light really there? Really?

[laughs] Oh, man! See?

No response. Not surprised. Without your logic, you would likely not last very long, unless by sheer luck.

[Data]

You revealed your argument(s). I'm just summing it up for you, and placing a bow on it, so others know your games.

What others? (friends or foes) How come you get so much of my argument wrong? (Expectations, Ideology)

Then care to redact your statement? "No, we could not, because the argument won't be accepted. Was what is logical now logical 100 years ago? Will it be logical a hundred years from now? 500? 1000? 6000?"

We could not what?

If theists too acknowledge that even God abides by logic, then maybe we can move forward; as opposed to laterally or backwards.

No, we could not, because the argument won't be accepted. Was what is logical now logical 100 years ago? Will it be logical a hundred years from now? 500? 1000? 6000?

We could not move forward. (Expectations)

Again, I know the world is not a flat disk. I know you cannot go north of the north pole. I know you cannot get colder than absolute zero.

Is that everything? Your argument goes from nothing to everything. From asking me questions to telling me incorrectly what my answers were. You use logic for that, don't you.

If God had to first create it, then where was God before he first had to create it? It's a rhetorical question.

It's a stupid question.

Bingo! Part of the pretty little bow I placed on your argument(s), for others to easily read and see right through.

Explain that for those outside the army of your imaginary readers who you bless with your arbitrary logistics.

Of Jehovah, I doubt it?

Why doubt it? I'm skeptical of Jehovah.

Does confidence and certainty have levels? I'd say so.

Sure.

Is having faith in God's existence the same as having faith that I even exist?

For me personally, no.

Another one of your arguments, where I placed a pretty little bow upon.

[Gasp] Why, you're a hero is what you are. Not delusional. No. A hero.

Do tell. I'm ready for your evidence. Bring it.

I already have. Some of it.

[alexxcJRO]

Illogical, nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic and relevancy.

Again talking in riddles is not gonna save u sir.

Let's hope we don't hear crickets this time around too!

If there are ten thousand other discussions, I can find on internet forums where Wiseguy atheists and theists tit for tat you are likely to get nothing but crickets from me. Just ask Transponder. It isn't personal so it must be content. I've been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. You want my response skip all that and get to the facts.

Jehovah is responsible for the "sinful nature" and evil. He created it. The analogy is useless and moronic.

No. Sin means miss the mark. Jehovah set the mark; Adam missed it. We live in Adam's world.

It's like this. I (an incredibly powerful and intelligent being) create purposefully a mechanical robot race of beings which is inclined to engage in malevolent and evil manner. Including psychopaths automatons.

Then I come as its creator and promise it to save them from their nature which I imbued them with myself.

No, it's not like that. In any way.

Q: Why in the Earth would I do such illogical, moronic and not necessary thing?

You've gotta' be you, man.

Q: Am I competing for the most moronic being in the omni-verse? Or what?

That is a theory that I'm not at all willing to dismiss offhand. Because your analogy is silly doesn't make the facts silly. Latin abusus non tollit usum. Abuse doesn't negate proper use.

Q: Are you trolling me?

Either God created evil and the sinful nature or not?
You cannot have it both ways!
Stop equivocating sir. Its dishonest.

[Data]

Q: Are you trolling me?

Either God created evil and the sinful nature or not?
You cannot have it both ways!
Stop equivocating sir. Its dishonest.

I'm supposed to be debating you (and the other "skeptics") but you only want to mock and interrogate. I've already answered this question from you at least once. The answer I gave was "No. Sin means miss the mark. Jehovah set the mark; Adam missed it. We live in Adam's world." You're supposed to debate that. Debate doesn't mean interrogate, deride, or whatever you are doing. It means debate. Look it up. Respond to my answer or end your participation in the debate. I'm getting tired of wasting my time. I'm not going to respond to anything other than debate.

[TRANSPONDER]

Have to concur with Alexx. God supposedly designed and made all this.All of it. Unless He is working blind and just trying to patch things up as they go wrong (which would explain a few things) this was all planned, and the options selected. Worse, if one buys Eden it was arranged to rob humans of Life (whatever that is supposed to mean) and then good old autocratic style, the doing of all of this is blamed on the victim.

I am so glad I don't believe it and don't have to excuse, evade or deny what's in this dismal book. It's not even an academic dispute but there are influential people who want us to live in a way that is based on their take on this awful tome. And they marvel that those who don't believe put in the time arguing about it.

[alexxcJRO]

Q: Are you trolling me?

Either God created evil and the sinful nature or not?
You cannot have it both ways!
Stop equivocating sir. Its dishonest.

I'm supposed to be debating you (and the other "skeptics") but you only want to mock and interrogate. I've already answered this question from you at least once. The answer I gave was "No. Sin means miss the mark. Jehovah set the mark; Adam missed it. We live in Adam's world." You're supposed to debate that. Debate doesn't mean interrogate, deride, or whatever you are doing. It means debate. Look it up. Respond to my answer or end your participation in the debate. I'm getting tired of wasting my time. I'm not going to respond to anything other than debate.

No need to whine.
You are not making any sense sir.
This "Sin means miss the mark. Jehovah set the mark; Adam missed it. " does not make any sense.
Please translate in English from "talking in riddles" language which the religious seem to like because it make things confusing and lets them escape possible entrapments that they are unaware off.

[TRANSPONDER]

Q: Are you trolling me?

Either God created evil and the sinful nature or not?
You cannot have it both ways!
Stop equivocating sir. Its dishonest.

I'm supposed to be debating you (and the other "skeptics") but you only want to mock and interrogate. I've already answered this question from you at least once. The answer I gave was "No. Sin means miss the mark. Jehovah set the mark; Adam missed it. We live in Adam's world." You're supposed to debate that. Debate doesn't mean interrogate, deride, or whatever you are doing. It means debate. Look it up. Respond to my answer or end your participation in the debate. I'm getting tired of wasting my time. I'm not going to respond to anything other than debate.

No need to whine.
You are not making any sense sir.
This "Sin means miss the mark. Jehovah set the mark; Adam missed it. " does not make any sense.
Please translate in English from "talking in riddles" language which the religious seem to like because it make things confusing and lets them escape possible entrapments that they are unaware off.

Semantic evasion. You'll find Bible apologists do a lot of it. The basic apologetic is that the Fall was all Adam's fault and his fault is extended to all his descendants after that, and this is supposed to be good and just. There is a familiar attempt to try to confuse the issue by dickering about the literal meaning of 'Sin'. It alters nothing, but it's a familiar attempt to play the 'I understand it better than you' card. Plus of course a display of miff, in a vain attempt to intimidate, claim that it's been answered before (and usually refuted, if one checks back).and generally pull a few five dollar lawyer tricks.

The faux exhibition of sorely tried patience from one who regularly winds us up and wastes our time now says he is just here to have fun with us is rather a hoot. I can only take pity on Christianity and say 'Don't be aghast, I know this is not typical of your apolpogists; they are just usually rather poor at it'.

[alexxcJRO]

Semantic evasion. You'll find Bible apologists do a lot of it. The basic apologetic is that the Fall was all Adam's fault and his fault is extended to all his descendants after that, and this is supposed to be good and just. There is a familiar attempt to try to confuse the issue by dickering about the literal meaning of 'Sin'. It alters nothing, but it's a familiar attempt to play the 'I understand it better than you' card. Plus of course a display of miff, in a vain attempt to intimidate, claim that it's been answered before (and usually refuted, if one checks back).and generally pull a few five dollar lawyer tricks.

The faux exhibition of sorely tried patience from one who regularly winds us up and wastes our time now says he is just here to have fun with us is rather a hoot. I can only take pity on Christianity and say 'Don't be aghast, I know this is not typical of your apolpogists; they are just usually rather poor at it'.

Its irrelevant. Its moronic to say God(the supreme being of unimaginable intelligence and power) gonna save us from evil/sin-evil nature/sinful nature. Thing which he did-create in the first place; for which he is responsible for.

Data admitted God did create evil purposefully.

[Data]

Have to concur with Alexx. God supposedly designed and made all this.All of it. Unless He is working blind and just trying to patch things up as they go wrong (which would explain a few things) this was all planned, and the options selected. Worse, if one buys Eden it was arranged to rob humans of Life (whatever that is supposed to mean) and then good old autocratic style, the doing of all of this is blamed on the victim.

I am so glad I don't believe it and don't have to excuse, evade or deny what's in this dismal book. It's not even an academic dispute but there are influential people who want us to live in a way that is based on their take on this awful tome. And they marvel that those who don't believe put in the time arguing about it.

Sin means miss the mark. Jehovah set the mark; Adam missed it. We live in Adam's world. Had Adam followed the simple instructions given to him he, and all of his descendents, i.e. all of humanity, never would have died gotten sick, old, or suffered as a result of natural disasters. Paradise. So, our ancestor, Adam, is responsible for all the suffering of this temporary world. God has offered a way out of that before he destroys that world. You're "argument" blames God for Adam's sin which was against God's advice, and you're suggesting the solution to it is to continue following Adam's example.