Your best argument that god exists

[outhouse]

It still would not equal the evidence for Christianity

YOU have no evidence.

It is a faith based religion. FAITH BASED

 

[outhouse]

Plus the historical, etc...... evidence.

YOU have no historical evidence.


On the other hand we have evidence that man has been creating and defining deities at will in theology using mythology.

The Emperor was the first son of god, the Christians plagiarized.

The Abrahamic god was compiled from two different gods.

Since the OT who first defined god in mythology has no historical credibility, you have no evidence at all, while we have evidence of a mythological construct.

 

[JFish123]

We can give a ton of evidence for God but many atheists do not want there to be a God. It's not an evidence issue. It's a heart issue, so any evidence you give no matter how much or how true, they will just discard because they don't want there to be. Though there have been and are many atheists who gave and are Christian now because of said evidence, some becoming ministers and apologists defending the faith with that very evidence

 

[outhouse]

Though there have been and are many atheists who gave and are Christian now because of said evidence, some becoming ministers and apologists defending the faith with that very evidence

Just as many went to school and became atheist or agnostic with education.

We can give a ton of evidence for God but many atheists do not want there to be a God.

There many be some.

For the most part I see levels of education that determine god is a man made product.

But the sad fact is you also refuse all gods ever created, but one.

 

[outhouse]

It's not an evidence issue.

Yes it is.


If your educated on the topic, you see exactly how man created the mythology surrounding the concepts, as well as attributed the mythology to natural events they were totally ignorant about.


All evidence points towards mythology, and not one shred of evidence points to reality.

 

[JFish123]

Just as many went to school and became atheist or agnostic with education.



There many be some.

For the most part I see levels of education that determine god is a man made product.

But the sad fact is you also refuse all gods ever created, but one.

Only evidence that supports one more education on the issues at hand actually brings many to believe in God. Science gives facts. Humans interpret those facts by their bias. It just so happens there are a good portion who were atheist and now believer because of said evidence. And those believers that left didn't have the other side of the arguement at all. Most just heard from college professors and don't bother looking at the othr side. If they had that defense a large portion would still be believers. Sorry bra

 

[Awkward Fingers]

We can give a ton of evidence for God but many atheists do not want there to be a God. It's not an evidence issue. It's a heart issue, so any evidence you give no matter how much or how true, they will just discard because they don't want there to be. Though there have been and are many atheists who gave and are Christian now because of said evidence, some becoming ministers and apologists defending the faith with that very evidence

Can we see this evidence?
And, is it actually evidence, or is it... "evidence"

 

[Shad]

I have already explained that discussing "time" before space time is an issue our languages handle clumsily. Craig admits this all the time. It is no different than an atheistic evolutionary biologist referring to something being so marvelously designed of an atheistic cosmologist referring to an event as miraculous (both I have heard them do countless times). I, unlike you are doing, grant that they are imperfect and do not mean those words to be taken emphatically literal. You are like a lawyer who has a know to be guilty client trying to get his off based on a procedural technicality. Craig goes to great lengths to explain his terminology and it is very easy to see why it is a hard subject to verbalize consistently.

In fact here is a paper where he describes it in detail:
God and the Beginning of Time | Reasonable Faith

If your going to demand a hyperbolic perfection in language use when describing things the mind has trouble comprehending then no debate is possible.

Which all based on Craigs conflating BGV theorem and the BB bang theory as the beginning of the universe with the beginning of inflation. Both are about inflation while neither excludes current models from Hawkins no-boundary . If you read Vilenkin's work he is very hard on theism and does not entertain it at all. Also you must accept A-theory of time which no one is obligated to accept. This is an axiom.

Leibniz cosmological argument is fallacious at P2 thus to use it as a basis is an error.

 

[outhouse]

more education on the issues at hand actually brings many to believe in God.

And it turns just as many to atheism or Gnosticism.

Most just heard from college professors and don't bother looking at the othr side.

Oh so academia and science is wrong???????????????

 

[Skwim]

Only evidence that supports one more education on the issues at hand actually brings many to believe in God. Science gives facts. Humans interpret those facts by their bias. It just so happens there are a good portion who were atheist and now believer because of said evidence. And those believers that left didn't have the other side of the arguement at all. Most just heard from college professors and don't bother looking at the othr side. If they had that defense a large portion would still be believers. Sorry bra

Okay, give us an example. And remember it will have to be a scientific fact, not a hypothesis, speculation, conjecture, opinion, hunch, or theory.

Moreover, are you really suggesting that the "facts" underlying religion are immune from bias interpretation?


.

 

[viole]

I only mentioned what I read in my spare time. I also have 190 sem hours including Cal 1, Cal 2, Cal 3, Cal 4, Cal-phy 1, Cal-phy 2, Cal phy 3, linear, partial DE, DE, discrete, statics, dynamics, etc......... I however do not float around in the deep end of theoretical science. I work in practical science and the science fails there about 90% of the time, so I distrust the massively less accessible theoretical stuff.

Yeah, a phalanx electric cannon with Doppler and phased array radar tracking and depleted uranium shells with tungsten penetrators. What I will not come to a gun fight with is an untestable science claim.


Evasive, ok I will drop it.

So your asking how I can contact God. Then presume we can't? If I said Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. or you must be born again. James 4:8 Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

That is a method (which you simply deny), you do not have a method (which I cannot even consider). Whatever that is, it is not an equality. It would be the same thing if a man in the bronze age said how do I access Pluto, and someone said build a solar powered probe, and they said that was question begging.

How is that question begging? It is a method and millions have tried and succeeded. It would be no more circular than quantum claims which I cannot verify because I could not repeat the experiment myself.

Your objections often come in categorical dismissals. You find a category that is fallacious merely wish my claim into it and then declare it defeated. Very seldom do I agree with the categorical claims you make.

Ok, we need to step back for a moment.

You seemed to indicate that the conscious nature of this necessary explanation follows by (logical) necessity. Now I am a bit confused because you are putting evidence on the table, which would not be required for logical deductions.

So, in order to proceed, I need to know which one of the following points apply, in your opinion:

1) the existence of a necessary explanation is the product of a logical deduction. It is just inferred via some axioms, like the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) through simple logic. In the same way, the character of conscious agency of this necessary explanation follows analytically. In other words, its consciousness and agency are also necessary and all other alternatives are logically impossible

2) the conscious character of the necessary explanation is not an analytical proposition. It is evidentiary. For instance, many people have changed their lives because of that and we do not have evidence of other alternatives, even though they would still be logically possible.

So, which one is the relevant one? They are quite different.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

It occurred to my yesterday afternoon the problem with your argumentation. Your assuming incorrect standards. Your demanding I convince you or prove something to a certainty, and when I can't you dismiss the argument. This is incorrect because that was not the standard my claims are made to. Someone asked for an argument for God. I gave one that has only a handful of candidates that meet what it necessitates.

Faith and historical claims are never made to certainties. They are made to the best explanation. When we have hundreds of millions of claims to being born again just as the bible predicts the best explanation is that the bible was correct. I have read what mystics, Hindus, Seeks, the Bahia, hypnotists, drug cults, Gnostics, etc..... claim. I used to ask most of my opponents in debates about their experiences. Who knows what the ratio is but I my decades long experience would suggest that for every person of any other faith and philosophy that claims a supernatural experience there are over 100 Christians who do.
People in forums usually show up pre-convinced. I do not expect to convince you. It takes a process with many lines of reasoning to adopt faith. I am only attempting to provide a few of those lines of reasoning. No one here concedes anything by the most benign premises.

Not just him what?

It has convinced more people than any other single belief system. It is by far the most persuasive. It's the only faith that has a significant presence in every country on earth and has convinced hordes of the greatest minds in history. And did so despite being persecuted by nations and empires. However these are arguments from popularity and are not that important.

I did not say it was. I gave 5 pieces of evidence that NT historians agree are facts which make the belief that he rose from death the best explanation of them. Again your simply moving the goal posts all over the place. I expect you to at least treat the historical claims most historians agree with as evidence. My job is to give evidence, it is not what you do with it.



Avatar is a bad description of Christ. Instead of trying to explain the trinity I will just leave it there. I pondered it but what now? Yes a God who actually did X and a God who actually did not do X are not the same God.



I know exactly what your trying to do, but to counter it would require a dozen posts and is unnecessary. Let's instead short circuit this.

1. I believe in the God of the old testament.
2. That Jewish scientist believes in the God of the OT.
3. Even if they are two different Gods then they would still be consistent with my argument. I said only a handful of God concepts meet the requirements of sufficient causation. If different they would both be included. However the Biblical God would still prevail as best explanation because of the additional evidence the NT has that the OT does not.

And BTW I included Allah as a candidate for creation, but I deny him based of sufficiency of evidence.

{quote]I was saying that the christian god has more characteristics than necessary to create the universe. There is no unique 'perfect match', since a lot of other gods could fit in just as nicely ( or even better ).

Almost all God's throughout history are derivatives of nature. Look at the Egyptian theology, the Greek, the Roman. They were created God's and the universe was primary.

I made a mistake here yesterday. I thought you were referring to the cosmological argument, but you were discussing the greatest being concept. My comments were out of context. Anselm may have been the first to invent the greatest being argument, I do not know. My point is that secular philosophers use the greatest conceivable being as a generic God for considering him in argumentation.

I miss understood your argument but this still might be the case only not so emphatic and one I cannot demonstrate.



I spent a lifetime as a child in church with this exact attitude, only to end up disbelieving in God, or if he existed hating him, and I resented anyone talking to me about him. Yet look what happened to me. You never know what state of mind you might be in some day and recall something I or others have said. You have to have an open heart and most of us keep our pretty well guarded. The context was an argument for God, it was not proof of God that convinces someone. BTW what happened to all my historical claims? You did not comment on a single one or take up a single challenge.[/QUOTE]
Isn't "the best explanation" that we don't have enough information to hold true to any "explanation"? I disagree with your original premise. With history, I think you have a point. We don't know what happened, so we go with what the evidence points to. There is no "certainty". There really is no "certainty" ever ... it's merely an illusion. But, that being said, supernatural explanations are not on the same level as natural explanations. I listen to this guy Don Johnson all the time. He says that worldviews should be pitted against each other in debate and the most extensive explanation should win out. Nothing could be more wrong, because supernatural explanations can be made-up at will. And, thus, it is far easier to present a supernatural explanation that is more extensive and explains more.

I think it is much more reasonable to accept that we cannot understand everything yet. It is OK to say, we just don't know yet.