"Okay, I believe in a higher power(s) now...."

[InterestedAtheist]

My answers remain the same. The Bible says that creation alone is enough physical proof.

We've already established that @cvanwey and I are theists, for the purposes of this thread. This is a theistic argument, not one for the Christian God.

Only you know what you did or how you went about seeking God. Were you trying to make God show himself in the way that you wanted him to or in how he chose to? I don't know if this was how you were but there is a story about a drowning man.

Funny - that joke just came up in another neighbouring thread. Christians seem to be fond of it, and to miss the point of it.
The point being, God doesn't help people. People help people. Whether or not these people were sent by God, you find out when you go beyond being able to share the answer (ie, nobody has yet returned from heaven to assure us it's there or tell us what it's like).

This is not circular reasoning, its the fact that neither one of you believe the answer.

@cvanwey has already explained this one.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Apologies, Philo. I assumed you were making some kind of point. Turns out you weren't.

Of course I wasn't. Why would I make a direct point about something that could be controversial?

 

[coffee4u]

We've already established that @cvanwey and I are theists, for the purposes of this thread. This is a theistic argument, not one for the Christian God.

Funny - that joke just came up in another neighbouring thread. Christians seem to be fond of it, and to miss the point of it.
The point being, God doesn't help people. People help people. Whether or not these people were sent by God, you find out when you go beyond being able to share the answer (ie, nobody has yet returned from heaven to assure us it's there or tell us what it's like).

@cvanwey has already explained this one.

The point of that story is that God most times does send people to help people. God doesn't knock on your door, he tells people to help, he prompts them. It may be as a voice, it may be when reading the word, it may be a strong feeling. God is spirit and he works through the spirit.
Matthew 25
35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

 

[muichimotsu]

The point of that story is that God most times does send people to help people. God doesn't knock on your door, he tells people to help, he prompts them. It may be as a voice, it may be when reading the word, it may be a strong feeling. God is spirit and he works through the spirit.
Matthew 25
35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

If you're using the Bible to prove claims the bible is making, that's textbook circular reasoning. You'd have to demonstrate this deity is actually causally involved in the "help" you allege it provides rather than people fallaciously inferring agency because they want to insist the deity is interventionist with no evidence apart from special revelation.

The Bible's claims are honestly no different in terms of their substantiation than if I posited some interventionist deity of my own that was revealed to me.

Both entities, along with pretty much any God, become unfalsifiable in the qualities ascribed to it, such that the correlation is all you have rather than demonstrable causation of the entity in a way that can't be chalked up to ANY other explanation to be posited. Space aliens are more compelling!

I can jump into this fairly easily because Deism was my term of choice for a handful of years in my early to mid teens, that'd probably be a position that would seem at least slightly more reasonable if the default notion was not atheism, as the null hypothesis, but some notion of theism in the general sense of which there are multiple variations, including one I feel like most people have never heard of, Ietsism. No I'm not making it up, it has sourcing, though it's relatively new, technically, sort of a variation of pantheism in a sense, or maybe transtheism as well?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Okay then. Many thanks to @cvanwey for his excellent thread. The message seems pretty clear now.
We asked Christians if they have evidence to show that God exists.
They said that they didn't.

Good to know.
Thank you, all!

 

[Silmarien]

I do not follow. As I agreed prior, if we verify that some character did not exist, then yes, it would obviously follow that this non-existent person could not have performed this or that.

However... assuming Jesus did exist, how is this [any more] verification He rose from the grave? Yes, we have claims of such. But you stated yourself, you do not necessarily buy into 'mystical experiences' or anecdotal testimonials? And like it or not, the 4 Gospels have them.

I don't think it can be verified historically that the Resurrection actually occurred. I've been very upfront about this, so I don't understand why you keep on insisting that I respond to this particular question.

Do you want to know how a generic theist (or panentheist, in my case) can zero in on any particular religion, or don't you? You're assuming that we ask the same types of questions that atheists ask, but that isn't necessarily true.

How do you reconcile disagreeing with 'Paul' then?

I don't disagree with Paul. I disagree with you.

 

[MrsFoundit]

I'm afraid you're confused, MrsFoundit. If I experienced a genuine, bona fide miracle, my saying so that wouldn't be compelling evidence for anyone else - unless I caught it on video, of course - but for me, it would be good evidence. You're mixing up your arguments, I'm afraid. I was saying what a good example of evidence for me would be.

I am quoting you both times. They are both your arguments.

 

[MrsFoundit]

On a side note, I might ask, do we share reality, or are we possibly in the Matrix? (hypothetical)

I'm starting to get the feeling you are offering road-blocks, to avoid the notion that maybe your personal 'justification' may be vulnerable? Maybe I'm wrong? I doubt your concern would be this heightened, if I was asking you for say.... evidence of Big Foot. For which I would assume your skepticism is equal to mine, regardless if we require identical criteria or not. Yes, I assume that Big Foot likely does not exist. Just like you....?

As I stated to you, well earlier in this thread, regardless of my bias, I could not dispute that Donald Trump is the current U.S. President, without raising many 'red flags'.

So you refuse to answer the question?

Welp, you decided to operate within this forum arena. And the objective here, is as follows:

Christian Apologetics
A forum for non-Christians to challenge the Christian faith, and for Christians to defend their faith.

Thus far, I've even conceded the definition of faith, and you are continuing to delay the requested process of this forum arena.

Defence of the trust in a Christian philosophy/world view is not a commitment to producing "evidence", particularly not when there is an outright refusal to specify what might be appropriate evidence.

Adopt a philosophy, apply a philosophy, develop faith/trust in said philosophy, as I said on the first page of this thread.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Say you have the up most respect for the person, do not think they are lying, view them as highly intelligent, deem them sane, they do not do drugs or drink alcohol, etc.... They claim they receive contact from an opposing God. Why do you still reject their anecdotal claim as communication with their claimed and asserted God?

There is no "opposing God" in a Christian worldview. It is either of God, or it is not God.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I am quoting you both times. They are both your arguments.

I know they are. You misunderstood them, is all. If I had a personal encounter with God, that would be sufficient evidence for me. But if course my personal experience wouldn't be sufficient evidence for anyone else. So what?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

There is no "opposing God" in a Christian worldview. It is either of God, or it is not God.

You've already conceded that one person's personal experience claim counts for nothing, and that you have no other evidence for God's existence.

It's not like you've lost an argument, you know. @cvanwey and I simply asked if you could give any good reason for us to believe that the Christian God exists, and you said you couldnt.

Thank you. Now we know. Christians have no argument for their God's existence. They believe in Him, but can offer no rational defence of their belief. That's worth knowing.

 

[NBB]

You've already conceded that one person's personal experience claim counts for nothing, and that you have no other evidence for God's existence.

It's not like you've lost an argument, you know. @cvanwey and I simply asked if you could give any good reason for us to believe that the Christian God exists, and you said you couldnt.

Thank you. Now we know. Christians have no argument for their God's existence. They believe in Him, but can offer no rational defence of their belief. That's worth knowing.

God did things to us, we give testimony of that, that is very 'rational' in my view.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

God did things to us, we give testimony of that, that is very 'rational' in my view.

Rational for you to do, certainly. But when every religion in the world and throughout history has believers giving testimonies and claiming their gods are real, why would it be rational of me to believe your claims over theirs?

 

[MrsFoundit]

You've already conceded that one person's personal experience claim counts for nothing, and that you have no other evidence for God's existence.

What I did say is, "Personal conviction is not "no basis". It is inadequate to oblige another to agree.", (Post 79) and "I do not say it (personal conviction) is an unsound argument."(Post 132)

At no time did I say "personal experience claim counts for nothing". Nor did you.

You said "If I had a personal encounter with God, that would be sufficient evidence for me." (Post 273) and "A personal conviction is certainly a basis for the person experiencing it to convert to a religion; but it is no basis for any other person who has not experienced it."(Post 101)


No, I have not said I have no other evidence for God's existence.

@cvanwey and I simply asked if you could give any good reason for us to believe that the Christian God exists,.

Actually you nonsensically kept asking for evidence to support a philosophical position. You resorted to declaring your own philosophical opinions "obvious" (Post 207) "Two things are obvious. First, that good evidence should persuade reasonable people. Second, most people are not reasonable in all areas of their lives.", presenting my opinion for me, (Post 180) "You think you don't believe this is true, but in fact you do.", and exempting yourself from any provision of evidence "I don't need evidence to show that a logical argument is sound." (Post 137)

Then there was the even more unusual position you took over proof. You stated in Post 99 "But we're not asking for proof.", then you repeatedly complained that the proof you are not asking for is not provided, "And every religion is unique in its teachings, although some may be more or less similar to others. "What does this prove?" "everything the article says is true. What does it prove?" "fact that David lived doesn't prove that miracles happened in his time." (post 103) "If God does not want himself to be proved then how am I going to find out if He is real or not?". (Post 178) After this, you simply do ask for the proof you are not asking for "A logical argument of some kind that proves the existence specifically of the Christian God?" (Post 180)

It's not like you've lost an argument, you know.

Yes, I do know.

 

[MrsFoundit]

God did things to us, we give testimony of that, that is very 'rational' in my view.

It is rational, and to speak of it is honest. As I have been saying since page 1, Christianity works in application.

 

[NBB]

It is rational, and to speak of it is honest. As I have been saying since page 1, Christianity works in application.

Yes the gospel works and is awesome.

 

[muichimotsu]

There is no "opposing God" in a Christian worldview. It is either of God, or it is not God.

Is the first commandment not, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"? Seems to suggest there are opposing gods, Christians just capitalize their god henotheist style

 

[muichimotsu]

God did things to us, we give testimony of that, that is very 'rational' in my view.

You attribute things to a God doing them for your benefit and testify as such, that's not rational, that's credulous, based purely on your faulty reasoning and inference about the cause behind an event that you fallaciously correlate rather than actually are able to demonstrate the link.

How is it rational to do what is rationalizing rather than striving for objectivity? Considering that your attribution of a God to events might be mistaken seems far more honest intellectually than just saying it "seems" reasonable to you as the individual who holds the beliefs because of subjective and personal experience.

And your testimony is vastly insufficient to others because it amounts to someone saying, "I was abducted by aliens/saw fairies/saw a ghost" and yet I'm pretty sure you're not going to believe someone based on their testimony of those things, or even someone's testimony regarding a religious experience that doesn't align with your religious worldview of Christianity in particular. So where is your standard of evidence and how low is it relative to your personal beliefs rather than others?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

It is rational, and to speak of it is honest. As I have been saying since page 1, Christianity works in application.

You've been saying it, but you haven't provided any reason to think you're correct. Therefore, your words are nothing but an empty claim.

What I did say is, (Post 79) "Personal conviction is not "no basis". It is inadequate to oblige another to agree.", and (Post 132) "I do not say it (personal conviction) is an unsound argument."
At no time did I say "personal experience claim counts for nothing". Nor did you.

Since you said that personal conviction is inadequate to oblige another to agree, then this means that a person who used personal conviction in an effort to oblige another person to agree with them would be using an unsound argument.
Therefore - although you obviously didn't intend to, and didn't use those exact words - you have clearly told us that personal conviction counts for nothing. You're right. It does.

You said (Post 273) "If I had a personal encounter with God, that would be sufficient evidence for me." and (Post 101) "A personal conviction is certainly a basis for the person experiencing it to convert to a religion; but it is no basis for any other person who has not experienced it."

Yes. Interesting how you seem to think this is a problem, despite it being explained to you. You may believe in God because you had a personal encounter with Him; I may one day come to believe in God if I have a personal encounter with Him; but since all religions boast personal encounters with the gods, the mere assertion counts for nothing as an argument when made to a second party (see above, how personal conviction is inadequate to oblige another to agree).

No, I have not said I have no "other" evidence for God's existence.

Of course you have. In Post 248, in reply to cvanwey saying "Okay then, can you please demonstrate why (your) God is (the) God then?" you answered, "I can explain why I am convinced, but it is not objective. Preference for it and choice come into it."
In other words, you can explain why you believe in the Christian God, but acknowledge that your explanation, as you put it, "is inadequate to oblige someone else to agree."

Actually you nonsensically kept asking for evidence to support a philosophical position.

You think it's nonsensical to be able to show that God exists? Okay. No argument there. If you can't, you can't.

You resorted to declaring your own philosophical opinions "obvious" (Post 207) "Two things are obvious. First, that good evidence should persuade reasonable people. Second, most people are not reasonable in all areas of their lives.", presenting my opinion for me, (Post 180) "You think you don't believe this is true, but in fact you do." and exempted yourself from provision of any evidence "I don't need evidence to show that a logical argument is sound." (Post 137)

Yes. All perfectly valid. The fact that you refuse to accept them is irrelevant, unless you can offer justifications.

ou state in Post 99 "But we're not asking for proof.", then You repeatedly complain that none of the proof you are not seeking is provided, (post 103) And every religion is unique in its teachings, although some may be more or less similar to others. "What does this prove? "everything the article says is true. What does it prove?" "fact that David lived doesn't prove that miracles happened in his time." (Post 178)"If God does not want himself to be proved then how am I going to find out if He is real or not?". After this you simply outright do ask for the proof you say are not asking for (180) "A logical argument of some kind that proves the existence specifically of the Christian God?"

You appear to be unaware of the fact that the word proof has more than one meaning. Yes, it can mean absolute proof, in a mathematical sense; but if you research it you will see that it can also mean to simply provide evidence for something, as in "was asked for proof of his identity, or an employment history that was proof of her dependability."
In point of fact, the word "proof" is used all the time outside of mathematics. Check it out, and you will see the word is often used to mean "good reason to believe". Just as it is being used here.

So, here we are on page 14, and Christians still have no evidence for their God.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Is the first commandment not, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"?

Erm, yes, that would be why there is no "opposing God" in a Christian worldview. It is either of God, or it is not God.