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

MrsFoundit

Well-Known Member
Dec 5, 2019
899
200
South
✟33,276.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You think it's nonsensical to be able to show that God exists? Okay. No argument there. If you can't, you can't.

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

Can you see my word "evidence" there?


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

The fact that you claim they are valid is irrelevant, unless you can offer justifications. Especially for telling me what my opinion is.

that the word proof has more than one meaning.

You "But we're not asking for proof.", (not maths)
Also you ""A logical argument of some kind that proves the existence specifically of the Christian God?" (not maths).
 
Upvote 0

MrsFoundit

Well-Known Member
Dec 5, 2019
899
200
South
✟33,276.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So, here we are on page 14, and Christians still have no evidence for their God.

In your own words..."If I had a personal encounter with God, that would be sufficient evidence for me."

Any Christian here who has had an encounter as you describe does indeed have your own standard of sufficient evidence.

You are the one who does not.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
There are those who only know about God.
And than there are those who actually know God.
For those who know God, they know Love.
Love unites. Love finds Oneness.
Those who only know about God, they tend to find separation and division.

A very influential person in my life is a medieval women mystic by the name of Marguerite Porete. Porete wrote about Divine Love in "The Mirror of Simple Souls" where she drew a vision of Human Beings uniting with God through Love.

She also wrote that there are two kinds of churches. The first she called the "High Holy Church". That church preaches Love. The other church she called the "Little Holy Church". That church preaches rules, laws and order. It's the church that preaches Love is where both of your options can be correct. That's because Love unites. The church that preaches rules, laws and order on the other hand will always divide and find separation.

No surprise, Marguerite Porete was burned at the stake by the church that preaches rules, laws and order.

The moral? it's through Love that humanity finds unity in God, even coming from different religions.

Other claims to other God's also preach love, and claim to feel love from their 'god(s)'. If 'love' is some how [the] standard, then we are no closer to answering the exact same question, posed in #43. Can you please try again, maybe provide more detail?:

If person A and person B both make the exact same claims above, how do we distinguish which one is false? Again, go back to post #43

1. Both correct
2. One correct, one incorrect
3. Both incorrect
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I know in my spirit in my heart. Which is no proof to you, but it is to me.
I can't give you some incantation and have God appear to you in a burning bush.

But, as I've stated repeatedly, many people, of opposing faiths, state the exact same thing. And I believe them all. Meaning, I do not think they are liars. But if they make the same claims as you, i.e. "I know in my spirit in my heart. Which is no proof to you, but it is to me", how do we get [any] closer to truth?


This is why people go to seances because things do happen. Like I said, demons prey upon people looking for signs.

Wait a minute..? Now you are asserting the existence of 'demons' too? Okay, let's go with this assertion as well, as if it is already true.

How would you be able to tell the difference between the contact from a demon, verses your claimed God? How do you know a demon is not contacting you, while in earnest prayer? If a demon is deceptive, and knows [your] assumed criteria for contact, how could you distinguish the different between [the] God, and a deceptive and clever demon?


The proof is in your own relationship with God, the knowing in your spirit, seeing prayer answered. I can't explain it more than that. These things are intangible.

But this still gets us absolutely no closer. Opposing and mutually exclusive 'faiths' claim the exact same things. i.e. 'your own relationship with God, the knowing in your spirit, seeing prayer answered. These things are intangible'.


My answers remain the same. The Bible says that creation alone is enough physical proof.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

As the OP thread states, I have already conceded the necessity for God's existence. The above gets us no closer to your specific claimed God. How do I know your claimed God is the God? Maybe your answers, to the inquiries above, will have already distinguished as such, moving forward?


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 was an earnest follower in Christ for over 3 decades. If had ever received some type of sign, I would likely be on your side right now. But I never did. Hence, I'm now where I am, asking how (you) know your contact was from [the] God, and not some opposing God, some demon, your own imagination, feelings and/or 'goose bumps', other, other, other? Again, please look to post #43.


I don't know if this was how you were but there is a story about a drowning man.
A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.

Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, "Jump in, I can save you."

The stranded fellow shouted back, "No, it's OK, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me."

So the rowboat went on.

Then a motorboat came by. "The fellow in the motorboat shouted, "Jump in, I can save you."

To this the stranded man said, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."

So the motorboat went on.

Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, "Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety."

To this the stranded man again replied, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."

So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.

Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, "I had faith in you but you didn't save me, you let me drown. I don't understand why!"

To this God replied, "I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?"


Most times it isn't that God isn't there, it's we can't see him because he doesn't meet our expectations.

I'm no stranger to this story. Heard it many times, from many Christians.

- If God does not meet our expectations, then how are we to discern it was from God?
- If God is only using other people, and/or items already known to man, like boats/etc, then isn't it quite possible such deeds could have been granted, without God's interaction?
- It is a joke, hence, the punchline eludes to an unfalsifiable notion. No one has come back to tell humans that God was there listening/answering.


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

Pardon me, but stating to try in earnest, keep reading the Word, and maybe you'll receive a sign, could not be more classic, in circular reasoning. If not, please state why it is any different than these assertions below?:

 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
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.

You already told me your position - (paraphrased) "Your more interested in the incarnation." But the Bible/Paul is pretty darn clear...

If the resurrection cannot be affirmed 'historically', than I have absolutely no idea, still, why you insist on referring to the 'historicity' of the Bible? It would be like reading and verifying claims of people, places, and physical events, from another claimed holy texts, and lending further credence to their claims of the divine. It really doesn't. You have also admitted that as well, as above (i.e.) "I don't think it can be verified historically that the Resurrection actually occurred."

Paul looks to be abundantly clear about (your) 'faith'. See below...


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

Negative. Paul's presented dichotomy:

1.) Christ rose from the dead.
2.) Christ did not rise from the dead.

If option 1.), Christianity is true.
If option 2.), Christianity is not true.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
So you refuse to answer the question?

Pardon me, but we are many many many posts in, and I have granted quite a lot. I have conceded every argument for God's necessity. I have conceded the Cambridge dictionary as the standard for definitions. I have granted your definition of faith. All I ask is that you now present [your] evidence to YHWH's mere existence. Just His existence.


Are you ever going to do that? Again, your continued necessity and/or concern for continued 'criteria' is starting to look more and more suspect.

Are you going to give me your evidence? Or, are you going to continue to perpetually 'need further criteria'?

Again, I doubt you would require this much 'pre-game' before addressing a claim for Big Foot/other.


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.

Again, it would not matter what philosophy/faith/other I choose to adopt. Again, I could deny that Donald Trump is the U.S. president; but this would certainly raise many 'red flags.'
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
You already told me your position - (paraphrased) "Your more interested in the incarnation." But the Bible/Paul is pretty darn clear...

That is almost never true.

If the resurrection cannot be affirmed 'historically', than I have absolutely no idea, still, why you insist on referring to the 'historicity' of the Bible? It would be like reading and verifying claims of people, places, and physical events, from another claimed holy texts, and lending further credence to their claims of the divine. It really doesn't. You have also admitted that as well, as above (i.e.) "I don't think it can be verified historically that the Resurrection actually occurred."

You have no idea why I am interested in the historicity of the New Testament, despite not thinking that the Resurrection can be verified historically, because you have never once bothered to ask.

What I'm interested in is Lewis's trilemma and the question of whether Jesus actually claimed to be God. That requires addressing the issue of whether anything that is actually attributed to him can be considered historical.

Negative. Paul's presented dichotomy:

1.) Christ rose from the dead.
2.) Christ did not rise from the dead.

If option 1.), Christianity is true.
If option 2.), Christianity is not true.

If Christ is actually the avatar of the Hebrew aspect of Brahman, then no, Christ rising from the dead would coincide with Hinduism being true.

Other claims matter, and it's insane that you're arguing that they don't. Atheists usually like to point out that even the Resurrection doesn't prove Christianity, and they're right. You are wrong.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: MrsFoundit
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
There is no "opposing God" in a Christian worldview. It is either of God, or it is not God.

It's opposing, in the sense that others claim a one true god, just like you. And in such a case, at least one of you HAVE to be incorrect, if not both.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MrsFoundit

Well-Known Member
Dec 5, 2019
899
200
South
✟33,276.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I was an earnest follower in Christ for over 3 decades. If had ever received some type of sign, I would likely be on your side right now. But I never did.

Right, but if you believe people are not lying, why would you ask for "evidence" from us, knowing none of us actually acquired appropriate evidence by asking another human being to hand it over?

What difference would you seeing a description of the details of peoples own experiences make? it is not appropriate evidence for you unless you have the experience yourself is it?
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Right, but if you believe people are not lying, why would you ask for "evidence" from us, knowing none of us actually acquired appropriate evidence by asking another human being to hand it over?

What difference would you seeing a description of the details of peoples own experiences make? it is not appropriate evidence for you unless you have the experience yourself is it?

You have yet to divulge, by what means, you have concluded that your claimed God is the one true God? You are instead asking for (my) standard. I'm asking you for yours. Many times now. You seem afraid to grant your reason(s)?

If an anecdotal testimonial is the sole basis for why [you] believe, then just say that. If not, please give me more details?

And to preemptively answer you... Sure, I would not think you were lying.. But the next logical question when then be, if your neighbor, whom also claims direct contact, is also earnest in their assertions about contact in a god... And this person also claims direct contact from a differing and mutually exclusive God, then how might we go about assessing who is incorrect, correct, other?

Again, post #43...
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Wait a minute..? Now you are asserting the existence of 'demons' too? Okay, let's go with this assertion as well, as if it is already true.


Of course I am. Angel and demons are fully apart of the Bible. God strictly forbids all ways of contacting spirits or the dead because he knows that demons will answer. Why do you think ancient civilisations sacrificed young women to their 'gods' in the hope bad things wouldn't befall them? Because the demons showed them lying signs and wonders and made them believe they were gods. Of course those civilisations assumed these 'god's had way more power than they actually did.
You can see them at work in Genesis when Pharaoh calls his magicians and they turn water into blood. Exodus 7. They did this by the power of demons. We are told Satan and by extension, all demons masquerade as gods or angels of light and that they have powers to deceive.
2 Corinthians 11:14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.


How would you be able to tell the difference between the contact from a demon, verses your claimed God? How do you know a demon is not contacting you, while in earnest prayer? If a demon is deceptive, and knows [your] assumed criteria for contact, how could you distinguish the different between [the] God, and a deceptive and clever demon?

A demon isn't going to contact you if you are reading your Bible and praying to God, but if you decide to go to some occult experience or read occult books or pray to angels you are open and ripe for the picking. This is why God forbids it. People who want to see 'proof' are especially open for it.
Deuteronomy 18:9-14
“When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you. You shall be blameless before the Lord your God, ...


1 Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,

And if you should somehow innocently encounter demonic activity you test it.
1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
You do this by knowing the Word, knowing God and discernment in the spirit.

But this still gets us absolutely no closer. Opposing and mutually exclusive 'faiths' claim the exact same things. i.e.
'your own relationship with God, the knowing in your spirit, seeing prayer answered. These things are intangible'.

Actually they don't. Buddhism doesn't even have a god. Other religions will tell you to do things in your own strength and give you a list of rules. Only Christianity has a saviour who died for you who you put your faith in. Only Christianity will have you repent of your sins and only Christianity says that God puts his laws on your heart. Only Christianity is a relationship. So you might want to check out the 'all the same business' because they are not.


As the OP thread states, I have already conceded the necessity for God's existence. The above gets us no closer to your specific claimed God. How do I know your claimed God is the God? Maybe your answers, to the inquiries above, will have already distinguished as such, moving forward?

I was an earnest follower in Christ for over 3 decades. If had ever received some type of sign, I would likely be on your side right now. But I never did. Hence, I'm now where I am, asking how (you) know your contact was from [the] God, and not some opposing God, some demon, your own imagination, feelings and/or 'goose bumps', other, other, other? Again, please look to post #43.


So earnest you now say he doesn't exist? Did you have a relationship with him where you woke up and said "Good morning Lord" and prayed conversationally as you went about your daily life? Or did you try and follow some set of rules?
For example, when we needed to move house I told God that we needed a house with at least 3 large bedrooms with built-ins and a decent sized backyard with plenty of privacy that we could afford. We got exactly that. I can see God's hand in my life so many times.

I'm no stranger to this story. Heard it many times, from many Christians.

- If God does not meet our expectations, then how are we to discern it was from God?
- If God is only using other people, and/or items already known to man, like boats/etc, then isn't it quite possible such deeds could have been granted, without God's interaction?
- It is a joke, hence, the punchline eludes to an unfalsifiable notion. No one has come back to tell humans that God was there listening/answering.


Why should God meet your expectations? Do you find people in general always meet your expectations? The same way people do what they want to do, so does God, but God can't sin. God most times uses other people. He prompts and he expects action.

Look around you at the details of creation, God said that is enough physical proof.

Pardon me, but stating to try in earnest, keep reading the Word, and maybe you'll receive a sign, could not be more classic, in circular reasoning. If not, please state why it is any different than these assertions below?:
I didn't say you would 'receive a sign' only this is how you meet God. You believe that he is and diligently seek him. You are not seeking a sign, you can't grasp hold of God like that. God is spirit you know him in spirit. There is no other way that I can explain it, which is why I said its like love.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: MrsFoundit
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
You have no idea why I am interested in the historicity of the New Testament, despite not thinking that the Resurrection can be verified historically, because you have never once bothered to ask.

What I'm interested in is Lewis's trilemma and the question of whether Jesus actually claimed to be God. That requires addressing the issue of whether anything that is actually attributed to him can be considered historical.

I view Lewis's account instead as a 'false trilemma'.

Lord
Liar
Lunatic
Legend

When you read the accounts, from Mark to John for instance, you can almost smell the legend growing, IMHO. Heck, read Mark 16:8, then read Mark 16:9-20, just for starters.


If Christ is actually the avatar of the Hebrew aspect of Brahman, then no, Christ rising from the dead would coincide with Hinduism being true.

Other claims matter, and it's insane that you're arguing that they don't. Atheists usually like to point out that even the Resurrection doesn't prove Christianity, and they're right. You are wrong.

My only point here is to direct you to what 'Paul' says in Scripture. He presents a true dichotomy, as presented in my last response.

It's not whether or not (I) agree or you agree/disagree. It's about what 'Paul' states ;)

And yes, atheists reject many things in regards to the Bible, just like the Orthodox Jews for instance. So?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
19,212
2,813
Oregon
✟723,684.00
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
Other claims to other God's also preach love, and claim to feel love from their 'god(s)'. If 'love' is some how [the] standard, then we are no closer to answering the exact same question, posed in #43. Can you please try again, maybe provide more detail?:

If person A and person B both make the exact same claims above, how do we distinguish which one is false? Again, go back to post #43

1. Both correct
2. One correct, one incorrect
3. Both incorrect
The question raised is: Are they truly preaching Love?

They talk about Love, but most preach everything else but Love. It's not Love from their God's that I'm pointing towards. Anyone can make God claims. But what I'm pointing towards is something deeper where each person is within themselves. Watch Love within ones self. Watch the change in perspective when seeing through the eye of Love. Love has Soul and Life which is why the Poets find so much to work with when working with Love. With Love comes Compassion, Empathy and the desire to help those in need. Love causes a different way of seeing other Human Beings, the Earth and even the Divine itSelf... And than there's Oneness in God that the Mystics point towards.
 
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
19,212
2,813
Oregon
✟723,684.00
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
Are you going to give me your evidence? Or, are you going to continue to perpetually 'need further criteria'?
The way I think about your question is that you would have to be inside of and riding in my consciousness awareness for you to personally "experience" what I experience to understanding for why I believe the way I do. And because you would be unable to do that I would be unable to give you the evidence that has affected and changed me.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: MrsFoundit
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I view Lewis's account instead as a 'false trilemma'.

Lord
Liar
Lunatic
Legend

When you read the accounts, from Mark to John for instance, you can almost smell the legend growing, IMHO. Heck, read Mark 16:8, then read Mark 16:9-20, just for starters.

Me: The historicity of the New Testament is important.

You: Why? It doesn't get us closer to the Resurrection.

Me: What I'm interested in is Lewis's trilemma and the question of whether Jesus actually claimed to be God. That requires addressing the issue of whether anything that is actually attributed to him can be considered historical.

You: False dilemma! It could be a legend instead.

Me: aeifr;aoggklmsdfea;o!!!!! :doh:

Seriously, why do you think I am saying that the historicity of the New Testament is important? Did you read my last post? My whole point is that you need to analyze the New Testament to figure out how deep the claim to divinity goes and whether there's reason to think it's authentic.

My only point here is to direct you to what 'Paul' says in Scripture. He presents a true dichotomy, as presented in my last response.

It's not whether or not (I) agree or you agree/disagree. It's about what 'Paul' states ;)

I don't think your rigid cardboard interpretation of Paul is correct, since even Paul would surely have believed that if his theological understanding was completely false, preaching would be in vain regardless of whether or not the Resurrection were true.

Either there are implicit elements in his argument, or his argument is invalid. An invalid argument doesn't magically become valid just because it's in the Bible.

And yes, atheists reject many things in regards to the Bible, just like the Orthodox Jews for instance. So?

I am not saying that atheists reject things in the Bible. I am saying that at least in this instance, atheists generally exhibit sound logic.

You, on the other and, are basically presenting this monstrosity of a circular argument: "If the Resurrection is true, Christianity is true, because I have decided that Paul said so."
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Of course I am. Angel and demons are fully apart of the Bible.
Prove it.
You can see them at work in Genesis when Pharaoh calls his magicians and they turn water into blood. Exodus 7.
Yes, there is indeed a book that tells a story about that.
We are told Satan and by extension, all demons masquerade as gods or angels of light and that they have powers to deceive.
Prove it.
A demon isn't going to contact you if you are reading your Bible and praying to God
Prove it.
People who want to see 'proof' are especially open for it.
Prove that.
Only Christianity has a saviour who died for you who you put your faith in. Only Christianity will have you repent of your sins and only Christianity says that God puts his laws on your heart. Only Christianity is a relationship.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
So earnest you now say he doesn't exist?
You missed where cvanwey said he was an earnest believer.
Why should God meet your expectations?
He doesn't have to. But if He refuses to show up, He can't blame us for thinking He doesn't exist.
Look around you at the details of creation, God said that is enough physical proof.
No, He didn't. The Bible said God said that.
Prove that God actually said it.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
There was no question addressed to me.
I know. You responded to a question asked of someone else.
Nothing wrong with jumping in, this is a forum. It's just sad you chose to break the forum rules about politeness to do so.
You are counting two things you do not understand.
Of course I understand them. It's simple. We are not interested in whether you acknowledge anything, only what you can justify, so what you said is irrelevant. As is the CF Statement of Faith, which is also not evidence of anything, and so it was a mistake for you to cite it.
"Actually you nonsensically kept asking for evidence to support a philosophical position."
Can you see my word "evidence" there?
Yes. I see it on the sixteenth page of a thread in which you have been unable to provide any. It's getting quite funny at this point.
The fact that you claim they are valid is irrelevant, unless you can offer justifications. Especially for telling me what my opinion is.
Oh, you've already shown you're not capable of, or interested in, understanding. If you were, you would either have presented evidence for your God's existence, or conceded that you can't.
You "But we're not asking for proof.", (not maths)
Also you ""A logical argument of some kind that proves the existence specifically of the Christian God?" (not maths).
Yes. Proof can mean either mathematical certainty, or just good reason to believe. You've failed to provide either of these for the whole thread.
I suspected that no Christian could, and this thread has given you a chance to show this. It's been very successful. Thank you for demonstrating that all Christians have is baseless assertions and red herrings.
In your own words..."If I had a personal encounter with God, that would be sufficient evidence for me."
Any Christian here who has had an encounter as you describe does indeed have your own standard of sufficient evidence. You are the one who does not.
Well, it may not be sixteen pages, but you have still managed to misunderstand this rather simple point for an impressive amount of time.
Please listen carefully now. I shall explain it again.
A personal encounter with a god of some kind may be considered good evidence by the person experiencing it. But it counts for absolutely nothing for anyone else.
If I encountered God myself, it would probably count as good evidence for me, but not for anyone else. I haven't, of course, and I have no reason to believe you when you say you have, because your personal testimony is only one of millions of testimonies from many different religions, all of which contradict each other, none of which carries any more weight than the other, and either one We e none of which are true.
See?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0