Argument for God's existence.

[createdtoworship]

Ah, yes. Refuse to read anything that contradicts you and cling to your initial opinion until someone proves it wrong. That’s very objective.

Like I said if you want to do your own homework and post some points you wish to make, great. If not, then I fully understand the idea of posting a google search and not actually researching it. But we should do our own homework when making claims, not expect others to disprove it. That is called reversing the burden of proof. When making a claim. The burden lies on you to validate. I simply posted a doctor's account of hundreds of near death experiences, and you post some random blog, and expect us to read it. No, you are supposed to do your own homework, if you post it, you should quote from it, not expect others to do it for you.

 

[gaara4158]

Like I said if you want to do your own homework and post some points you wish to make, great. If not, then I fully understand the idea of posting a google search and not actually researching it. But we should do our own homework when making claims, not expect others to disprove it. That is called reversing the burden of proof. When making a claim. The burden lies on you to validate. I simply posted a doctor's account of hundreds of near death experiences, and you post some random blog, and expect us to read it. No, you are supposed to do your own homework, if you post it, you should quote from it, not expect others to do it for you.

Why do I have to do homework on a blog, but you don’t have to do homework on a YouTube video? Sounds like a double standard to me.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Ok, then what caused the universe?

I don't know. I don't even know if the question is valid. If you believe the question is valid, and has a particular answer, the burden is on you to show that no other answer could be the case. You've been told this... over... and over...

Either it was created, or it made itself.

What's your evidence that you're not committing a false dichotomy?

Oh, and... do you believe that your god is glorified by illogical and seemingly dishonest arguments, which are turning actual people away from Christianity? Like my acquaintance who just told me that she can't in good conscious call herself a Christian anymore.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why do I have to do homework on a blog, but you don’t have to do homework on a YouTube video? Sounds like a double standard to me.

there is no homework in my premise, it's all inclusive. The evidence is explained and demonstrated repeatedly in the video. My video has first hand eye witness interviewed and mentioning their near death experience entailing heat, and flames. Your blog has rebuttals to it, but you are too lazy to post them. If I had a rebuttal I would quote from the site I posted and refute them properly. I typically don't expect people to do my homework for me. If it's a video, I typically don't post material in the video, because they are so easy to watch. Besides there is so much material it would be a text wall of information. Thats why I asked for the top three rebuttals to the video, which seemed reasonable.

 

[gaara4158]

there is no homework in my premise, it's all inclusive. The evidence is explained and demonstrated repeatedly in the video. Your blog has rebuttals to it, but you are too lazy to post them. If I had a rebuttal I would quote from the site I posted and refute them properly.

The video makes claims. Claims are not evidence. Secondly, the claims are about dreams, which cannot be demonstrated. So your claim that "the evidence is explained and demonstrated" is false. You would have to demonstrate that the dreams really were as described, the numbers really were as reported, and that there is some connection between this data and a specific conception of a Christian afterlife. The fact that you couldn't possibly do all that is enough to dismiss these claims, (remember, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim) but on top of all that I have a source from a fellow Christian who finds fault in both his data collection and the conclusion drawn from it. It's not on me to prove the critic right, it's on you to prove the doctor right. Well, that is unless you never intended us to take the doctor seriously in the first place. You just wanted to post something wrong to get us to say you're wrong, then you could ask us for proof that you're wrong and continually deny that anything was really proof, is that it?

And don't call me lazy. That's an attack on my character and constitutes flaming, which is illegal around here.

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't know. I don't even know if the question is valid. If you believe the question is valid, and has a particular answer, the burden is on you to show that no other answer could be the case. You've been told this... over... and over...



What's your evidence that you're not committing a false dichotomy?

Oh, and... do you believe that your god is glorified by illogical and seemingly dishonest arguments, which are turning actual people away from Christianity? Like my acquaintance who just told me that she can't in good conscious call herself a Christian anymore.

so someone who has no idea on how the universe started, knows for sure, God didn't do it. I see.

 

[createdtoworship]

The video makes claims. Claims are not evidence. Secondly, the claims are about dreams, which cannot be demonstrated. So your claim that "the evidence is explained and demonstrated" is false. You would have to demonstrate that the dreams really were as described, the numbers really were as reported, and that there is some connection between this data and a specific conception of a Christian afterlife. The fact that you couldn't possibly do all that is enough to dismiss these claims, (remember, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim) but on top of all that I have a source from a fellow Christian who finds fault in both his data collection and the conclusion drawn from it. It's not on me to prove the critic right, it's on you to prove the doctor right. Well, that is unless you never intended us to take the doctor seriously in the first place. You just wanted to post something wrong to get us to say you're wrong, then you could ask us for proof that you're wrong and continually deny that anything was really proof, is that it?

And don't call me lazy. That's an attack on my character and constitutes flaming, which is illegal around here.

they were not dreams. I don't think anyone claims that they were. If they do, then I would invalidate that particular case.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

so someone who has no idea on how the universe started, knows for sure, God didn't do it. I see.

Did I say that? No, I did not. Once again, putting words in people’s mouths is seen as dishonest.

Do you believe that your god is glorified by your apologetics methods, given what I’ve told you about their effects?

 

[gaara4158]

they were not dreams. I don't think anyone claims that they were. If they do, then I would invalidate that particular case.

It doesn't matter what you call them. They're subjective experiences that cannot be externally validated. You said they were demonstrated, and that's false. You're openly neglecting the truth in your arguments, and yet you expect people to be moved toward your opinion? Good luck.

 

[createdtoworship]

Did I say that? No, I did not. Once again, putting words in people’s mouths is seen as dishonest.

Do you believe that your god is glorified by your apologetics methods, given what I’ve told you about their effects?

You say you don't know how it was created but you are sure that God didn't do it. Is this not how you are debating? Ever since I posted evidence, you have done nothing but fight it. Yet you refuse to give a response to "how did the universe get here." So it appears you are sure God didn't do it, while not being sure of anything else about it. I have shown probably ten times that theism has the most intellectual answer. I can repeat it again if you want, or you can read the OP again. But I do apologize if I misjudged you, however that appears to be how you are debating.

 

[createdtoworship]

It doesn't matter what you call them. They're subjective experiences that cannot be externally validated. You said they were demonstrated, and that's false. You're openly neglecting the truth in your arguments, and yet you expect people to be moved toward your opinion? Good luck.

So you can't prove that they were dreams. So that was comment was wrong. Noted. Now lets go on to your next comment. "subjective experience" is now wrong. So any time there is an eye witness testimony in court, they are to be thrown out as not verifiable. Because no one saw, what they saw. Correct? If this is the case, why is it that eye witness testimony is almost always considered to be admissible in court?

 

[gaara4158]

So you can't prove that they were dreams. So that was comment was wrong. Noted. Now lets go on to your next comment. "subjective experience" is now wrong. So any time there is an eye witness testimony in court, they are to be thrown out as not verifiable. Because no one saw, what they saw. Correct? If this is the case, why is it that eye witness testimony is almost always considered to be admissible in court?

As I said, I don’t need to prove anything to doubt your video. There can be no demonstration of a subjective experience (the NDE). It is the subject’s experience alone. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong, just that it’s wrong to say you’ve demonstrated that someone had a subjective experience. Such demonstrations certainly aren’t in the video. So I repeat, you are neglecting truth (I’d hate to think you’re lying on purpose) in your arguments and yet you think you can convince people. Good luck.

 

[createdtoworship]

As I said, I don’t need to prove anything to doubt your video. There can be no demonstration of a subjective experience (the NDE). It is the subject’s experience alone. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong, just that it’s wrong to say you’ve demonstrated that someone had a subjective experience. Such demonstrations certainly aren’t in the video. So I repeat, you are neglecting truth (I’d hate to think you’re lying on purpose) in your arguments and yet you think you can convince people. Good luck.

so eye witness testimony is not evidence to you. Noted. Most legal professions, and governmental agencies would disagree. Court cases use eye witness testimony all the time. So if you cannot provide citation as to why eye witness testimony is unacceptable. We can assume eye witness testimony is a valid form of evidence.

 

[gaara4158]

so eye witness testimony is not evidence to you. Noted. Most legal professions, and governmental agencies would disagree. Court cases use eye witness testimony all the time. So if you cannot provide citation as to why eye witness testimony is unacceptable. We can assume eye witness testimony is a valid form of evidence.

You cannot witness someone else’s subjective experience.

 

[createdtoworship]

You cannot witness someone else’s subjective experience.

Again if eye witnesses are admissible in court. And that is considered evidence. Then what source can you quote to prove eye witnesses are not considered evidence? Further more, let me quote about evidence, just so you know for the future:

"DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Evidence typically falls into two broad categories. Direct evidence is evidence that can prove something all by itself. In California, jurors are given the example of a witness who saw that it was raining outside the courthouse. Jurors are instructed, “If a witness testifies he saw it raining outside before he came into the courthouse, that testimony is direct evidence that it was raining.”9 This testimony (if it is trustworthy) is enough, in and of itself, to prove that it is raining. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence (also known as indirect evidence) does not prove something on its own, but points us in the right direction by proving something related to the question at hand. This related piece of evidence can then be considered (along with additional pieces of circumstantial evidence) to figure out what happened. Jurors in California are instructed, “For example, if a witness testifies that he saw someone come inside wearing a raincoat covered with drops of water, that testimony is circumstantial evidence because it may support a conclusion that it was raining outside.”10 The more pieces of consistent circumstantial evidence, the more reasonable the conclusion. If we observed a number of people step out of the courthouse for a second, then duck back inside, soaked with little spots of water on their clothing, or saw more people coming into the courthouse, carrying umbrellas, and dripping with water, we would have several additional pieces of evidence that could be used to make the case that it was raining. The more cumulative the circumstantial evidence, the better the conclusion.

Most people tend to think that direct evidence is required in order to be certain about what happened in a given situation. But what about cases that have no direct evidence connecting the suspect to the crime scene? Can the truth be proved beyond a reasonable doubt when all the evidence we have is circumstantial? Absolutely.

Jurors are instructed to make no qualitative distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence in a case. Judges tell jurors, “Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence to prove or disprove the elements of a charge, including intent and mental state and acts necessary to a conviction, and neither is necessarily more reliable than the other. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other.”11 Juries make decisions about the guilt of suspects in cases that are completely circumstantial every day, and I’m very glad that they do; all my cold-case homicides have been successfully prosecuted with nothing but circumstantial evidence.

9. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, CalCrim Section 223.

10. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, CalCrim Section 223.

11. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, CalCrim Section 223.



Above quote from “Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels” by J. Warner Wallace"

J. Warner's professional investigative work has received national recognition; his cases have been featured more than any other detective on NBC's Dateline, and his work has also appeared on CourtTV and Fox News. He also appears on television as an investigative consultant (most recently on truTV) and had a role in God's Not Dead 2, making the case for the historicity of Jesus. J. Warner was awarded the Police and Fire Medal of Valor "Sustained Superiority" Award for his continuing work on cold-case homicides, and the CopsWest Award after solving a 1979 murder. Relying on over two decades of investigative experience, J. Warner provides his readers and audiences with the tools they will need to investigate the claims of Christianity and make a convincing case for the truth of the Christian worldview.

(disclaimer: I don't believe we can prove most things. Most facts cannot be proven, most science cannot be proven etc. However I believe that some things can be proven. The universe had a maker. We all accept this, or the alternative is that the universe made itself, spontaneous generation was disproven 100 years ago, thus there is only one option. The universe was created. Now the thing that created the universe, must according to cause and affect have intelligence, and be rational. It must also contain any positive character traits, self sacrificial love etc. Things that are not explained by herd instinct. Herd instinct accounts for some morality, but not self sacrificial love. A wolf may gather food for the rest of the pack, but not at it's own demise, it will most likely eat first, then get it. Humans on the other hand have been known to sacrifice for others. This type of love has no natural origins. Thus the one who created the universe must have that type of love, in order to create it in it's creation. The only thing that resembles a loving creator that is intelligent and rational. Is the Christian God. This to me is proof.

 

[gaara4158]

Again if eye witnesses are admissible in court. And that is considered evidence. Then what source can you quote to prove eye witnesses are not considered evidence? Further more, let me quote about evidence, just so you know for the future:

"DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Evidence typically falls into two broad categories. Direct evidence is evidence that can prove something all by itself. In California, jurors are given the example of a witness who saw that it was raining outside the courthouse. Jurors are instructed, “If a witness testifies he saw it raining outside before he came into the courthouse, that testimony is direct evidence that it was raining.”9 This testimony (if it is trustworthy) is enough, in and of itself, to prove that it is raining. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence (also known as indirect evidence) does not prove something on its own, but points us in the right direction by proving something related to the question at hand. This related piece of evidence can then be considered (along with additional pieces of circumstantial evidence) to figure out what happened. Jurors in California are instructed, “For example, if a witness testifies that he saw someone come inside wearing a raincoat covered with drops of water, that testimony is circumstantial evidence because it may support a conclusion that it was raining outside.”10 The more pieces of consistent circumstantial evidence, the more reasonable the conclusion. If we observed a number of people step out of the courthouse for a second, then duck back inside, soaked with little spots of water on their clothing, or saw more people coming into the courthouse, carrying umbrellas, and dripping with water, we would have several additional pieces of evidence that could be used to make the case that it was raining. The more cumulative the circumstantial evidence, the better the conclusion.

Most people tend to think that direct evidence is required in order to be certain about what happened in a given situation. But what about cases that have no direct evidence connecting the suspect to the crime scene? Can the truth be proved beyond a reasonable doubt when all the evidence we have is circumstantial? Absolutely.

Jurors are instructed to make no qualitative distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence in a case. Judges tell jurors, “Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence to prove or disprove the elements of a charge, including intent and mental state and acts necessary to a conviction, and neither is necessarily more reliable than the other. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other.”11 Juries make decisions about the guilt of suspects in cases that are completely circumstantial every day, and I’m very glad that they do; all my cold-case homicides have been successfully prosecuted with nothing but circumstantial evidence.

9. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, CalCrim Section 223.

10. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, CalCrim Section 223.

11. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, CalCrim Section 223.



Above quote from “Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels” by J. Warner Wallace"

J. Warner's professional investigative work has received national recognition; his cases have been featured more than any other detective on NBC's Dateline, and his work has also appeared on CourtTV and Fox News. He also appears on television as an investigative consultant (most recently on truTV) and had a role in God's Not Dead 2, making the case for the historicity of Jesus. J. Warner was awarded the Police and Fire Medal of Valor "Sustained Superiority" Award for his continuing work on cold-case homicides, and the CopsWest Award after solving a 1979 murder. Relying on over two decades of investigative experience, J. Warner provides his readers and audiences with the tools they will need to investigate the claims of Christianity and make a convincing case for the truth of the Christian worldview.

(disclaimer: I don't believe we can prove most things. Most facts cannot be proven, most science cannot be proven etc. However I believe that some things can be proven. The universe had a maker. We all accept this, or the alternative is that the universe made itself, spontaneous generation was disproven 100 years ago, thus there is only one option. The universe was created. Now the thing that created the universe, must according to cause and affect have intelligence, and be rational. It must also contain any positive character traits, self sacrificial love etc. Things that are not explained by herd instinct. Herd instinct accounts for some morality, but not self sacrificial love. A wolf may gather food for the rest of the pack, but not at it's own demise, it will most likely eat first, then get it. Humans on the other hand have been known to sacrifice for others. This type of love has no natural origins. Thus the one who created the universe must have that type of love, in order to create it in it's creation. The only thing that resembles a loving creator that is intelligent and rational. Is the Christian God. This to me is proof.

Completely and entirely irrelevant. I never said anything about eyewitness accounts. The type of claims your video makes can’t be supported by eyewitness accounts because the claims are about subjective experiences had by people while they were nearly dead. In fact, such experiences cannot be demonstrated at all. You claimed that they were demonstrated. You lied. And that’s your argument for God. A lie.

 

[createdtoworship]

Completely and entirely irrelevant. I never said anything about eyewitness accounts. The type of claims your video makes can’t be supported by eyewitness accounts because the claims are about subjective experiences had by people while they were nearly dead.

but they were not dead. So you need to provide citations to some journal that proves that people who are not dead, are no longer considered eye witnesses. If you cannot, then your rebuttal is to be tossed out.

In fact, such experiences cannot be demonstrated at all. You claimed that they were demonstrated. You lied. And that’s your argument for God. A lie.

you seem to be taking this personally. Please don't. Debate is a dry and sometimes emotionless activity. If you let it get to you, it causes mistakes. For example I believe my evidence is legitimate, so it would not be a lie. A lie is when you know for certain someone else is making statements with the purpose to deceive. The only way to know that is for them to confess, or for you to be able to read their mind. And since I believe what I am saying, it therefore in a worst case scenario would be mistaken. But honestly mistaken. In conclusion, labeling me a liar, is a flame. And an ad hominem attack. And if you do it again, you will be permanently blocked.

 

[gaara4158]

but they were not dead. So you need to provide citations to some journal that proves that people who are not dead, are no longer considered eye witnesses. If you cannot, then your rebuttal is to be tossed out.

you seem to be taking this personally. Please don't. Debate is a dry and sometimes emotionless activity. If you let it get to you, it causes mistakes. For example I believe my evidence is legitimate, so it would not be a lie. A lie is when you know for certain someone else is making statements with the purpose to deceive. The only way to know that is for them to confess, or for you to be able to read their mind. And since I believe what I am saying, it therefore in a worst case scenario would be mistaken. But honestly mistaken. In conclusion, labeling me a liar, is a flame. And an ad hominem attack. And if you do it again, you will be permanently blocked.

No, you need to demonstrate the truth of the claims made in the video. I don’t have to prove it’s wrong to doubt it. The fact that the people in the video make claims about their experiences isn’t evidence. The fact that the doctor makes claims about the people’s experiences isn’t evidence. You could stand in front of me and say you had such an experience. That’s not evidence. That’s a claim. And you can’t demonstrate something that only you experienced. And you definitely can’t demonstrate any connection between your alleged experience and some supposed God.

I’m sorry if you’re not lying at this point, but honestly that’s the more charitable explanation of why you’re continuing along this line. Block me or don’t, but this whole business of passive-aggressive threats to withdraw and lectures about emotion are getting old.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You say you don't know how it was created but you are sure that God didn't do it. Is this not how you are debating?

No, that’s obviously not what I’m saying. Anyone who reads what I write can see this. Your mischaracterization of what I’m saying is probably being seen by everyone as dishonest. I know I feel that way...

Ever since I posted evidence, you have done nothing but fight it.

You’ve shown me nothing that I would consider evidence.

Yet you refuse to give a response to "how did the universe get here."

Again, you’re not being honest in how you characterize my responses. I absolutely did give a response.

So it appears you are sure God didn't do it, while not being sure of anything else about it.

False again.

I have shown probably ten times that theism has the most intellectual answer.

Take a poll. See if any non theist believes the statement above.

Do you believe that your god is glorified by your apologetics methods, given what I’ve told you about their effects?

 

[createdtoworship]

No, that’s obviously not what I’m saying. Anyone who reads what I write can see this. Your mischaracterization of what I’m saying is probably being seen by everyone as dishonest. I know I feel that way...

again labeling someone as dishonest, means you know for certain they were not being honest. The only way to know that is for a confession, or to read their mind. Which you have neither of those. I believe in the Bible and thus I believe telling lies are sins. So I would not purposefully do that, or I would incur the wrath of the one I worship. So again, this is an ad hominem. I believe you honestly don't know where the universe came from, but you have offered no reason or origin for the universe. Yet you are for certain that God did not do it. Because why would someone who believed God did it, fight so hard against, the evidence given.

You’ve shown me nothing that I would consider evidence.

that is only because you are biased against God existing, as I have shown. I

Again, you’re not being honest in how you characterize my responses. I absolutely did give a response.

the response was that you didn't know. That is not the response, I was talking about. I was saying you did not give a response, because you didn't know.

False again.

I honestly don't see this as false at this point, you will have to explain further.

Take a poll. See if any non theist believes the statement above.

I could take a poll of thiests, who would unanimously believe it as solid evidence. So how accurate would that be? If not accurate, then neither would asking someone biased against God, be accurate. In the same way asking someone who is biased for God would not be accurate. And if I did a poll for everyone, more atheists would respond, because more atheists are active in this thread than theists. Theists think this is a boring topic, because it is solid fact already, nothing to discuss. So that would be why theists are not active here. So asking both atheists and theists to take a poll will be biased to the atheists, because there are more of them active here.

Do you believe that your god is glorified by your apologetics methods, given what I’ve told you about their effects?

I do, absolutely. Yes.