Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Berean777]

Good questions, I think that we need to examine the nature of " proof ", if we even want to make a guess how it would be done

This " proof " that people would accept, is it comprised of natural or symbolic language, or both at the same time ?

Is it like a math proof, that can be written ?

Or are people demanding Jesus teleport into everybody's' living rooms and hand over the winning lotto numbers ?

How is it that according to the Bible " every knee will bow " , but yet in order for " every knee to bow ", there will be not one person left who doubts that the Bible is indeed from God ?

This means that there would also have to be irrefutable proof the Bible is " from God " somehow, and that requires examining how " proofs " are constructed, and what exactly constitutes " proof "

Maybe Jesus would be able to somehow prove the Bible is from God ?

Nobody else can, unless I missed it

The statement that every knee shall bow is not whilst the person lives in their earthly body. This statement applies to the departed who are brought before the Lord in a spiritual prostrated position by angels and the Lord will then issue immediate judgement on that individual.

In that regard many departed people have already bowed their knees including all the famous atheists who were brought before the Lord as prisoners, ready for the sentence to be handed down.

In the same context all eyes shall see him, because every person is destined to die once, then to be brought before their maker for judgement.

A lot of unwilling knees have been bent already and the tally count continues as the rebellion against God continues.

 

[Davian]

It was not meant to be facetious.

You phrased it in a manner that to me appeared as prejudicial towards gods that you might see as mere human constructs. I don't make that delineation.

I'm fine with saying that people have claimed that the immaterial cause for the existence of the universe has manifested itself to be the FSM, the Eternal Flame, or Jesus. Personally, I believe there's abundantly more evidence that the manifestation of Jesus was the real representation of the creator or the universe as opposed to the FSM or the Eternal Flame.

You are free to beleive that.

Why not just list some and we'll see how they stack up?

I have already done that. None of them made the cut. If you can't get your personal version of the Christian god over the bar, I would not worry about the others.

 

[Davian]

Not one
person believes in the FSM.

What is this? A god must have believers in order to exist? Who made that rule?

 

[bhsmte]

Ok very well.

An accusation can be made in the following ways:

1) none verbal direct
2) none verbal indirect
3) verbal direct
4) verbal indirect
5) suggestive direct
6) suggestive indirect
7) censorship

Come on now, please start ticking boxes, as many as you can that you have applied in your defence of your atheistic faith of knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that God doesn't exist and instructing others of his none existence.

The first accusation of your atheist faith that you made and declared to the world is against God himself. In this matter you can tick all of the boxes above with confidence, that you have them all covered.

Can you handle the truth!

Citing how someone can make an accusation and actually pointing out the specific accusation, are two different things.

Again, what is the accusation that I made and please be specific?

 

[Davian]

...
A lot of unwilling knees have been bent already and the tally count continues as the rebellion against God continues.

I do not rebel against gods. Or, against Bigfoot. Or, extraterrestrial aliens visiting Earth. I am sceptical that they exist.

 

[bhsmte]

Let us take an example. Because I don't know you or haven't an experiential relationship with you, then if I were to take the atheistic point of view and methodology, then I would also need to cover the above accusations, by saying that you don't exist and teach the world in that endeavour to deny your existence.

Now how would you feel about that. Am I doing something wrong that the atheist is not already doing wrong by denying God's existence and teaching others to also deny his existence. If not, then why?

I can not prove your existence, you could be a computer, a marketing company, a spy agency, a lobby group etc. You could represent anyone, except yourself and so your existence as an individual if you are an INDIVDUAL cannot be demonstrated nor proven, so in that regard if one applies the atheistic methodology of knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that because I cannot demonstrate that you exist, then I would be right in saying that you do not exist.

You know that this would be flatly wrong and so too are atheists 100% wrong in their belief of God's none existence.

To scrutinise a person's existence you are undermining your very own existence by all those fallacious arguments/accusations that atheists use.

So please, don't tell me a white lie by saying that:

"Who have I accused and of what?"

Since you asked I kindly responded to let you know of the truth in the matter. I hope that this would be palatable. Thank!

Still don't see you pointing out and or supporting any specific accusation that I made.

So, either specifically point it out, or admit you can't.

 

[bhsmte]

You would probably say that you put your profile details and that should be proof enough for me. But I ask you that God has his autobiography called the Holy Bible, yet you and others say that this is not proof of his existence and so in that regard, I must also deny your profile in like manner if I were to use atheistic methodology, to prove your existence.

?????????????????????????????????

 

[Davian]

Can one of these millions demonstrate that this experience was not imagined?

No
<snip excuses>

I didn't think so.

 

[Davian]

...

In the same context all eyes shall see him, because every person is destined to die once, then to be brought before their maker for judgement.
...

Belief is not a conscious choice. For what would I be held accountable for?

 

[Berean777]

Athiesism is accusatory in nature that creates conflict by saying that God doesn't exist. I thought you can figure that one out yourself.

You cannot say a person doesn't exist, just because you can't demonstrate their existence. So most arguments that you have made as an atheists are accusatory in nature by first denying the existence of God, then ridiculing Christians who have come to experience God in a real and tangible way that they can't demonstrate to you, because it is their PERSONAL experience. So your accusations even in your previous posts are based on accusations and of ridiculing people of their belief, because you have come at a conclusion that God doesn't exist.

Your whole take as an atheist is based on an accusatory role and not a defensive one to proof why you believe that God doesn't exist. You know very well that you cannot prove that God doesn't exist, so in that regard what is left?

Your accusations that fly left, right and centre at every believer. This is the perceived accusatory position that you have taken on board as an atheist, which is now been proven to be in denial of thier very own actions as false accusers.

You need to see the fallacy and irony behind the atheist position. It has to be one of the most absurd and laughable position that an intellectual person can take on board without accepting the role of accuser.

Do you see the irony friend, do you?

 

[Berean777]

I didn't think so.

Censorship is another accusatory position. Snip it, why would you do that?

 

[Berean777]

Belief is not a conscious choice. For what would I be held accountable for?

Is that your accusation to why I believe what I believe?

 

[bhsmte]

Athiesism is accusatory in nature that creates conflict by saying that God doesn't exist. I thought you can figure that one out yourself.

You cannot say a person doesn't exist, just because you can't demonstrate their existence. So most arguments that you have made as an atheists are accusatory in nature by first denying the existence of God, then ridiculing Christians who have come to experience God in a real and tangible way that they can't demonstrate to you, because it is their PERSONAL experience. So your accusations even in your previous posts are based on accusations and of ridiculing people of their belief, because you have come at a conclusion that God doesn't exist.

Your whole take as an atheist is based on an accusatory role and not a defensive one to proof why you believe that God doesn't exist. You know very well that you cannot prove that God doesn't exist, so in that regard what is left?

Your accusations that fly left, right and centre at every believer. This is the perceived accusatory position that you have taken on board as an atheist, which is now been proven to be in denial of thier very own actions as false accusers.

You need to see the fallacy and irony behind the atheist position. It has to be one of the most absurd and laughable position that an intellectual person can take on board without accepting the role of accuser.

You need to come to terms with the role of an atheist. One person would say the atheist always looks at the crap in everyone else's backyard except their own. This is a true statement, bacause an atheist position is one of a crap kicker.

This crap kicking is based on an accusatory atheist role against those who have experienced God.

Do you see the irony friend, do you?

When did I ever claim a God DOES NOT EXIST? Please point that out to me.

An atheist is one who does not BELIEVE a God exists.

Try to get the definition and my own stance correct.

 

[bhsmte]

Is that your accusation to why I believe what I believe?

Are you like hung up on claiming accusations? Do you interpret every comment, as an accusation?

 

[Berean777]

When did I ever claim a God DOES NOT EXIST? Please point that out to me.

An atheist is one who does not BELIEVE a God exists.

Try to get the definition and my own stance correct.

That would be a gnostic take not an atheist take. Try again.

 

[bhsmte]

That would be a gnostic take not an atheist take. Try again.

You are then telling me what my position is, would that be correct?

 

[Berean777]

...

 

[Davian]

Athiesism is accusatory in nature that creates conflict by saying that God doesn't exist. I thought you can figure that one out yourself.

That is not how I use the word; to me, atheism is only the lack of belief.

You cannot say a person doesn't exist, just because you can't demonstrate their existence.

I do not say that.

So most arguments that you have made as an atheists are accusatory in nature by first denying the existence of God, then ridiculing Christians who have come to experience God in a real and tangible way that they can't demonstrate to you, because it is their PERSONAL experience.

I have personal experiences with Santa Claus. Do you accept that as evidence for Santa?

So your accusations even in your previous posts are based on accusations and of ridiculing people of their belief, because you have come at a conclusion that God doesn't exist.

Your whole take as an atheist is based on an accusatory role and not a defensive one to proof why you believe that God doesn't exist. You know very well that you cannot prove that God doesn't exist, so in that regard what is left?

What remains is your burden of establishing that this "God" that you refer to is more than a character in a book.

Your accusations that fly left, right and centre at every believer. This is the perceived accusatory position that you have taken on board as an atheists, which is now been proven to be in denial of thier very own actions as false accusers.

You need to see the fallacy and irony behind the atheist position. It has to be one of the most absurd and laughable position that an intellectual person can take on board without accepting the role of accuser.

I do not need to defend a position that I do not hold.

You need to come to terms with the role of an atheist.

You do not get to dictate what words mean for others.

One person would say the atheist always looks at the crap in everyone else's backyard except their own. This is a true statement, bacause an atheist position is one of a crap kicker.

This crap kicking is based on an accusatory atheist role against those who experienced God.

I do not know of anyone that has experienced "God". I have only seen claims of it.

Do you see the irony friend, do you?

I do indeed. Just not how you want it to come across.

 

[Davian]

Censorship is another accusatory position. Snip it, why would you do that?

I asked you a question; it required a yes or no answer. The "no" answer does not require elucidation.

 

[Davian]

Is that your accusation to why I believe what I believe?

I do not know why you believe what you believe.