Whether God Exists I guess

[Discussion]

The universe is contingent. God is not.

Idk God seems to act on the world sometimes and not others meaning he's not constant and does change.

 

[Discussion]

There are plenty of good ones. You admit that Paulogias' arguments are convincing to skeptics. They are not convincing to people who believe. As such, you don't want it to be true. If you did, you would not affirm second-rate arguments made for skeptics.

If I already believed in Christianity I think there would be sufficient evidence for the resurrection to be plausible but this is contingent on there already being sufficient evidence for God existing.

 

[All Becomes New]

If I already believed in Christianity I think there would be sufficient evidence for the resurrection to be plausible but this is contingent on there already being sufficient evidence for God existing.

You come here, telling everyone you are open to the evidence. That is a lie because you have shot down every argument people have given you. You are lying about your motives. You just want to come here, just like every other atheist I have ever met, talk about how you are open, and then deny all the evidence. It's intellectually dishonest and lying about your motives. Why not just tell the truth and say you want to make the case for atheism by denying all the evidence for God's existence?

 

[Discussion]

You come here, telling everyone you are open to the evidence. That is a lie because you have shot down every argument people have given you. You are lying about your motives. You just want to come here, just like every other atheist I have ever met, talk about how you are open, and then deny all the evidence. It's intellectually dishonest and lying about your motives. Why not just tell the truth and say you want to make the case for atheism by denying all the evidence for God's existence?

I would love your evidence to be sound/sufficient but unfortunately it is not (for me), I'm really happy that it's enough for you but if you're just going to get angry that your evidence is not convincing to me please stop. I don't think a sane person wouldn't want an all loving, all powerful and all knowing God to exist.

 

[All Becomes New]

(for me)

Of course not. You are not open to it. You are just throwing stones in your glasshouse. What do you want? Undeniable proof? Even if such a proof were given, you would still deny it because the issue for you is not the evidence, but your heart.

 

[Discussion]

Of course not. You are not open to it. You are just throwing stones in your glasshouse. What do you want? Undeniable proof? Even if such a proof were given, you would still deny it because the issue for you is not the evidence, but your heart.

Ah yes Psalms 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

 

[All Becomes New]

Ah yes Psalms 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

Yeah. You know the arguments. You deny them all. You come here pretending to be open, but you are not. You are a hypocrite.

 

[Discussion]

Yeah. You know the arguments. You deny them all. You come here pretending to be open, but you are not. You are a hypocrite.

Why on earth would I dent the arguments if they are truly compelling to me, I am open to arguments that I do not see as unsound? Also flattering you think I know all of them (I'm only 16).

 

[trophy33]

Why on earth would I dent the arguments if they are truly compelling to me, I am open to arguments that I do not see as unsound? Also flattering you think I know all of them (I'm only 16).

You may try a conversation with an AI. Give it any role you want it to play and debate it. It is sometimes more effective than with impatient and judgmental kind of Christians.

 

[All Becomes New]

You may try a conversation with an AI. Give it any role you want it to play and debate it. It is sometimes more effective than with impatient and judgmental kind of Christians.

I've seen enough. I know where they stand.

 

[trophy33]

I've seen enough. I know where they stand.

I have also encountered your try to play an inquisitor and a judge against me, recently. So, I know you have such inclinations.

 

[Discussion]

You may try a conversation with an AI. Give it any role you want it to play and debate it. It is sometimes more effective than with impatient and judgmental kind of Christians.

Thank you very much, I will try.

 

[All Becomes New]

I have also encounter your try to play an inquisitor and a judge against me, recently. So, I know you have such inclinations.

I'm not going to stand for falsehood.

 

[Discussion]

I'm not going to stand for falsehood.

Please get off my post for your argument.

 

[All Becomes New]

Please get off my post for your argument.

I will just put you on ignore. It's clear to me you are lying about your motives, and I have no patience for open hypocrites.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If I already believed in Christianity I think there would be sufficient evidence for the resurrection to be plausible but this is contingent on there already being sufficient evidence for God existing.

Any person's ability to believe depends on a multitude of epistemic factors. Sometimes, it takes time to see the plausibility in the historicity of the Christian faith, however minimal it may seem.

 

[trophy33]

Any person's ability to believe depends on a multitude of epistemic factors. Sometimes, it takes time to see the plausibility in the historicity of the Christian faith, however minimal it may seem.

I guess he is not looking for plausibility, but rather for a personal persuasion. Which is a work of the Holy Spirit and hardly attainable by a plausible evidence or even by some high probability.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I guess he is not looking for plausibility, but rather for a personal persuasion. Which is a work of the Holy Spirit and hardly attainable by a plausible evidence or even by some high probability, I am afraid.

I mostly agree with what you're saying, minus the small implication that where a number of people, particularly young people, are concerned, they invest way too much time with the Ultra Agnostic and Atheistic Skeptics and end up in an imbalanced interpretive position, one that expects too much of the Biblical texts and of the Christian Faith.

 

[jacks]

Yeah. You know the arguments. You deny them all. You come here pretending to be open, but you are not. You are a hypocrite.

I will just put you on ignore. It's clear to me you are lying about your motives, and I have no patience for open hypocrites.

As you know even staunch atheists can come to Christ. What brings them there?

I know it can be difficult but even if someone is just "pretending" to seek, it gives us an opportunity to interact with them and also to hone our own understanding of our faith. This is a blessing. A truly unreachable person is indifferent not antagonistic.

You have many good spiritual points to offer, don't let your human side be a stumbling block. Though the temptation is great, once we start arguing or name calling, what have we accomplished?

 

[All Becomes New]

As you know even staunch atheists can come to Christ. What brings them there?

I know it can be difficult but even if someone is just "pretending" to seek, it gives us an opportunity to interact with them and also to hone our own understanding of our faith. This is a blessing. A truly unreachable person is indifferent not antagonistic.

You have many good spiritual points to offer, don't let your human side be a stumbling block. Though the temptation is great, once we start arguing or name calling, what have we accomplished?

There comes a point when Jesus stops being the person of Matthew 8:1-4 and starts being the person of Matthew 23.

I am willing to dialogue with skeptics up to a point. When I see they are arguing in bad faith and are just denying everything a Christian says, then it makes it clear they are "looking for a sign" when plenty of signs have already been given to them.