Argument supporting existence of a God

[ok doser]

I cannot understand what possible motive anyone could have for doing what quip does. I wonder what he thinks he's accomplishing?

Is it simple stupidity or is it evil? Its hard for me to fathom that someone can be so filled with hatred toward God that they would make up things like that to say in response to a perfectly reasonable argument. Not only that but it seems like it would be really difficult to keep it up so consistently and so my default assumption is stupidity but perhaps, in this case, stupidity and evil are just two sides of the same coin.

Either way, it makes for the dullest, most boring (not to mention frustrating) debate imaginable. Definitely not worth my time, that much is for certain!

Clete

he's a troll

a troll with a stunted intellect and limited imagination

 

[Clete]

If you didn't dance around my questions it would have been amazingly easy.

Look, it isn't my job to hand hold you through perfectly clear conversations. I haven't danced around anything. I've told you repeatedly that you don't know what you're talking about. It isn't my fault that you refuse to believe me and to take a step back and slow down and think about what I've said. Instead, based on this ridiculous post, you've not been paying any attention at all to what I've said and have instead been trying to read my mind or something and presuming what I must mean. Don't do that! I say precisely what I mean. If I didn't say it, I didn't mean it. Or at least you can opperate on that assumption and then if I need to correct something I will but whatever it is you've been doing, clearing hasn't worked because....

You say all the evidence needed for God is contained in the Bible.

No I don't. That would be circular reasoning - begging the question actually.

That isn't to say that there is no evidence for God in the bible but certainly not "all the evidence needed for God" is in the bible nor does the bible argue for the existence of God. On the contrary, it presupposes God's existence as does the Koran, I'd wager.

I say all the evidence for God is in the Koran.

People who say such things are silly and do not know what they are talking about.

By what nonpartisan evidence is the former correct thus the latter false?

They are both false.


Clete

 

[Clete]

he's a troll

a troll with a stunted intellect and limited imagination

Perhaps.

He comes off to me not so much as a troll but just as someone who is trying to covince himself that he's got these stupid theists nailed but doesn't have the self-confidence to see or admit when he's made a mistake in his reasoning. He acts as though he were scared that he might be wrong - scared of where raw, cold, dispationate reasoning will lead him. He argues like a lefitst argues politics, if you can call it arguing. He needs the conclusion and won't take even one step down any road that might lead him somewhere else.

One thing's for sure, this is the only place he's ever encountered Christians who are more interested in the truth than they are in sparing his feelings and being nice to him. He's probably won every debate he's ever had until he came here where he found people who understand the substance of his position and therefore cannot be defeated by his tactics.

Clete

 

[ok doser]

Perhaps.

He comes off to me not so much as a troll but just as someone who is trying to covince himself that he's got these stupid theists nailed but doesn't have the self-confidence to see or admit when he's made a mistake in his reasoning. He acts as though he were scared that he might be wrong - scared of where raw, cold, dispationate reasoning will lead him. He argues like a lefitst argues politics, if you can call it arguing. He needs the conclusion and won't take even one step down any road that might lead him somewhere else.

One thing's for sure, this is the only place he's ever encountered Christians who are more interested in the truth than they are in sparing his feelings and being nice to him. He's probably won every debate he's ever had until he came here where he found people who understand the substance of his position and therefore cannot be defeated by his tactics.

Clete

i've encountered him in the politics forum usually, tried repeatedly to get a coherent discussion from him on abortion, especially the irrationality of allowing a mother the choice to murder her unborn child but denying her the choice to murder her infant - every time it's the same - just trolling on his part, no coherent argument or reasoning brought to bear

this was his contribution in a thread i started yesterday: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ld-Molesters&p=5331308&viewfull=1#post5331308

he's a waste of bandwidth

 

[Clete]

i've encountered him in the politics forum usually, tried repeatedly to get a coherent discussion from him on abortion, especially the irrationality of allowing a mother the choice to murder her unborn child but denying her the choice to murder her infant - every time it's the same - just trolling on his part, no coherent argument or reasoning brought to bear

this was his contribution in a thread i started yesterday: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ld-Molesters&p=5331308&viewfull=1#post5331308

he's a waste of bandwidth

I just really wonder what he thinks he accomplishing. :nono:

 

[Right Divider]

I just really wonder what he thinks he accomplishing. :nono:

Pumping us his own ego. :yawn:

 

[quip]

No I don't. That would be circular reasoning - begging the question actually.

Clete

Of course it is.

You stated that my conscious existence; my capacity to, read, ruminate and debate these posts is evidence of God (among other things.) Yet, that evidence is not exclusive to Christianity. Any such theonomy may make this claim. I'm just trying to suss out of you the depth of your Christian indoctrination/bias. If you're simply arguing from a personal-Christian-experience-of-God perspective, that's fine. It's just that you've no grounds to claim this evidence proprietarily, that another cannot find God personally evident through, say the Muslim religion, Judaism, Hinduism etc...

By the way, I'm not atheist.

 

[Clete]

Of course it is.

You stated that my conscious existence; my capacity to, read, ruminate and debate these posts is evidence of God (among other things.) Yet, that evidence is not exclusive to Christianity.

Actually it does happen to be but I never said that. Figuring that point out is several steps down the road.

It is true that other religions might use such an argument although I don't know of any and I know for a fact that you don't either. But lets just assume that they do. If they do they are borrowing (unwittingly) from the Christian worldview as are you by reading this post.

Any such theonomy may make this claim.

But not in a way that is consistent with their worldview.

I'm just trying to suss out of you the depth of your Christian indoctrination/bias.

I don't believe you. I think you're making 100% of this up as you go trying your best not to be confronted with a choice you don't want to make.

If you're simply arguing from a personal-Christian-experience-of-God perspective, that's fine.

NO!

Do you know what the term "question begging" means? Have you ever bothered to look it up?

You should, it make keep you saying stupid things.

It's just that you've no grounds to claim this evidence proprietarily, that another cannot find God personally evident through, say the Muslim religion, Judaism, Hinduism etc...

There are lots of grounds upon which to make such a claim but, like I said, it is not my job to do your thinking for you. You want to jump 50 steps ahead and I'm not going to grant you the right to do so.

Suffice it to say that the Muslim god bears almost no resumblence to the God that actually exists and even their own understanding of God is inconsistent both with itself and with the rest of the Muslim faith.

This is true of ALL faiths - save one.

By the way, I'm not atheist.

Liar.

 

[quip]

Suffice it to say that the Muslim god bears almost no resumblence to the God that actually exists and even their own understanding of God is inconsistent both with itself and with the rest of the Muslim faith.

This is true of ALL faiths - save one.


Liar.

You just demonstrated your unsupportable bias. Case closed.

 

[Clete]

You just demonstrated your unsupportable bias. Case closed.

That would only be true if I were unable to factually support those claims.

It is not "biased" to say, believe and support reality.

No amount of baiting is going to get me to jump ahead, quip. Try as you might, I will not debate Chrisianity with you. This thread is about the existence of God and we have to get that question answered before we move on to who's worshiping the real One. I am a Christian on a Christian theology debate forum and so I am not afraid nor ashamed of the fact that I am arguing from the Christian perspective. You are trying desperately to claim that I am, in effect, begging the question and trying to make a Christian argument in favor of God but I have not done that. Making the claim that Christianity is the only rationally sound worldview is a claim, not an argument. I can support that claim, as I said a moment ago, but I am not going to do that yet - if at all. We've neither reached that point in the debate nor have you earned the right to such pearls of information.

In fact, you have not permitted the progression of this discussion far enough for ANY argument on the affirmative side. You have not engaged the debate at all! I have made one single claim in relation to the question "Does God exist?" You have never offered a single response and now you're claiming to believe that God does exist. It is seeming more and more that it is not possible to have a rational discussion with you. No one can stay on course because you don't know what you're even trying to argue about! :bang:

Clete

 

[ok doser]

You just demonstrated your unsupportable bias. Case closed.

congratulations! :roses:

You win! :first:


now go away :wave2:

 

[Idolater]

Now test that against the scriptures of the Koran.
Does the evidence concur with one another?

I didn't provide Scripture as proof of the Resurrection of Christ being nonfiction historical fact. I instead tackled all the death that surrounded the beginning of the Church. It was all what would today be called 'suicide by cop.' They were lynched sometimes, but usually officially executed (often with a lot of torture before their final coup de grace).

All these earliest Christians had to do was confess that the Resurrection was a hoax, and we don't have any record where any of them did that, and instead, even as it became more and more dangerous to be a Christian, they doubled down on their bets.

They behaved like people who knew something. They did not behave like people who weren't 100% certain. Unless of course, they were all involved in a suicide pact.

And if that's what we're saying happened instead of the Resurrection of Christ, then we still need to explore why the suicide pact. What was the goal of the suicide pact? What did they hope to bring about with their deaths?

And then the alternative is that the Resurrection actually occurred, and this is where we must objectively ask ourselves, if it did occur, what would we expect to see, as proof? There weren't any cellphone cameras. What would we expect to see?

For my money, we would Hope to see what we do see, we would Hope that many people who claimed to see the risen Lord, were put to the test in the most extreme way, and that's exactly what happened, and as far as we can tell, every single one of them passed the test that the Resurrection is nonfiction historical fact.

Unless it was a suicide pact. And again, for my money, the Resurrection of Christ seems more likely than that it was all part of a pretty large suicide pact.

If you think I've employed something like 'faith based evidence' in this reasoning, please let me know and point it out?

 

[quip]

That would only be true if I were unable to factually support those claims.

Yet, you can't ....objectively. Your world view is formed and identified by scripture and scripture is merely hearsay no matter how strongly you're emotionally attached to it.

It is not "biased" to say, believe and support reality.

But it is biased to claim Christian beliefs as exclusive to this reality.

No amount of baiting is going to get me to jump ahead, quip. Try as you might, I will not debate Chrisianity with you.

I have no desire to debate Christianity (per se) with you...the subject has been debated ad nauseum and will continue to be debated.Nor am I claiming Christianity as necessarily false.

This thread is about the existence of God and we have to get that question answered before we move on to who's worshiping the real One.

Have you considered that ALL religions hint at something spiritually inscrutable? Or do you find solace "knowing" whose wrong and who's right...and righteously drawing those pious lines in the sand?

I am a Christian on a Christian theology debate forum and so I am not afraid nor ashamed of the fact that I am arguing from the Christian perspective. You are trying desperately to claim that I am, in effect, begging the question and trying to make a Christian argument in favor of God but I have not done that. Making the claim that Christianity is the only rationally sound worldview is a claim, not an argument. I can support that claim, as I said a moment ago, but I am not going to do that yet - if at all. We've neither reached that point in the debate nor have you earned the right to such pearls of information.

It's this very self-righteous arrogance that's key to your bias (and my motivations!). Plus the "you're too simple (or evil, non-elect...etc.) to fathom the depths of the Christian religion/God"... is as old and trite as the religion itself.

In fact, you have not permitted the progression of this discussion far enough for ANY argument on the affirmative side. You have not engaged the debate at all! I have made one single claim in relation to the question "Does God exist?" You have never offered a single response and now you're claiming to believe that God does exist. It is seeming more and more that it is not possible to have a rational discussion with you. No one can stay on course because you don't know what you're even trying to argue about! :bang:

Clete

Same old religious chest-thumping.:idunno:

 

[ok doser]

Yet, you can't ....objectively. Your world view is formed and identified by scripture and scripture is merely hearsay no matter how strongly you're emotionally attached to it.


But it is biased to claim Christian beliefs as exclusive to this reality.


I have no desire to debate Christianity (per se) with you...the subject has been debated ad nauseum and will continue be debated.Nor am I claiming Christianity as necessarily false.




Have you considered that ALL religions hint at something spiritually inscrutable? Or do you find solace "knowing" whose wrong and who's right...and righteous upon drawing those pious lines in the sand?



It's that very self-righteous arrogance that's key to your bias (and my motivations!). Plus the "you're too simple (or evil, non-elect...etc.) to fathom the depths of the Christian religion/God"... is as old and trite as the religion itself.



Same old religious chest-thumping.:idunno:

awesome dude - you managed to insult Christianity and/or clete personally seven times

which is, of course, why you're here

 

[quip]

congratulations! :roses:

You win! :first:


now go away :wave2:

Geeez. I hope you're not butt-hurt again?

 

[quip]

awesome dude - you managed to insult Christianity and/or clete personally seven times

which is, of course, why you're here

You're free to bow out at any time buttercup.

 

[quip]

I didn't provide Scripture as proof of the Resurrection of Christ being nonfiction historical fact. I instead tackled all the death that surrounded the beginning of the Church. It was all what would today be called 'suicide by cop.' They were lynched sometimes, but usually officially executed (often with a lot of torture before their final coup de grace).

All these earliest Christians had to do was confess that the Resurrection was a hoax, and we don't have any record where any of them did that, and instead, even as it became more and more dangerous to be a Christian, they doubled down on their bets.

They behaved like people who knew something. They did not behave like people who weren't 100% certain. Unless of course, they were all involved in a suicide pact.

And if that's what we're saying happened instead of the Resurrection of Christ, then we still need to explore why the suicide pact. What was the goal of the suicide pact? What did they hope to bring about with their deaths?

And then the alternative is that the Resurrection actually occurred, and this is where we must objectively ask ourselves, if it did occur, what would we expect to see, as proof? There weren't any cellphone cameras. What would we expect to see?

For my money, we would Hope to see what we do see, we would Hope that many people who claimed to see the risen Lord, were put to the test in the most extreme way, and that's exactly what happened, and as far as we can tell, every single one of them passed the test that the Resurrection is nonfiction historical fact.

Unless it was a suicide pact. And again, for my money, the Resurrection of Christ seems more likely than that it was all part of a pretty large suicide pact.

If you think I've employed something like 'faith based evidence' in this reasoning, please let me know and point it out?

The same religious fervor and devotion straps bombs to suicidal Islamic fundamentalist. Nothing original here.

 

[Clete]

Yet, you can't ....objectively.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Your world view is formed and identified by scripture and scripture is merely hearsay no matter how strongly you're emotionally attached to it.

Here you go accusing me of question begging - again. It isn't me doing the question begging, it's you.

But it is biased to claim Christian beliefs as exclusive to this reality.

No it isn't.

Is it biased to claim that the sky is blue on Earth?
Is it biased to believe that objects fall to the ground when dropped?
Is it biased to claim that American capitalism is directly responsible for lifting more people out of poverty than any other economic system that has ever existed?

It is not biased to claim the truth of reality.

I have no desire to debate Christianity (per se) with you...the subject has been debated ad nauseum and will continue to be debated.Nor am I claiming Christianity as necessarily false.

You are schizophrenic!

First we're discussing whether God exists or not and then you claim that you believe that God does exist. Then you basically ask me to establish my claim that Christianity is true and now you don't want to debate Christianity nor really claim that it's "necessarily false".

What the heck are we talking about then? You tell me!

Have you considered that ALL religions hint at something spiritually inscrutable? Or do you find solace "knowing" whose wrong and who's right...and righteously drawing those pious lines in the sand?

No need for the quotes. I do in fact know that Christianity is true and that Jesus Christ is THE ONLY way to God - period.

It's this very self-righteous arrogance that's key to your bias (and my motivations!).

Your claim that I'm merely biased is unfounded and your making the claim does not make it so.

I am not one bit more "biased" in favor of Christianity than I am "biased" in my belief that the Sun rises in the East.

Plus the "you're too simple (or evil, non-elect...etc.) to fathom the depths of the Christian religion/God"... is as old and trite as the religion itself.

I have no doubt that you've heard such accusations your entire life.

Same old religious chest-thumping.:idunno:

You wish this were true.

Clete

 

[Idolater]

The same religious fervor and devotion straps bombs to suicidal Islamic fundamentalist. Nothing original here.

Not so. It's original for you to Equate Kamikazes with innocent murder victims.

 

[oatmeal]

God says He is alive and well.

Scripture and his acts of love and kindness in my life tell me that.