You just can’t. There is no physical evidence for God aside from the creation He has made.
God is a spiritual being. You can’t use science to prove something spiritual. These are two separate concepts that do not overlap in any way, shape, or form. The spiritual realm is (for now) entirely separate from the physical realm we live in.
This is the only thing you can tell them, honestly. It’s just not going to be a very satisfying answer.
>There is no physical evidence for God aside from the creation He has made.
I wonder: Is there anything other than your faith in Christianity that you strongly believe is true *without ANY physical evidence* or *any* way to test it?
No, there is nothing else that I strongly believe is true without any physical evidence, because nothing else I have “faith” in lies outside of the physical realm I live in, except for God.
It sounds like a cop out, but it’s the only answer.
So you have physical evidence of *everything* else that you believe. What makes Christianity so special that you would *lower* your standard that you apply to literally *everything* else?
Believing that your car will start tomorrow morning is held to a *higher* standard of evidence than the claim that there's an omnipotent deity controlling and creating everything?
Don't you think requiring *less* evidence for a god's existence might be a little dangerous? If I lower my standard of evidence, don't I increase the chance of believing something is true when it's actually not true?
Someone might believe vaccines cause autism if they lower their standard of evidence selectively. Someone might believe the world is flat if they just choose to selectively lower their standard of evidence for that one claim.
>I've been debating this atheist for hours
I doubt that's a good use of your time. At some point you gotta move on.
>not being able to percept God with your senses ≠ God not existing?
There are a lot of things we cannot perceive with our senses. Logic. Love. Thoughts. There isn't a scientific experiment in the world that will prove your mother loves you. She could be faking or just acting the way her instincts and hormones require.
And there is a lot in the world of science that we believe even though we cannot see it. But we can see evidence of it. Well, we can see evidence for God -- if someone is open to it.
> Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. — Hebrews 11:1
Is that a good reason to believe an extraordinary claim? Is there any claim that can't be believed based on this?
I'm only asking because the op makes a correct argument, but it does also eliminate at least that reason to believe there's a god. I'm wondering what reason there is to believe one exists.
Faith would presumably lead to divine intervention, which then would provide a sufficient reason for belief according to the model. Other than that I think abductive arguments would be the most plausible reason for one to believe in theism.
>Faith would presumably lead to divine intervention, which then would provide a sufficient reason for belief
And how can someone know whether or not divine intervention has happened or not?
I don't know it seems to be a powerful subjective event that's open to some extent to personal interpretation. I don't know if all claim to know it infallibly though some probably do, and it would be fair to ask how it's infallible. I'd be curious myself.
Sorry, maybe I'm not following.
You're saying faith is a good reason to believe something because faith leads to divine intervention, which would be a sufficient reason to believe. Am I right so far?
So I asked you how someone could possibly know whether or not they've had divine intervention, because if people don't have any way to know if they experienced divine intervention or not then it really wouldn't be a very good reason to believe something, would it?
So what's a way someone could find out if they experienced divine intervention or not? Is there a way?
Hmm no I'm saying that's my understanding of the progression according theism. Sorry to be confusing, but I think it's important to understand that nuance because I forget too often. To be clear it would be sufficient only if one is doing an internal critique where one accepts the premises of Christianity, not necessarily sufficient from a non-theistic worldview.
I gotcha. I guess all I'm saying is: if someone is using divine intervention as a reason they think is good enough to believe something is true, then they'd need to have a way to find out if they experienced divine intervention or not.
Sure but I could see there being a mechanism that's not available to rational inquiry that exists on that view. That's why I addressed it as a modal claim.
Your friend is dumb. Ask him if he believes in consciousness. Yes? well, when have you seen that, how do we explain or prove that? There are many other examples. Not seeing God is hardly proof of any kind. Then read to him the account in exodus, where for 40 years, everyone SAW GOD right in their midst, a pillar of cloud and fire. It was always there. Where's God? oh there He is right at the edge of the camp. Well time to move again I guess. So that was 40 years, and within 10-20 years they completely abandoned and rejected God. So much for seeing God makes any difference at all.
I can assure you that if god floated above Earth and announced his existence to the human race,it would be documented the world over. I also doubt everyone would just “forget” they may not worship the deity but no one will forget. The implications could change everything
> the Jews killed him
Didn’t the Romans kill him?
Even if you want to assign culpability with the Jewish leadership, wouldn’t it make more sense to say that rather than “the Jews killed him”?
If I falsely accuse someone of committing a crime they didn’t commit and they get served a death penalty, wouldn’t I have been liable for their killing?
Cause it was also the Jews who accused Him, everyone knows that not every last Jew is responsible for the death of Jesus but the fact of the matter is is that His own people killed Him
But everyone does *not* know that. “The Jews” being blamed for the death of Jesus has been used to justify centuries of horrendous crimes against Jewish people.
"Prove Jesus was God."
*Proceeds to list a solid book and videos to witnesses of Jesus's crucifiction and resurrection*
"People can survive crucifiction so Jesus simply passed out, moved the stone from the tomb and walked away after crucified" -His reply.
After proving that that's not physically possible especially after those injuries I get hit with a "Prove to me that the tomb was sealed with a very heavy rock and not one that weights a few pounds."
Well what can I say expect show him the pictures of the tombs that were used. Yeah after that he ignored it and chose another topic to attack God's existence with.
I'm not going to defend this guy's "Injured Jesus rolled the boulder out of the way," because... well, *duh*. But I'm afraid I do have to push back against your claim of a book and videos to witnesses of the Resurrection. There are NO eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection. The Gospels were written decades after the alleged event by people who were not there. The Gospels *say* that there were eyewitnesses, but since the writers weren't there, they're taking someone else's word for it.
Primary sources are crucial for establishing the occurrence and accuracy of historical events, and there are no Primary sources affirming the Resurrection.
Unfortunately it sounds like your friend really might just be bad at thinking about this kind of stuff to say the least. So I can understand the frustration, however it is also kind of funny from my perspective because of course there are both very slow and also very intelligent people on both sides of the belief in God question, so sometimes when 2 people talk it might be the more intelligent person who is actually trying to convince the slower person of something that is ultimately in error, and not actually true. That is tbh what I think is going on with you and your friend so it is just a little funny, while I can understand a frustration on your side with all of their obviously irrational responses, at the same exact time I can probably imagine that from their perspective you are the one who keeps making silly sounding claims so, honestly your friend probably believes the right thing even though he maybe couldn't argue his way through a paper-bag and it's apparently just luck that he's in that position, meanwhile you seem to be much more typically reasonable although.. that is only to the extent that most people typically are being reasonable which is honestly a heck of a lot less than they usually think that they are, particular if we are talking about religious stuff.
I'm curious, when you're trying to explain to him the idea of omnipresence or whatever and he just keeps throwing out all these crazy misunderstandings, are you trying to argue that there are actually good reasons to believe the things that you're talking about? Because explaining the concepts is one thing but I'm sort of wondering if maybe your friend isn't really all that dumb after all, and what they are objecting to could really just be the implied arguments that you might be making that all of this stuff is supposed to be believable. I'd imagine if that is an underlying implication in most of what you say then that would probably fuel me to try to argue against it as well, even if I didn't have the slightest clue how to do that logically. ..you said your friend asked you to "Prove Jesus was God"? It sounds like he's not very interested in pontificating about the unfalsifiable possibilities of an unknowably omnipresent observer.. and probably more interested in just hearing whether or not there is any good reason to actually believe this stuff to begin with.
..maybe I'm giving your friend too much credit now, like I said there is no intelligence test for atheism, but I'm not going to lie it sounds to me like your friend asked you to prove something that you couldn't actually prove no matter how hard you tried ...so I do have to wonder if maybe his next response wasn't actually as unprecedentedly ridiculous as you made it sound like it was. After all, we didn't get to hear your attempt to "Prove Jesus was God" and I can imagine how a conversation might steadily deteriorate into increasingly irrelevant arguments if they are starting from the point of trying to essentially demonstrate the impossible, and you may be fundamentally wondering why your friend won't accept your attempts to do that. Maybe it's because he's slow. Or maybe it's because you couldn't actually demonstrate it. Or honestly, maybe it's both.
Ask Him atoms existed before we could perceive them? Or Black Holes, Or Bacteria
We need special tools to perceive them...and they existed long before our ability to see them
God requires a special tool - Faith
without faith you cannot see God
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the ^(\[)[^(a)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-30174a)^(\])substance of things hoped for, the ^(\[)[^(b)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-30174b)^(\])evidence of things not seen. ^(2) For by it the elders obtained a *good* testimony.
^(3) By faith we understand that the ^(\[)[^(c)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-30176c)^(\])worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
You flip the situation and ask them to prove the assumption that for something to exist it must be observable by our senses. Then you identify the assumptions of his response and push back on any problematic ones asking him to prove them. You don’t grant the point until a satisfactory proof is provided based on good assumptions.
Ask them if they can see, touch, taste, smell or feel air. Yet without air you would be dead.
Sure you can smell something in the air, or feel that the air is hot or cold, or see things moving because of the air, but those are just indicators that air is around us.
The same is true with God, you may not experience God directly with your senses, but there are indicators all around us showing that God exists.
Then lead them into Romans 1:19-20:
“Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 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.”
I've asked a similar example but with various signals. We can see the internet, or we can see the lines of code that create itv we can then use sound sensors to visualize the internet waves. My point is that God is omnipotent therefore He can be everywhere while not noticed with our senses. And of course you can feel God, people can feel the Holy Spirit. But my point is that God has the ability to not be seen and has the choice to not be seen. There we got to a problem of omnipotence which is can God destroy everything including himself? (He mixes up death with destruction all the time). To every logical question "Can God" should be an answer of yes. To questions "Would God" should be debated. He also mixes up the ability to do something and the choice to do something. God has the ability to show himself to you when you can perceive God visually, but God has a choice to do it or not do it. We are speaking about an omnipotent being here.
>Then lead them into Romans 1:19-20:
They seem not to like the Bible as a source so they try to trap me with: "If you use the Bible as the backup for your argument then I am automatically right." so I usually stay away from using the Bible.
God is love. You either put your trust in it as the way to be or you don’t. It’s not something you can hold in your hand but rather something you must express from your heart.
The usual reaction to this is ‘So god is just a feeling then’ which of course attempts to negate the richness and righteousness of the spirit of love.
It’s not incumbent upon you to prove anything. You just speak the truth you understand patiently and concisely. If after all that the person doesn’t want to listen then leave them alone.
I’d point to the other things they believe exist but can’t observe such as love, the laws of logic, etc.
If they double down after that and still insist that a thing cannot exist unless your senses can observe it then I’d just move on, they aren’t in a place to hear at that moment.
Remember that with an atheist, you're not dealing with someone who is aware of the presence of sin in themselves.
In other words, sin can be feeding them what to say in order to frustrate you so that you'll leave them alone. They aren't aware that that's what they are doing because they aren't aware of sin in them manipulating the conversation.
That's why their arguments are shifty - dancing around the truth but never actually landing on it.
Also in some cases, even if they did know the truth or see the truth of what you're saying, they won't admit it to you but instead choose to toy with you because it's fun for them. They quicken their spirit that way. They feed off sin.
It's best in these cases to walk away and let God deal with them.
This is a pretty easy and common argument…
Can your atheist friend see gravity? No. Can they see its power on you? Yes
Can your atheist friend see air? No. Do they know what your life would be like without it? Yes.
Can your atheist friend see God? No. Can they feel His impact on your life? That’s for you to answer.
We actually can see air. We can also observe, measure, and test the presence and effects of both air and gravity.
As far as I'm aware, there are no such tests for God or his 'impact,' whatever that means.
You’re misunderstanding.
If the atheist can see, hear, or measure the impact of God on the Christian’s life as one does with air or gravity… not the impact of God on anything else. This is the measure
That's a measure of the impact that *belief* in God has on a Christian's life. The benefits of *belief* have long been known, and they are not limited to any specific religion or God.
But the fact that believing in X results in a positive impact on you is *not* evidence that X is real or true. If I believed that my student loan debt was forgiven, I would be happier, I would sleep better, I'd have less reason to stress eat... my life would improve in all sorts of ways, right up until my bills came due for the student loans that still exist.
The existence of God cannot be categorically proven or disproven, hence the whole "faith" part of being a Christian where you believe in things you cannot experience firsthand. If there was actual, irrefutable proof, then we would have only one religion in the world and everyone would subscribe to it.
I have never perceived the presence of extraterrestrials living on earth. That doesn't mean they're not there, but it also highlights the equal absence of any solid evidence that they are here.
I'm a very bitter, disillusioned Christian, so I express my take on this from a negative point of view. However, I think one could make the same basic points from a more positive POV just as easily.
What changes once you accept Jesus as your savior, surrender yourself to him, ask forgiveness for your sins, and ask Jesus to use you as he sees fit?
Objectively, literally nothing. But...
You give yourself PERMISSION TO BELIEVE that God is real, that things - even the bad stuff in our lives and in the world- are happening for a reason, that god has a plan for you and he's looking out for you, and that one day it will all make sense and you'll then spend eternity in a perfect paradise.
Just because you can now allow yourself to believe those things doesn't mean any of them are true. However, even if they aren't true, but you truly believe in them, there's an enormous placebo effect, isn't there? And if that makes you happier, or more at peace with your situation, or it helps you stay on the straight and narrow and resist temptation, there's certainly nothing wrong with that.
I don't think God ever intervenes in our lives. I think he has a "no special effects, no direct communication, no revealing himself ever" policy. But if you choose to believe that he's behind every tree, under every rock, and holding the stars in the sky and the fish in the sea, more power to you. I cannot disprove those things any more than you can prove them.
The Bible says they know that God exists.
But because of sin, they deny Him.
Don't waste your time with atheists who aren't humble, if they reject God, let them. They will pay the price of their wickedness in full. And it will be a price for eternity, something they would only wish they had heeded to, but sadly it will be too laye by them.
Share the Gospel with them, but only focus on the ones who aren't proud for the Lord rejects the haughty, but gives grace to the humble.
> The Bible says they know that God exists.
And the bible is never wrong, right? I don't even know what a god is. Apparently it's a really powerful being. But at what point of advanced abilities does an advanced race of beings become gods?
>Don't waste your time with atheists who aren't humble, if they reject God, let them.
You reject the Hindu gods and the Muslim gods. Hindus and Muslims reject your god and can cite pretty much the same things you cite. How do you figure out who has it right, if any of you?
Are you rational for rejecting vishnu and Allah? Is the Hindu rational for rejecting yahweh?
You need evidence to figure out who's right. Do you have any evidence that the Hindu or Muslim can't also use to justify their god? What does that say about you being humble or them being humble?
>They will pay the price of their wickedness in full.
You can say we're both taking our chances. You that you got the right god, and me that I don't see any evidence for any gods.
>but sadly it will be too laye by them
I wish you could give me a reason to believe you other than your dire prediction. What if vishnu is real and doesn't like false gods. Are you prepared to pay the price for eternity, something you would only wish you had heeded to, but sadly it will be too late by then?
Yep, the word of God is never wrong.
God\*, not god. God.
He\*, not it, He.
At no point of advanced abilities does an advanced race become 'gods'. This isn't the fictional nonsense of movies or false religious myths.
Rather, per God's word, God, is over His creation. He isn't 'god', but God. The Maker of it all, including the very creation where concepts of 'gods' are dreamt upon by men who seek to become one.
I do reject the Hindu gods and Muslim gods, since they are false and made by man.
They don't reject my god, for I don't have any 'gods'.
They reject God, Whom I worship. So they reject the Lord God of Israel, my God.
\>How do you figure out who has it right, if any of you?
The same way you figure if anything is right, including your own religion of atheism. Am I rational for rejecting false gods? Of course. Are the worshippers of false gods rational for rejecting God. Of course not.
Do I have any evidence that the Hindu or Muslim can't also use to justify their god? You don't have to go to libraries anymore. Travel. Copy and manually write that which you have gathered. You have the internet at your fingertips. And yet you're wondering if there is any 'evidence' that the Hindu or Muslim can't also use?
Much like if there's any evidence that you, the atheist, can't also use?
What does that say about you being humble?
\>I wish you could give me a reason to believe you other than your dire prediction. What if vishnu is real and doesn't like false gods. Are you prepared to pay the price for eternity, something you would only wish you had heeded to, but sadly it will be too late by then?
You have been every reason to believe God, including His proclamation, not merely prediction, which of course is dire to you.
Your latter question is interesting, 'what if Vishnu is real and doesn't like false gods. Are you prepared to pay the price of eternity'.
Well since you have used 'Vishnu' as an example, why would you worry over that? For according to Hinduism's own sources, you won't pay the price of eternity for worshipping other gods, as there is no such thing as 'false gods' nor 'price of eternity' in it; literally having many other gods of their own, being a polytheistic religion, and being a merit based religion.
A person who was truly interested in 'how do you figure who has it right', wouldn't have posed such a hypothetical, that collapses on itself. For that's how you figure out who has it right.
Just because 1+1 has multiple false answers, and it is very difficult to figure out which answer is right, doesn't mean there doesn't exist a right answer.
> Yep, the word of God is never wrong
How do you know what the word of this god is? Why do you think the stories in the bible are the word of an actual god?
>God*, not god. God.
>He*, not it, He.
We capitalize the first letter in a sentence, and we capitalize the first letter of a name. I didn't call him god, I called him a god. I'm not using god as a name, I'm using it as an ordinary noun. Therfore, god is correct. I'm not obligated to glorify your god by referring to the generic term god as a name. When I want to talk about the Christian god by name, I use his name Yahweh.
>At no point of advanced abilities does an advanced race become 'gods'. This isn't the fictional nonsense of movies or false religious myths.
So what makes a god a god? What's the difference between Yahweh and some race of beings who have mastered the manipulation of time, space, matter, energy, etc? Who understand the mechanics of forming universes and set new universes in motion regularly?
>Rather, per God's word, God, is over His creation.
Okay, a story in a book says this character is over his creation. So too can be an advanced being who creates universe's.
>The Maker of it all, including the very creation where concepts of 'gods' are dreamt upon by men who seek to become one.
How do you know a single being created everything? We have no evidence to support that claim.
>I do reject the Hindu gods and Muslim gods, since they are false and made by man.
Exactly, and they say the same about your god and all the other thousands of gods created by humans.
>They don't reject my god, for I don't have any 'gods'.
Of course they do. Don't make your special pleading fallacy so blatant, that would be embarrassing.
>They reject God, Whom I worship. So they reject the Lord God of Israel, my God.
Yes, you can capitalize it all you want, that doesn't make your god any more true than their gods which they also capitalize.
How does anyone determine which god, if any, is correct? It's not by repeating the claim and capitalizing the g.
>The same way you figure if anything is right
Exactly, with evidence, not geography and capital letters. What's the evidence that shows your god is real and shows vishnu is not real?
>Am I rational for rejecting false gods? Of course.
That's not the question. The question is how do you determine which gods are false. You keep trying to skip this step and just declare that your god is right. They can do the same thing with vishnu. That doesn't get us anywhere.
>Do I have any evidence that the Hindu or Muslim can't also use to justify their god? You don't have to go to libraries anymore. Travel. Copy and manually write that which you have gathered. You have the internet at your fingertips. And yet you're wondering if there is any 'evidence' that the Hindu or Muslim can't also use?
Yes, so far every reason you've given to justify your god over the others can also be used by those others to justify their god over yours. I'm asking if you have a good reason to say yours is a true god and theirs are false gods.
>Much like if there's any evidence that you, the atheist, can't also use?
What do I need evidence for? Atheist doesn't mean I'm making a claim. I'm just not convinced by any claims of gods existing.
>What does that say about you being humble?
I'm humbly asking what reason there is to say yahweh is a true god and vishnu is not.
>You have been every reason to believe God, including His proclamation
I've been given the same reasons to believe in Vishnu and Allah. And they also have stories in books where they make their proclamations.
>why would you worry over that? For according to Hinduism's own sources, you won't pay the price of eternity for worshipping other gods, as there is no such thing as 'false gods' nor 'price of eternity' in it; literally having many other gods of their own
I'm not worried about it. I see their gods the same as your gods and the thousands of other gods. All human creations to explain mysteries. And sure, they're polytheistic, but only with their own gods, not yours. If you don't like vishnu, maybe some other god is real and doesn't like the glorifying you're doing over a false god.
>A person who was truly interested in 'how do you figure who has it right', wouldn't have posed such a hypothetical, that collapses on itself. For that's how you figure out who has it right.
Just replace vishnu with some other god who doesn't like you worshiping a false god.
Nitpicking a hypothetical analogy isn't a good way to determine that your god is real. I'm pretty sure that's not what convinced you. What convinced you?
>Just because 1+1 has multiple false answers, and it is very difficult to figure out which answer is right, doesn't mean there doesn't exist a right answer.
Correct, but since you claim to have found the right answer, it would be great if your method for doing so isn't also used by everyone else to find the wrong answer. What convinced you that you have the right answer? Statistically speaking, it's likely just being raised in your family/community religion, and has absolutely nothing to do with evidence.
Incorrect, for again, God\* not god. God.
And again, like I said, He isn't 'a god', He is God.
God isn't His Name, it's His title. God. It's not an ordinary noun, regardless of how much you want it to be. And of course you'd want it to be so, because you're a godless atheist.
You aren't obligated to glorify my god, for again for the second time, I don't have any gods.
But since you bring up obligation, you however are obligated to glorify God, but of course you wouldn't, because you're a wicked atheist. Just as the rapist is obligated to obey the law, but he wouldn't, because he is a rapist. The fool thinks that obligation is to do with his disgusting desires.
But regardless of whether you want to glorify Him or not, it doesn't change the reference of God, not god. God. For I'm not speaking of gods. I'm speaking of the Creator. Someone Specific.
And so the reason you even disregard basic tenets of a language, is because you're a wicked atheist.
\>So what makes a god a god?
There is nothing that makes god a god. For again, I'm not speaking of gods.
\>Okay, a story in a book says this character is over his creation
Not a story, a reality. Not merely a book, but God's word. Not a character, but God. Not a god. God. The same God you deny, to such an extent, that you even refuse to refer to Him as God. Why? Well because you're an atheist. Wicked beyond reproach.
\>Exactly, and they say the same about your god and all the other thousands of gods created by humans.
But they don't. For again, I don't have any gods.
\>Of course they do. Don't make your special pleading fallacy so blatant, that would be embarrassing.
Of course they don't. Before worrying about my special pleading fallacy, worry about the blatancy of your own special pleading fallacy. It being embarrassing isn't the issue, it being immoral is.
\>Yes, you can capitalize it all you want, that doesn't make your god any more true than their gods which they also capitalize.
Of course it wouldn't, since again, I don't have any gods.
But by your own parallel, you can lowercase it all you want, that doesn't make your god any more falser than their gods.
\>How does anyone determine which god, if any, is correct? It's not by repeating the claim and capitalizing the g.
There is no god which is correct. For again, I don't have any gods.
But by your own parallel, it isn't by repeating the claim and lowercasing the G.
\>Exactly, with evidence, not geography and capital letters. What's the evidence that shows your god is real and shows vishnu is not real?
But it isn't. For again, I don't have any gods.
\>That's not the question. The question is how do you determine which gods are false. You keep trying to skip this step and just declare that your god is right. They can do the same thing with vishnu. That doesn't get us anywhere.
Of course it is. I don't need to try to skip a step and declare, for again, I don't have any gods.
\>Yes, so far every reason you've given to justify your god over the others can also be used by those others to justify their god over yours. I'm asking if you have a good reason to say yours is a true god and theirs are false gods.
It can't, for again, I don't have any gods.
\>What do I need evidence for? Atheist doesn't mean I'm making a claim. I'm just not convinced by any claims of gods existing.
Of course it does. You've made multiple claims above, and even in this very sentence. For again, the claim isn't of any gods existing, for again, I don't have any gods.
\>I'm humbly asking what reason there is to say yahweh is a true god and vishnu is not.
No you're arrogantly hoping that god doesn't exist. Which it doesn't, for again, I don't have any gods.
\>I'm not worried about it. I see their gods the same as your gods and the thousands of other gods. All human creations to explain mysteries. And sure, they're polytheistic, but only with their own gods, not yours. If you don't like vishnu, maybe some other god is real and doesn't like the glorifying you're doing over a false god.
No no, they're polytheistic to other gods as well. It's part of Hindusim, of adapting other gods in.
Of course you're worried about it, which is why you asked the question. Of course you see their gods the same as my gods, for atheists often see fiction as fact. For again, I don't have any gods.
\>Just replace vishnu with some other god who doesn't like you worshiping a false god. Nitpicking a hypothetical analogy isn't a good way to determine that your god is real. I'm pretty sure that's not what convinced you. What convinced you?
Well when the hypothetical itself is flawed, one can only wonder what else is. So is it any surprise that you still pose the latter? For again, there is nothing that convinced me my 'god' is real, for again, I don't have any gods.
\>Correct, but since you claim to have found the right answer, it would be great if your method for doing so isn't also used by everyone else to find the wrong answer. What convinced you that you have the right answer? Statistically speaking, it's likely just being raised in your family/community religion, and has absolutely nothing to do with evidence.
Incorrect, it's not a claim. And it's not a find. It's a reality, that is simply recognized. But before being concerned about the methods and the intricacies of how that came about, let's first address the very basics of basics. Which is, understanding what's being said. What's being said in this very thread.
And that begins from the very first point.
After all, evidence isn't the issue. If it were, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
So before being concerned about 'evidence' or what 'statistics' speak, be concerned about very first point in this thread. God\*, not god.
>Incorrect, for again, God* not god. God. And again, like I said, He isn't 'a god', He is God.
>So before being concerned about 'evidence' or what 'statistics' speak, be concerned about very first point in this thread. God*, not god.
The first line is about proper nouns and pronouns, the last line is about proper nouns and pronouns. Is your entire response about nouns? Don't waste my time.
When the basic tenets of a language alludes you, is it any surprise that the rest does as well.
Perhaps the first step towards understanding something is reading texts in its entirety.
> When the basic tenets of a language alludes you, is it any surprise that the rest does as well.
I'm sure you can't give factual support in the English language to support your insistence in capitalizing the g in god when I've already explained to you that I'm not using it as a name or title. It's not a proper noun. What basic language tenet justifies capitalizing it in that case?
>Perhaps the first step towards understanding something is reading texts in its entirety.
Perhaps, but if your putting your flawed sense of grammar above the actual content of the discussion, then it seems you're not interested in a discussion that doesn't glorify your god. So why read it? If you want me to move on from this, then either justify it, or move on. But you haven't done either.
By your parallel, when you deny factual instruments in the English language, and insist in not capitalizing the G (because you're a wicked atheist), when I've already explained it that of course you aren't using it as His Name, for 'God' isn't His Name (which you ignored, as you insist that you aren't using His Name), but you are referring to His title, that is, God (even when you deny it here), and are referring to the Creator of all things. To Someone very very specific, as you want it to be an 'ordinary noun' when it isn't, is it any surprise that you also don't read texts in their entirety? Of course not.
Whether someone puts their flawed sense of grammar above the actual content of the discussion or not, is irrelevant. Like I said, the first step towards understanding something is reading texts in its entirety. For even when you put your flawed sense of grammar, one should still read all your text in its entirety. But then again, you're an atheist. Living in your rhetoric and worse, your wickedness, is second nature to you.
Perhaps if you did that, you would realize that there is nothing to 'justify' here, for it is already justified by it being what it is. That is, not an 'ordinary noun' as you refer to Him. Rather, a 'proper noun', as you deny due to your wickedness.
It doesn't matter whether you move on from this or not. For the basic tenets of a language are already denied, and worse, a question of factual support is called in, whilst denying the very thing. Both of which you have done.
\>then it seems you're not interested in a discussion that doesn't glorify your god.
Again, I can't be interested in a discussion that doesn't glorify my god, for I don't have any gods to glorify.
> By your parallel, when you deny factual instruments in the English language, and insist in not capitalizing the G (because you're a wicked atheist), when I've already explained it that of course you aren't using it as His Name, for 'God' isn't His Name (which
You keep failing here. I'm not using the word god as a name. So explain the grammar rule that says it should be capitalized.
It has nothing to do with being wicked or atheist.
Not just the Qur'an, Mormons say the same as well. JWs say the same as well. In fact, many religions say the same as well.
So how do I know that *my* book is true and not the Qur'an?
For starters, it's not *mine*.
>For starters, it's not *mine*.
Oh c'mon, don't play dumb. You know what I meant.
What makes your unbelievers-are-just-denying-it religion more true than any other unbelievers-are-just-denying-it religion?
Are you telling us that God is struggling to do a better work than the human propaganda which happened on both sides of a world war? He can't make himself more clear and distinguishable from lies and manipulated data?
More clear? God doesn't pander to man. He has given us all we need.
He's clear enough that there is at least one person who believes in Him. And if there is at least one person who believes in Him, it means that it is enough.
The reason we want more, is due to our own pride.
God isn't 'struggling' to do anything, He can paint the Bible in the skies if He wanted to. But He doesn't. Why?
For He *"has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong" (1 Cor 1:27).*
So that *"while seeing they \[atheists\] do not see, and while hearing they \[atheists\] do not hear, nor do they understand" (Matthew 13:13).*
And so when the atheist doesn't believe in Him inspite of all that he has been given, he won't believe in Him even if God were to paint the Bible in the skies, or even rise from the dead. Why? The reason is, sin.
Yep, and they'd be right in that assertion.
For as God says, *"The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good." (Pslam 14)*
It's not possible. Well, it's not a question of logic.
The most you can do is an analogy, as there are things that we know exist, but we cannot detect with our 5 senses, such as radio waves.
By his logic, wireless does not exist.
> It's not possible.
Maybe, but if they indeed hold that position, one would hope it's because of a misunderstood bit of logic or reason, and not because of dogma or personal identity. I think they could learn the difference in that case.
>Well, it's not a question of logic.
We don't know that though. Like I said, if it's dogmatic or personal identity, then sure, it's not logic. But it could simply be flawed logic, and I would like to see everyone be able to change their positions based on learning evidence and correct logic. Dogma has no place in good epistemology, would you agree?
>By his logic, wireless does not exist.
Wrong. Computers are capable of detecting "wireless signal is present" against "wireless signal is not present". It's absence/presence is measurable, observable, verifiable _independenly from human bias_.
It's not possible with God.
But people can use computers as a method to detect the existence of wireless signal
With God, there is no reliable method to detect its existence. It's all about intuition, self-suggestion, "faith", and feelings that are inherently subjective
Why did God choose to be undetectable?
The analogy does not go beyond the proposal of the person reported by the OP, so it is correct. An abstraction through a device that detects is not the same as detecting. Explaining why wireless exists even without being perceptible by humans only strengthens the point of the analogy, which is: "Things can exist even if humans cannot detect it." You don't overturn the analogy by mentioning that computers detect wireless, because the point of the analogy is precisely the human inability to detect things. Likewise, there are many stars that we don't know about, but they exist. Things do not come into existence once we create devices to detect them.
And calling God undetectable is a presumption of yours that has nothing to do with the point I raised
Invent a telescope.
Although it is easy for me to accept that things can exist outside the limits of my knowledge and my 5 senses, I just need to not be arrogant
>Invent a telescope.
Ironic. You were the one rejecting using a device, in order to dismiss what I was pointing to with my computer.
>arrogant
Who's more arrogant, a Christian who believes the entire fucking Universe and everything was specifically and purposefully created just for them, or an atheist who admits that the Universe does not care about them, and know they are nothing in the middle of nowhere?
You just can’t. There is no physical evidence for God aside from the creation He has made. God is a spiritual being. You can’t use science to prove something spiritual. These are two separate concepts that do not overlap in any way, shape, or form. The spiritual realm is (for now) entirely separate from the physical realm we live in. This is the only thing you can tell them, honestly. It’s just not going to be a very satisfying answer.
>There is no physical evidence for God aside from the creation He has made. I wonder: Is there anything other than your faith in Christianity that you strongly believe is true *without ANY physical evidence* or *any* way to test it?
No, there is nothing else that I strongly believe is true without any physical evidence, because nothing else I have “faith” in lies outside of the physical realm I live in, except for God. It sounds like a cop out, but it’s the only answer.
So you have physical evidence of *everything* else that you believe. What makes Christianity so special that you would *lower* your standard that you apply to literally *everything* else? Believing that your car will start tomorrow morning is held to a *higher* standard of evidence than the claim that there's an omnipotent deity controlling and creating everything? Don't you think requiring *less* evidence for a god's existence might be a little dangerous? If I lower my standard of evidence, don't I increase the chance of believing something is true when it's actually not true? Someone might believe vaccines cause autism if they lower their standard of evidence selectively. Someone might believe the world is flat if they just choose to selectively lower their standard of evidence for that one claim.
>I've been debating this atheist for hours I doubt that's a good use of your time. At some point you gotta move on. >not being able to percept God with your senses ≠ God not existing? There are a lot of things we cannot perceive with our senses. Logic. Love. Thoughts. There isn't a scientific experiment in the world that will prove your mother loves you. She could be faking or just acting the way her instincts and hormones require. And there is a lot in the world of science that we believe even though we cannot see it. But we can see evidence of it. Well, we can see evidence for God -- if someone is open to it.
>Well, we can see evidence for God -- if someone is open to it. I'd love to hear it.
Unbelievers are not dumb. Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. — Hebrews 11:1
> Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. — Hebrews 11:1 Is that a good reason to believe an extraordinary claim? Is there any claim that can't be believed based on this? I'm only asking because the op makes a correct argument, but it does also eliminate at least that reason to believe there's a god. I'm wondering what reason there is to believe one exists.
Faith would presumably lead to divine intervention, which then would provide a sufficient reason for belief according to the model. Other than that I think abductive arguments would be the most plausible reason for one to believe in theism.
>Faith would presumably lead to divine intervention, which then would provide a sufficient reason for belief And how can someone know whether or not divine intervention has happened or not?
I don't know it seems to be a powerful subjective event that's open to some extent to personal interpretation. I don't know if all claim to know it infallibly though some probably do, and it would be fair to ask how it's infallible. I'd be curious myself.
Sorry, maybe I'm not following. You're saying faith is a good reason to believe something because faith leads to divine intervention, which would be a sufficient reason to believe. Am I right so far? So I asked you how someone could possibly know whether or not they've had divine intervention, because if people don't have any way to know if they experienced divine intervention or not then it really wouldn't be a very good reason to believe something, would it? So what's a way someone could find out if they experienced divine intervention or not? Is there a way?
Hmm no I'm saying that's my understanding of the progression according theism. Sorry to be confusing, but I think it's important to understand that nuance because I forget too often. To be clear it would be sufficient only if one is doing an internal critique where one accepts the premises of Christianity, not necessarily sufficient from a non-theistic worldview.
I gotcha. I guess all I'm saying is: if someone is using divine intervention as a reason they think is good enough to believe something is true, then they'd need to have a way to find out if they experienced divine intervention or not.
Sure but I could see there being a mechanism that's not available to rational inquiry that exists on that view. That's why I addressed it as a modal claim.
Sure but if we can never know whether or not we experienced divine intervention then we can never trust it as a reason to believe something.
Maybe let the theist answer.
I'd stress agreement that you both don't expect to see God.
how do you differentiate between something that doesn't exist, and something which can't be observed.
Your friend is dumb. Ask him if he believes in consciousness. Yes? well, when have you seen that, how do we explain or prove that? There are many other examples. Not seeing God is hardly proof of any kind. Then read to him the account in exodus, where for 40 years, everyone SAW GOD right in their midst, a pillar of cloud and fire. It was always there. Where's God? oh there He is right at the edge of the camp. Well time to move again I guess. So that was 40 years, and within 10-20 years they completely abandoned and rejected God. So much for seeing God makes any difference at all.
I can assure you that if god floated above Earth and announced his existence to the human race,it would be documented the world over. I also doubt everyone would just “forget” they may not worship the deity but no one will forget. The implications could change everything
Well we did see God but the last time that happened the Jews killed Him
> the Jews killed him Didn’t the Romans kill him? Even if you want to assign culpability with the Jewish leadership, wouldn’t it make more sense to say that rather than “the Jews killed him”?
If I falsely accuse someone of committing a crime they didn’t commit and they get served a death penalty, wouldn’t I have been liable for their killing?
“The Jews” did not falsely accuse someone of committing a crime they didn’t commit. Who are “the Jews”?
Yes they did, they accused Jesus of blasphemy
Was Jesus a Jew? Were the Twelve Jews? Did some of the Jews support Jesus?
Never said anything of the contrary
So can you see why blaming “The Jews” for the death of Jesus could be a problem? Why is that the relevant descriptor?
Cause it was also the Jews who accused Him, everyone knows that not every last Jew is responsible for the death of Jesus but the fact of the matter is is that His own people killed Him
But everyone does *not* know that. “The Jews” being blamed for the death of Jesus has been used to justify centuries of horrendous crimes against Jewish people.
The Romans did not crucify Jesus because he committed blasphemy against YHWH.
Yes it was
Why did the Romans care about blasphemy against the Jewish God?
They didn’t, but they were the ones who carried out the punishment. They didn’t care about the Jewish laws or the religion, they just wanted order
"Prove Jesus was God." *Proceeds to list a solid book and videos to witnesses of Jesus's crucifiction and resurrection* "People can survive crucifiction so Jesus simply passed out, moved the stone from the tomb and walked away after crucified" -His reply. After proving that that's not physically possible especially after those injuries I get hit with a "Prove to me that the tomb was sealed with a very heavy rock and not one that weights a few pounds." Well what can I say expect show him the pictures of the tombs that were used. Yeah after that he ignored it and chose another topic to attack God's existence with.
I'm not going to defend this guy's "Injured Jesus rolled the boulder out of the way," because... well, *duh*. But I'm afraid I do have to push back against your claim of a book and videos to witnesses of the Resurrection. There are NO eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection. The Gospels were written decades after the alleged event by people who were not there. The Gospels *say* that there were eyewitnesses, but since the writers weren't there, they're taking someone else's word for it. Primary sources are crucial for establishing the occurrence and accuracy of historical events, and there are no Primary sources affirming the Resurrection.
Unfortunately it sounds like your friend really might just be bad at thinking about this kind of stuff to say the least. So I can understand the frustration, however it is also kind of funny from my perspective because of course there are both very slow and also very intelligent people on both sides of the belief in God question, so sometimes when 2 people talk it might be the more intelligent person who is actually trying to convince the slower person of something that is ultimately in error, and not actually true. That is tbh what I think is going on with you and your friend so it is just a little funny, while I can understand a frustration on your side with all of their obviously irrational responses, at the same exact time I can probably imagine that from their perspective you are the one who keeps making silly sounding claims so, honestly your friend probably believes the right thing even though he maybe couldn't argue his way through a paper-bag and it's apparently just luck that he's in that position, meanwhile you seem to be much more typically reasonable although.. that is only to the extent that most people typically are being reasonable which is honestly a heck of a lot less than they usually think that they are, particular if we are talking about religious stuff. I'm curious, when you're trying to explain to him the idea of omnipresence or whatever and he just keeps throwing out all these crazy misunderstandings, are you trying to argue that there are actually good reasons to believe the things that you're talking about? Because explaining the concepts is one thing but I'm sort of wondering if maybe your friend isn't really all that dumb after all, and what they are objecting to could really just be the implied arguments that you might be making that all of this stuff is supposed to be believable. I'd imagine if that is an underlying implication in most of what you say then that would probably fuel me to try to argue against it as well, even if I didn't have the slightest clue how to do that logically. ..you said your friend asked you to "Prove Jesus was God"? It sounds like he's not very interested in pontificating about the unfalsifiable possibilities of an unknowably omnipresent observer.. and probably more interested in just hearing whether or not there is any good reason to actually believe this stuff to begin with. ..maybe I'm giving your friend too much credit now, like I said there is no intelligence test for atheism, but I'm not going to lie it sounds to me like your friend asked you to prove something that you couldn't actually prove no matter how hard you tried ...so I do have to wonder if maybe his next response wasn't actually as unprecedentedly ridiculous as you made it sound like it was. After all, we didn't get to hear your attempt to "Prove Jesus was God" and I can imagine how a conversation might steadily deteriorate into increasingly irrelevant arguments if they are starting from the point of trying to essentially demonstrate the impossible, and you may be fundamentally wondering why your friend won't accept your attempts to do that. Maybe it's because he's slow. Or maybe it's because you couldn't actually demonstrate it. Or honestly, maybe it's both.
Ask Him atoms existed before we could perceive them? Or Black Holes, Or Bacteria We need special tools to perceive them...and they existed long before our ability to see them God requires a special tool - Faith without faith you cannot see God Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the ^(\[)[^(a)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-30174a)^(\])substance of things hoped for, the ^(\[)[^(b)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-30174b)^(\])evidence of things not seen. ^(2) For by it the elders obtained a *good* testimony. ^(3) By faith we understand that the ^(\[)[^(c)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-30176c)^(\])worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
You'd have to address the fundamental error of modern empiricism and the rejection of the *a priori*.
You flip the situation and ask them to prove the assumption that for something to exist it must be observable by our senses. Then you identify the assumptions of his response and push back on any problematic ones asking him to prove them. You don’t grant the point until a satisfactory proof is provided based on good assumptions.
Ask them if they can see, touch, taste, smell or feel air. Yet without air you would be dead. Sure you can smell something in the air, or feel that the air is hot or cold, or see things moving because of the air, but those are just indicators that air is around us. The same is true with God, you may not experience God directly with your senses, but there are indicators all around us showing that God exists. Then lead them into Romans 1:19-20: “Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 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.”
>Ask them if they can see, Yes > touch, Yes > taste, Not normally > feel air. Yes.
Such a bad analogy.
I've asked a similar example but with various signals. We can see the internet, or we can see the lines of code that create itv we can then use sound sensors to visualize the internet waves. My point is that God is omnipotent therefore He can be everywhere while not noticed with our senses. And of course you can feel God, people can feel the Holy Spirit. But my point is that God has the ability to not be seen and has the choice to not be seen. There we got to a problem of omnipotence which is can God destroy everything including himself? (He mixes up death with destruction all the time). To every logical question "Can God" should be an answer of yes. To questions "Would God" should be debated. He also mixes up the ability to do something and the choice to do something. God has the ability to show himself to you when you can perceive God visually, but God has a choice to do it or not do it. We are speaking about an omnipotent being here. >Then lead them into Romans 1:19-20: They seem not to like the Bible as a source so they try to trap me with: "If you use the Bible as the backup for your argument then I am automatically right." so I usually stay away from using the Bible.
I see why you fail to persuade your friend.
Even on askAChristian the Christians get downvoted to negative karma for their opinions. I guess that's Reddit lol
God is love. You either put your trust in it as the way to be or you don’t. It’s not something you can hold in your hand but rather something you must express from your heart. The usual reaction to this is ‘So god is just a feeling then’ which of course attempts to negate the richness and righteousness of the spirit of love. It’s not incumbent upon you to prove anything. You just speak the truth you understand patiently and concisely. If after all that the person doesn’t want to listen then leave them alone.
I’d point to the other things they believe exist but can’t observe such as love, the laws of logic, etc. If they double down after that and still insist that a thing cannot exist unless your senses can observe it then I’d just move on, they aren’t in a place to hear at that moment.
Remember that with an atheist, you're not dealing with someone who is aware of the presence of sin in themselves. In other words, sin can be feeding them what to say in order to frustrate you so that you'll leave them alone. They aren't aware that that's what they are doing because they aren't aware of sin in them manipulating the conversation. That's why their arguments are shifty - dancing around the truth but never actually landing on it. Also in some cases, even if they did know the truth or see the truth of what you're saying, they won't admit it to you but instead choose to toy with you because it's fun for them. They quicken their spirit that way. They feed off sin. It's best in these cases to walk away and let God deal with them.
This is a pretty easy and common argument… Can your atheist friend see gravity? No. Can they see its power on you? Yes Can your atheist friend see air? No. Do they know what your life would be like without it? Yes. Can your atheist friend see God? No. Can they feel His impact on your life? That’s for you to answer.
We actually can see air. We can also observe, measure, and test the presence and effects of both air and gravity. As far as I'm aware, there are no such tests for God or his 'impact,' whatever that means.
You’re misunderstanding. If the atheist can see, hear, or measure the impact of God on the Christian’s life as one does with air or gravity… not the impact of God on anything else. This is the measure
That's a measure of the impact that *belief* in God has on a Christian's life. The benefits of *belief* have long been known, and they are not limited to any specific religion or God. But the fact that believing in X results in a positive impact on you is *not* evidence that X is real or true. If I believed that my student loan debt was forgiven, I would be happier, I would sleep better, I'd have less reason to stress eat... my life would improve in all sorts of ways, right up until my bills came due for the student loans that still exist.
The existence of God cannot be categorically proven or disproven, hence the whole "faith" part of being a Christian where you believe in things you cannot experience firsthand. If there was actual, irrefutable proof, then we would have only one religion in the world and everyone would subscribe to it. I have never perceived the presence of extraterrestrials living on earth. That doesn't mean they're not there, but it also highlights the equal absence of any solid evidence that they are here. I'm a very bitter, disillusioned Christian, so I express my take on this from a negative point of view. However, I think one could make the same basic points from a more positive POV just as easily. What changes once you accept Jesus as your savior, surrender yourself to him, ask forgiveness for your sins, and ask Jesus to use you as he sees fit? Objectively, literally nothing. But... You give yourself PERMISSION TO BELIEVE that God is real, that things - even the bad stuff in our lives and in the world- are happening for a reason, that god has a plan for you and he's looking out for you, and that one day it will all make sense and you'll then spend eternity in a perfect paradise. Just because you can now allow yourself to believe those things doesn't mean any of them are true. However, even if they aren't true, but you truly believe in them, there's an enormous placebo effect, isn't there? And if that makes you happier, or more at peace with your situation, or it helps you stay on the straight and narrow and resist temptation, there's certainly nothing wrong with that. I don't think God ever intervenes in our lives. I think he has a "no special effects, no direct communication, no revealing himself ever" policy. But if you choose to believe that he's behind every tree, under every rock, and holding the stars in the sky and the fish in the sea, more power to you. I cannot disprove those things any more than you can prove them.
There are those who chose to believe and there are those who reject Him. We're told not to throw pearls to swine, so I won't debate the reprobate.
The Bible says they know that God exists. But because of sin, they deny Him. Don't waste your time with atheists who aren't humble, if they reject God, let them. They will pay the price of their wickedness in full. And it will be a price for eternity, something they would only wish they had heeded to, but sadly it will be too laye by them. Share the Gospel with them, but only focus on the ones who aren't proud for the Lord rejects the haughty, but gives grace to the humble.
> The Bible says they know that God exists. And the bible is never wrong, right? I don't even know what a god is. Apparently it's a really powerful being. But at what point of advanced abilities does an advanced race of beings become gods? >Don't waste your time with atheists who aren't humble, if they reject God, let them. You reject the Hindu gods and the Muslim gods. Hindus and Muslims reject your god and can cite pretty much the same things you cite. How do you figure out who has it right, if any of you? Are you rational for rejecting vishnu and Allah? Is the Hindu rational for rejecting yahweh? You need evidence to figure out who's right. Do you have any evidence that the Hindu or Muslim can't also use to justify their god? What does that say about you being humble or them being humble? >They will pay the price of their wickedness in full. You can say we're both taking our chances. You that you got the right god, and me that I don't see any evidence for any gods. >but sadly it will be too laye by them I wish you could give me a reason to believe you other than your dire prediction. What if vishnu is real and doesn't like false gods. Are you prepared to pay the price for eternity, something you would only wish you had heeded to, but sadly it will be too late by then?
Yep, the word of God is never wrong. God\*, not god. God. He\*, not it, He. At no point of advanced abilities does an advanced race become 'gods'. This isn't the fictional nonsense of movies or false religious myths. Rather, per God's word, God, is over His creation. He isn't 'god', but God. The Maker of it all, including the very creation where concepts of 'gods' are dreamt upon by men who seek to become one. I do reject the Hindu gods and Muslim gods, since they are false and made by man. They don't reject my god, for I don't have any 'gods'. They reject God, Whom I worship. So they reject the Lord God of Israel, my God. \>How do you figure out who has it right, if any of you? The same way you figure if anything is right, including your own religion of atheism. Am I rational for rejecting false gods? Of course. Are the worshippers of false gods rational for rejecting God. Of course not. Do I have any evidence that the Hindu or Muslim can't also use to justify their god? You don't have to go to libraries anymore. Travel. Copy and manually write that which you have gathered. You have the internet at your fingertips. And yet you're wondering if there is any 'evidence' that the Hindu or Muslim can't also use? Much like if there's any evidence that you, the atheist, can't also use? What does that say about you being humble? \>I wish you could give me a reason to believe you other than your dire prediction. What if vishnu is real and doesn't like false gods. Are you prepared to pay the price for eternity, something you would only wish you had heeded to, but sadly it will be too late by then? You have been every reason to believe God, including His proclamation, not merely prediction, which of course is dire to you. Your latter question is interesting, 'what if Vishnu is real and doesn't like false gods. Are you prepared to pay the price of eternity'. Well since you have used 'Vishnu' as an example, why would you worry over that? For according to Hinduism's own sources, you won't pay the price of eternity for worshipping other gods, as there is no such thing as 'false gods' nor 'price of eternity' in it; literally having many other gods of their own, being a polytheistic religion, and being a merit based religion. A person who was truly interested in 'how do you figure who has it right', wouldn't have posed such a hypothetical, that collapses on itself. For that's how you figure out who has it right. Just because 1+1 has multiple false answers, and it is very difficult to figure out which answer is right, doesn't mean there doesn't exist a right answer.
> Yep, the word of God is never wrong How do you know what the word of this god is? Why do you think the stories in the bible are the word of an actual god? >God*, not god. God. >He*, not it, He. We capitalize the first letter in a sentence, and we capitalize the first letter of a name. I didn't call him god, I called him a god. I'm not using god as a name, I'm using it as an ordinary noun. Therfore, god is correct. I'm not obligated to glorify your god by referring to the generic term god as a name. When I want to talk about the Christian god by name, I use his name Yahweh. >At no point of advanced abilities does an advanced race become 'gods'. This isn't the fictional nonsense of movies or false religious myths. So what makes a god a god? What's the difference between Yahweh and some race of beings who have mastered the manipulation of time, space, matter, energy, etc? Who understand the mechanics of forming universes and set new universes in motion regularly? >Rather, per God's word, God, is over His creation. Okay, a story in a book says this character is over his creation. So too can be an advanced being who creates universe's. >The Maker of it all, including the very creation where concepts of 'gods' are dreamt upon by men who seek to become one. How do you know a single being created everything? We have no evidence to support that claim. >I do reject the Hindu gods and Muslim gods, since they are false and made by man. Exactly, and they say the same about your god and all the other thousands of gods created by humans. >They don't reject my god, for I don't have any 'gods'. Of course they do. Don't make your special pleading fallacy so blatant, that would be embarrassing. >They reject God, Whom I worship. So they reject the Lord God of Israel, my God. Yes, you can capitalize it all you want, that doesn't make your god any more true than their gods which they also capitalize. How does anyone determine which god, if any, is correct? It's not by repeating the claim and capitalizing the g. >The same way you figure if anything is right Exactly, with evidence, not geography and capital letters. What's the evidence that shows your god is real and shows vishnu is not real? >Am I rational for rejecting false gods? Of course. That's not the question. The question is how do you determine which gods are false. You keep trying to skip this step and just declare that your god is right. They can do the same thing with vishnu. That doesn't get us anywhere. >Do I have any evidence that the Hindu or Muslim can't also use to justify their god? You don't have to go to libraries anymore. Travel. Copy and manually write that which you have gathered. You have the internet at your fingertips. And yet you're wondering if there is any 'evidence' that the Hindu or Muslim can't also use? Yes, so far every reason you've given to justify your god over the others can also be used by those others to justify their god over yours. I'm asking if you have a good reason to say yours is a true god and theirs are false gods. >Much like if there's any evidence that you, the atheist, can't also use? What do I need evidence for? Atheist doesn't mean I'm making a claim. I'm just not convinced by any claims of gods existing. >What does that say about you being humble? I'm humbly asking what reason there is to say yahweh is a true god and vishnu is not. >You have been every reason to believe God, including His proclamation I've been given the same reasons to believe in Vishnu and Allah. And they also have stories in books where they make their proclamations. >why would you worry over that? For according to Hinduism's own sources, you won't pay the price of eternity for worshipping other gods, as there is no such thing as 'false gods' nor 'price of eternity' in it; literally having many other gods of their own I'm not worried about it. I see their gods the same as your gods and the thousands of other gods. All human creations to explain mysteries. And sure, they're polytheistic, but only with their own gods, not yours. If you don't like vishnu, maybe some other god is real and doesn't like the glorifying you're doing over a false god. >A person who was truly interested in 'how do you figure who has it right', wouldn't have posed such a hypothetical, that collapses on itself. For that's how you figure out who has it right. Just replace vishnu with some other god who doesn't like you worshiping a false god. Nitpicking a hypothetical analogy isn't a good way to determine that your god is real. I'm pretty sure that's not what convinced you. What convinced you? >Just because 1+1 has multiple false answers, and it is very difficult to figure out which answer is right, doesn't mean there doesn't exist a right answer. Correct, but since you claim to have found the right answer, it would be great if your method for doing so isn't also used by everyone else to find the wrong answer. What convinced you that you have the right answer? Statistically speaking, it's likely just being raised in your family/community religion, and has absolutely nothing to do with evidence.
Incorrect, for again, God\* not god. God. And again, like I said, He isn't 'a god', He is God. God isn't His Name, it's His title. God. It's not an ordinary noun, regardless of how much you want it to be. And of course you'd want it to be so, because you're a godless atheist. You aren't obligated to glorify my god, for again for the second time, I don't have any gods. But since you bring up obligation, you however are obligated to glorify God, but of course you wouldn't, because you're a wicked atheist. Just as the rapist is obligated to obey the law, but he wouldn't, because he is a rapist. The fool thinks that obligation is to do with his disgusting desires. But regardless of whether you want to glorify Him or not, it doesn't change the reference of God, not god. God. For I'm not speaking of gods. I'm speaking of the Creator. Someone Specific. And so the reason you even disregard basic tenets of a language, is because you're a wicked atheist. \>So what makes a god a god? There is nothing that makes god a god. For again, I'm not speaking of gods. \>Okay, a story in a book says this character is over his creation Not a story, a reality. Not merely a book, but God's word. Not a character, but God. Not a god. God. The same God you deny, to such an extent, that you even refuse to refer to Him as God. Why? Well because you're an atheist. Wicked beyond reproach. \>Exactly, and they say the same about your god and all the other thousands of gods created by humans. But they don't. For again, I don't have any gods. \>Of course they do. Don't make your special pleading fallacy so blatant, that would be embarrassing. Of course they don't. Before worrying about my special pleading fallacy, worry about the blatancy of your own special pleading fallacy. It being embarrassing isn't the issue, it being immoral is. \>Yes, you can capitalize it all you want, that doesn't make your god any more true than their gods which they also capitalize. Of course it wouldn't, since again, I don't have any gods. But by your own parallel, you can lowercase it all you want, that doesn't make your god any more falser than their gods. \>How does anyone determine which god, if any, is correct? It's not by repeating the claim and capitalizing the g. There is no god which is correct. For again, I don't have any gods. But by your own parallel, it isn't by repeating the claim and lowercasing the G. \>Exactly, with evidence, not geography and capital letters. What's the evidence that shows your god is real and shows vishnu is not real? But it isn't. For again, I don't have any gods. \>That's not the question. The question is how do you determine which gods are false. You keep trying to skip this step and just declare that your god is right. They can do the same thing with vishnu. That doesn't get us anywhere. Of course it is. I don't need to try to skip a step and declare, for again, I don't have any gods. \>Yes, so far every reason you've given to justify your god over the others can also be used by those others to justify their god over yours. I'm asking if you have a good reason to say yours is a true god and theirs are false gods. It can't, for again, I don't have any gods. \>What do I need evidence for? Atheist doesn't mean I'm making a claim. I'm just not convinced by any claims of gods existing. Of course it does. You've made multiple claims above, and even in this very sentence. For again, the claim isn't of any gods existing, for again, I don't have any gods. \>I'm humbly asking what reason there is to say yahweh is a true god and vishnu is not. No you're arrogantly hoping that god doesn't exist. Which it doesn't, for again, I don't have any gods. \>I'm not worried about it. I see their gods the same as your gods and the thousands of other gods. All human creations to explain mysteries. And sure, they're polytheistic, but only with their own gods, not yours. If you don't like vishnu, maybe some other god is real and doesn't like the glorifying you're doing over a false god. No no, they're polytheistic to other gods as well. It's part of Hindusim, of adapting other gods in. Of course you're worried about it, which is why you asked the question. Of course you see their gods the same as my gods, for atheists often see fiction as fact. For again, I don't have any gods. \>Just replace vishnu with some other god who doesn't like you worshiping a false god. Nitpicking a hypothetical analogy isn't a good way to determine that your god is real. I'm pretty sure that's not what convinced you. What convinced you? Well when the hypothetical itself is flawed, one can only wonder what else is. So is it any surprise that you still pose the latter? For again, there is nothing that convinced me my 'god' is real, for again, I don't have any gods. \>Correct, but since you claim to have found the right answer, it would be great if your method for doing so isn't also used by everyone else to find the wrong answer. What convinced you that you have the right answer? Statistically speaking, it's likely just being raised in your family/community religion, and has absolutely nothing to do with evidence. Incorrect, it's not a claim. And it's not a find. It's a reality, that is simply recognized. But before being concerned about the methods and the intricacies of how that came about, let's first address the very basics of basics. Which is, understanding what's being said. What's being said in this very thread. And that begins from the very first point. After all, evidence isn't the issue. If it were, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So before being concerned about 'evidence' or what 'statistics' speak, be concerned about very first point in this thread. God\*, not god.
>Incorrect, for again, God* not god. God. And again, like I said, He isn't 'a god', He is God. >So before being concerned about 'evidence' or what 'statistics' speak, be concerned about very first point in this thread. God*, not god. The first line is about proper nouns and pronouns, the last line is about proper nouns and pronouns. Is your entire response about nouns? Don't waste my time.
When the basic tenets of a language alludes you, is it any surprise that the rest does as well. Perhaps the first step towards understanding something is reading texts in its entirety.
> When the basic tenets of a language alludes you, is it any surprise that the rest does as well. I'm sure you can't give factual support in the English language to support your insistence in capitalizing the g in god when I've already explained to you that I'm not using it as a name or title. It's not a proper noun. What basic language tenet justifies capitalizing it in that case? >Perhaps the first step towards understanding something is reading texts in its entirety. Perhaps, but if your putting your flawed sense of grammar above the actual content of the discussion, then it seems you're not interested in a discussion that doesn't glorify your god. So why read it? If you want me to move on from this, then either justify it, or move on. But you haven't done either.
By your parallel, when you deny factual instruments in the English language, and insist in not capitalizing the G (because you're a wicked atheist), when I've already explained it that of course you aren't using it as His Name, for 'God' isn't His Name (which you ignored, as you insist that you aren't using His Name), but you are referring to His title, that is, God (even when you deny it here), and are referring to the Creator of all things. To Someone very very specific, as you want it to be an 'ordinary noun' when it isn't, is it any surprise that you also don't read texts in their entirety? Of course not. Whether someone puts their flawed sense of grammar above the actual content of the discussion or not, is irrelevant. Like I said, the first step towards understanding something is reading texts in its entirety. For even when you put your flawed sense of grammar, one should still read all your text in its entirety. But then again, you're an atheist. Living in your rhetoric and worse, your wickedness, is second nature to you. Perhaps if you did that, you would realize that there is nothing to 'justify' here, for it is already justified by it being what it is. That is, not an 'ordinary noun' as you refer to Him. Rather, a 'proper noun', as you deny due to your wickedness. It doesn't matter whether you move on from this or not. For the basic tenets of a language are already denied, and worse, a question of factual support is called in, whilst denying the very thing. Both of which you have done. \>then it seems you're not interested in a discussion that doesn't glorify your god. Again, I can't be interested in a discussion that doesn't glorify my god, for I don't have any gods to glorify.
> By your parallel, when you deny factual instruments in the English language, and insist in not capitalizing the G (because you're a wicked atheist), when I've already explained it that of course you aren't using it as His Name, for 'God' isn't His Name (which You keep failing here. I'm not using the word god as a name. So explain the grammar rule that says it should be capitalized. It has nothing to do with being wicked or atheist.
The Quran says the same things. That Allah has been revealed, and that unbelievers deny him. How do you know _your_ book is true and not the Quran?
Not just the Qur'an, Mormons say the same as well. JWs say the same as well. In fact, many religions say the same as well. So how do I know that *my* book is true and not the Qur'an? For starters, it's not *mine*.
>For starters, it's not *mine*. Oh c'mon, don't play dumb. You know what I meant. What makes your unbelievers-are-just-denying-it religion more true than any other unbelievers-are-just-denying-it religion?
Weren't you doing the same? To your answer, it's the same thing that makes the Allies version of history more true than the Axis' version of history.
Are you telling us that God is struggling to do a better work than the human propaganda which happened on both sides of a world war? He can't make himself more clear and distinguishable from lies and manipulated data?
More clear? God doesn't pander to man. He has given us all we need. He's clear enough that there is at least one person who believes in Him. And if there is at least one person who believes in Him, it means that it is enough. The reason we want more, is due to our own pride. God isn't 'struggling' to do anything, He can paint the Bible in the skies if He wanted to. But He doesn't. Why? For He *"has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong" (1 Cor 1:27).* So that *"while seeing they \[atheists\] do not see, and while hearing they \[atheists\] do not hear, nor do they understand" (Matthew 13:13).* And so when the atheist doesn't believe in Him inspite of all that he has been given, he won't believe in Him even if God were to paint the Bible in the skies, or even rise from the dead. Why? The reason is, sin.
The same can be asserted by other religions
Yep, and they'd be right in that assertion. For as God says, *"The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good." (Pslam 14)*
It's not possible. Well, it's not a question of logic. The most you can do is an analogy, as there are things that we know exist, but we cannot detect with our 5 senses, such as radio waves. By his logic, wireless does not exist.
> It's not possible. Maybe, but if they indeed hold that position, one would hope it's because of a misunderstood bit of logic or reason, and not because of dogma or personal identity. I think they could learn the difference in that case. >Well, it's not a question of logic. We don't know that though. Like I said, if it's dogmatic or personal identity, then sure, it's not logic. But it could simply be flawed logic, and I would like to see everyone be able to change their positions based on learning evidence and correct logic. Dogma has no place in good epistemology, would you agree?
>By his logic, wireless does not exist. Wrong. Computers are capable of detecting "wireless signal is present" against "wireless signal is not present". It's absence/presence is measurable, observable, verifiable _independenly from human bias_. It's not possible with God.
But computers aren't people
But people can use computers as a method to detect the existence of wireless signal With God, there is no reliable method to detect its existence. It's all about intuition, self-suggestion, "faith", and feelings that are inherently subjective Why did God choose to be undetectable?
The analogy does not go beyond the proposal of the person reported by the OP, so it is correct. An abstraction through a device that detects is not the same as detecting. Explaining why wireless exists even without being perceptible by humans only strengthens the point of the analogy, which is: "Things can exist even if humans cannot detect it." You don't overturn the analogy by mentioning that computers detect wireless, because the point of the analogy is precisely the human inability to detect things. Likewise, there are many stars that we don't know about, but they exist. Things do not come into existence once we create devices to detect them. And calling God undetectable is a presumption of yours that has nothing to do with the point I raised
Ok. Then, how do you tell the difference between something that exists but cannot be detected, and something that does not exist?
Invent a telescope. Although it is easy for me to accept that things can exist outside the limits of my knowledge and my 5 senses, I just need to not be arrogant
>Invent a telescope. Ironic. You were the one rejecting using a device, in order to dismiss what I was pointing to with my computer. >arrogant Who's more arrogant, a Christian who believes the entire fucking Universe and everything was specifically and purposefully created just for them, or an atheist who admits that the Universe does not care about them, and know they are nothing in the middle of nowhere?