And here we have the miracle that proves God.How do you know that this was caused by the supernatural though? Because our current understanding of the laws of nature don't apply to it? How do you know it isn't following the laws of nature, but we just don't understand how it was able be well preserved?

How long will your denial last?

That is ironic... XD

How is god eternal, but not the universe ?

How does that show a god exists? That just shows something we don't understand, if what that article is claiming is true.

Are you making the argument that something can't come from nothing? How does god solve that? We still have the question of "where did something come from?" but instead of universe, it is god.

o k

How do you know the bible is the word of god ?

ok... and how does that dispute me? Are you saying the bible is evidence?

It is a well known fact that homosexuals were sexually abused as children....

All of them, or a majority of them? Because heterosexuals get abused to...

Gays have a significantly higher chance of illegal activity which is why over HALF are in prison.

You have a study to back that up? Even if that were true, that doesn't mean the cause of their illegal activity is from them being gay, it could be from a third variable. For example, society oppresses gay people, and thus influences them towards illegal activity. As for the homosexuals are in prison, yes, a lot of men in prison fuck other men, it's not because they are particularly attracted to men, it is because they are desperate... I mean talk about being locked up in a cage for years, with no hope of female attention, and being mentally unbalanced and having... needs... to contribute to that mental unbalance.

I contest that theory here. I think it's the opposite. That if Santa exists then presents are to be expected it I am good. If God is real and true then I will see enlightment and obtain eternal life. Same process I'd say. I would agree with you if this were the basis of belief we were discussing. I do think both are views of the way belief is handled is logically valid depending on interpretation and instance. For example A = B, with A being a ligjtning strike. This inference would be If lightning strikes then it is caused be B which can be whatever; clouds, Zeus, technology, or God. Thus A logically equals B. In the instance you gave this would explain necessary causes of existence. If A (Santa) truly exists then B (presents) are to be expected. Same applied if you swap A for God and B for eternal life. So we both are on a similar basis here.

What if Santa, does exist though, but he's not the one responsible for putting presents under your tree? What if Santa Clause is a real person but not going around the world to give presents, or is going around the world but is just eating the cookies you give him, and your parents are putting the presents there and saying it is Santa, or someone else other than Santa does it, while Santa just eats the cookies? You see, any claim that you make, the more details you have in that claim, the more you have to tie those details together, otherwise, even if we were to prove one detail correct, that doesn't mean every detail in the claim is correct. You and me both know, or at least 99.999999% certain that Santa doesn't go around spreading Christmas cheer, our parents eventually tell us it was a story they told us. Just because presents appear everywhere, wouldn't mean that a man living in the north pole named Santa is responsible for it, the cause and effect there is also an assertion that has yet to be proven. The effects aren't necessary, the asserted effects are simply asserted to be from the asserted cause. If a god does exist, this doesn't necessarily mean that an afterlife exists either, if we proved a god's existence, that wouldn't necessarily prove any other claims about said god. Same if, santa's existence was proven, that wouldn't mean Santa is necessarily the one putting presents under the tree, it would seem intuitive and natural to think, because the only claim of Santa's existence also claims that this person puts presents under our Christmas trees.

I agree. Thus, this calls for valid inference and studying and even then a leap of faith in that specific deity or deities. In that case one must decide for themselves if they see signs of Christianity in their life and rule that the other proponents of Christianity are to come and be expected.

Why should we use faith in this instance though, when I say faith, I mean belief in no evidence or with evidence against you, or logical reasoning, because logical reasoning is self evident, or as philosophers call "a-priori". One does need to decide for themselves if said god is the Christian god, however, they still need to justify their decisions to believe logically, if they want to be substantiated. If we see more details about a claim coming true, that doesn't mean we assume the rest of them are true, unless those details, or various claims within one are tied together. For example with evolution, (first thing that comes to mind, I'm not making an evolution v.s. christianity argument) evolution is a theory with a large body of facts, it is a claim with a bunch of miniature claims within it. One premise of evolution is that the layers of our earth align in a way where the top layers are newer than the layers underneath, because of how earth science works, and thus we can date fossils depending of how deep underground, (we have other means of dating to, but I will just use this one for now) and in what layer of rock they are preserved inside, which is the second premise. Third premise is that all the fossils line up in a timeline that shows change over time or evolutions. We conclude that fossil X is so-and-so old because it is in rock layer 1, because according to earth science layer 1 is so-and-so old. The age of the rock layer is one claim, and the age of the fossil from said layer is another claim, if we discover that the rock layer preserves everything in it from a certain range of time, then that connects it to the fossil, making true the claim that the fossil is from a certain range of time. However what is the connection that if a supreme being exists, then an afterlife exists? and further more, the afterlife itself is two claims, or two premises. If we discover that we live again after death, why would that mean we live forever after death? If a man named Santa Clause was found to exist and lived in the north pole, how does it follow that, this man distributes presents all over the world? We assume B follows from A, because B and A are asserted not only by themselves but asserted within that same assertion that B follows A, without a reason why, without the connection. In other words, if somethings within a claim is true, it doesn't mean everything in a claim is true.

I was raised with Christians and I use that very loosely. My mom and dad went to church just to show off their money and learn about God. It was really a battle to see who paid the most on tithes. That determined who was the wealthiest and who had more purchasing power. Many other people in the church did the same thing. So I sort of understand where you're coming from. Asking these questions are only to be expected.

These are things that can be used for arguing for or against Santa's existence.

I agree amd not necessarily a negative but a positove that cannot be tested or other wise insensible. I'd say where evidence lacks humans are wired to come up with some sort of explaination. Hence the many greek gods that explained nearly everything in the known universe.

Indeed. I agree.

I agree. That's why I'm agnostic. I don't believe in a specific deity, but I do believe something is there and I believe that the religions that we have barely can explain the nature of "it". So again here I agree with you.

Ahhh, you are THAT kind of agnostic, interesting.

Correct. However testing existence is far too hard, but ruling out the deity completely is illogical since we cannot understand the entire situation with ease. Only the creator would be able to fully explain and answer all questions about his creation and himself/herself/itself.

Well, what do you consider ruling out? Concluding something isn't worth believing, or concluding something is impossible. I do the former, but not the latter. A god COULD exist, I just haven't been supplied any reason to think so. So I'm not ruling it out, just can't really consider it much with what it supplies, if any evidence or logical argument came up, after some contemplating, I probably would change my stance on the issue.

This is true if logical argument for God didn't exist. Yet they do, and some go unanswer or have poor answers. This is where the concept is tested and if the concept can be tested with success then the chances of you finding the true resultant may increase as well. Omnipotence is one of the things that are beyond our true image of conception since we cannot fathom infinity, but we know of it's existence in logic and thought, but we cannot imagine it. It's kind of the same way.

I don't think there is a logical argument though.

I disagree. Faith is most certainly heartwarming. I have faith my son will recover from the hospital or I have faith that I shall achieve my goals. These are natural human workings. Wired to exist and they drive us. If you have ever gambled before they say faith is pretty much your best friend.

Faith and confidence, and trust are different, at least with the type of faith I'm talking about. I can logically justify having confidence, because I control my own outcomes, my own achievements, so whatever I can achieve, at least to an extent is based on me, and I can control that, and I have past success, I have evidence to support confidence. Things external to me, like god, I have no control over. Trust is different because I can base my trust on how much my fellow companions have earned it, I can base it on evidence, personal evidence, but evidence none the less. For example, if I know someone whom always does (what I feel) is the right thing to do, or is fair, just, and kind towards others, and has shown this behavior time and time again, I have evidence that I can trust this person. God, however, I don't even know if a god even exists.

I gotcha, but evidence exists for both sides and there conclusion is that you can't tell if a deity exists or not so determination after such a conclusion requires subjective thought processes. The final verdict will be subjective and relative to the person.

I don't agree, logic can be more or less substantiated, and the reasoning I am aware of for a god's existence is lacking, however to with hold belief, or to not be convinced of a god's existence is by default logically justified. I don't need a reason to not believe something, I need a reason TO believe something.

Because God wants love and faith is a byproduct of love. If you have a spouse you hope they remain faithful. If they are faithless then love is absent and this cheating may occur. Love is God. Gid is Love. Faith is requires in love.

This again is a different type of faith then that is applied to a god, and what I mean by faith as an apistevist. I can trust that my spouse won't cheat on me, because she has shown me that she isn't the type of person to do that, and if she wasn't worthy of that trust I wouldn't date her anyway. If I am dating somebody, I have no reason to think they will cheat on me. If I am dating somebody and they do cheat on me, then I have less reason to trust them, and thus don't trust them. Trust can be, and I prefer it to be personally, to be evidence based. Trust is something you earn, that you show that you are worthy of.

Well we argue against the idea of a god existing with "passion" because the belief effects people. We are not arguing against something that doesn't exist, we are arguing with the claim that this character in this story, being a hero. If someone said Loki was a good guy, or Joker was a hero whom deserved to be looked up to in society, I'd be like "what the fuck have you been smoking" but I would be ten times more involved, when they believe the story is actually true, and they support the bad guy.

One is unreviewed, the other is compressed.

You would be able to explain, the reasoning within the article that shows a god existing, no? Or the reasoning on why to believe a god exists, no?

Theres a difference between lying and not speaking. They are ready to answer any questions but it is not their loss if you wont ask.

So they weren't directly lying, they were being misleading, by leaving out key information. either way, it's dishonest isn't it?

Technically speaking, it was the crowds who caused the misinformation not the Church. You cannot just lie about a persons report as it can get you arrested for Defamation.

All the reports are readily available online. All are approved by scientific agencies and all you can do now is to deny the findings. Not that it concerns me, though.

First of all, there is a different between a scientific agency supporting the facts, and a spin off of those facts. I did read the article, and a logical reason to believe in god was not presented to me. If everything in it was true, that just means a painting was really well preserved beyond our understanding, that just means we need a better understanding, not that a god had anything to do with it.

It's really because the bible points to a life after physical death. They believe that something happens after you die.

Kids believe in santa, because santa brings them presents every year, as long as they were good. At least they get guaranteed to see the reward system work. The presents were real though, but because people around them told them that those presents were from santa, they thought "if the presents are real, then santa has to be!". Well, their is no logical reason to think an afterlife exists, even if there was though, that doesn't mean that a god exists, or anything else about christianity is true.

Religions are not as "premature" as Santa Claus. What logic is behind Santa claus?

How do my presents get under the tree every christmas? Or where did christmas come from? Christians would have an explanation but I was raised in a secular home, there didn't seem to be much reason to celebrate christmas, it was for the hell of it. Where did all my friends presents come from? Other than that, I am not sure, about the same for a god though.

There is no way to exactly explain what they bible has said and there is no way to actually test God for yourself.

We can't run a test for the existence of a god, because it is nearly impossible to prove a negative, especially when we are talking about an insensible being. However where no evidence can be expected, no belief should be either. Especially when the only claims can't be made head or tails of by anyone seemingly.

For example what use does the Omnipotence Paradox have if you cannot actually test it on God himself? You can only test it on your concept of God.

If no concept of god that we can think, where omnipotence makes sense, that if anything gives us less reason to believe in a god. There are a lot of paradoxes about santa, I'm sure kids just thought "but it's santa, those paradoxes don't apply to him".

We have no idea what God would have to input on it. If he is truly omniscient then he can always crush any question that is pressed upon him with human logic. In fact what would any logic prove it it cannot be tested on God himself? Even the logic that Christians use cannot be as accurate as they wish since they can only fathom the concept of their God.

I would agree, if, said god existed. Santa, is magic though, whatever problems you see with him giving presents across the world to lets say only a quarter of children, lets assume 75% of children are bad. It would still be ridiculous, but not for santa, because santa is magic. Santa would be able to explain it to us, how magic was able to help him in his spreading of christmas cheer.

Any, and all, arguments from both sides will be inaccurate since they can only brush simple human concepts.

Any and all arguments for and against santa, will be inaccurate because they only brush on concepts of santa, not the real santa. It is the concepts of god, that are being claimed, I see no good reason to believe a god exists, any concept I can think of, or any concept that has been articulated to me. You may as well be saying "well maybe X is true, but we just don't know how it is true, because if X is true, we only know of it conceptually". For instance, I could say "well maybe I am about to inherent a billion dollars, I just don't know how I will inherent a billion dollars, because if I am going to inherrent a billion dollars, I just wouldn't understand how or why, my ability to assess that would only be based off any concepts I can think of as to how or why I would, rather than how it will actually happen". With all due respect and little of offense I can mean, to me, this is kind of a cop out, with giving your reasoning as to why you believe, and still doesn't make the case on why one should believe a god and therefore heaven exists.

The bible says that God is beyond us and then the bible says that we should argue with people "weak in faith" (Atheists/Agnostics/Any other religions). I woupd imagine that God wouldn't even bother to intervene in arguments that can barely address him.

My question is, why would god need faith, or want faith for that matter. Faith is a vice, it isn't a good thing. I would call myself an apistevist, meaning I am "faithless" I don't believe things on faith. I see believing things on faith, problematic, nonsensical, unreasonable, and without a reason itself. Of course I mean faith associated with religion, believing on no evidence, or when evidence is against you. Faith is the equivalence to gullibility, asking someone to buy (not financially, but like "I buy that, it sounds convincing) something for no reason is gullible no? Why would a god want that for his people?

Omnipotence would have to go, because omnipotence would include the capacity of omniscience and omnibenevolence. To get rid of those other two, would be to get rid of omnipotence, because you are taking away a power. the power to know, and the power to love, making him/her/it not omnipotent. Omnipotence on it's own is impossible, of course if we are speaking literally here.

The only reason I don't believe god is guiding evolution is because I don't believe in god in the first place. There something being wrong with god being responsible for evolution might depend on what specific god you are talking about.

further more let's say it is the literal, old testament, interpretation of the biblical god. Whom flooded the world, inflicts infinite pain for infinite time as a repercussion for finite wrongs, whom could prevent evil but chose not to. I'd have a lot of questions for this god, and yes, it would be alluding to the immorality of god's actions, however if such a god is truly just, then said god should be able to justify himself easily to me. To explain to me why there is evil in the world.

Atheists won't be saying anything .. God is not on trial .. they are . . .

Having something to say to the Christian god is not the same as putting the god on trial. Why wouldn't god allow the person to ask "which god are you?", what would the god have against a question like that?

at this point, their decision has been made ... and now so will Gods

What decision

I don't see the issue, I don't see how the sexuality, or the gender pairing of the parents has any effect on the child's upbringing nor on the parenting skills of the couple.

I assume you mean, generally speaking. While I don't have a problem in understanding the differences of men and women, we should never make this a question of "who is superior". Thing is, how do you define "smarter in a way of living their lives", if anything I think girls are kind of smarter, we do some pretty stupid things relatively, and generally speaking. Women also live longer than men in most countries. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2102.html

It's funny, because honestly, it is not like religion (or christianity) has ever done much good for humanity, regardless of whether or not a god exists, and yet we have so many issues from religion's existence.

I just don't like it when people claim that God is cruel, when there's a reason behind all He does.

Well then give him those reasons, debate about it.

Now, about my use of the term subjective. I just see people always count off subjective evidence in God v. No-God debates, asking for objective evidence. I always accept subjective evidence, but I take it subjectively, while pairing it with what I know and what God shows me.

How do you differentiate subjective evidence from objective evidence? This is what REALLY confuses me...

Thank you, zephyr20x6, for your input! It was insightful.

Your welcome, thanks for clarifying yourself. Sorry if I came off a little, tense.

Hitler the king of propaganda, whom influenced an entire country onto a path of racism once said "If you tell a big enough lie, and tell it often enough, people will begin to believe it." Christians don't believe in heaven for any rational or logical reasons, for the most part it is because it was taught to them at a young age, and the fact that society seems to have allowed religion to ingrain itself into it. When we are told about santa clause, we believe santa is real, because we are little, because we are ignorant. Santa is to a child, as gods are to most countries. We're still "growing up" or advancing, we don't want to let go of our superstitions. God was taught to humanity when humanity was ignorant, and now it is learning a lot of things about those religions weren't true.

Which interpretation of the christian god are you? Also, why the fuck would you ever give us religion? What was the point of it all?

What you just said made no sense...

Yeah... You have no clue either, just like AveSatanas.

Actually Lilmisfit is one of the most well educated people when it comes to the bible I have come across on here, he has debated Christians on their interpretation of the bible, and has been more substantiated. He used to be a Christian I think, and/or mormon.

If you're gonna have a subjective reason not to believe in something, but then reject any subjective reasons that God exists, obviously you are a hypocrite.

Well first of all, I don't know what the hell you mean by subjective in this instance... it seems like a rather strange term to use here. subjective means mind-dependent when determining the reality of things, beauty is subjective, because what is beautiful depends on how you feel about various things. What is good music is subjective, because what sounds good, depends on your conscious experience of it. His reasoning, isn't so much "subjective" as what exists or doesn't exist doesn't depend on our mind. If a god exists, then said god will exist regardless of whether or not we believe in it, as truth is not a democracy. So his reasoning isn't... "subjective". Reasoning is our abilities to reason, to create reasons for this and that, for believing this and that, for thinking this and that, for doing this and that. I suppose that may seem subjective, but the coherency, and logical justification for reasoning is very much objective. His reasoning is probably that he has no reason to believe in god. The fact of the matter is, reasoning isn't really all that subjective because reasoning can be more or less substantiated. Not only is the term "subjective" here being used in a misleading way, but your sentence here makes no sense, and can be used against you... If reasoning for belief in god is subjective, like what tastes good is subjective, then by that logic, he can TOTALLY reject "subjective reasons" for why god is believable, while accepting "subjective reasons" for why god isn't believable. Also I can use this incoherent, word play against you...

observe:

Client444, If you're gonna have a subjective reason to believe in something, but then reject any subjective reasons that God isn't believable, obviously you are a hypocrite.

I am sorry if this seems a tad... mean, but I could not resist... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c

By playing a m rated game,children are learning violence.

This was probably your most substantiated part of your argument. However, I must ask, at what age should kids be allowed to play M games?

Some children at the age of 7 are playing it.Theyre playing wrestling on their playstation and if they have a brother or sister they could play that game in real life with them!

Okay... and?

People would be getting injured.

How? elaborate.

But what if they play a game like grand theft auto.Thats a very violent game.Thats why I say no.

What about a game rated M that isn't as violent as grand theft auto? Also I still haven't seen any substantiation, I'm not completely opposed to you, but your argument could be a lot better. You haven't provided any logic or evidence as to how violent video games increases violent behavior in kids. Simply in a round about way, pointed out kids that play violent video games, are playing violent video games, made a vague assertion to them getting injured. Your most substantiated part of your argument was your second sentence.