There is no evidence of a particular god’s existence

Debates: 20

Posts: 855

3

4

7

09.21.2019 03:06PM

3

4

7

09.21.2019 03:06PM

Happened upon this thread, maybe this will help or maybe not. You can decide. I am currently in a debate over the existence of the Christian God, who I believe to be the one true God while all others are false (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1388/the-christian-god-does-not-exist, I'm not trying to advertise, just showing evidence that it's true). As far as I can tell, deism and theism are just terms stemming from the word "god" in Latin and Greek respectively. We have attached additional meaning to them. If you're just differentiating between them by saying Deism is belief in any god, and theism is belief in a particular god, then I believe you can argue from both. Logically, it would make sense to justify the existence of a god in general to exclude atheistic arguments, and then move on to justify the existence of a particular god to exclude arguments for any other god.

Now if you're using deism in the sense that a deity created the world and is no longer active (like setting a top in motion and then sitting back to watch it spin where it will), then you would be right that theists should not use this specific argumentation if they believe that their god is still active in the world. Based upon these definitions, I would argue strictly from a theistic perspective and vehemently oppose deistic argumentation. The overall point of this, I am using theistic arguments, with evidence, to prove the existence of a particular God. This should satisfy P2. However, the addition of the word "compelling" is subjective since you may not find it compelling but others do. If you dismiss my argumentation for my God on the basis that you do not find it compelling, then we would have to know, what would qualify as compelling evidence according to P2?

#32

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

09.21.2019 03:21PM

3

4

7

09.21.2019 03:21PM

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

In a way, the God spinning the universe like a top and watching in spin and fall is not too far off from Orthodox theology in the sense that God doesn't violate our free will.

However, the main difference is that we see God as being present in creation. In a way, we decide to do something and God gives us the ability to make it happen(or even chump it). In a great way, God moves with us... or more accurately is our movement.

Or to quote a proverb "A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps."

I see you might have discerned that deism in its most true to language form simply means the belief that God exists (or more accurately still, a deity).

#33

Debates: 2

Posts: 2,140

3

7

09.21.2019 04:06PM

3

7

09.21.2019 04:06PM

-->

@Mopac

.

MOPAC removes one foot to insert the other AGAIN in the same post!

MOPAC QUOTE, POST # 32: " ..... God doesn't violate our free will."

MOPAC CONTRADICTING QUOTE: "A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps."

HUH? Firstly, MOPAC erroneously states that we Christians have free will, of which we do not, and then postulates that the mans heart deviseth his way, BUT, the Lord directeth His steps! Huh?

CONTRADICTION ALERT: You cannot have free will when the Lord directs mans steps!

Seriously, the moderators should give a live bible test that is to be taken by any FAKE Christian, and then passed before they are able to post on DebateArt Religion Forum! In this way, it would save time where astute True Christians like myself wouldn't have to be correcting them ad infinitum!

.

#34

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

09.21.2019 04:10PM

3

4

7

09.21.2019 04:10PM

-->

@BrotherDThomas

We make the choice. It is God that gives movement to everything. We do not move on our own, it is God that gives us the grace to move.

#35

Debates: 2

Posts: 2,140

3

7

09.21.2019 08:39PM

3

7

09.21.2019 08:39PM

-->

@Mopac

MOPAC HAS A FOOT FETISH BECAUSE HE KEEPS REMOVING ONE FOOT TO INSERT THE OTHER!

MOPAC,

YOUR CONTRADICTING QUOTE AGAIN: "We make the choice. It is God that gives movement to everything. We do not move on our own, it is God that gives us the grace to move."

Once again you contradict yourself in the same sentence this time! LOL! Your ungodly mumbo jumbo states that we make the choice, but that we do not move on our own! You cannot grasp the fact that again you contradict yourself!

For you to save further embarrassment, our serial killer Jesus, as the Hebrew Yahweh God incarnate, is omniscient (Psalm 147:5, 1 John 3:20), therefore He knows in every detail in what we are going to do from birth to our demise, period! Therefore, Jesus already knows if we are going to Hell or not, understood, therefore WE DO NOT HAVE FREE WILL! 2+2=4.

.

#36

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,949

3

2

3

09.21.2019 09:03PM

3

2

3

09.21.2019 09:03PM

-->

@PressF4Respect

The Sun is a " God " And the sun exists.

#37

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

09.22.2019 12:39AM

3

4

7

09.22.2019 12:39AM

-->

@BrotherDThomas

That is not in line with what the church has been teaching for thousands of years. Denying free willl is tantamount to blaming God for making you sin.

Topic's author

#38

Debates: 10

Posts: 3,159

3

8

11

09.22.2019 12:56AM

3

8

11

09.22.2019 12:56AM

-->

@Deb-8-a-bull

god:
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3. (lowercase) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
(from dictionary.com)

Of course the sun exists. But no one is saying that a medium-sized, yellow, G-type star 149.6 million km away from Earth is a god (according to the definitions above). Many cultures have the idea of a sun god, but saying that the sun exists is no evidence for their particular sun god to exist.

#39

Debates: 564

Posts: 19,924

10

11

09.22.2019 03:44AM

10

11

09.22.2019 03:44AM

-->

@PressF4Respect

For what it's worth, I totally agree with you on the notion of God being unidentifiable in any objective sense, despite objectively being real.

God is real, do not be confused. There absolutely is necessitated to be an original entity that created the rest due to the fact that reality isn't totally random (you're not changing into a watermelon and then into air and then into a chihuahua at any given point in time, right?). That structure means that eventually the randomness, randomly generated a series of variables that turned 'on' or 'true' the attribute 'can alter/rig the randomness' to a randomly generated entity at the time. From that moment, everything changed forever. God was born and turned 'random chaos' into 'organised fate'. Still God answers to fate, for it was ultimately the 'disorganised fate' for God to exist and take over.

God to me is Fiora, she is a fascinating sadistic being that is entertained in testing us. She can even randomise certain variables (or maybe the randomness persists in spite of her organisation, not sure which) and this causes her to be able to be surprised and 'judge' or 'view with interest' the reality before her and entities such as us.

#40

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,949

3

2

3

09.22.2019 05:24AM

3

2

3

09.22.2019 05:24AM

-->

@PressF4Respect

Yeah fair enough.

Wellllllllll.

Will you except...

The ultimate reality of it is, The sun is a god ultimate reality and the sun exists in this ultimate reality = RA god .....Ctrl - ULT - REAL

Ok then, what about one of my absolute favorite God.

FLAMING BUSH GOD.

So press f4.

Have ya ever seen ( A Flaming bush ) ?

First I'll direct you to the passageg in the bible that states. God was a flaming bush blah blah.

I'll trim it down to * god was a flaming bush *

And If its in the bible.it proves a specific God said it . Specific being any one i choose at the time. It's the same thing.

Yes ?

No ?

Oh and Add the ultimate reality.

It boils down to .

No Hang on .

Mopec.

Mopac talks about this Ultimate reality believing in the pretty much what we call the ummmmmmmm now .

It's like the pinnacle of correctness.

It's

Well.

Its Godley..

So whileThe absolute ultimate reality means alot to some.

It doesn't mean stuff all to god , because on one of them RARE occasions God come to pay whoever was in the ( X ) area when he turned up a visit.

He come as a flaming bush.

If The ultimate reality proves a flaming bushes existence.

Stopppp. thats not right.

The ultimate reality means a flaming bush exists. A

No I've lost it.

Good game.

Topic's author

#41

Debates: 10

Posts: 3,159

3

8

11

09.22.2019 05:31AM

3

8

11

09.22.2019 05:31AM

-->

@Deb-8-a-bull

oooooooooooo...k

Is there any evidence that Bush is indeed god (according to the definitions set out in #38)?

Topic's author

#42

Debates: 10

Posts: 3,159

3

8

11

09.22.2019 06:20AM

3

8

11

09.22.2019 06:20AM

@RM

God to me is Fiora, she is a fascinating sadistic being that is entertained in testing us. She can even randomise certain variables (or maybe the randomness persists in spite of her organisation, not sure which) and this causes her to be able to be surprised and 'judge' or 'view with interest' the reality before her and entities such as us.

Interesting. You certainly do have a way with metaphors.

#43

Debates: 564

Posts: 19,924

10

11

09.22.2019 01:21PM

10

11

09.22.2019 01:21PM

-->

@PressF4Respect

I was not actually talking in metaphors.

#44

Debates: 2

Posts: 2,140

3

7

09.22.2019 03:40PM

3

7

09.22.2019 03:40PM

MOPAC,

YOUR BEREFT QUOTE REGARDING CHRISTIANS NOT HAVING FREE WILL: "That is not in line with what the church has been teaching for thousands of years. Denying free willl is tantamount to blaming God for making you sin."

I don't care what you assume the church teaches, because there're so many divisions of Christian churches that contradict each other to begin with, but what is tantamount is Jesus' direct and inspired word that teaches He is omniscient! Understood?! Anything less would not be a superior God!

Do you deny that Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, is NOT omniscient in said passages? (Psalm 147:5, 1 John 3:20) If you don't like the facts about our faith, then I suggest that you find another faith to follow.

OMNISCIENT: having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

YOU DO NOT HAVE FREE WILL WITH AN OMNISCIENT GOD KNOWING "ALL" THINGS, WHERE HIS NAME IS JESUS, PERIOD!

.

#45

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

09.22.2019 06:56PM

3

4

7

09.22.2019 06:56PM

-->

@BrotherDThomas

Taking a few falsely interpreted and out of context quotes to deny free will when 90% of everything else that is written in scripture tells us to repent, direct our hearts, obey, etc. Does not make sense. Denying freewill is an opinion that has been discerned as heretical by The Orthodox Catholic Church, the true body of Christ.

That all being the case, I am siding with the authorities I respect on this matter.

#46

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

09.23.2019 02:20PM

3

9

09.23.2019 02:20PM

-->

@PressF4Respect

Let me ask you a dumb rhetorical question:
If you were trying to prove something, would you use the most convincing evidence available to prove that thing?

"Most convincing" is an irrelevant qualification; the evidence either helps to prove or is of no consequence.

Also I'm still waiting for your explanation on how fairies exist in the real, physical universe.

In due time, I'll elaborate in the appropriate thread. First thing's first, how's your progress in constructing your proof?

Topic's author

#47

Debates: 10

Posts: 3,159

3

8

11

09.23.2019 04:53PM

3

8

11

09.23.2019 04:53PM

-->

@Athias

Let me ask you a dumb rhetorical question:
If you were trying to prove something, would you use the most convincing evidence available to prove that thing?
"Most convincing" is an irrelevant qualification; the evidence either helps to prove or is of no consequence.

If people were trying to prove something, they would use evidence.

Also I'm still waiting for your explanation on how fairies exist in the real, physical universe.
In due time, I'll elaborate in the appropriate thread. First thing's first, how's your progress in constructing your proof?

It’s good. I am currently proving to a stickler that people would use evidence to prove something. Unnecessary, tedious stuff, but it’s going well. Returning the favour, how is your fairy proof going?

#48

Debates: 2

Posts: 2,140

3

7

09.23.2019 05:19PM

3

7

09.23.2019 05:19PM

.

Mopac,

!!!! NEWSFLASH !!!!

YOUR UNGODLY QUOTE TAKING THE CATHOLIC CHURCHES POSITION ON FREE WILL OVER JESUS THE CHRIST!!!: Taking a few falsely interpreted and out of context quotes to deny free will when 90% of everything else that is written in scripture tells us to repent, direct our hearts, obey, etc. Does not make sense. Denying freewill is an opinion that has been discerned as heretical by The Orthodox Catholic Church, the true body of Christ. That all being the case, I am siding with the authorities I respect on this matter.

BLASPHEME! First off, since when does the Bible make any true 100% sense? It is duly noted that you are siding with the known ungodly Catholic Church over Jesus the Christ's omniscient status and what that truly represents, therefore not giving His creation FREE WILL whatsoever! Then if this wasn't enough Devil Speak from you, then you continue to pave your way to Hell when you stated: "Taking a few falsely interpreted and out of context quotes to deny free will ..." Where do YOU get the authority to state that Psalm 147:5, and 1 John 3:20, and the verses below, are falsely interpreted and taken out of context???! READ THEM, YOU BIBLE IGNORANT FOOL!

Here, let me add a few more verses inspired by Jesus the Christ herewith to PROVE that Jesus is omniscient and where His creation do NOT have free will:

“Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known
the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” (Isaiah 46:9-10).

“Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD” (Psalm 139:4).

“O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways” (Psalm 139:1-3).

“He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name. Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit” (Psalm 147:4-5).

MOPAC, the fact remains that Jesus is omniscient and therefore Christians DO NOT have free will because as stated, He knows the beginning until the end on every living thing on planet earth, period! I would certainly like to see you before Jesus on your Judgment Day, where you tell Jesus that He is not omniscient, and that His aforementioned passages were wrong in giving Him His true omniscient MO! Is that going to be a day to remember as you are thrown into the firefly lakes of Hell because you call Jesus a LIAR!

“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8).

Remember, as explicitly shown in the above passage, Jesus did not create Hell and not plan on using it! Understood?

.

#49

Debates: 20

Posts: 855

3

4

7

09.23.2019 05:32PM

3

4

7

09.23.2019 05:32PM

-->

@PressF4Respect

I forgot to tag you in my previous post #31 in this thread. That post explains that I have argued, with evidence, for the Christian God over all others. This should satisfy P2

#50

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

3

4

9

09.23.2019 05:54PM

3

4

9

09.23.2019 05:54PM

-->

@Mopac

The fact that you are having an experience is all the scientific evidence you need to know that there is some form of existence.

Argument for logical necessity = Argument for NOUMENON/DEISM.

If there is some form of existence, there by necessity is an existence as it truly is.

Argument for logical necessity = Argument for NOUMENON/DEISM.

I would hope you have all the scientific evidence you require at this point to be aware that the reality you experience is different from reality as it truly is.

Argument for logical necessity = Argument for NOUMENON/DEISM.

The Ultimate Reality is God, there is no other like it.

Ontological argument = Argument for NOUMENON/DEISM.

#51

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

3

4

9

09.23.2019 06:04PM

3

4

9

09.23.2019 06:04PM

-->

@Athias

Since you've claimed a statement to be true (i.e. therefore, there's no evidence for a particular God's existence) you must substantiate all of your premises,

(EITHER) there is no logically coherent evidence that exclusively supports the existence of a particular god (OR) there is logically coherent evidence that exclusively supports the existence of a particular god.

(IFF) there is logically coherent evidence that exclusively supports the existence of a particular god (THEN) it is (EITHER) undiscovered (OR) lost (OR) secret.

(IFF) logically coherent evidence that exclusively supports the existence of a particular god is (EITHER) undiscovered (OR) lost (OR) secret (THEN) it is indistinguishable from NO LOGICALLY COHERENT EVIDENCE THAT EXCLUSIVELY SUPPORTS THE EXISTENCE OF A PARTICULAR GOD.

An undiscovered, lost, or secret proof is functionally identical to NO PROOF.

#52

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

3

4

9

09.23.2019 06:15PM

3

4

9

09.23.2019 06:15PM

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

However, the addition of the word "compelling" is subjective since you may not find it compelling but others do. If you dismiss my argumentation for my God on the basis that you do not find it compelling, then we would have to know, what would qualify as compelling evidence according to P2?

Let's swap "compelling" for "logically coherent".

#53

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

3

4

9

09.23.2019 06:17PM

3

4

9

09.23.2019 06:17PM

-->

@Mopac

We make the choice. It is God that gives movement to everything. We do not move on our own, it is God that gives us the grace to move.

Sounds like "god-puppets" to me!

#54

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

09.23.2019 06:18PM

3

9

09.23.2019 06:18PM

-->

@PressF4Respect

If people were trying to prove something, they would use evidence.

...or argument.

It’s good. I am currently proving to a stickler that people would use evidence to prove something. Unnecessary, tedious stuff, but it’s going well. Returning the favour, how is your fairy proof going?

Good. My argument is already prepared (it isn't my first go-around.) To prevent any stalls or tangents to our current discussion, I'm merely waiting on your fully constructed proof. Once you're done and submit your argument, I'll supply my elaboration.

#55

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

3

4

9

09.23.2019 06:20PM

3

4

9

09.23.2019 06:20PM

-->

@PressF4Respect

It’s good. I am currently proving to a stickler that people would use evidence to prove something. Unnecessary, tedious stuff, but it’s going well. Returning the favour, how is your fairy proof going?

Spoiler alert, he just says, "they exist because I can believe in them".

#56

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

09.23.2019 06:21PM

3

9

09.23.2019 06:21PM

-->

@3RU7AL

An undiscovered, lost, or secret proof is functionally identical to NO PROOF.

No. Good attempt, though.

#57

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

09.23.2019 06:23PM

3

9

09.23.2019 06:23PM

-->

@3RU7AL

he just says, "they exist because I can believe in them".

Well... I don't just say that. My reasoning is impeccable. Sometimes the simplest explanations are the ones which suffice.

Topic's author

#58

Debates: 10

Posts: 3,159

3

8

11

09.23.2019 06:33PM

3

8

11

09.23.2019 06:33PM

-->

@Athias

If people were trying to prove something, they would use evidence.
...or argument.

If you were able to prove your particular god existed without resorting to general ontological arguments, would you? That is what I’m trying to get at.

To prevent any stalls or tangents to our current discussion, I'm merely waiting on your fully constructed proof. Once you're done and submit your argument, I'll supply my elaboration.

I’m currently laying the groundwork with sound logic we can both (hopefully) agree upon to prevent my argument from being reduced into oblivion via semantics.

#59

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

3

4

9

09.23.2019 06:38PM

3

4

9

09.23.2019 06:38PM

-->

@Athias

An undiscovered, lost, or secret proof is functionally identical to NO PROOF.
No. Good attempt, though.

Please be more specific.

#60

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9