can you proove there isn't a deity?

[McBell]

Personally, I would say that a deity is more likely than a made up "something" because I experience God. I have never experienced your made up anything.

Also, there are millions of people in this world who claim, as I do, that they experience the presence of God. How many people claim to experience your made up something?

There were also millions of people who believed the Earth was flat.
that tomatoes were poisonous.
that meat left out would turn into maggots.
that horse hairs left in rain barrels would turn into worms.

As you can see, appeal to numbers is not impressive

 

[McBell]

Do you believe it is more likely that a god exists or that a god does not exist? Or are you equally impartial to this question?

At this point in time I am of the mind that it equally possible either way.

 

[Sonofason]

Ah, so when Islam surpasses Christianity in number of followers, YHWH will not longer exist and Allah will begin to exist?

See the difference?

I personally draw distinctions between religion and gods. Allah is the English transliteration of the Arabic word "الله" which means "God". It's religion that causes conflict. Religion is a fabrication of men. It has little to do with God.

 

[McBell]

To me, there is a distinct difference between a belief in invisible purple dragons and a belief in God.

As it stands, there is no discernible difference to me.
Both are equally dismissable claims.

For I am not one to jump on the current band wagon.

 

[McBell]

I personally draw distinctions between religion and gods. Allah is the English transliteration of the Arabic word "الله" which means "God". It's religion that causes conflict. Religion is a fabrication of men. It has little to do with God.

This is a nice little safety net you have created for yourself.
Not saying it has no bearing in truth, just a rather convenient way out of the really tough questions.

 

[Sonofason]

So you are an agnostic then?
Or are you unreasonable?

remember, YOU set up said dichotomy.

You are assuming that I have no evidence of God. Your assumption is false. I experience God. Experience is a perfectly reasonable cause for belief. But, as you very well know, I was referring to atheists. It is the atheist who has no evidence to establish reasonable cause for a belief that no god exists.

Thus, I am neither agnostic nor unreasonable.

 

[Sonofason]

There were also millions of people who believed the Earth was flat.
that tomatoes were poisonous.
that meat left out would turn into maggots.
that horse hairs left in rain barrels would turn into worms.

As you can see, appeal to numbers is not impressive

Agreed. We cannot assume that claims are true just because claims are made that they are true. Further investigation is warranted.

 

[Sonofason]

At this point in time I am of the mind that it equally possible either way.

Fair enough, then you are a true agnostic. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't expect anything more of you considering that you lack convincing evidence to persuade you otherwise.

 

[Sonofason]

As it stands, there is no discernible difference to me.
Both are equally dismissable claims.

For I am not one to jump on the current band wagon.

So in your opinion, both claims are deserving of zero attention, and no further investigation? If that is true, why are you here?

 

[outhouse]

You are assuming that I have no evidence of God. Your assumption is false.

There is factually no scientific evidence for any deity ever created by man. That also goes for the people who think that man didn't create a god.

So your wrong.

 

[Sonofason]

This is a nice little safety net you have created for yourself.
Not saying it has no bearing in truth, just a rather convenient way out of the really tough questions.

I am a Christian because I have, in my opinion, received evidence of God, that seems to me to have been directly related to a promise that Jesus made.

I see a great deal of truth in many religions, but I have truly only carefully studied one. I have no idea if I would have come to the conclusions I've come to if I were to have been raised in a region of the world that was dominated by a different religion. But I am grateful that I have been introduced to Christ.

 

[outhouse]

I personally cannot fathom someone being so certain of anything for which there is absolutely no evidence

That's the problem, its all a matter of knowledge and education. There is evidence. Evidence man created all deities ever put on paper or papyrus or clay tables or stone.

Once you have that, you will understand why I know man created the god concept you believe in.

Through education, I see exactly how, when and why he was created and defined ONLY by man.


Lets ask you a question, Canaanites had many deities, do you think they were all mythology created by men?

 

[McBell]

You are assuming that I have no evidence of God. Your assumption is false. I experience God. Experience is a perfectly reasonable cause for belief. But, as you very well know, I was referring to atheists. It is the atheist who has no evidence to establish reasonable cause for a belief that no god exists.

Thus, I am neither agnostic nor unreasonable.

Ah, so you choose to hide behind the most generic definition of evidence.
Fair enough.

 

[McBell]

So in your opinion, both claims are deserving of zero attention, and no further investigation? If that is true, why are you here?

What makes you think that I have not investigated the claims?

Why would you assume in your favour like that instead of the more obvious assumption that both were investigated and both are found equally lacking?

 

[outhouse]

I am a Christian because I have, in my opinion, received evidence of God, that seems to me to have been directly related to a promise that Jesus made.

.

You have a personal perception, that cannot be claimed outside imagination and different states of consciousness through wishful thinking.

The mind is weak.

Its only your personal opinion you have evidence. Your claims still lie in a supernatural world or state.

 

[Sonofason]

There is factually no scientific evidence for any deity ever created by man. That also goes for the people who think that man didn't create a god.

So your wrong.

I am not suggesting that there is scientific evidence for God. I'm not sure there ever will be scientific evidence of God, until every eye beholds Him. But I do have "personal" evidence of God, because I experience God.

You see, the best evidence that I exist is me. If you experience me, it is rather safe to believe that I exist. If I hide myself from you, you will not find me. If I cover my tracks well, you will never find evidence of me. But I could still exist, hidden from your sight.

God is the best evidence for the existence of God. And God can and does allow people to experience Him. If I experience God, and you don't, then I have evidence of God, and you don't. God reveals Himself to whom He chooses to reveal Himself.

So, I'm right after all.

 

[Sonofason]

That's the problem, its all a matter of knowledge and education. There is evidence. Evidence man created all deities ever put on paper or papyrus or clay tables or stone.

Once you have that, you will understand why I know man created the god concept you believe in.

Through education, I see exactly how, when and why he was created and defined ONLY by man.


Lets ask you a question, Canaanites had many deities, do you think they were all mythology created by men?

Not really, I think that they deified fallen angels. I think they rejected God.

 

[Sonofason]

Ah, so you choose to hide behind the most generic definition of evidence.
Fair enough.

It's all I have, along with the claims by millions of others who have claimed to experience God as well, and of course the words of Christ, the prophets, and the apostles.

 

[outhouse]

But I do have "personal" evidence of God

.

That really isn't acceptable evidence for anyone but you, and thus it is not credible at all.

Try again.


It doesn't match up against the hard physical evidence that man has created deities.

 

[Sonofason]

What makes you think that I have not investigated the claims?

Why would you assume in your favour like that instead of the more obvious assumption that both were investigated and both are found equally lacking?

I am not suggesting that you have not investigated. What I am saying is, whether or not you have, you presently find each claim to be equally lacking. I am asking, if this is true, why are you here, and not debating somewhere else as vehemently about the non-existence of invisible purple dragons?