Is there any evidence for his existence other than the bible? Most arguments for his existence I hear end up being fallacies such as
>there's no evidence against God's existence, therefore he exists (argument from ignorance)
>the bible says God exists therefore he's real
>most people believe in God therefore he exists
>personal experience (argument from personal incredulity)
>the burden of proof
>many experts such scientists or scholars believe in God therefore he's real (false authority)
There are more but I want to hear your take
>>340638
HELLO, YES?
DO YOU NEED A NEW KEYBOARD? DO YOU NEED HELP?
>>340546
>the true spiritual hierarchy called "awliya er-Rahman (God)
>opposite to awilya esh-Shaytan (Satan)
Little word play for you guys:
>Rahman is another name for Allah
>Rama is another name for Krsna
Rahman - Rama
Also "Brahman" (impersonal, creating) as another aspect of God in Hinduism. The other two are Paramatman (Great Spirit) and Bhagavan (Personality)
>b-R-A-H-M-A-N and R a h m a n
Since the Bhagavan (Personality) is Krsna, Jesus is also the Bhagavan (Personality).
Jesus, who is the Christ, is also called Christos.
Christos in Sanskrit would translate to Krsna.
When Christians say Christ, they call on GOD. When Hindus say Krsna, they mean GOD.
Just like Krsna can mean all attractive, dark, but also
> "krsh" meaning "truth"
>" na" meaning "bliss.
Also
>Srimad Bhagavatam (3:23)
>in the nineteenth and twentieth incarnations, the Lord advented Himself as Lord Balarama and Lord Krsna in the family of Vrsni (the Yadu dynasty) and by doing so He removed the burden of the world.
Removed the burden of the world.
Interesting. Sounds kind of like what Jesus does.
>>340638
GO AWAY, BIPOLAR MEXICAN.
how old are you OP? are you american? what state?
>>340638
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>>340638
Except Christians care more about his sacrifice because he was the last sacrifice.
>>340692
YOUR STATEMENT IS NONSEQUITEURIAL, AND APPARENTLY ERRONEOUSLY CONCEIVED.
>>340699
YOUR STYLE OF WRITING IS QUITE WEARING AND DIFFICULT TO READ.
>>340699
is logic your god
>>340546
No
Evidence? No.
There are only convoluted pretzel-logic arguments that rely on the fact that we don't know exactly why the universe exists. Everything that falls within our range of observation (or just barely outside it, as with black holes and the edge of the visible universe) has thus far indicated no need for the intervention of an intelligence. All conjecture about things outside of our range of observation is equally valid, i.e. equally worthless.
>>340660
I FOUND YOUR BANDCAMP AND TUMBLR, YOU TALENTLESS SCHIZO.
http://ryzhknd.bandcamp.com/
http://ryzhknd.tumblr.com/
>>340546
Considering the current trend of Atheists, especially the likes of Dawkins, is to say Jesus never existed, the facts are in favor of Christians. The Roman historian Tacticus stated quite clearly there was a Jesus. And Tacticus was a hater of Christianity but at least he had the respect to write down Jesus' life. How sad that current Fedoras ignore history just to feel right.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
Whenever someone links this to Dawkins, he blocks you on Twitter. Atheists can't handle the historical bantz
>>340638
this guy's a smug faggot but he's totally right, OP. your understanding of Unknowable is elementary school-tier. fuck off back to r/atheism breh
>>340739
Lol of course this idiot spends his time making shithouse vaporwave.
>>340727
>implying the fact there even is something intelligible in the first place doesn't mean anything
euphoric
and nah, brah, it's not "christian god or bust". the real God isn't the christian god.
>>340660
>Rama is another name for Krsna
no Rama is another name for vishnu who in turn becomes krishna
>Christos in Sanskrit would translate to Krsna.
Nope, christos meant anointed, different in sanskrit than krishna
>>340740
But there was no one named Jesus. There might have been a Yeshua.
>>340765
Typical response from someone who can't refute OP's claim
>>340797
OP didn't claim anything, idiot.
>>340801
You know what I meant jackass
>>340797
Yup, if you don't get it, then it doesn't exist. Got it, you've cracked the case.
It's only "typical" because it's true you mong.
Try to disprove Spinoza's God first
>>340795
>might
Fucking lel. He existed. Only people who don't think so are Dawkins and his cabal of fags
>>340806
Don't get what? God?
>>340805
No, I don't. Learn to use words correctly.
>>340810
Jesus was a real person but most of the writing in the bible about him are impossible
>>340813
Yup. If you're 20+ and you think the only idea of God is some big bearded man in the sky fucking kek, read more
>>340660
REMOVE KEBAB
>>340825
>impossible
Miracles have happened before famalamadingdong
>>340844
Such as?
>>340827
he is a big bearded man in the sky
>>340851
old couple have a child
miracles on egypt
exodus
etc
>>340863
>miracles come directly from the bible
I'm not surprised
>>340781
Didn't say anything about the Christian God. I said "an intelligence."
>>340877
arent we talking about that? lol
>>340893
I was thinking of miracles that actually happened in reality, not in some book
>>340885
thanks for being the millionth guy to remind us metaphysical assertions, one way or the other, are unfalsifiable i suppose then
>>340900
the internet bro, that's some crazy shit
>>340905
Fair enough
>>340900
You mean the healings done by saints in the past? Bro, even Jawn Pawl II healed a literal blind woman.
>>340902
Then why do people still waste their time with metaphysical assertions?
>>340936
I don't know bro, why do I think about other people and what they think of me when there's no real way of knowing? Maybe you can tell me what denizens of euphoria land like yourself would do?
>>340980
Generally, we recognize that total knowledge about a particular thing is asymptotic, and that the best we can do is develop a consistent system of explanations that don't rely on untestable assertions.
>>341007
"When I drive to work today, I assume I'm not going to die on the way" is an untestable assertion, but we still make it anyways and life's just peachy.
No one's trying funnel billions of dollars of grant money into a project that hinges on the existence of God or some kooky shit, so we don't need r/atheism-tier posters reminding us that God is unfalsifiable every time someone has the gall to assume reality isn't just a queef in the fabric of spacetime
>>341028
That assertion is generally based off of prior experience, and ideally a rough understanding of the statistical likelihood of dying when making a trip in a car. The chance is small but definitely real, and people are incorrect in that assumption literally every day.
>>341028
So we can revoke the tax exemptions for religions then?
>>340546
The second everyone took to the notion of God as a literal human-like being, a physical entity somewhere else, is the second the understand of the concept of "God" went down hill.
A lot of religions with no connection to one another have known the experiences of "God" without having ever been in contact with one another.
Some don't use the word God, but it's interchangeable across them none the less.
When I see people, people serious about Christianity, arguing with feminists who try to argue that God is female or should be addressed as female, and take the argument seriously, I know that people have lost their grip on what it means to believe in God.
The obsession over the God, as thought of as a person or being, existing or not, completely subverts any reason or understanding into what people used to understand as God.
Whether people believe in God or not in the west these days, people seem to have a mechanical understanding of the universe as their base for common sense.
how old are you OP? are you american? what state?
>>341028
>No one's trying to funnel billions of dollars of grant money
No, but people are waging Holy War and spending money on useless faith healers, so maybe there is a reason to remind people that God is unfalsifiable. Besides, how exactly do you go from assuming that reality wasn't an accident to "and my particular god did it."
>>341028
Yes, but tens of billions in tax exemptions are given to religious organizations.
That could be grant money for actual, useful projects. A single year of that tax revenue would be enough to build the Superconducting Super Collider three times over. It's also about quadruple NASA's current budget, and a little less than half of what it cost to build the entire ISS. It'd be more than enough to get a moon base up and running.
>>340546
I've never heard any serious modern theologians use those arguments OP. Kind of makes you sound like you've either done no actual research or you're being intellectually dishonest
>>340759
He's straight up said the ancient historians don't acknowledge Christ at all, but in the same discussion he admitted he was wrong when John Lennox called him out on it
>>340546
I would suggest looking into the Philosophy of Religion.
In Descartes Meditations he stresses that unless one can prove the existence of God without referencing to their holy book or their priesthood (who in turn derive their authority from the same God) the opponent's of Christianity will always accuse them of a circular argument. Hence his attempt to prove God exists purely rationally. There's been some attempts to try to prove there is a creator. However without religious faith the closest anyone ever got was Deism, they could argue that a God did make the universe but once it came to describing the traits of the God, why he would intervene, or even if he he had a personality or intelligence...there's no real way to do this. In other words if you wanted to prove the Christian God you would first have to prove the Deist God (who has no personality or desire) than you would have to individually prove each trait of the Christian God: you would have to prove he has a personality, that he cares at what goes on in the universe, that he made a heaven, you would have to prove each individual angel, miracle, prophecy all separately. It wouldn't be a package deal.
There were religious philosophers that attempted to do this and it was a fucking exhausting work that ultimately ended in failure. Even trying to prove the Deistic God has no decent arguments: in the past they used Aristotle's physics but those have been retired. Or they might appeal to the fact that life is complicated it couldn't have emerged unplanned, Darwin got rid of that. Or they might argue that thinking and reasoning is not connected to the body and it's all done by some 'soul' but Psychology and general Biology got rid of that.
I think the only acceptable understanding of the religious experience is to say that's entirely personal. You'd go with Kierkegaard who says God is irrational but you can still have faith, you'd know him by subjective experiences. But with this you cannot proselytize very hard or be upset when people dismiss your religion.
>>341144
This honestly. If you look at how most religions actually define the concept of "God", it is something inherently not falsifiable.
God is seen as being the original cause, the unmoved mover, but science operates only on facts ("effects" of causes so to speak), so it is not possible God could be proven through scientific investigation. God is also often seen as existing outside of time and space, and therefore being beyond human comprehension.
Why the concept of God is defined in this way is more complicated, but long story short, arguing for the existence of God using physical evidence will always be flawed. Instead people believe in God for other reasons: mysticism, on the basis of arguments from pure reason, or simply on faith.
Of course mysticism is the basis of all prophecy, including the bible and other holy books - so when people argue for the existence of God based on the bible, it is really like second-hand mysticism. But even though mysticism like science is based on experience, it is personal, non-reproducible and really indistinguishable from schizophrenia, so will never be scientific.
>>341947
Most of the attempts to define God as unfalsiable are just language tricks and sophistry
Avicenna had his own version of the unmoved mover argument (and Aquinas's is a rip of his, which is itself a rip off of Aristotle's which is the only good one because his version is actually falsifiable) and it manly consists of playing with language until he is defined the unmoved mover as something that only has one 'part'. In this way he can not only prove the existence of God but he can prove the Christian God is a false one since it has a trinity to it.
>>341957
I meant unfalsifiable in the Popperian sense - ie for a scientific theory to be valid, there has to be a possibility that an experiment could disprove the hypothesis. As far as I can tell there's no scientific experiment that could disprove the "God hypothesis", so it's not something that could be proven through science either.
I agree that most of the logical "proofs" of God are pretty much language tricks, up to and including Descartes.
>>340546
People don't believe in God because they want the truth. I know that sounds condescending, but I just can't find another way to phrase it. You have to accept that different people value different things. Christians value their faith; it gives them strength. Having unshakeable belief despite everything gives you an emotional boost. Skeptics value truth and justifying claims with evidence. You won't find any suitable evidence for god, because that in itself defeats the point of faith.
>>342302
>you can't be christian and a skeptic
The euphoria makes me cum, please stop
>>342361
What are you skeptical about, exactly, then?
>>340638
>GOD IS NOT PROVEN, BUT FELT, AND KNOWN; GOD IS NOT A NATURAL PHENOMENON WHICH CAN BE EMPIRICALLY RECORDED, AND STUDIED.
So then there is nothing that can ever prove the existence of God? Just "I feel it, therefore I believe?" Then there's no point in arguing about it. You've set yourself up in this unassailable bubble where you're right because you're right and any attempt to even debate you is just foolish because your response is only, and can only be, "you just don't understand." It's unknowable, therefore listen to my feelings.
Funny how, in a few thousand years, God went from being a force which allegedly communicated directly with people and performed blatant acts in the physical world to being an unknowable thing that must be felt from within yourself.
>>340913
Why are records of miracles so abundant in times when the Church controlled pretty much everything and then they stop appearing entirely after people start keeping reliable records?
>>342368
Who said anything about me? What about the many Christian scientists and engineers? You can't exactly do that job right without being criticial of every result you find.
You're acting as if belief in a higher being or order, and skepticism, cannot coexist. Do you think all religious people basically credit everything they see to God without any further investigation whatsoever?
The scientificial method answers the "how". Faith answer the "why". Skepticism can't apply much to faith because, either way, whether you're a hardcore atheist or a scientologist, you don't actually have a definite answer on why we got lucky enough to end up existing and why everything in the universe works so well on every level, even though we, as humans, make mistakes constantly. You can think "the world is the way it is simply because", or "it must have been made by a higher intelligent being who doesn't fuck up everything like we tend to do", but either way it's a question we simply will never get a clear answer on.
The first appeal pf religion isn't the regular claim in miracles or the "easy answer" found within (if you want to call it that), but the moral teachings of it.
Take the question of "why is everything perfect and beautiful", take the moral teachings of a religion that appeal to you, and since said religion also makes claims regarding the answer of the former question, take faith to consolidate both sides, and voilà, religion.
I think the major problem is when parents teach their children their own interpretation of said religion, when they're not even old enough to understand the world in the first place.
>>342409
The fuck you talking about? The church didn't control shit when J. Paul II was the pontiff. And there's articles of him healing people. Which is why he is a saint.
>>342432
Let me add that we can also say we imagine there being a God because we want to rationalize our own ways of thinking to the world surrounding us. Insects must be happy/sad, cats must be cute and cuddly with everything they do, and the world has to be the work of an intelligent being too (who, according to some, cares about us and loves us).
But even then you can't prove or disprove this. The very point of the existence of a God is that it can't be proven or disproven, you just have to see it in your daily life (or not).
And again, you can be a religious skeptic. Being religious doesn't mean you're not allowed to criticize the contents of it or the behavior of the religious institution you belong to. Certain religions even push one to be critical of everything and use their reason constantly, because supposedly they will end up realizing said religion is the real thing anyway.
>>342432
I guess I meant religious skeptics, specifically.
>>342451
Yeah I forgot to conclude my reply
>>342446
I'm not saying there aren't religious people who think faith is all you need to understand the world (and who, ironically, often are the last people to actually understand whatever their religion actually claims), or that you don't have religions that push you NOT to bother questioning anything (but those are often nothing more than money-driven sects, although every religious institution that ended up having political power turned out like that anyway).
>>342445
And what miracles did Mother Teresa perform to achieve "sainthood"?
>>342488
Wait considering no one forced you to come on this thread and talk about God... what's your point with that picture? Why would you care if you already discarded everyone opinion before they wrote it down.
>>342488
>Hitchens
>All that borderline-mentally ill narcissism in his quote
Go back to r/atheism faggot.
>>342488
>Hitchens
>Converted to Christianity on his deathbed
There are miracles like Fatima or Sokółka.
>>340546
Can you prove the Christian understanding of God without the Bible? Probably not. But a divine being? I think the Greeks laid the groundwork pretty well
>Plato's forms
>There has to exist perfect beauty etc if all human beings can understand beauty
>this is God
>>342401
It has always been this way. Or do you belive in the biblical stories after all?
Dumb ISKKEK
Brahman is all. There is no other two.
>>342946
Schüppen please.
The Will was proven false with the advent of quantum physics. Cück
ps: haegel was completely right
He is in yours too
>>340546
I've only heard one of these arguments ever used before.
Some other arguments you might want to look at:
Argument from desire
Argument from motion
Argument from contingency
The ontological argument
>>342401
YOU ARE CONFLATING GOD, THE NATURAL PHENOMENA DESCRIBED IN "ANCIENT" LEGENDS, AND IN MYTHS, AND POSSIBLE ACTS PERFORMED BY DJINN.
GOD IS NOT A PERSONAL BEING, AND CANNOT DIRECTLY ACT UPON THE MATERIAL DIMENSION.
ALSO, THE BELIEF IN GOD, AND THE CAPACITY FOR EXPANSIVE, AND UNIVERSALISTIC, SENTIMENTS, EVEN ON A KOSMIC SCALE, HAVE BIOGENETIC PRECONDITIONS, BESIDE SOCIOCULTURAL CONDITIONS, AND THE FORMER PREPONDERATE OVER THE LATTER, SO EVEN IF A PERSON IS RAISED IN A SOCIOCULTURAL MILIEU OF A CERTAIN RELIGIOSPIRITUAL KIND, IF THAT PERSON LACKS THE BIOGENETIC PRECONDITIONS TO FEEL, AND COMPREHEND, THAT PERSON WILL NOT BE CAPABLE, NOR ABLE, OF PARTAKING OF THE SPIRITUAL.
>>342946
Madhva Acarya would like a word with you.
>>346433
>GOD IS NOT A PERSONAL BEING, AND CANNOT DIRECTLY ACT UPON THE MATERIAL DIMENSION
Hence the term Supreme Personality of Godhead Lord Krsna... Also Jesus.
>>342874
source?
>>346668
It was revealed by God on toast.
>>340546
It's easy to believe in God.
It's much more difficult to verify the Christian one.
>>340740
Tacticus doesn't write down that there is a Jesus.
He writes down that there is a Christus.
Even that's doubtworthy since the evidence appears to have been revised from Chrestus which means something different.
Additionally the relevant events in Tacticus are not mentioned in Josephus who could have made note of the events.
>>340546
The Quinqe Viae
>And not from some atheist's site - they can't even restate the argument correctly
The Ontological Argument
>>348668
The ontological argument just attempts to define god into existence.
The Quinque Viae on the other hand just kind of sucks.
It's 5 arguments in one and none of them are particularly good.
You can use it for something if you assume that they're all correct.
>Unmoved mover
Which makes a lot of assumptions about the nature of said unmoved mover as well as assumes that there has to be one.
>First Cause
Same as the previous. Substitute Moving for being Caused.
>Argument for Contingency
This just defines god as the thing that everything relies on to be capable of existing at all since the argument goes that everything is contingent on something else and if nothing else existed then nothing would ever exist because it would have nothing to bring it into existence.
>Argument for degree
Defines god into existence. This is basically the ontological argument.
>Teleological argument
An object without intelligence can't do anything. Since the world is so wonderful that means that something intelligent must be making everything without intelligence do everything right.
This thing is god.
Rather than just completely normal natural forces or anything.
This is the Jesus holds atoms together argument.
>>340836
REMOVE KEBAB remove kebab
you are worst turk. you are the turk idiot you are the turk smell. return to croatioa. to our croatia cousins you may come our contry. you may live in the zoo….ahahahaha ,bosnia we will never forgeve you. cetnik rascal FUck but fuck asshole turk stink bosnia sqhipere shqipare..turk genocide best day of my life. take a bath of dead turk..ahahahahahBOSNIA WE WILL GET YOU!! do not forget ww2 .albiania we kill the king , albania return to your precious mongolia….hahahahaha idiot turk and bosnian smell so bad..wow i can smell it. REMOVE KEBAB FROM THE PREMISES. you will get caught. russia+usa+croatia+slovak=kill bosnia…you will ww2/ tupac alive in serbia, tupac making album of serbia . fast rap tupac serbia. we are rich and have gold now hahahaha ha because of tupac… you are ppoor stink turk… you live in a hovel hahahaha, you live in a yurt
tupac alive numbr one #1 in serbia ….fuck the croatia ,..FUCKk ashol turks no good i spit in the mouth eye of ur flag and contry. 2pac aliv and real strong wizard kill all the turk farm aminal with rap magic now we the serba rule .ape of the zoo presidant georg bush fukc the great satan and lay egg this egg hatch and bosnia wa;s born. stupid baby form the eggn give bak our clay we will crush u lik a skull of pig. serbia greattst countrey
>>342067
There's observation too, not only experiments (like in biology, you mostly observe things there). Catholic miracles CAN be observed (e.g. Sokółka).
>this thread
>mfw
>>340827
Then what is He?
The bible is not evidence of God.
Its evidence of the gods.
The gods with a little g are below the God with a big G.
The Bible shows the stories of the older Sumerian tales.
But they call them by different names.
The Elohim are the Anunnaki.
El is Anu. The father of Enlil / Yahweh.
We know that Enlil is the one who brought the flood like Yahweh because he wanted to clear the earth of the Hybrids.
It was because of Enki that Noah built the ark and was saved from the Deluge.
He is Adonai, one of the Lords of the Garden.
en ki means Lord of Earth
His name is Ea, the Brother of Yah and son of Anu.
These were Aliens of the pagan Pantheon.
Not the Creator of All.
>>349032
Genesis specifically uses the word Elohim as the creator of all.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf
One must believe in something. Some believe in God, others in Shiva and Vishnu, etc...Even Nietzche, who denied God, despised atheism because it leaves you without morality, and if humans belive in something (not the ideology), they will be normal
>>349046
>despised atheism because it leaves you without morality
>>349046
>despised atheism because it leaves you without morality
He despised it for exactly the opposite reason. He believed atheism and humanism would become religions on their own and would prevent people from coming up with their own values
>>349046
Vishnu is is Ea Enki.
Indra is his brother Enlil.
Kali is Inanna or Isis / Ishtar.
These are the gods. they are the Anunna gods that came here long ago and they made humans as an experiment. We were made to be a worker race. To appease the Revolt of the Igigi.
Inanna was given control over the 3rd region, the Indus Valley is India.
Hindu gods are the same as Anunna gods, but because of the tower of babel all gods had new names in the new language of the culture.
>>349045
Its true that the Elohim / Anunnaki made us humans as we are today. And they made Earth also.
But not the same way you think a god would.
They are the Demiurge.
They are Below the Great Architect of the Universe.
They are Emergent out of his Creation, like we are.
See when the Anunnaki came here they found a primitive primate humanoid already on Earth. And they blended their DNA with it to make us as we are today.
Cro Magnon + Anunnaki DNA = Homo Sapien Sapien.
That is not Creation, its Manipulation.
They took an Emergent Emanation of the Creation of the Universe and they manipulated and changed it to suit their purpose.
And they call that "Creation"
Its False. And if you follow them as God then you follow a False God.
>>349046
If atheists have no morality then why are atheist countries the best countries?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/06/peace-on-earth-atheism
>>349100
But I'm an agnostic and I think you are just making up unfalsifiable claims.
>>349106
I am basing it on what the Anunnaki believe themselves.
Because the Sumerian tablets tell us that they think the Creation of Humanity was Destined by the Creator of All.
They say that the Emissary Galzu was sent by the Creator of All to trick the Anunnaki into saving a Remanent from the Deluge.
It was Galzu who came to Enki and told him to tell his son Noah to build the Ark.
We only survived because of him.
Enlil wanted us all wiped out.
>>349116
The fact that someone wrote an unfalsifiable claim on a bit of stone thousands of years ago does not make it a true claim.
What I do know is that Christians, and many Abrahamists in general, get so caught up with the divinity of God (and Jesus), and what he could do they tend to forget some of the things they say, like the whole "throw the first stone" story.
>>349151
sure, but the fact remains that this is what the History is.
They recorded the ancient stories on stone tablets and its up to us if we are going to embrace what they say or ignore it.
If you never read if for yourself how could you even make an intelligent decision either way.
>>349195
No. The study of history has never been about simply finding an old source and accepting anything the source says is true, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of how history is studied.
The stone is a nice historical source for the religious beliefs of the ancient Sumerians, not proof that anything it says it literally true.
>>349190
That story is actually a forgery added in much later than the stories around it
>evidence
>not direct experience
You could be feeling the Higher Self right now bro, you just gotta put some practice in.
>>350435
>he isn't in constant contact with his higher self
sure is reddit in here
No evidence for it but none against it. We can't know until we all pass away. Maybe God isn't even who we assume him/her/it to be since the Bible was written by men.
>>350600
>No evidence for it but none against it.
Same could be said for magic space fairies. Also, what would "evidence against something existing" even be like? A LACK of evidence for something existing.
>We can't know until we all pass away
Why should anyone believe that is the case. You won't know anything when your brain is rotting in the ground
>>340740
Holy shit that 110% answered OP's question and didn't turn it around to make a new debate topic because you don't have any evidence other than the bible to prove god's existence
>>346433
What are you?
