Debate with Jay on God's existence

Please, if you feel urged to comment, open a discussion thread for this debate.

Jay, I can never prove God's existence to you without a shadow of a doubt. I can present evidence that makes His existence more than likely, and when you take that leap of faith, the Holy Spirit does the rest.

Tell me what evidence would be appealing to you, to start with. Also tell me what causes you to NOT believe in His existence.

Regards,
Darfius

Originally posted by Darfius
Please, if you feel urged to comment, open a discussion thread for this debate.

Jay, I can never prove God's existence to you without a shadow of a doubt. I can present evidence that makes His existence more than likely, and when you ...[text shortened]... causes you to NOT believe in His existence.

Regards,
Darfius

Darfius
I fear we might be waste each others time. I was willing to take part a discussion with yourself because of the following post that your made.

I can say for certain God exists. If you are openminded, I can prove it to you without a shadow of a doubt. If you are not, I cannot.

but alas you have already contridicted your earlier statement.🙁

I'll pass on this discussion thank you.

Note:-

I think our concepts of god are different, my concept is wider than just christianity and would include other religions. As they say in Japan:-

There are many paths up the side of mount Fuji, but only one summit.

Also currently I'm neither a believer or unbeliever, and have suspended judgement until I know otherwise.

Originally posted by Jay Peatea
Darfius
I fear we might be waste each others time. I was willing to take part a discussion with yourself because of the following post that your made.

I can say for certain God exists. If you are openminded, I can prove it to you without a shadow of a doubt. If you are not, I cannot.

but alas you have already contridicted your earlier state ...[text shortened]... I'm neither a believer or unbeliever, and have suspended judgement until I know otherwise.

You're right, I did contradict my earlier statement. Because I realize to do that, I'd have to show you a photo of God. I still believe I can present a very strong case for His existence, but if you're not interested in hearing all possibilities when trying to make a judgement, I don't understand, but OK.

A debate concerning the existence of God is not the real issue. the real issue is if there is no God. The onus is on the atheists, since anthropologists have discovered a belief in a supreme being through out civilization. Theists are not required to prove anything.

Originally posted by Langtree
A debate concerning the existence of God is not the real issue. the real issue is if there is no God. The onus is on the atheists, since anthropologists have discovered a belief in a supreme being through out civilization. Theists are not required to prove anything.

The onus is on the atheists...

more wrong you could not be.

the theist is the one who makes a positive assertion -- namely that god exists. the burden of proof is his. just to demonstrate how absurd your claim is, try telling an implicit atheist that he needs to prove his position -- he won't even know what you are talking about!

EDIT: if you are talking about strong atheists, then i agree they also need to be able to offer some reasoning for their assertion that god does not exist. but the general atheist has no burden; the theist invariably without question does.

Originally posted by Langtree
A debate concerning the existence of God is not the real issue. the real issue is if there is no God. The onus is on the atheists, since anthropologists have discovered a belief in a supreme being through out civilization. Theists are not required to prove anything.

LemonJello is correct, the entire burden of proof lies with the theist. The theist is the one who is making the claim that there is a god. The atheist is making no claim for anything. He is merely observing that the theist's case is unpersuasive and that it cannot be believed.

Originally posted by Langtree
A debate concerning the existence of God is not the real issue. the real issue is if there is no God. The onus is on the atheists, since anthropologists have discovered a belief in a supreme being through out civilization. Theists are not required to prove anything.

Theists can't prove anything!

civililization, at least historical civilization, started in Sumer c.4000bc.

long before that 30000 years approximately , Euroope had followees of the great Mother fertility Goddess extending from Spain to the Moscow and the North Sea to the Bosporus.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Theists can't prove anything!

civililization, at least historical civilization, started in Sumer c.4000bc.

long before that 30000 years approximately , Euroope had followees of the great Mother fertility Goddess extending from Spain to the Moscow and the North Sea to the Bosporus.

I know we can't prove God, we can give reasonable assertions. I definiely have to turn in, or I'll fall asleep teaching, that wouldn't look good.😴

Originally posted by Langtree
I know we can't prove God, we can give reasonable assertions. I definiely have to turn in, or I'll fall asleep teaching, that wouldn't look good.😴

reasonable assertions ( if they were indeed) still wouldn't raise creationism to the degree of certainty that is required for it to be called a Theory...not in science , however evolution has more than enough facts in agreement with it to be called a scientific
Theory .

I swear everytime I see a thread at the top of the forum with Darfius' name on it, I think, "Ah crap. Here we go again."