Okay, Let's Cut To The Chase!

[POI]

Dear Christians of all flavor(s),

I trust it is no surprise there exists a populous here, which lay claim to 'atheism', 'deism', or maybe other... In a nutshell, for me, this ultimately means I do not believe any such claimed Christian God exists - trying though as I might.... Which-is-to-mean, I was raised in a Christian house hold. However, after much study, I cannot get myself to belief such a claimed agent actually exists. Chalk it up, ultimately, to the topic of 'divine hiddenness' I guess...?

It is also evident there exists devout 'Christians' in this arena, of all flavors, who may feel they are 'fighting the good fight'; by defending their belief(s)/faith/rationale in the assertion of the existence to the "Christian God".

That being said, I am laying down the gauntlet, so-to-speak... Some here, as well as outside of here, are as sure as anything, that not only does God exist, but the Christian God! Well, I politely disagree. Meaning, I don't believe the "Christian based" assertion/claim.

I can't imagine this request will be anything new. Nor, can I imagine that I will encounter any new sort of enlightenment. But, being this is a rather large and important topic; I will continue to search, optimistically, that there exists some sort of 'concrete evidence(s)' to demonstrate that not only a God exists ---> but also the Christian God.

For Debate:

Please demonstrate the mere existence of the Christian God?

[TRANSPONDER]

2 Thessalonians 2:10-11 suggest it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of the Christian God... it says that some will never believe...

If the existence of the Christian God cannot be demonstrated then it makes no sense to believe in it. Therefore some will never believe. That part makes sense.

Well the nature of the Christian God calls for faith to believe. If Christianity is true then it is true that some will not believe, for the Christian God says some will not believe (like in the parable of the sower). So the fact that some dont believe supports Christianity being true...

I think a better question would be 'what is the truth?' instead of 'demonstrate Christianity is true'.... Some will never believe. But what is the truth? objectively?

That's simple it seems to me 'what is so, apart from what humans think about it'.

That makes science the primary tool (with logic) to determine what is true. Faith (with illogic) is the worst possible tool.

[brunumb]

Well the nature of the Christian God calls for faith to believe.

The nature of Tinkerbell and other fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, the supernatural and so on all call for faith to believe.

If Christianity is true then it is true that some will not believe, for the Christian God says some will not believe (like in the parable of the sower).

If Tinkerbell and other fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, the supernatural and so on are true, then it is true that some will not believe, regardless of who said it.

If So the fact that some dont believe supports Christianity being true...

The fact that some don't believe Tinkerbell and other fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, the supernatural and so on are true supports them being true....

Can't help but laugh about the last bit.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #553]

I think a better question would be 'what is the truth?' instead of 'demonstrate Christianity is true'....

"demonstrate Christianity is true'.... " is a demand, rather than a question.

If so it is a demand by logic and reason, and you cannot deny that and remain logical and reasonable.

But what is the truth? objectively?

Evidence which can be objectively found to exist within nature...truth appears to be something which is fragmented and requires the pieces to fit together in an overall coherency ... in order for the conscious truth-seeker to understand it.

No. You are talking about the human perception of truth. That is a flawed approach, confusing what is with what humans think it is at any given time. We all know we had it wrong, and we probably still have it wrong. But the way to get it right is keep researching and checking, not to go into a trance and say "The Truth!".

[DaveD49]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #555]

Paul knew that there was only ONE God and so there was no such thing as a "Christian" God.

I think that when folk say "Christian God" they are referring to YHVH, who is often understood to being the "Jewish God".

Therefore, if Paul was referring to there being only "ONE God", he was likely referring to YHVH.

Agreed?

It was the post that I was answering that made the 2Thessalonians misquote.

Do you agree with my observation?

Yes, Paul would be referring to God as the Father that Jesus spoke about and the Jewish people believed. In as far as if he meant YHWH that is difficult to say because the Bible refers to God by 27 different names such as El, Elohim. El Shaddai, Yahweh, Adonai, etc.. But they are not talking about different gods but rather most of the names reflect a different attribute of God.

[Shem Yoshi]

Well the nature of the Christian God calls for faith to believe.

The nature of Tinkerbell and other fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, the supernatural and so on all call for faith to believe.

If Christianity is true then it is true that some will not believe, for the Christian God says some will not believe (like in the parable of the sower).

If Tinkerbell and other fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, the supernatural and so on are true, then it is true that some will not believe, regardless of who said it.

If So the fact that some dont believe supports Christianity being true...

The fact that some don't believe Tinkerbell and other fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, the supernatural and so on are true supports them being true....

Can't help but laugh about the last bit.

Well I dont think that equivalence true. Christian God ≠ fairies ≠ leprechauns ≠ ghosts.... I suppose you are just calling them all fiction, but even their fictional qualities wouldnt equate.


What is true? Is it true that you need Faith to believe in God? And if it requires Faith to believe in God, does that mean God isnt true?


And let me point out that Faith would have to do with anyone's personal belief.. But if someone doesnt have Faith, that doesnt mean God isnt true... You might not believe in God, like some people dont believe in a spherical Earth, the belief is irrelevant. What is objectively true?

It would rest on if God is objectively true... The Earth might look flat from a humans perspective on earth, Jesus Christ might seem foolish to believe in, like fairies, but what is actually true?

it might be that a spherical earth is the best explanation of the evidence, it might be that Jesus Resurrection is the best explanation of the evidence.

[William]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #555]

Paul knew that there was only ONE God and so there was no such thing as a "Christian" God.

I think that when folk say "Christian God" they are referring to YHVH, who is often understood to being the "Jewish God".

Therefore, if Paul was referring to there being only "ONE God", he was likely referring to YHVH.

Agreed?

It was the post that I was answering that made the 2Thessalonians misquote.

Do you agree with my observation?

Yes, Paul would be referring to God as the Father that Jesus spoke about and the Jewish people believed. In as far as if he meant YHWH that is difficult to say because the Bible refers to God by 27 different names such as El, Elohim. El Shaddai, Yahweh, Adonai, etc.. But they are not talking about different gods but rather most of the names reflect a different attribute of God.

Does "YHVH" reflect an "attribute"?

[Shem Yoshi]

Well the nature of the Christian God calls for faith to believe.

The nature of Tinkerbell and other fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, the supernatural and so on all call for faith to believe.

If Christianity is true then it is true that some will not believe, for the Christian God says some will not believe (like in the parable of the sower).

If Tinkerbell and other fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, the supernatural and so on are true, then it is true that some will not believe, regardless of who said it.

If So the fact that some dont believe supports Christianity being true...

The fact that some don't believe Tinkerbell and other fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, the supernatural and so on are true supports them being true....

Can't help but laugh about the last bit.

Can you provide evidence for this statement "The nature of Tinkerbell and other fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, the supernatural and so on all call for faith to believe."

That leprechauns call for faith to believe? Where does it call for faith to believe in Ghosts? Or tinkerbell?

Tinkerbell is from a fictional story. Fairies and leprechauns are fables, and ghost might be unexplainable phenomenon. I assume faith has nothing to do with any of them.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to William in post #566]

William: "Does "YHVH" reflect an "attribute"?"

He said to Moses that His name was "I AM WHO AM" . It is from this that the Tetragram is formed and interpreted as YHWH meaning "Yahweh" or "Jehovah". If you reflect just on the "I am who am" will realize a whole bunch of attributes, among them timelessness and omnipresence. When Jesus was before the chief priests who want to put Him to death they asked Him if He were the Messiah or the Son of God. He responded "I am..." At this the priest tore his cloak and declared it blasphemy.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #566]

William: "Does "YHVH" reflect an "attribute"?"

He said to Moses that His name was "I AM WHO AM" . It is from this that the Tetragram is formed and interpreted as YHWH meaning "Yahweh" or "Jehovah". If you reflect just on the "I am who am" will realize a whole bunch of attributes, among them timelessness and omnipresence. When Jesus was before the chief priests who want to put Him to death they asked Him if He were the Messiah or the Son of God. He responded "I am..." At this the priest tore his cloak and declared it blasphemy.

Then we should be able to agree that if there were one "name" or "title" we can use which reflects all the rest, that would be "YHVH"...

Do you agree?

[DaveD49]

[Replying to William in post #566]

William: "Does "YHVH" reflect an "attribute"?"

He said to Moses that His name was "I AM WHO AM" . It is from this that the Tetragram is formed and interpreted as YHWH meaning "Yahweh" or "Jehovah". If you reflect just on the "I am who am" will realize a whole bunch of attributes, among them timelessness and omnipresence. When Jesus was before the chief priests who want to put Him to death they asked Him if He were the Messiah or the Son of God. He responded "I am..." At this the priest tore his cloak and declared it blasphemy.

Then we should be able to agree that if there were one "name" or "title" we can use which reflects all the rest, that would be "YHVH"...

Do you agree?

I think that would be accurate. When you think about it is a bit like Hinduism where the manifestation of God, say Rama, can be worshipped as a god but the people realize that when they pray they know he is a manifestation of the One God.