Do Gods Exist? Can You Prove Gods Exist? Do They Even Have To Exist?

[Data]

Definitions

God: (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being; (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity; an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; used as a conventional personification of fate; an adored, admired, or influential person; a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god; the gallery in a theater.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves in the existence of God or gods.

Veneration: great respect; reverence:

Existence: the fact or state of living or having objective reality; continued survival; a way of living; any of a person's supposed current, future, or past lives on this earth; all that exists; a being or entity.

In essence a god is anything or anyone who is venerated. A mortal man, an object, a fictional or mythological character, real or imagined, a concept like luck. Good or bad. To exist as a god could involve any of a number of specific applications. To exist literally, metaphorically, figuratively, as a fictional, metaphysical or mythological being, object or concept. In what specific sense any alleged god may exist may depend upon such context.

Questions for debate: Do gods exist? Can you prove they exist and do they even have to exist?

[Data]

In essence, here's Data's tactics:

You and I . . .

I first logged on here because I thought I could have a reasonable exchange with you specifically. I don't know how it got so messed up, it's as much my fault as it is yours, in my opinion, but regardless it is messed up. The most important thing to me, aside from not liking messed up, is that I don't like it when, or need you to tell me what my argument is because you can't. And doing it for the reader is not your responsibility. I don't mind at all for you to ask for clarification and I don't mind you assessing my argument, but it seems to me that you are disingenuously misrepresenting my argument, and subsequently myself, in order to win some battle which, I not only have no interest in participating in, but also think is silly. Transponder sees me in that light as well but he doesn't so much need to misrepresent me in order to do that. He, I believe, does often misrepresent theism in that light, but not me personally. He doesn't twist my words like I feel you do. I pointed this out to you once, after you had done it several times, then you did it again and you're doing it now, below.

I don't represent God or theism and you don't represent me or atheism.

1) Believers in science have just as much "faith/trust" as believers in Jehovah. Thus, "faith/trust" in Jehovah is no more unreasonable than faith in anything.

Faith is simply trust. It isn't a question of there being a quota requirement. The faith in Jehovah isn't unreasonable to everyone just because it is perceived as such by you or anyone else, including science. Faith and science are similar in the specific sense that they are both incomplete until otherwise they become obsolete.

2) When pressed for actual evidence of Jehovah, point directly back to the Bible; even though the Bible is the claim alone. Just like a history book is the claim alone, but not evidence for the claim.

The book is evidence of the history, whether the Bible or secular. That doesn't make it authentic or accurate. There is no other source of the Bible God, Jehovah, than the Bible.

3) Deliberately play dumb about the described term 'nothing', in the hopes to redirect.

Nothing, like any other word, has various meanings. I pointed those out with Oxford's dictionary, Wikipedia, and quite a few Bible examples.

4) Have no ability to explain why you believe a claim, where there exists no actual evidence to support it. (i.e.) the supernatural.

I don't care. It means nothing to me. I don't have to have my beliefs validated by you or your scientific interpretation. That means nothing to me. I don't care about winning some debate. I can say, sure okay, I have no ability to explain why I believe a claim, where there exists, in your opinion, no actual evidence to support it. You can quote me on that. Fine. Because it would be an arrogant waste of my time to possibly imagine the motivation for doing that. I've told you; I don't care about you on a personal level, or your science or your debate. I'm not looking for that. I want a reasonable exchange without all of that. What I mean by that is I respond to the words, the posts, not you personally. It's a thin line, but that's what I personally do. Always, with everyone. "Friend" or "foe."

5) Provide lame videos which offer nothing to forward the conversation.

Get over it.

6) Because our logic is flawed at times, Jehovah may actually exist.

No. Because our logic is flawed at times, we can't depend upon it to completely determine whether or not something, anything or nothing (depending on the context) is absolutely true.

Now, with semantic pedantry you can chalk up a point for yourself and your team by arguing that, but don't be surprised if I won't be joining you on that excursion.

7) When pressed for evidence for Jehovah, make up excuses as to why you will no longer engage.

I don't make excuses I tell you straight up, it is your own responsibility. Again, you want to mark that on your scoresheet, be my guest. Then you can fold it into tiny little pieces, set fire to it and sh . . . hold on. Never mind. Rules.

These are just some of the findings from the thread. I'm sure there is a lot more in which Data has committed. These are just some of the ones off the top of the dome.

So, you can respond to the above, but I'm not going to engage with you any more until . . .

You and I go head-to-head in a limited and somewhat structured debate on the subject of atheism vs theism in parts.

1. What is god?
2. What does the Bible teach?
3. and 4. any two topics of your choice.

By structured I mean not meandering for 300 pages or "a mess." That's a waste of time. By limited I mean limited responses from each of us on each subject within that debate totaling a limited number of posts. That could be up to 10 but no more than 20 responses on each of the four subjects with a possible total in the thread of 80.

Now, what I'm going to do, if you should respond to this post, is scroll down to see if you agree to the terms or have any stipulations you would like to add and we'll take it from there. Depending on your response, we will continue in the head-to-head forum.

[POI]

I'm not going to engage with you any more until . . .

The two faces of Data.... Which one is true and which one is false? The one you now state above, or the conflicting one below?

I won't be reading your posts anymore.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm not going to engage with you any more until . . .

The two faces of Data.... Which one is true and which one is false? The one you now state above, or the conflicting one below?

I won't be reading your posts anymore.

I wondered that. Sometimes there are well thought out and argued posts (which didn't look like cut and paste) and then ocvcasional "I was just wasting your time" posts which didn't appear to be going on. But like i have said to others who either try to inveigle me into pointless discussions about prancing angels and pinheads or try to play the 'Ha ha! I succeeded in making you waste your time! A victory for "Wind up an atheist for Jesus", it doesn't work. Good arguments merit attention; rubbish arguments get rubbished, and bad online behavior gets the poster no credit, nor the beliefs they were promoting. So whatever they may think, it is gaining them nothing and losing we goddless nothing.

[POI]

I'm not going to engage with you any more until . . .

The two faces of Data.... Which one is true and which one is false? The one you now state above, or the conflicting one below?

I won't be reading your posts anymore.

I wondered that. Sometimes there are well thought out and argued posts (which didn't look like cut and paste) and then ocvcasional "I was just wasting your time" posts which didn't appear to be going on. But like i have said to others who either try to inveigle me into pointless discussions about prancing angels and pinheads or try to play the 'Ha ha! I succeeded in making you waste your time! A victory for "Wind up an atheist for Jesus", it doesn't work. Good arguments merit attention; rubbish arguments get rubbished, and bad online behavior gets the poster no credit, nor the beliefs they were promoting. So whatever they may think, it is gaining them nothing and losing we goddless nothing.

I kind of already called him/her out in post 171, when I stated "time will tell." (S)he is actually reading along... (S)he apparently ducks and runs when someone has their number. I'm sure it's not the first time (s)he has ducked and ran. And now (s)he wants back in, and to control the tempo and flow; as if anyone needs to bow down to his/hers specific rules. I've given him/her plenty to chew on, for which (s)he dipped out upon. (S)he knows exactly where we left off, if (s)he wants to continue with our unresolved conversation. However, I doubt (s)he is actually here for genuine and civil discourse. Otherwise, (s)he can address post 163 -- (especially where I ask him/her for the evidence for Jehovah, in which (s)he says (s)he has).

[POI]

Before I begin, please know that I'm now taking your responses with a very small grain of salt. You are not to be taken too seriously and have also proven yourself untrustworthy. In the future, if my responses make you flustered, please take a moment, collect your thoughts, and choose your words more carefully, as some of your responses prove disingenuous. In essence, as we already discussed, we are not going to change each other's minds about virtually anything. However, I come here to gain the perspective of others. It's boring to exchange with people who agree with me.

And in doing so, I sometimes see it necessary to streamline other interlocutor's arguments, for sake in brevity. And thus far, I see you performing two types of arguments, as already aforementioned. You may not like it, but your responses below still further substantiate these two tactics to a "T". Okay, off we go...

Below are unresolved points from post 163. Please finish what we started if you care about our exchanges:

1) Does God want humans to abide by logic, or not? If not, why not?
2) You surely cannot actually believe that the earth may really be a flat disk, do you?
3) Why retain faith/trust in Jehovah when you admit there exists no evidence for His existence -- as the Bible is the claim alone?
4) If Jehovah creates, then Jehovah had to create "something/anything/everything" besides Himself. It's as illogical as asking what is north of the north pole. Why apply blind faith/trust that Jehovah created anyways?
5) How can you "love" something/someone/other for which you doubt it's mere existence? I trust we agree "love" is a strong word.
6) Is the trust/faith in knowing the earth is spherical on the same level of trust as "Jehovah exists"?
7) What is the evidence for Jehovah?

In essence, here's Data's tactics:

You and I . . .

I first logged on here because I thought I could have a reasonable exchange with you specifically. I don't know how it got so messed up, it's as much my fault as it is yours, in my opinion, but regardless it is messed up. The most important thing to me, aside from not liking messed up, is that I don't like it when, or need you to tell me what my argument is because you can't. And doing it for the reader is not your responsibility. I don't mind at all for you to ask for clarification and I don't mind you assessing my argument, but it seems to me that you are disingenuously misrepresenting my argument, and subsequently myself, in order to win some battle which, I not only have no interest in participating in, but also think is silly. Transponder sees me in that light as well but he doesn't so much need to misrepresent me in order to do that. He, I believe, does often misrepresent theism in that light, but not me personally. He doesn't twist my words like I feel you do. I pointed this out to you once, after you had done it several times, then you did it again and you're doing it now, below.

I don't represent God or theism and you don't represent me or atheism.

I've read many of your responses. I'm sorry to say that the two aforementioned tactics are yours. Please own them. I will continue to demonstrate below.

1) Believers in science have just as much "faith/trust" as believers in Jehovah. Thus, "faith/trust" in Jehovah is no more unreasonable than faith in anything.

Faith is simply trust. It isn't a question of there being a quota requirement. The faith in Jehovah isn't unreasonable to everyone just because it is perceived as such by you or anyone else, including science. Faith and science are similar in the specific sense that they are both incomplete until otherwise they become obsolete.

Your response fits very nicely into tactic 1). (Paraphrased for sake in brevity) --> "We all have faith/trust". --> Therefore, my trust in Jehovah is no more far-fetched than your faith/trust that the earth is spherical.

2) When pressed for actual evidence of Jehovah, point directly back to the Bible; even though the Bible is the claim alone. Just like a history book is the claim alone, but not evidence for the claim.

The book is evidence of the history, whether the Bible or secular. That doesn't make it authentic or accurate. There is no other source of the Bible God, Jehovah, than the Bible.

No. The book is a collection of claims. That's all. If you admit nothing exists outside the collection of claims, then you adhere to blind trust. Why?

3) Deliberately play dumb about the described term 'nothing', in the hopes to redirect.

Nothing, like any other word, has various meanings. I pointed those out with Oxford's dictionary, Wikipedia, and quite a few Bible examples.

Why are you still doing it? You know exactly what I mean, when I say 'nothing' in THIS context. Please stop. It's a waste of time and makes me trust you even less.

4) Have no ability to explain why you believe a claim, where there exists no actual evidence to support it. (i.e.) the supernatural.

I don't care. It means nothing to me. I don't have to have my beliefs validated by you or your scientific interpretation. That means nothing to me. I don't care about winning some debate. I can say, sure okay, I have no ability to explain why I believe a claim, where there exists, in your opinion, no actual evidence to support it. You can quote me on that. Fine. Because it would be an arrogant waste of my time to possibly imagine the motivation for doing that. I've told you; I don't care about you on a personal level, or your science or your debate. I'm not looking for that. I want a reasonable exchange without all of that. What I mean by that is I respond to the words, the posts, not you personally. It's a thin line, but that's what I personally do. Always, with everyone. "Friend" or "foe."

Then as I asked above, why employ blind faith/trust anyways?

6) Because our logic is flawed at times, Jehovah may actually exist.

No. Because our logic is flawed at times, we can't depend upon it to completely determine whether or not something, anything or nothing (depending on the context) is absolutely true.

So again, the earth may actually be a flat disk? We cannot rule any former notion out?.?.?.? 1 + 1 may actually equal 'ham sandwich'?

So, you can respond to the above, but I'm not going to engage with you any more until . . .

You've already lost my trust, so your threats mean nothing. But I'll respond to the below anyways....

You and I go head-to-head in a limited and somewhat structured debate on the subject of atheism vs theism in parts.

I thought that's what we are already doing? (i.e.) Just ask questions, and vise verse, and we both answer them.

1. What is god?
2. What does the Bible teach?
3. and 4. any two topics of your choice.

1) I already answered this... I'm only concerned with the 'Christian God'. In your case, "Jehovah". And according to you, "He creates". Which defies logic - (as explained ad nauseam).
2) In regard to what exactly? That question is way too general. Pick an important topic for which you believe the Bible teaches.
3) Hopefully you responded above, which is a recap of post 163.

[TRANSPONDER]

I think our pal Data can be handled. They is trying to control the discussion, lead with the questions, and opt out when it doesn't go the way wanted. This can be refused, defused and dismissed. If someone quits the Field, it means they lose.

I have noticed and noted before that Bible apologetics is often tacitly insulting to Bible critics, because they seem to think we are so dumb, their infantile tricks are going to bamboozle us. It is a schooling to keep a smile on our online faces when we respond.

[POI]

I think our pal Data can be handled. They is trying to control the discussion, lead with the questions, and opt out when it doesn't go the way wanted. This can be refused, defused and dismissed. If someone quits the Field, it means they lose.

I have noticed and noted before that Bible apologetics is often tacitly insulting to Bible critics, because they seem to think we are so dumb, their infantile tricks are going to bamboozle us. It is a schooling to keep a smile on our online faces when we respond.

Well, I do know he read my last response (post 185), even though he said he was not going to. But yea, the silence is deafening. After reading many of his responses to me, and others (including you), I no longer take what he says very seriously, nor do I trust what he says too much either. Case/point, spending many exchanges trying to point out what a word can also mean, when he already knows what I mean when using a given word in the context of our conversation. He is deliberately trying to deflect and/or distract. He's playing games.

[TRANSPONDER]

I think our pal Data can be handled. They is trying to control the discussion, lead with the questions, and opt out when it doesn't go the way wanted. This can be refused, defused and dismissed. If someone quits the Field, it means they lose.

I have noticed and noted before that Bible apologetics is often tacitly insulting to Bible critics, because they seem to think we are so dumb, their infantile tricks are going to bamboozle us. It is a schooling to keep a smile on our online faces when we respond.

Well, I do know he read my last response (post 185), even though he said he was not going to. But yea, the silence is deafening. After reading many of his responses to me, and others (including you), I no longer take what he says very seriously, nor do I trust what he says too much either. Case/point, spending many exchanges trying to point out what a word can also mean, when he already knows what I mean when using a given word in the context of our conversation. He is deliberately trying to deflect and/or distract. He's playing games.

It requires an assessment of what they is trying to do and countering it. Running away hands us the win even if they tell themselves that "Nobody can beat me" as one poster long ago crowed. If they refuse to admit they are debunked, no matter what, they reckon they win. They don't to anyone with discrimination. The problem is and has ever been not making the better case, but getting people to hear it and whether they have the discrimination to do so.

I have Faith that most people are reasonable, and - unless they are already in a Faithbased mindset - they will see a better case. It is about getting the message out. Which is why I now post of two forums. I don't know how long i have left, so the end of the world may come soon. For me, anyway

So the plan is to Use these tricks and ploys as "Good, bad examples". The tricks played to try to win actually shows, they lost. Keep the rag, avoid flame wars, don't attract the ire of the Mods and don't let the Bible apologists manipulate and control the debate. And always remember (said he striking a pose on the pulpit and forgetting his flies are unzipped) they are handicapped by trying to make work what inherently does not.