A question for atheists . . .

[JimL]

Why are there more counterfites claiming to be Christianity than any other faith system? If you were to explain the gospel, what could you explain?
The Apostle Paul claims the reason people are lost is the lack of the gospel. It is being hidden. see reference 2 Corinthians 4:3-4.
So I am asking you, if you were to explain the gospel, what could you explain?


How does anyone know anything? How do you know anything? How does one know someone else? Again, the Apostle Paul wrote about everyone having knowledge of God. see reference Romans 1:18-22. Ironically an atheist unwittingly wrote a book explaining one aspect of this.
How do you know any of that? Concepts and ideas do
exist

The question is how do you know, you are the one who claims to know God, so explain how it is that you know God rather than asking questions of me. If your answer is the Bible, then you don't know, you believe.

[Doug Shaver]

Why are there more counterfites claiming to be Christianity than any other faith system?

I don't know that there are. Where are the data on which you base that claim?

[37818]

You're the one who claimed to know that god exists, that you're god exists. . . .

I am not just one. I am one of many. Are you just one agnostic? A mere denial of a view does not refute it. Merely dismissing arguments does not refute them. Do I need to repeat the arguments I have given? I guess I do.

Argument 1. There is an uncaused existence. I personally identify God to be that uncaused existence.

Argument 2. The universe is evidence. All evidence is finite and temporal. All finite and temporal things are caused. An infinite regress of cause and effect has no first cause. Such a regess requires cause for not having a first cause. It still needs an uncaused cause. All causes are finite and temporal. But the cause of an infinite regress would also be infinite having no beginning, being uncaused. being uncaused requires an uncaused existence. An uncaused cause is both eternal and temporal, both infinite and finite.

Argument 3. The Hebrews worshiped their God whom they called the [self] Existent one. Which identifies the God I believe in with the God of the Hebrews.

Argument 4. God has made Himself knowable. One such claim is found in John 7:17. Who has refuted it?

Belief in biblical proclamations is not knowledge of the truth of those proclamations, so your knowledge of gods existence doesn't come from the bible. So I guess the question is, what actual knowledge do you have, and how did you come by it?

Again, see the above.

And no one is refusing to understand it, what we are asking you, is to tell us what it is. What is it that you say god provides to the converted in the way of evidence, or knowledge, of his existence?

Again, see the above.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I am not just one. I am one of many.

The fact that many people make similar claims does not imply that the claim is therefore correct.

Argument 1. There is an uncaused existence. I personally identify God to be that uncaused existence.

This is not an argument. This is a bald assertion.

Argument 2. The universe is evidence. All evidence is finite and temporal. All finite and temporal things are caused. An infinite regress of cause and effect has no first cause. Such a regess requires cause for not having a first cause. It still needs an uncaused cause. All causes are finite and temporal. But the cause of an infinite regress would also be infinite having no beginning, being uncaused. being uncaused requires an uncaused existence. An uncaused cause is both eternal and temporal, both infinite and finite.

This is an argument, but it's an invalid one built upon non sequitur and concluding incoherently.

Argument 3. The Hebrews worshiped their God whom they called the [self] Existent one. Which identifies the God I believe in with the God of the Hebrews.

This is not an argument. This is a bald assertion.

Argument 4. God has made Himself knowable. One such claim is found in John 7:17. Who has refuted it?

This is not an argument. This is a bald assertion.

[Roy]

I am not just one. I am one of many. Are you just one agnostic? A mere denial of a view does not refute it. Merely dismissing arguments does not refute them. Do I need to repeat the arguments I have given? I guess I do.

No, you don't. You need to address the criticisms of those arguments.

For example:

Argument 4. God has made Himself knowable. One such claim is found in John 7:17. Who has refuted it?

Argument 5: Winnie-the-Pooh has made Himself knowable. One such claim is found in The House at Pooh Corner. Who has refuted it?

[37818]

Evidence.

Not assertions.
Not bait-and-switch.
Not logical fallacies.

Evidence.

If you disallow assertions. No evidence of any kind can be affirmed. < and that is also an assertion.

The thing you keep claiming to have, but then back down whenever you are asked to provide it.Those things are in evidence, but they are not evidence for the Christian god.I'm not refusing to understand it, you are refusing to provide anything that I could understand.

Are you unable to understand the following claim ascribed to Jesus: ". . . If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, . . ?" See John 7:17. Who has ever refuted it? Here is an opportunity.

You said you had evidence available to anyone. But when pushed, you admit your 'evidence' is only available to those who already believe.

No, not only to those who believe, but also to those willing to believe. Now the question becomes to believe specifically what? God sent His Son to die as the substitute for everyone so they can obtain complete forgiveness (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Isaiah 53:6,10-12). John 3:16-21. And also the claim Christ's bodily resurrection that this was done (Romans 1:4; Romans 4:25). Note what is from the OT.

Reality is what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it. . . .

Agreed.

If the evidence for your god is only available if you already believe in it, then your god is not real.

No. The evidence for God and personally knowing God are two distinct things. And both evidences are avialable to everyone.

[Aractus]

Do you actually believe intelligence comes from non-intelligence?

We don't know how or why intelligence happened. Best guess is that it was an ordinary process of evolution.

[JimL]

I am not just one. I am one of many. Are you just one agnostic? A mere denial of a view does not refute it. Merely dismissing arguments does not refute them. Do I need to repeat the arguments I have given? I guess I do.

Argument 1. There is an uncaused existence. I personally identify God to be that uncaused existence.

Argument 2. The universe is evidence. All evidence is finite and temporal. All finite and temporal things are caused. An infinite regress of cause and effect has no first cause. Such a regess requires cause for not having a first cause. It still needs an uncaused cause. All causes are finite and temporal. But the cause of an infinite regress would also be infinite having no beginning, being uncaused. being uncaused requires an uncaused existence. An uncaused cause is both eternal and temporal, both infinite and finite.

Argument 3. The Hebrews worshiped their God whom they called the [self] Existent one. Which identifies the God I believe in with the God of the Hebrews.

Argument 4. God has made Himself knowable. One such claim is found in John 7:17. Who has refuted it?


Again, see the above.
Again, see the above.

No, your assertion was that you know God, not that you have evidence or arguments that you believe is proof of a Gods existence, but that you have personal knowledge of God, that it is the Christian god. So my question to you was how do you know that this particular god of yours exists. If your argument is simply that something is eternal and some other things are temporal then we can debate that concept as well, but again the question is how do you know the eternal is distinct in substance from the temporal and that that distinct substance is known by you on a personal level.

[Doug Shaver]

Yes, that is your claim. Why should I believe it?

How do you recognize what you accept as to be true?

I recognize it as true when I become aware of sufficient evidence to believe it.

[Tassman]

We don't know how or why intelligence happened. Best guess is that it was an ordinary process of evolution.

...yes, and that it had survival advantage.

[37818]

That the Bible presumes, doesn't make the presumption true, . . .

A mere presumption of truth does not make anything true.

. . . and beyond that, believing it to be true is not knowing it to be true. . . .

The act of believing does not make a thing true.

. . . Your claim was that you KNOW, and the question is how do you KNOW, not why do you believe.

Unless what is true is believed, it is not yet one's knowlede. The question becomes how does one know anything is true?

As an agnostic you have a real problem recognizing what is true. Only what is recognized as being true should be believed. Only when something true is believed can it be said to be one's knowledge.

[shunyadragon]

A mere presumption of truth does not make anything true.
The act of believing does not make a thing true.

That is distinct problem with the assertions of your argument.

Unless what is true is believed, it is not yet one's knowledge. The question becomes how does one know anything is true?

Good question! You have yet to support your claim of what you know beyond your claim that what you know is true.

As an agnostic you have a real problem recognizing what is true. Only what is recognized as being true should be believed. Only when something true is believed can it be said to be one's knowledge.

This is a problem, because too many people claim to believe what is true with too many conflicting different 'truths.'

[Tassman]

This is a problem, because too many people claim to believe what is true with too many conflicting different 'truths.'

Yes, and there can be no way to resolve conflicts about conflicting different 'truths' when members of competing religious traditions hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive.

[Trout]

We don't know how or why intelligence happened. Best guess is that it was an ordinary process of evolution.

Science in the gaps ... that makes us all feel better.

[JimL]

A mere presumption of truth does not make anything true.
The act of believing does not make a thing true.

Unless what is true is believed, it is not yet one's knowlede. The question becomes how does one know anything is true?

As an agnostic you have a real problem recognizing what is true. Only what is recognized as being true should be believed. Only when something true is believed can it be said to be one's knowledge.

You're avoiding the question regarding your assertion of knowing God, knowing the christian god. The question is how do you know this God, not why do you believe a god exists?