@hulkbusterx9:
“You told me to go find the evidence. In a debate, you don't tell people to find evidence, you bring it. All you're demonstrating by telling me to go find it is that you don't have any evidence.”
You're asking for evidence of something considered a cultural phenomenon all over the world; it's not like asking for evidence that a toad is in my garage; you're disputing something that most human beings are accepting as real and existing. So, you're trying to prove some new and revolutionary, when you're saying that you need evidence of something that the vast majority of the world accepts as true and real.
Basically, you're doing something akin to saying that you have a device that can allow people to travel back in time. Hence, you have the extraordinary challenge of convincing people that there is no God or that God is hard to at least speculate as being real, when most people know and have experienced the contrary. Hence, evidence for God should be easily relocatable for most people actually trying to find the information. Basically, you're asking me to find a McDonald's branch where you live or in New York, because you can't find it, so you claim. Surely, you can take the steps to find something so common and readily available, as information there's on God's behalf of all sorts.
Thus, hence, you're not really being genuine in your desire for evidence, as the information that's got most people convinced is all over the place, where not even people with the highest level of intention to know all of the available information couldn't have perform an exhaustive search that you imply that you've done with your statement. As God is such a phenomenon, your question denotes that you've done an exhaustive search, where you apparently can't even start talking about the evidence that Christian scholars find most convincing.
So, again, you actually have to make an effort to find information that can be obtained in the same vein as something like locating a restaurant chain in your area like a Burger King. Nobody could seriously think that you knew so little about Burger King that you wouldn't know where to start looking for one. I'm not trying to be off putting, it's just more that I don't like having someone insulting my intelligence, as I'd be in a catch 22 in either direction that I go with this: you want me to start bringing you information so that you can seem informed on the topic, by discussing what I know on the topic, as opposed to us discussing what you know about the topic; it has to go that way, as you're telling me something akin to your not thinking that a Burger King can be found anywhere in the western world (e.g. I'm being generous, as you're actually saying it can't be in the whole world). So, I have to gauge how much you actually know, not how much I know; you're claiming that it's hard to locate when it's something that shouldn't be.
“The only thing I implied is that you cannot prove he exists. I'm not saying he doesn't exist, i'm saying you can't prove he exists.”
Like, here, what are you talking about? You asked a totally separate topic related to God from whether or not He exists. You only think this because your knowledge on the topic is so limited; if not, demonstrate for me how exhaustive your knowledge is on God; so far, it couldn't be very much, if you can't discern Him from any other person claiming that they have gods around them, which was the topic that I provided that response for. My point: you have to be willing to discuss the topic rather that argue about a topic that you know very little about.
“An athiest would be denying the existence of any and every divine being. I haven't denied the existence of any or every divine being.”
So, here, seemingly, you're implying that there is more evidence somewhere elsewhere of something else comparable to claiming that God is real, where reality clearly shows us more informed individuals, otherwise; hence, another indication of how little you actually know about evidence for God, where you want to substitute what I know for what you know, when you're saying that you can't locate; so, actually look, as it's like trying to figure out how to locate a Burger King somewhere, if it can be found.
“I googled what the christian community is known for, and nothing came up about them having undeniable proof of the existence of God.”
Well, this is without credence, as you obviously didn't do anything remotely close to an exhaustive search for God's existence; and, it depends on what you mean by “undeniable proof”; that's arbitrary and open to interpretation, depending on who it is you're communicating with. The scholarly Christian community can only produce objective evidence that's acceptable in the largest set of inquiring minds; once that's achieved, that means that you just have to reconcile what you're looking for with the material that's most convincing to just about everyone else. Basically, you're left with trying to convince us that what we think that we know actually isn't the true state of affairs.
“The first video is just a short film about time travel, and the second one is just sculptures of a developing fetus. They don't provide any evidence whatsoever.”
Along with the sculptures, they quite clearly described it such that you could be convinced that God was real, provided you were actually trying to know.
In the clip, the part that I found most fascinating was at about the 8 minute mark; there, they showed how the early embryo develops into a fetus, referencing back to a Bible passage describing how that embryo formed into a fetus about 2700 years ago, long before that computer graphic output. For most who were actually listening, that should have been very intriguing food for thought; clearly, something that was mythological from so long ago wouldn't even be on the same planet of actually describing something so accurately so many years later, once technology was able to catch up. And, before your comment, I hadn't viewed the clip, but, I viewed the title and the source, which made me confident that they'd be discussing something that I intended, where this was even better than I was contemplating; that's very close to direct evidence level, as what human from 2700 years ago could have guessed in pursuit of developing a mythological story that clearly become popular so many years after it's production? And, no, this isn't a once or twice fluke, this type of demonstration is consistent in many different cases, within the scholarly Christian community; flukes don't take place on a regular; I'm pointing out from an objective perspective; someone can craft an argument against it, but, this is still going to remain objective material that most reasonable, honest people would see as intriguing.
Log in to comment