You should google some topics in this forum. You'd be surprised how many times this forum actually top 10.
I base it on evidence and personal experience, I wasn't always a strong believer in God you know. At this point I'm beyond any reasonable doubt that He is there, but I know personal testimonies don't hold much weight in these sort of conversations.
you don't understand the concept. "gap" in god of the gaps does not refer to something just because it is/was not directly observed or observable. it refers to something that has no current natural explanation.
No I understand the concept. That is why I am saying it discredits historians. You must take what you think happens; from the evidence that is before you. That same principle is used in Science. You have evidence and make a logical explanation for the in between. That is the same process using "creation" too. How can you think that because we don't know; we must rule out God? It can be just as much the factor.
well yeah, nor should they on either side, but that's not the point. you're saying you are compelled by reasons to believe in god. if you're being honest with yourself, you don't have a choice in the matter. whether in reality your reasons are valid or not, at least you're taking a sensible position. on the other hand the notion that god is intentionally hiding because he requires faith, or because it would get in the way of free will if he didn't, doesn't even make logical sense. it comes accross as just an excuse for belief, not a reason.
Well I believe God has revealed Himself many times throughout history. Heck, He became one of His creations in Jesus Christ to save us from our sins. It seems like you're implying that the only way God can exist is if He's visibly present at all times to His creation. If that were the case, there would be no free will and everyone would share the exact same beliefs and we'd essentially be robots.
god of the gaps doesn't rule out god. it is not in itself a statement advocating naturalism. intrinsically it's neutral. again, what you're disputing is something else. scientists have no choice but to assume gaps will eventually be filled by god-free explanations, because historically that is the only thing that has ever happened, and there is no evidence that would lead them to expect otherwise. if evidence for intelligent direction in nature were ever found scientists would be all over it. there is no chance of it being surpressed by naturalistic expectations or missed because of naturalistic assumptions. whoever found it would win the nobel prize.
Okay well that's good then. Because God hasn't been ruled out; which is why I suppose to take an "Agnostic Approach". But then that would completely knock this thread title out of the park. If God isn't "ruled out"; then there isn't 100% certainty that God doesn't exist.
how does "revealing himself many times throughout history" give us free will to believe in him or not that we wouldn't have if he were visibly present? either way belief is or isn't compelled by what you think of the evidence. there is no free will choice involved.
Knock it out of the park? A thread titled evidence god exists is knocked out of the park by, well, he hasn't been ruled out yet. That's, again, not evidence.
So my first evidence submitted is: Most atheists will not rule out God existing because they don't have evidence to rule out God.
Why not? If an atheist will not rule out God; and most of these atheists are some of the greatest minds in science; then wouldn't we assume that they can't logically rule out God because they actually don't know?
Yeah just because the thread title changed doesn't mean my evidence isn't supported. That's why I said that it's redundant.
I'm saying God has done enough throughout the course of history for us to have every reason to believe in Him, and that has nothing to do with scientific arguments. Besides God showing up, I'm curious what you would define as indisputable, undeniable evidence that He exists? I thought the complex language and code observed in DNA would be enough, but people have found a way to "rationalize" that too. What would it take for you to believe in God without a doubt that would be based on a discovery?
Lol you would think so; but we already covered this Denny. You gave me the link and I already explained it on the other thread. Sorry if you actually thought changing the title actually changes the outcome. If the most important minds in science can't find evidence to disprove God; and if there are still creationist in te fields of science; it should explain that there hasn't been enough evidence to support that god doesn't exist.
