Pick your favorite argument for Christianity and let's discuss.

Gary Mac

Well-known member
I'm not sure what you think you mean by imaginary. Love doesn't exist outside of a conscious mind -as far as we can tell, and that is our limitation here. It doesn't have mass, isn't measurable, isn't objective, it isn't energy or a force, and it can't be dropped or picked up if dropped. The point is that the nature of love, its substance, is conceptual. But that doesn't belittle it.
Now you are getting the jest of God.
Would you say also that Love is your God?
Love is the disposition of, the mindset of my God. A Spirit of -- He is that Spirit. It isnt something we are born with, it isnt someting we learn. It isnt natural it is supernatural and will cause man to do extrodinary things that isnt ordinary. It is someting we recieve.
Right, like the Invisible Boy in the movie Mystery Men; he can only turn invisible if no one is looking. God isn't real for anyone who doesn't already believe. That's entirely consistent with my position. Your God isn't real for me because I don't believe in it. The existential difference between your God and my car is that while I also don't believe in my car, it nevertheless exists and other people can detect it without beliefs.
What if He can manifest Himself in you but you only reject the notion that He can? You can reject a gift, that doesnt men it isnt a gift, it only means you reject it.
I am unclear about your meaning.
Point being exactly.
Sorry, I misread your question. Here is the question you asked:
"If you do not believe there is no God then why are you putting up such argument that there is no God? You are fickle."
I am not arguing that there is no God, I am arguing that God exists in the imagination.
And I'm not fickle.
I see. If Love is only an imagination for you then I can see why you bleieve as you do. Beliefs has not substance at all does it?
I assume nothing -or at least nothing of consequence. I might assume my dog is sleeping while I'm at work -what else is he going to do, right?
You may assume your dog is sleeping but in reality he is tearing up your couch. Which would hols substance, reality. Assuming he is slaaping or going home and replacing the couch?
But I assume nothing about God.
You assumed your dog was sleeping just as you assume God is an imagination.
But you have to believe in order to believe it is manifest in you.
Actually He was manifest in me then I believed. You have it backward. WHat is the use in believing a fable?
Sure, blame the victim. Typical response. Your God can't be bothered right? I've seen this response before, its a popular one but think about what it means, it means that all the work must be done by the human and the only ones who are going to do the work are those who already believe Once again we're back to the Invisible Boy analogy.
Invisable boy analogy? Spirit is invisable, Love is invisable, all that you can see physically of it is where it has been and the results of from the beholder of. You cant see what is man no more than I can, but I can decifer by identity with what man says and does of himself whethe it is good or bad. It is by identification not speculation from beliefs. Beliefs hold no merit at all.
Blaiming the victim? Seems to me the vistim is the blame.
Patently wrong. I shouldn't need to repeat myself, it is neither my belief nor my opinion that there is no God. God exists in the imagination.
Can you explain why this is difficult to comprehend? It might save us time in the future.
Is it not that you believe that God exists in the imagination? Again beliefs has not substance for truths at all. Love is not an imagination at all, it is the substance of the actions of the beholder of.
Interesting. At this point in time, what are the major disagreements between you and God?
There is none, We are one.
By the way, that's not an independently verifiable claim. I can demonstrate the existence of my automobile even to those completely ignorant and lacking belief that I even have a car. Surely you understand the difference.
I can speculate about it.
I can demnonstrate the existance of a God who is love, even to those completely ignorant and lacking belief that I even can.
Surely you can understand this difference?
okay...

That don't have any such belief.
And yes, I'm sure you'll agree with me, beliefs are without substance. People can believe whatever they want without standards or limits. A coworker recently told me that "they" are wanting to lower the age of consent to 4. This is of course absurd and without evidence but my coworker genuinely believes it. My five year old believes in Santa Claus, I know an adult who believes Bigfoot is real. People believe all soerts of things and none of their beliefs change or affect reality.
And the same is true for your beliefs. I'm sure they are meaningful to you but is there a reason they should be meaningful to me?
No if Love is not for you and meaningless for you then I understand. Only because you do not believe that Love is a Spirit and isnt for you, does not mean it doesnt exist for others, it only means that you do not believe it exists. For me I worship Love, I strive for it, I pray to it, I incorperate it in my being, It isnt about what I believe about it, it is who I Am. And it is very clear that you cannot comprehend that and do not believe that, beliefs hold no substance at all.

There is noting at all that I can say or do about it, all I can do is give testimoney for what Love has done in my life. For I once didnt believe in God either but by the manifestaion of -- He is a real eye opener. You just dont believe that is all.
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
God transcends the universe or material existence so it is impossible to prove whether or not he exists apart from (outside) the universe since we cannot experience that.

But for me personally, the universe itself is evidence that there must be a God who transcends it.

I think there are only two options...
1) something (some matter) has always existed (which has become our universe).
2) someone (a being) has always existed (who created our universe).

In other words...
1) either matter has always existed
2) or a being that can create matter has always existed

Which do you believe?

I believe #2 and I define God as "the only one who transcends all creations".

Here is an overview of what I believe...

For this creation, YHWH God (the only one who transcends all creations) determined to create a universe with a kingdom of redeemed humans (living souls) for his glory where he would reign as a living soul himself. The Scriptures describe how God would accomplish his plan. In an instant, transcendent God (called God the Father) created the supernatural and space-time of this universe and also became immanent as a spirit (called the Spirit of God) and in the form of a living soul (called the Word of God) with a glorious body. God the Father then created all things within the universe by the power of the Spirit of God commanded by the Word of God. But whereas God created a human spirit and soul for each of us, God himself as the Word became the human spirit and soul of Jesus. At his conception, Jesus' glorious body was changed to a mortal body to be made like us so he could make reconciliation for our sins. At his resurrection, Jesus' mortal body was changed back to a glorious body and he will also give each of his elect a glorious body when he returns to reign in his kingdom forever.

@bigthinker I thought you wanted to discuss but you didn't answer my question. :)

Which do you believe?
1) matter has always existed
2) a being that can create matter has always existed
3) other, please explain

I believe #2 and I define God as "the only one who transcends all creations".
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member

bigthinker

Well-known member
@bigthinker I thought you wanted to discuss but you didn't answer my question. :)

Which do you believe?
1) matter has always existed
2) a being that can create matter has always existed
3) other, please explain

I believe #2 and I define God as "the only one who transcends all creations".
I don't believe any of the options; referring to #3, I don't have an "other" belief.
 
Top