Is morality objective or subjective?

[iambiguous]

If you're actually interested in the degree to which what you call "sects" of Christianity differ, and more importantly, where they do not, you should perhaps take the time to read C.S. Lewis's famous book Mere Christianity. By "mere," Lewis doesn't mean "only," but rather "stripped down the the basic areas of agreement; devoid of peripherals". His book is very, very readable, understandable, yet profound. And I think you'll find it answers your question rather well.

Okay, let's leave those YouTube videos aside for now and concentrate instead on Mere Christianity.

Note the particularly profound excerpts from this book such that any reasonable man or woman after reading them would be all but compelled to believe that the Christian God does in fact exist.

Note the excerpts that most convinced you.



For others, start here: https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/8 ... ity?page=3

Note the quotes that come closest to convincing you that the Christian God does exist.


Also...

"[Lewis] became a member of the Church of England – somewhat to the disappointment of Tolkien, who had hoped that he would join the Catholic Church." wiki

Just out of curiosity, how might that play out on Judgment Day? Which one of them was closest to being an actual True Christian? And how exactly does the Christian God Himself make that distinction at the Pearly Gates?

[iambiguous]

What will you accept as evidence of God?

Some evidence if you please or at least a high probability of there being such.

"Some"? "Some" of what? That just restates the initial problem...it doesn't suggest how to solve it.

What it looks like, then, is this:

Atheist: "I don't believe in God."

Theist: "Why don't you believe in God?"

Atheist: "Because there's no evidence for Him."

Theist: "What evidence did you look for?"

Atheist: "I don't look for anything in particular. I just expect it to appear."

Theist: "Expect what to appear?"

Atheist: "The evidence."

Theist: "Where would you find such evidence?"

Atheist: "I don't think I will."

Theist: "What would the evidence look like? In what form would it come?"

Atheist: "I don't know."

Theist: "What could God do to show Himself to you?"

Atheist: "He can't: He doesn't exist."

Theist: "So you say you've never seen God. You say you're not even looking for Him. You say there's no evidence, and that you don't know in what form evidence would even come. And you won't even set any conditions, or evidentiary standards, or reasonable test for His existence...and yet you find it surprising you've never found God?"

Atheist: "That's about right."

Have I missed anything?

Absolutely shameless!!

If I do say so myself.

[Atla]

Some evidence if you please or at least a high probability of there being such.

"Some"? "Some" of what? That just restates the initial problem...it doesn't suggest how to solve it.

What it looks like, then, is this:

Atheist: "I don't believe in God."

Theist: "Why don't you believe in God?"

Atheist: "Because there's no evidence for Him."

Theist: "What evidence did you look for?"

Atheist: "I don't look for anything in particular. I just expect it to appear."

Theist: "Expect what to appear?"

Atheist: "The evidence."

Theist: "Where would you find such evidence?"

Atheist: "I don't think I will."

Theist: "What would the evidence look like? In what form would it come?"

Atheist: "I don't know."

Theist: "What could God do to show Himself to you?"

Atheist: "He can't: He doesn't exist."

Theist: "So you say you've never seen God. You say you're not even looking for Him. You say there's no evidence, and that you don't know in what form evidence would even come. And you won't even set any conditions, or evidentiary standards, or reasonable test for His existence...and yet you find it surprising you've never found God?"

Atheist: "That's about right."

Have I missed anything?

Absolutely shameless!!

If I do say so myself.

It's the best they can do. If a convincing argument for God actually existed, we would know about it by now.

[Immanuel Can]

...you're a little frightened.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, lets play along.

Let's not.

[Atla]

...you're a little frightened.

very frightened?
It's not too late to come back to the fold, IC. We can show you the door but we can't make you go through it. Allah is waiting, your brothers and sisters are waiting. But only YOU can make that choice.

[Dubious]

What will you accept as evidence of God?

Some evidence if you please or at least a high probability of there being such.

"Some"? "Some" of what? That just restates the initial problem...it doesn't suggest how to solve it.

What it looks like, then, is this:

Atheist: "I don't believe in God."

Theist: "Why don't you believe in God?"

Atheist: "Because there's no evidence for Him."

Theist: "What evidence did you look for?"

Atheist: "I don't look for anything in particular. I just expect it to appear."

Theist: "Expect what to appear?"

Atheist: "The evidence."

Theist: "Where would you find such evidence?"

Atheist: "I don't think I will."

Theist: "What would the evidence look like? In what form would it come?"

Atheist: "I don't know."

Theist: "What could God do to show Himself to you?"

Atheist: "He can't: He doesn't exist."

Theist: "So you say you've never seen God. You say you're not even looking for Him. You say there's no evidence, and that you don't know in what form evidence would even come. And you won't even set any conditions, or evidentiary standards, or reasonable test for His existence...and yet you find it surprising you've never found God?"

Atheist: "That's about right."

Have I missed anything?

Definitely! To repeat some evidence or a probability of such as historically rendered that there actually is a thing we denote as god as determined by evidentiary standards - Jesus the Jew being long exempt of that category. What you provided are simply the usual puerile, silly arguments an uninspired theist would write to counter - in this case - a brain-dead atheist who keeps defaulting to not knowing anything while at the same time insisting that he knows. How convenient for you but know that these silly arguments are nothing more than tropes long worn out which underpins all that theism now amounts to...a perverse and deadly form of nihilism.

[Sculptor]

Hmm..

No content. Not bothering.

So what is it you actually believe as regards a "god"?

[Immanuel Can]

Have I missed anything?

Definitely!... in this case - a brain-dead atheist who keeps defaulting to not knowing anything while at the same time insisting that he knows.

Not quite the point, but okay....that would also be true, of course.

The important point is rather that the Atheist claims to have no evidence for God, while refusing to set any test for evidence.

Given that he refuses to specify how anything at all could ever convince him of the existence of God, how can it be a surprise to anybody that he continues to claim he's seen no such evidence?

It's exactly what one would expect: no test, no results.

[Immanuel Can]

So what is it you actually believe as regards a "god"?

I'm not sure what your question is supposed to be asking, or what particular point among many is what you're trying to address here. The most direct answer is, "quite a lot of things," but I'm pretty sure that's not what you want. Can you refine the question?

[Age]

"Some"? "Some" of what? That just restates the initial problem...it doesn't suggest how to solve it.

What it looks like, then, is this:

Atheist: "I don't believe in God."

Theist: "Why don't you believe in God?"

Atheist: "Because there's no evidence for Him."

Theist: "What evidence did you look for?"

Atheist: "I don't look for anything in particular. I just expect it to appear."

Theist: "Expect what to appear?"

Atheist: "The evidence."

Theist: "Where would you find such evidence?"

Atheist: "I don't think I will."

Theist: "What would the evidence look like? In what form would it come?"

Atheist: "I don't know."

Theist: "What could God do to show Himself to you?"

Atheist: "He can't: He doesn't exist."

Theist: "So you say you've never seen God. You say you're not even looking for Him. You say there's no evidence, and that you don't know in what form evidence would even come. And you won't even set any conditions, or evidentiary standards, or reasonable test for His existence...and yet you find it surprising you've never found God?"

Atheist: "That's about right."

Have I missed anything?

Absolutely shameless!!

If I do say so myself.

It's the best they can do. If a convincing argument for God actually existed, we would know about it by now.

And CONVERSELY if a convincing argument that God does NOT exist, then 'we' would know about it by 'now' also, right?

Or, do 'things' ONLY WORK ONE WAY? Exactly like HOW "Immanuel can" SHOWED 'us' a GREAT example OF above here.

[Age]

Have I missed anything?

Definitely!... in this case - a brain-dead atheist who keeps defaulting to not knowing anything while at the same time insisting that he knows.

Not quite the point, but okay....that would also be true, of course.

The important point is rather that the Atheist claims to have no evidence for God, while refusing to set any test for evidence.

And, CONVERSELY, "immanuel can", the "theist", CLAIMS to HAVE evidence for God, while refusing to set any test for evidence.

Given that he refuses to specify how anything at all could ever convince him of the existence of God, how can it be a surprise to anybody that he continues to claim he's seen no such evidence?

So, HOW could ANY 'thing' convince 'you', "immanuel can", that God does NOT exist?

If 'you' REFUSE to specify ANY 'thing', then would 'you' expect "others" to be surprised that 'you' continue to claim that 'you' have seen no such evidence?

It's exactly what one would expect: no test, no results.

And, CONVERSELY, ....

'you' BELIEVERS and DISBELIEVERS ARE FAR MORE ALIKE, than UNALIKE.

[Age]

So what is it you actually believe as regards a "god"?

I'm not sure what your question is supposed to be asking, or what particular point among many is what you're trying to address here. The most direct answer is, "quite a lot of things," but I'm pretty sure that's not what you want. Can you refine the question?

WHAT "immanuel can" BELIEVES IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE, in regards to God, IS that God IS A male gendered 'Thing'.

And, PLEASE CORRECT 'me' IF 'i' AM Wrong here "immanuel can".

[Dontaskme]

Yes, lets play along.

Let's not.

Ok, I'm happy with lets not play the game of making up lies and claiming they are not lies.

[Sculptor]

So what is it you actually believe as regards a "god"?

I'm not sure what your question is supposed to be asking, or what particular point among many is what you're trying to address here. The most direct answer is, "quite a lot of things," but I'm pretty sure that's not what you want. Can you refine the question?

Such obfuscation.
We ask for proof and you cannot even say of what.