I believe there is a spiritual, immaterial realm (e.g., God, angels, heaven/hell) - which we cannot experience with our senses. However, I believe God alone is prime reality; for he is existence, and is self-existent and self-sufficient. He is the necessary being and everything else is contingent and completely dependent on him for their existence; for he is the Creator of all things.

As for the definition concerning existence, I believe God does existence. For he is existence (he is prime reality - all other things are contingent and dependent upon him as the necessary being).

As for the synonyms such as ‘breathing’, I would deny this; for God created air, and created organisms to breathe it. He himself is not an organism and is self-sufficient.

Comparing him to other religions, no, not all religions can offer us a foundation for such things as the laws of logic (see the evidence I gave on the other side). Zeus is not omnipotent and not transcendent; there’s no logical reason to believe he could make the universe (he is more of a ‘superman’ rather than a Creator God [the Christian, Triune God).

Also, the historical evidence supports Christianity more than any other religion (e.g. most historians would agree there was a man named Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified on a Roman cross under the sentence of Pontius Pilate, and his disciples proclaimed he rose from the dead three days later [e.g., Josephus of the first century proclaimed the younger brother of the of our Lord Christ, James, was killed for his faith in his risen brother]). Of course, any of these points could be talked about more, but the debate topic was ‘Does God exist?’, and if the evidence points to a Creator (which I am convinced it does [see other side, as mentioned]).

Please see the evidence I gave on the other side (and perhaps offer your thoughts).

By ‘God’ I believe in a transcendent being who is the Creator of the universe, sent his Son to die on the cross and be resurrected so if we put our faith in him and his saving work we will be forgiven of our sins, rescued from God’s wrath, and enjoy God now and forever, bringing glory to him.

And I do believe there is evidence for a Creator God (perhaps you could give it thought, which I presented on the ‘pro-side’).

We need to follow the evidence where it leads; let us be careful to not let naturalistic processes become our ‘god of the gaps’. (E.g., I believe the evidence points toward God concerning the laws of logic, life and it’s origin and complexity, origin and uniformity of universe, etc.).

And I believe there is evidence specifically for Christianity (e.g., most historians agree [Christian and secular] that there was a man called ‘Jesus of Nazareth’, who was crucified by the sentence of Ponius Pilate of the Roman empire, buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimetha, and his disciples claimed he rose again very shortly afterwards [and went to their death proclaiming it; we have evidence for this too (e.g., Josephus of the first century claim Jesus’s younger brother James was killed for his faith in the risen Christ)]). (All these points of course could be talked about further, but I suppose that would be more of a debate concerning ‘Is Christianity true?’.)

Now, now, friend, there’s no reason to be a smart alleck.

Your dodging the question, or either you completely misread the question.

I asked how you this is evidence against God - I’m very certain I know what it is to exist.

With respect, this is nonsense. If it can’t survive in its own it is not alive. A baby who is out of the womb depends on its mother (e.g., milk). It is utterly dependent on her. And the baby staying alive is more precious and basic than not being pregnant. And if objective moral values exist, abortion is indeed absolutely wrong (for those in the womb are formed by the Creator and are made in the image of the Divine). And so, apart from God, morality is subjective. And so, who are you to claim that abortion is absolutely for human rights - as morality in your worldview is an opinion? Humans, apart from a Creator, are chemical reactions dancing to their DNA (as Dawkins puts it). And your argument is fallacious (‘if you are pro-life, you are not American and against humanity!’ - a slippery slope fallacy. Also no, I believe it is more important to keep a human alive in the womb than it is going to perhaps live a full life of 80 years, than it is to kill it so a woman can selfishly not want to raise it [or not want to be pregnant]).

It is not a strawman to claim that the ultimate reason people want abortions is because they just don’t want to raise a child. And so, they murder a child in the womb that could have had lived a life of 80 years: childhood, experience, education, marriage, raise children on their own, and have a relationship with their Creator. But they don’t. Why? Because the one responsible for their existence (secondarily at least; the primary reason they came into being is due to God) decided they didn’t want to raise a child, and did not even see the need of putting them for adoption. This is disgusting to the utmost. We have so much evidence that the baby in the womb is an actual human being (e.g. humans alone have their genetic code complete from the start). When one is conceived, a Being comes into existence that will exist for all eternity - an image-bearer of the Divine. We know what we are doing. Morality is not subjective. We have a Judge, one who made us, and we must uphold the sanctity of human life. Abortion is murder.

If you are arguing that I can’t use this to solve the ‘problem of evil’, I would disagree to the utmost. This is an argument of worlsviews. Of course it can’t be technically proven that there will be a final judgment (just as God’s existence cannot technically be proven nor disproven). But just because we die also doesn’t prove we cease to exist. We need to see if the Christian worldview has a response to this problem - why evil exists, if it is part of God’s perfect, sovereign will (which it is), and what will happen to it; which it does offer a response - perfect response.

Can you please clarify how this evidence against God?

Brayden

I would strong disagree; I would like you to see the evidence I provided on the ‘pro-side’. (And perhaps offer thoughts.)