The debate "There is definitely a God/Higher power. if you question this idea hit dissagree" was started by
May 8, 2015, 1:00 am.
30 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 21 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
toughgamerjerry posted 1 argument, debunked26 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 1 argument, Sosocratese posted 2 arguments, Seraphim posted 1 argument, I_Voyager posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
jonatron5, libertarian_rebel, Bodaciouslady16, AnkGanu, Zach_Hill, DavidStuff777, toughgamerjerry, egzon135, debunked26, CountryBoy1776, ufufugh, Pamelamccubbins, evamara, rishab and 16 visitors agree.
PsychDave, Sosocratese, Seraphim, I_Voyager, Violet, DarkAngelAnarchist, sighnomore99, Benzdick, shinywhale, skyfrancois_97, irishstraw, kyopsis23, soullesschicken, Robert16 and 7 visitors disagree.
True. Fact. God of the Holy Bible
I think you're missing the point of the debate. The title says there definitely is a God. This means that reasons why you believe in a God are largely irrelevant unless they are accepted as definitive reasons. Meaning the reason is beyond reproach, beyond criticism. The issue with this topic is semantics. It's not a matter of whether or not you have reason to believe in God, but rather whether or not those reasons are do strong and so far beyond ridicule as to be considered definitive.
I'm not gonna read the full book you recommended. I do understand that he tries to make the argument that Christianity is correct due to moral law. Correct me if I'm wrong but the book is basically 3 parts. Part 1 is moral law, basically an assertion that there is moral objectivism. Part 2 is that moral law is best explained by invoking a higher power. And part 3 is that this higher power is likely the Christian God.
This is a very old argument, and definitely doesn't provide a definitive reason to accept God as real. You'd have to eliminate moral nihilism and subjective morality as an alternative to objective morality first. Please let me know if you'd like to have that debate to further your position. However, the evidence you have provided thus far is by no means definitive in nature. Therefore, you can't say that there definitely is a God. You can say I have reason to believe, but you can't say anything about the subject with certainty.
To all you people who say that we cannot prove that there is not a God then I say this. Read the book "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis. I say read the book because it would take me about 3 hours to answer all your arguments using his book. It is not that long it won't take you that long to read it and trust me, after you read that book, you will understand why Christians believe what they believe.
Theological arguments are not convincing to me, nor do they often adequately rebuttal well enough arguments to their various claims. One cannot disprove any claim which is said to be true a priori the existence of reality. But since reality is the only thing which is continuously proving itself to me I choose to invest myself in the pretheological apparent reality and not with the assertions of theology.
I believe in the human need for insurance; that humans invest time and money on religion so that if God or heaven (and hell) were real, they would have saved themselves from "damnation." It's smart and self-serving. But until there is physical evidence to prove that God, along with his heaven (and hell), is a reality, there is no God for the moment. I will have saved myself time and money and used it to invest on solving reality's problems.
Prove that there definitely is a God. If you can't prove it definitively, then you must vote disagree.
I can't say definitively that there is not, but I also don't know that there is.