The Christian God is personal and not merely philosophical

Con claims that i did not affirm the case, however he ignores the evidence i presented, labeling it " a sermon." He falsely accuses me of circular reasoning, giving no evidence for his claims. "Biblical justification alone is just pure ignoratio elenchi." Again, no explanation for why i committed this fallacy. " If the cause-effect is known, then if there were an effect, there must be a cause; if there were a known effect that causes something, then of course, a known cause would be attributed to it. " My opponent has failed to demonstrate that the cause of the universe was God. It could be something completely unknown of. It could be Buddha, a cosmic force, unicorns, a being i call "being x." I see no reason for why it has to be a person rather than a force if i used the ontological argument. "The idea of one God was, apart from being a Jewish idea, was a Greek one too. Socrates, for example, was the "Jesus of Greece" He had to drink poision to justify his beliefs in one God, yet he was possibly the most rational man alive at his time. If the opposition is satisfied with "God exists, shut up atheists" then the opposition is clearly has a lot of work to do. i.e he has to justify his beliefs USING philosophical evidences and sciences" Con presented no sources to back up his claims. Socrates was killed for "introducing new gods", corrupting the youth, etc. (1). He was not killed because he believed in one God. My opening position was "I argue that you cannot empirically or logically prove that God exists, but that it has to come from divine revelation or a desire to form a relationship." Therefore the burden of proof is not on me to prove him. Con still presents no evidence for why Abraham the Patriarch was a philosopher. He cites later Jewish philosophers living centuries long after the ancient Hebrews. The justification by faith goes further than just a philosophical concept. "accordingly to the law of non-contradiction, two propositions cannot be totally contradicting and yet be held true. Nevertheless, the translation assumes that some people believe that philosophy justifies God, whilst some people believe that philosophy doesn't justify God." I never claimed to hold both propositions at the same time. I claimed that it cannot be philosophically or scientifically proven that a person's specific God exists let alone one God. "How is it possible that many people have belief in God?" Believing in God doesn't imply that we all can objectively see him. It's quite possible for him to only reveal himself to each person individually hence a personal experience. I will address the mistaken notion that the position of faith is "inconsistent with the known reality of the world." The Hebrew word translated as believe is Aman and it's root means "to be secure" (2). Note the following Scriptures in which believing is used not simply a mere intellectual understanding and acceptance of beliefs, but a personal commitment to God (3): Gen. 15:6 "And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." In earlier verses, Abraham held fast to the promises of God. Ex. 4:5 "That they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee." We believe not in blind faith, but because of the evidence. Con misapplies the term agnostic to me. Agnostic (4): 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Since my opponent claims i hold to fideism then i am not an agnostic, but i am assured of God's existence on the basis of revelation. "Then if some study is caused is self-caused, then God is philosophical in the sene that it was self caused by philosophy. The creator of western philosophy, Thales of Miletus, philosophized that God created "water" which was then the basis of the world. Thales thus opened a field of study that was based on God, and philosophy and God are so intercorrelated that whole philosophies are based upon the premise that God exists. Thomism is based upon such premises; Cartesianism is also based upon such premises. To say that philosophy cannot prove God is like saying that a mother cannot prove that her son belongs to her. Philosophy caused God and the study of it. " I'm not sure what con is attempting to prove here or how this is relevant to Christianity. Nevertheless, in the New Testament, the Word of God is not only a creative force that brought the universe into existence, but the very personal communication between God and man "In Hebrew thought, the dabar was dynamic and filled with a power that was transmitted to those who received it. The term was often used to designate God's communication to his people, as at the beginning of many of the writings of the prophets: "The word of the Lord came." The whole of the Law, or all of Scripture, could then be referred to as God's Word" (Holman Bible Dictionary- LOGOS). Conclusion: It is simply ingenious for God to ensure man's faithfulness to him not so much by the use of physical evidence, but rather by building a relationship involving all the aspects of the human being (intellect, will, emotions, character, etc.) It is not enough in Christianity to simply treat God as a philosophical concept inactive in the world, but to worship the living God as we build a relationship with him as he is actively involved in the world. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org... 3. https://www.blueletterbible.org... 4. http://dictionary.reference.com...