Being angry points to God's existence

Angry points to objective morality, God andsalvation. 

  

The moment one becameangry, got upset and wanted admission, confession, repentance, justice aboutwhat they perceived to be unjust, is the moment they inadvertently oradvertently testified to the objective moral law, which made moral relativismbased upon conventions false.  Conventions or agreed upon rules would notsay anything to a true right and wrong, thus a violation of them could notconstitute objective wrong, even if the person or people that broke themoriginally agreed to them, let alone if they didn’t.  Even if theanger/punishment/opposition to the moral transgression rooted not to thetransgression itself, but their violation of the cooperative element of theculture; in that case that agreement to cooperation becomes the objectivevalue, even if the actual specific transgression was relative. At the moment wedeclare anything including the agreement or cooperative element wrong gives usgrounds to be angry, get upset, do justice towards it is the moment we said themoral criteria or value, including cooperation is transcendent of theindividuals who violated it, and at that point it became objective andtranscendent (beyond the individuals), moral relativism would be refuted. Hence, there is no grounds to be angry, upset on moral grounds with any truejustification as if someone did something truly wrong.   Also, the factthat we individually or collectively got upset and tried to avenge, correct,reprove someone for the wrongdoing in our hearts or in practice , suggests thatthere truly is  ultimate meaning and purpose for life, which would not betrue if we came about by happenstance without design; hence, inadvertentlypointing to the reality a transcendent being or God to exist on both measures,objective morals/values and ultimate meaning/purpose, For at the moment itbecame important enough for us to care as if it is truly important, orsignificant, which it could not  if our existence is all by chance comingabout for no real purposeful reason and descending to ultimate nothingness orunconscious existence , is the moment we defied atheistic implications to thecontrary. So, we testify to God’s existence all the time whether we haveunderstood that or not.  The reason it must be God rather than anythingelse is because morality is about people, for people, and immorality is againstpeople, thus the source of morality must be personal.  Additionally, formorality to be realized, revealed and avenged testifies to a conscious being,thus personal one, hence there can’t be a transcendent impersonal reality tofill this role logically, including entity, force, nature, the universe willnot suffice, which then points to a personal God behind morality. 

That being the case, wealso realize we also break God’s rules as a society, culture andindividuals when we violate dictions of moral conscience, which would then be transgressionof God’s laws, and in the bible that would be called sin (1 John 3:4), givingjustification for Romans 3:23 “for all have sinned and come short of the gloryof God.”  Seeing we intuitively recognize and often demand justice forbroken laws of society in one way or another, we also testify to thetranscendence of justice, thus this too points to God’s nature, even asscripture too testifies of God’s justice (Psa 92:2). If God is just then theremust be adjudication for God’s broken laws.  Seeing we all die, and Godcould have created us not to, it is a great hypothesis that death is a resultof our sin, and the bible testifies to this directly, but we would haveprecedence for it just by the fact a powerful good God has allowed us tophysically die, and the best why is that we did something wrong, since he asGod couldn’t have done something wrong,  So “for the wages of sin isdeath”  But we all die, so there must be something more,  whichsuggests there will be adjudication after this life, a day of judgment, thepenalty would be up to God, but it should give us cause for concern. The biblesays that penalty is eternal damnation (Mark 3:29), which we should takeseriously (Hebrews 9:27).  

 As such, salvationwould be necessary.  But given we break the moral law at times, it can’tbe through the law it comes forth (Galatians 2:20).  Hence, no moralendeavors, including starting repentance attempts from moral wrong to right,,given we still fail in the present, will in the future, and have in the past,all of which would merit justice, can save us from God’s justice, nor woulduntrue religious beliefs deviating from the true God’s true good nature andlaw, which necessitates a proper solution that can truly resolve the direcontradiction between God's Justice towards our moral transgressions; hence,the gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true solution that can remedy thisconflict, thus is truly good news that it can.  Jesus died for your sinsand rose so you could be saved by adjudicating your transgressions satisfyingGod’s justice by substitutionary atonement via the cross of Calvary for veryreal moral transmissions your conscience has testified to on a regular basis,making the need and solution an incontrovertible fact beyond reasonable doubt. Repentance then becomes a turning from sin, your own way, to Christ and thecross rather than a would-be failing moral attempt of keeping God's moralLaw or superficial religion with its insufficient band aids. Faith in Christbecomes the means to salvation, trusting the measures of God rather thanman’s solution, surrendering your heart to the Lordship of Christ fullytrusting his death, burial and resurrection alone without any reliance onworks, the law, self. efforts whatsoever.  That saving faith becomes thepower to a transformed life, including the power to live godly in a way you couldn’tby self-efforts, especially as we often remind ourselves of the good news ofthe power of the gospel in Christs love in going through hell, paying your debtfor true moral crimes your conscience and the word testify you have trulycommitted which Gods justice would need come against you for if it weren't forJesus’s life and atoning grace for you personally.  “But God commendeth his lovetoward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us;” …That ifthou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thineheart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Romans 5:8;10:9).

  The biblical God not only is the foundation for the moral law, he has provided the solution in a manner that no other religion can apply, one great evidence, the biblical God is truly the adequate standard for all objective morality, thus the solution should be applied, not debated against, since it is all not academic, given our temptations toward bad things and the consequences that can and often follow from them. So when you are tempted to transgress God’s lawperhaps to some earthly pleasure that your body wants at that time and you feelweakened by your sinful nature and the knowledge that you are not good enoughand that you are not that person you are supposed to be and you do not keepGod's law so in yourself God is not pleased, at that moment think of the crossof Jesus in which he loves you and gave himself for you, dying for the very sinyou are contemplating now that would condemn you for what it is withouthim.  This reckoning of this gospel will empower you to overcome thetemptation of the moment and provide a basis for future godly victorious livingto overcome carnal appetites and lusts and wiles of the devil and worldlylures and trials. This victory is what is needed for real lasting joy, which iswhat your heart seeks to begin with. “For whatsoever is born of God overcometh theworld: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith” (1John 5:4).

", hence there can’t be a transcendent impersonal reality tofill this role logically, including entity, force, nature, the universe willnot suffice, which then points to a personal God behind morality. "

This is kind of like"God of the gaps". You're going down this road of elimination. It can't be this so it has to be that without empirical evidence.

The truth is you don't know what else there is if anything at all that exists outside of the elements you listed. 

It's what you believe, fine. Not what you know.

Much of everything else you had to say was circular providing biblical scriptures.

So only place I need to counter is your foundation. It's in your basis that you build your position. With a non corroborated starting point, the bricks just come a tumbling down.

Now the core premise of anger pointing to God's existence which is the topic, you argue our system of morality. This is a system regarded just between persons, recognized, realized only by persons.

Thus giving the suggestion of a personal entity I guess that gave it to us .

"So, we testify to God’s existence all the time whether we haveunderstood that or not.  The reason it must be God rather than anythingelse is because morality is about people, for people, and immorality is againstpeople, thus the source of morality must be personal.  Additionally, formorality to be realized, revealed and avenged testifies to a conscious being,thus personal one, hence there can’t be a transcendent impersonal reality tofill this role logically, including entity, force, nature, the universe willnot suffice, which then points to a personal God behind morality."

How do you know morality is not something invented socially based on emotional, sympathetic, empathetic triggers wired from instincts, biological hormonal/chemical substances in our organic matter of our organisms?

Let's say if there are multiverses, infinite earths, matter never created nor destroyed or even big bang alone by itself in singularity, are you saying it is impossible for the concept of personal relationships to exist?

Can't it not be the case that anything is personal just based on the fact that we're persons relating, attached or involved with one another which we call personal?

This is how something is made personal. We use the term based on the nature of a situation as opposed to formal, impersonal or just business.

It's apparent that your points are assertions from what you believe but can't disprove the possibilities I broached. 

The definition you're using for personal and or origin of its essence thereof is in question. If personal is something God started then you've yet to prove that along with God's existence altogether.

//This is kind of like"God of the gaps". ...going down ... road of elimination. It can't be this so it has to be that without empirical evidence.//  I explained a person’s response of anger, a desire for justice automatically takes morality from relative to objective, but what would be the source for objective moral values devoid of God?  There aren’t any satisfactory answers aside from the biblical God, which makes such the most reasonable explanation. As stated, “The reason it must be God rather than anything else is because morality is about people, for people, and immorality is against people, thus the source of morality must be personal.” This is in accordance with the principle of causality.  The source of morality can’t be a force, energy, nature, evolution since they are impersonal, non-conscious, thus neither know, nor care about morality.  God fits the bill as conscious eternal, all moral, non-contingent being to be the only potential candidate. Not an argument from gaps, but an inference to the best explanation as we know all the following: morality deals with conscious persons, causality principle is fundamental to existence and science, randomness is inept to explain objective morality, there needs to be a noncontingent start to the universe to avoid an infinite regress problem.  We don’t need to observe God as you claim for him to be the explanation. By insisting, all secular origin stories would be special pleading since nobody has observed via empiricism the origins of the universe, its contents, biological information, life, new biological types without begging the question.  We only need to know God by the empirical effects within his observable universe, including intelligent, moral creatures as we, not by observing God himself.  
//It's what you believe, fine. Not what you know// Self-refuting, since your statement itself would be what you believe rather than what you know, making the statement meaningless. However, things can be known by effects, thus we can reason to the best explanation. To date, God has not been replaced by any adequate secular explanations, thus is still the best explanation to objective morality, justice, truth that even unbelievers embark when they get angry, calling for justice.
//Much of everything else you had to say was circular providing biblical scriptures// Difference being the biblical worldview there is an adequate standard, timeless, universal, unchanging, non-contingent standard of truth,  which is necessary for objective truth and knowledge, which doesn’t exist on secular and pseudo-religious worldviews,, hence as such, revelation through scripture is proper,, as the true God and revelation would be non-contingent (not dependent on anyone or anything outside itself for its existence and qualities), avoiding an infinite regress contradiction as you need to eventually root back to a terminate point that is non-contingent, which would be the adequate standard. At that point the adequate standard as non-contingent wouldn’t need anything or one to verify it or its truths; they exist non-contingently, by themselves, there is a circle at that point, but a necessary not viscous one, so it wouldn’t be begging the question.  It only begs the question if a contingent reality points to itself without other reasons because it is dependent.
//I need to counter is your foundation. It's in your basis that you build your position. With a non-corroborated starting point, the bricks just come a tumbling down.// Agreed, which is precisely why secular ideologies fall apart as they don’t have an adequate standard or foundation for laws of logic, math, nature, objective morality, ultimate meaning/purpose.  However, the biblical worldview has a proper adequate standard as God that has the 10 essential qualities both doctrinally and practically to be an adequate standard (eternal, immutable, non-contingent, personal, self-revealing, all moral, etc.), while secularism (atheism, materialism, naturalism, etc.), have none of those qualities, neither does poly, pantheism, deism. Thus, is the proper foundation for truth and knowledge, so the building is built upon a proper foundation.  Christ, the Rock foundation. “...for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ” //How do you know morality is not something invented socially based on emotional, sympathetic, empathetic triggers wired from instincts, biological hormonal/chemical substances in our organic matter of our organisms?// Then it wouldn’t be objective, but relative to preferences and conditions, but everytime atheists argue against Christians for imposing their morality and religion on them they suggest that it isn’t relative at all, but transcendent to those who are embarking in such actions deemed immoral, which is the core of my argument. So relative morality is simply a decoy to avoid God’s existence, but nobody truly believes it as evidenced by their reactions to perceived moral relevance.  People are relativists until objective wrongness is done to them. Nobody says when they are offended, it's only instincts, hormones, organic substances as you suggest; for if they did, they couldn’t’ rationally hold anyone accountable, but we all do insist on objective justice as if there was objective morality transcendent of matter and chemicals, showing that your response just proves my point, such propositions are all secularism can deliver but fails miserably.  If it is a byproduct of evolution of chemicals, then that’s all we are, accidental materialistic moist robots, chemicals, then there is no basis for ultimate meaning/purpose, thus none for true moral right and wrong. Chemicals don’t give us right and wrong, and that’s the core of morality; otherwise morality is meaningless.
//Let's say if there are multiverses, infinite earths, matter never created nor destroyed or even big bang alone by itself in singularity, are you saying it is impossible for the concept of personal relationships to exist?//  There can’t be infinite universes philosophically or scientifically,  like saying there is a square circle, an irrelevant thesis.  Infinite universes would create an infinite regress contradiction, you need a terminate point for everything, whether reasons, contingent materials.  Additionally, on secularism, energy/matter are the sum of existence, but energy in any potential physical universe is always in a state of flux, but change implies time, implying a beginning, disqualifying eternal universe(s).  Entropy displays as energy/matter change, the amount of useful energy decreases, so entropy will run it down to a cold dead universe, proving any (multi)universe couldn’t be eternal, meaning you don’t have an infinite amount of time for randomness to do its thing, producing persons, objective morality.  Further, by suggesting such an absurdity that random energy has produced persons, subscribing to naturalism, you would have to demonstrate that can/has happened empirically, which nobody can.  But even with infinite time, causality principle disallows what your imaginative conjecture calls for since random energy has no plausible possibility of ever being the cause for the effect of persons, conscious existence, immaterial realities, objective morality, laws/uniformity. The cause is not sufficient to the effect, and the effect is too unlike the cause to rationally suggest such ideas, but are only suggested to avoid God, which becomes inadvertent admission that God is the best explanation as he is personal, conscious, immaterial, etc. so you can get persons, consciousness, morality from a personal, conscious, moral being. 
/can't...anything personal just based on the fact that we're persons relating/ Self refuting perception reality theme here since the claim itself is reality perception from a person, claiming something about persons.

"but what would be the source for objective moral values devoid of God?  There aren’t any satisfactory answers aside from the biblical God, which makes such the most reasonable explanation."

This is according to you. So because you don't know, you don't know, you don't know, you posit God. Where there's a gap in knowledge and information, you plug in God. 

Where does morality come from ? I already asked about you taking the burden to disprove it's not just a system within human people.

So because it don't make sense to you, it's not reasonable, it's not satisfactory, it's not sufficient, all subjective, you don't like it, don't accept it , refuse it. But you don't believe it and then just believes something else. No evidence, just an opinion.

See the problem I constantly see, whether someone is a believer or not, they do not have empirical scientific analysis to show of a non scientific, immaterial, non physical entity. That's what evidence is. It's a language pertinent to this world and reality. 

I understand from the scriptures it's revelation given explaining spiritual realities.

"God fits the bill as conscious eternal, all moral, non-contingent being to be the only potential candidate. "

All you've established is that God fits as a candidate. Not proving the existence of God.

"Not an argument from gaps, but an inference to the best explanation "

Best explanation according to you. Millions of others can make cases that appear best to them. So because it's actually "the best explanation" and not evidence, you plug in the gap with God.

"there needs to be a noncontingent start to the universe to avoid an infinite regress problem.  "

I don't fully get what you mean by this but for now I advise caution on speaking on what happened before anything existed. You weren't there . You don't know.

"We don’t need to observe God as you claim for him to be the explanation. "

Right, you don't have to observe to make an explanation. You do need it for evidence. Evidence and just having an explanation are separable. I can have an explanation for how cell phones work. Not the same as proving how they work.

"We only need to know God by the empirical effects within his observable universe, including intelligent, moral creatures as we, not by observing God himself.  "

This is just circular and presupposing based on what you believe. You haven't disproven that morality is not a system that just comes from social parameters but you plug in that it must be from God. No proof I can see or observe. You just look at mankind, therefore God.

I hear thunder, therefore celestial bowling balls are hitting pins . Come on, this won't do. Even the scripture communicates that it doesn't work this way. It's not how it works, otherwise religions wouldn't exist.

"since your statement itself would be what you believe rather than what you know, making the statement meaningless."

Hold on, what statement? See if you're going to try and refute someone on what they said, at least back it up with a quote.

"However, things can be known by effects, thus we can reason to the best explanation. To date, God has not been replaced by any adequate secular explanations, thus is still the best explanation"

Yes you don't really have the proof. What you have is an explanation, a theorized one at that. The topic statement should of been"The best explanation for God". You know you don't have any proof. See everybody old enough knows and can observe the sun. We don't have a religion or beliefs in the sun's existence. There's evidence for it seeing it every daylight hour.

All you have is "explanation ". Ok well you have not been able to PROVE the existence of God. It doesn't even work like that according to the scriptures.

From the last quote, you have several lines of technical jargon I can't make heads or tails of about a standard and all that .

What is the empirical proof that God exists?

Trick question by the way but I like to see what you have to say.

"Then it wouldn’t be objective, but relative to preferences and conditions"

In other words , you don't know if morality is not just something invented socially based on emotional, sympathetic, empathetic triggers wired from instincts, biological hormonal/chemical substances in D.N.A. 

Well it's not one of those known classic philosophical questions for no reason.

"Chemicals don’t give us right and wrong, and that’s the core of morality; otherwise morality is meaningless."

How do you know? Are you a chemist?

"There can’t be infinite universes philosophically or scientifically, like saying there is a square circle, an irrelevant thesis. Infinite universes would create an infinite regress contradiction, you need a terminate point for everything, whether reasons, contingent materials. 

All I really have to keep asking is how do you know?

I'm sure you're not a witness to all this. 

"Self refuting perception reality theme here since the claim itself is reality perception from a person, claiming something about persons."

Your perception has poor understanding of what I said.

This time next round, give us the empirical evidence of a spirit. According to the scriptures, God is a spirit. Tell us where we can go to see and observe a spirit.

Now you're in a stance where it's supposed to prove the existence of God. Our emotions, our morals as far as we can empirically see is within us from us.

 

//This is according to you. So because you don't know,..you posit God. Where there's a gap in knowledge and information, you plug in God//  Answered already; there is no adequate standard (timeless, universal, unchanging standard) on any other worldview, but the biblical worldview provides for an adequate standard, for example the Biblical God is eternal, infinite, non contingent, infallible, creator, all moral, personal all powerful, etc. (Colossians 1:16-17; 2 Timothy 3:16; Ps 12:6-7; John 8:58; etc)
Hence, not a God of  gaps at all,  but a proper and only explanation for an adequate standard regarding objective morality, which no other worldview, including secularism can provide.
/I already asked about you taking the burden to disprove it's not just a system within human people/ Answered already. Humans are finite, fallible, contingent, temporary, often immoral and amoral, thus can’t be a foundation for ultimate objective morality.  People who try to make it such are refuted by counterfactuals such as asking whose finetuned version of morality, Hitler’s or Mother Theresa’s, our’s or China’s, today’s  or yester people? The varying answers would mean morality is relative, but if relative there is no true moral right and wrong, thus no reason for true oughts or ought nots without begging the question.  However, morality  transcends Hitler, and yesteryear’s people’s abuses, evidenced by people’s anger, desire for justice at such immoralities, making it objective, showing there needs to be a transcendent adequate standard which only the biblical wv gives us.
/// No evidence, just an opinion///  The same could be said of your response, opinion with no evidence.  Also, your definition of evidence is skewed.  On a secular wv, there isn’t even a foundation for objective truth, ultimate meaning or what evidence is or leads there in the first place since no adequate standard to define or make relevant such terms. However, on the biblical wv there is an adequate standard showing ultimate meaning and objective truth rooted in an ultimately eternal meaningful God whose existence is the sum/basis of reality  giving us foundation for all that we call evidence. But as such, evidence can be ascertained by physical means since God created a physical world, hence science, but also given immaterial realities exist in this world, such as concepts, such as truth, logic, reasoning, thoughts, which can't be proven by physical means, as abstract, immaterial, serving as a basis for mental frameworks in which we examine physical evidence using science, history, etc, but the only wv that gives us the immaterial and material properly is one with an adequate standard and an initial immaterial source, which of course the biblical God is.  “God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth” (John 4:24), thus God’s existence, an immaterial being is ascertained by reasoning, logic, philosophy, ontological, cosmological, epistemological, telelogical, experiential, moral, mathematical, means, which counts as evidence, it's just of a different sort than direct sensory experience.
///they do not have empirical scientific analysis to show of a non scientific, immaterial, non physical entity. That's what evidence is/// Answered above.  However, based on your criteria of scientism, your statement itself is self-refuting, since you don’t have empirical scientific analysis to verify your own statement being true, making your point moot.  However, granting immaterial evidence for immaterial realities, which must exist if there is to be objective truth in the first place, we would have evidence for an immaterial being and immaterial conceptions including the one for objective morality.
//All you've established is that God fits as a candidate. Not proving the existence of God// Great that you grant God fits the candidate, but you would have to show a wv that adequately can sufficiently do so if you wish to overrule the biblical God hypothesis as the basis for objective morality and truth, your suggested one of people doesn’t fit the bill since you only get relatives which then doesn’t provide any basis for true oughts and ought nots that people really should be subject to, as I explained earlier.  However, as  stated God’s existence is ascertained by immaterial, abstract philosophical measures since God is an immaterial spiritual being. The biblical God gives us a comprehensive view that provides the only proper mental framework of the sum of our reality explaining aesthetics, finetuning, biological information, immaterial realities, laws of logic, math, nature, morality, rationality, conscious existence, free will and the moral corruption and evils via it
// "the best explanation" and not evidence, you plug in the gap with God//  Even Darwin believed inference to the best explanation was a way to come to truth.  Science is the search for causes, and inferences are a part of logic.  Hypothesizing God as an explanation is not out of sorts unless we have with undo measure assumed a false unproveable philosophy called naturalism, but doing so would beg the question.
//I don't fully get what you mean by this but for now I advise caution on speaking on what happened before anything existed. You weren't there .//  Yet, you believe apes turned into men and life evolved from chemicals and you weren’t there either, hence excluding your own beliefs by your own criteria. However, not being there is not the primary basis of coming to truth, since nothing of history and experience could be known then.  As far as a non contingent reality, that must be the start of everything, this is adduced by logic, via the infinite regress contradiction, since a true number of infinite events could never be traversed or you would never get to the present, thus there is a terminate point that itself had to be uncaused and is not dependent on anything outside of itself for its existence and qualities. 
//Right, you don't have to observe to make an explanation.//  The issue is not just any explanation will do, but one that is the most reasonable, that is provides the most comprehensive explanation for reality, including objective morals, and as already deliberated an adequate standard in the biblical God fits the bill as you admitted.
//This is just circular and presupposing based on what you believe// 
All secular views have to circle viscously at some point at their terminate point since their suggested ending points/ultimate standards are contingent so to circle at that point would require an explanation outside of it, but the biblical God is non contingent so circling at him is not begging the question.  As far as knowing God by empirical effects rather than direct observation, this is proper, even as we do this all the time via archeology demonstrating teleological inventions of intelligent agents, thus inference via teleology to a grand designer is not improper.
//You haven't disproven that morality… comes from social parameters// it wouldn’t be objective but relative, so no true foundation for a true right/wrong, misses the mark of what morality truly is.
//proof, empirical proof..spirit?// Answered. category mistake, God, spirit is immaterial, verified by immaterial means
//you don't know if morality..chemical substances//  Answered. no true moral oughts that have to be obeyed for evolved chemical moist robots
/ how do you know?// Answered. Foundation of knowledge only in adequate standard. Can't know anything if just chemistry, since reality would be perception.
//How do you know? Are you a chemist?// Stupid response. Objective morality can’t be chemistry
//Your perception has poor understanding../ Reality is perception on secularism so there is no correct morality or truth, no poor understanding of anything, ironically only on biblical wv could that potentially be true

"Answered already; there is no adequate standard (timeless, universal, unchanging standard) on any other worldview, but the biblical worldview provides for an adequate standard, for example the Biblical God is eternal, infinite, non contingent, infallible, creator, all moral, personal all powerful, etc."

According to you yes, non evidence. Going to the bible is circular.

"Answered already. Humans are finite, fallible, contingent, temporary, often immoral and amoral, thus can’t be a foundation for ultimate objective morality. "

According to you again. Ok disprove my ancestors  invented morality through social interaction and it has been passed down for me to inherit.

Walking away from this challenge, you forfeit.

"The same could be said of your response, opinion with no evidence. Also, your definition of evidence is skewed.  "

You're not even challenging what I'm saying. Every counter I give you, you just regurgitate and throw in the bible. That's not proving anything. It may feel like proof to you. Big difference in that.

"But as such, evidence can be ascertained by physical means since God created a physical world, hence science, but also given immaterial realities exist in this world, such as concepts, such as truth, logic, reasoning, thoughts, which can't be proven by physical means"

Evidence can ONLY be received by physical means in a physical world through our senses that detect it. How do you think we know what is evident? We have to detect it .

You're wrong. The only way truth can be proven is by the reality we detect it in which is physical to our touch, sight, hearing, taste. The truth of the sun being hot, we detect it. The truth of the water being wet, we detect it. The truth of an object being present, we detect it. The truth of God existing, where do we detect that? This is what I've been challenging you to prove round after round. You point to what a person does with emotions such as anger , whether they do something right or wrong and call that the proof of God. No that's the proof or evidence we detect of seeing or experiencing a person getting angry, emotional, doing right or wrong, that's it.

Face the fact that you're only demonstrating your perception telling us that's proof of God. I can say it's proof of extra terrestrial signaling. Each of us can have our very own explanations.

"since you don’t have empirical scientific analysis to verify your own statement being true, making your point moot. "

Are you saying evidence has nothing to do with empirical science?

Otherwise I don't know what statement you're talking about. Being vague again not specifically quoting it.

"we would have evidence for an immaterial being and immaterial conceptions including the one for objective morality."

Then demonstrate it for God.

"Great that you grant God fits the candidate, but you would have to show a wv that adequately can sufficiently do so if you wish to overrule the biblical God hypothesis as the basis for objective morality"

I don't have to do anything further. You just admitted right here in your statement that it's a hypothesis. It's either proven or a theory.

"The biblical God gives us a comprehensive view that provides the only proper mental framework of the sum of our reality explaining aesthetics"

The bible gives the formula to explain spiritual realities which I touched on before and will demonstrate at the conclusion of this and you can go back to review , reevaluate and study.

"Hypothesizing God as an explanation is not out of sorts unless we have with undo measure assumed a false unproveable philosophy called naturalism, but doing so would beg the question."

I don't know if it's registering with you and the audience but when you use terms such as "hypothesize" or "hypothesis" , you're confirming you don't have evidence. You have an idea according to what you think and perhaps use a lot of technical jargon in an "explanation"as if it's synonymous with fact.

I can explain something. Doesn't necessarily mean it's fact. We have to get our categories straight.

"Yet, you believe apes turned into men and life evolved from chemicals and you weren’t there either, hence excluding your own beliefs by your own criteria. "

This is total misrepresentation. I never made a statement such as this. This is the last round but if you read over this, acknowledge in the comments that you made a false statement of me off an assumption more or less based on my opposing position. I NEVER NEVER TOLD YOU WHAT I BELIEVED IN . I can believe the same things you do . I'm just proving to you that your arguments are weak. Doesn't mean I believe different. 

"However, not being there is not the primary basis of coming to truth, since nothing of history and experience could be known then."

It is the primary basis if you know what "knowing " means. Everything in history is what is TOLD to you. You didn't experience it. You only KNOW what you were told , not because it happened. You were told, reported to in books . If we could, some of us would go back in time to actually know directly. For right now we have to settle for artifacts and fossils. We don't know what it was like of the fossils being alive and mobile. We weren't there to know that .

You thought you had a handle on what you thought you knew. But this whole topic just exposes what you thought was simply your thoughts on what is possible to fill in the gap of what you don't know. 

You only know empirically from your experience at the earliest event of consciousness on forward. Before then, before people could write, record anything in books , it's a huge gap in knowledge. 

"As far as a non contingent reality, that must be the start of everything, this is adduced by logic, via the infinite regress contradiction, since a true number of infinite events could never be traversed or you would never get to the present, thus there is a terminate point that itself had to be uncaused and is not dependent on anything outside of itself for its existence and qualities. "

I gather this is all your logical reasoning. Ok, before logic existed, what was there? See if you try to rationalize, you'd be in error. There was no standard that existed to use rules of rationalization.

Just be honest and get to the point of "you don't know". Stop trying to have an answer for it all because you're just plugging in gaps.

"The issue is not just any explanation will do, but one that is the most reasonable, that is provides the most comprehensive explanation for reality, including objective morals, and as already deliberated an adequate standard in the biblical God fits the bill as you admitted."

None of this makes any difference when you haven't proved anything. I think you're struggling with explanations of theories meaning the same as actual evidence. Several suspects can fit the bill of a murder. Until something is proven, all you have is persons of interests or murder suspects. 

Your task was to prove something, not introduce a hypothetical idea, possibility, reasonable probability.

"All secular views have to circle viscously at some point "

Based on this response from what I said about you making circular points, you're just conceding to it.

Your remaining points like much of what else you had to say I couldn't understand.I suggest dropping a lot of the technical language and speak more plainly with analogies.

Also try to quote from a person in more complete sentences or in sufficient context. Some of the quotes , I couldn't even get the point I was making.

In the book of 1 Corinthians 2, we learn about how God is known or learned about to the individual. It didn't say to rationalize, theorize or prove like in a scientific experiment because these are things of the carnal, temporal, natural, physical world.

1 Corinthians 2

"10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. "

Instead you or somebody tries to prove God to somebody but according to the scriptures God gives revelation.

"11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."

From the Spirit to reveal to you.

"12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.[c]"

The spirit of the world is evidence and logic. God is proven to you or anyone by the Spirit . Can't be done on this website.

"14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit."

An Atheist for example rejects this revelation having the spirit of the world looking for scientific formulas and methods.

I'm done.