Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

On Changing Minds


Legion

Recommended Posts

1. Provide objective evidence that God is unknowable.

 

2. I suspect you don't understand the nature evidence to be honest.

 

3. Can you explain the evidence you demand from a Christian?

 

1. Provide objective evidence that Ganesha is unknowable.

I don't claim it is unknowable. My claim is that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and His Christ are knowable, the one true God and the only God worthy of worship.

 

 

You are the one making the positive claim here. You therefore have the burden of proof. If I told you that there were three little green men and that you'd better believe it or else :brutal_01: I'm sure you would have the common sense to make me prove it. And I'm sure that you would not accept, "provide objective evidence that the three little green men are unknowable" as a legitimate demand.

Of course I make positive claims. I have said over and over I have. Just because I make a positive claim does not resolve anyone else of backing their positive claim.

Then explain to me what evidence is. Judging from your next demand you may have a misunderstanding of the nature of evidence. Please explain what objective evidence is.

 

 

2. I do understand the nature of evidence to be honest. And therefore to be honest I can't believe that your particular myth among many is about something real.

Then explain to me what evidence is. Judging from your next demand you may have a misunderstanding of the nature of evidence. Please explain what objective evidence is.

 

 

3. "Furthermore, I tell you with certainty that if two of you agree on earth about anything you request, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven," Let's see it happen.*

 

Mar 8:11-12

(11) And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, trying him.

(12) And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Pseudo Humble, your straw man is getting tattered. I made no positive claim that God does not exist. What is a “complete” agnostic? Whatever that is, what is your proof that God exists? Don’t quote the Bible at me. I don’t accept it as proof of any god. And I do not accept subjective feelings as proof.

 

By the way, none of you Christ bots ever explicitly define your concept of God. I suspect there are as many definitions as there are believers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Pseudo Humble, your straw man is getting tattered. I made no positive claim that God does not exist. What is a “complete” agnostic? Whatever that is, what is your proof that God exists? Don’t quote the Bible at me. I don’t accept it as proof of any god. And I do not accept subjective feelings as proof.

 

I did not say you made any claims. You stepped into a conversation I was having with someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any default position is one of equal probability, see The Principle of Insufficient Reason. This means that given no knowledge there is a 50/50 chance for the existence of God. If you claim the likelihood of God is less then %50 then you must have evidence to the contrary or at least some reasoning to conclude it so. These are positive claims on your part, and places a burden of evidence on you.

 

Holy shit -- there you go again; creating strawmen. Where in the hell have I argued that there is NO god? I have NOT. Pull your head out of your ass so you can breath a little oxygen into your brain so you can comprehend what is being said.

 

There very well could be some sort of living god. My argument lies with your DEFINITION of god; your construct of god; your god-concept; that you have pieced together with your own idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture and rationalized imaginings. Please for the love of Zeus, comprehend what I'm saying here and place it under your dome for safekeeping.

 

Your habitual misrepresentation of my arguments speaks volumes.

 

How do you know what I know about God is not true?

 

Considering your DEFINITION of god; your characterization of god, your construct of god, I can provide counter-arguments that will demonstrate serious flaws, inconsistencies, gaps of logic and contradictions in your particular god-concept (YOUR DEFINITION of god and his attributes) that you claim is a knowable, personal, christian, god. Are you beginning to understand?

 

I believe in God and not genies because the evidence for God is much greater then for genies.

 

Bawhahahahahahahahahaha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

 

According to your asinine logic there is a 50/50 chance invisible genies that grant wishes exist and are knowable -- dumb-shit.

 

Furthermore, the main argument was NOT if god or genies exist; the main argument was an argument that demonstrated that the person who makes the original outlandish claim is the one who has the burden of proof. That it is disingenuous to shift the burden of proof on the person who claims invisible genies that grant wishes are unknowable and/or don't exist.

 

Using your sophomoric arguing techniques: considering you do NOT believe in invisible wish-granting genies -- please provide objective evidence that invisible grant-wishing genies are unknowable and/or don't exist.

 

See how that works?

 

The burden of proof lies with the one who asserts grant-wishing genies exist and until one can prove grant-wishing genies have a reference in reality the default position will be genies do NOT exists and are unknowable -- which my dear deluded friend -- is the position you take with grant-wishing genies.

 

It's the same position I take with your particular god-concept.

 

Is it sinking in yet? Take your time; I know it's difficult for you, because we keep going over the same shit and you're still NOT getting it.

 

Can you see how fallacious it is to ask the one who is skeptical to provide evidence that grant-wishing genies are unknowable and/or don't exist?

 

Same goes for you perpetuating that I should provide evidence that god is unknowable or doesn't exists. Get it?

 

Describe the evidence you would find acceptable?

 

I already have. Do you suffer from arrested development?

 

It would seem you have a difficult time digesting information.

 

What don't you understand about this sentence below, I wrote in my previous post:

 

"Regardless, I want objective evidence for your christian/god claims that does NOT include bloated rationalizations, subjective reasoning and stunted imaginings."

 

You can start with the basis of christianity -- the resurrection.

 

Still waiting........................

 

--S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Pseudo Humble, your straw man is getting tattered. I made no positive claim that God does not exist. What is a “complete” agnostic? Whatever that is, what is your proof that God exists? Don’t quote the Bible at me. I don’t accept it as proof of any god. And I do not accept subjective feelings as proof.

 

By the way, none of you Christ bots ever explicitly define your concept of God. I suspect there are as many definitions as there are believers.

 

Hence the claim personal God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you phrase it as does God exist then the split is 50/50. If you phrase it as does the supernatural exist then the split is 50/50. If you phrase it as do gods exist then the split is 50/50. If you phrase it as do N gods exist then the split is 1/N per god including 1/N for no gods. So in your case the larger you make N (many many gods for example) the smaller the chance for no gods existing which makes the atheist position even more untenable.

 

Your god is a specific god, the Bible God. By your reasoning, if you claim more than 50% chance that God (Bible God) exists, then the burden of proof lies with you. The same 50/50 rule applies to all other specific gods. So which of thousands of gods is it? The principle in this case is irrelevant, mere static to impress the gullible.

 

The atheist position relevant to this rule is that there is no evidence that God (Bible God) exists. The burden of proof lies with the person positing the existence of God.

Yes, of course I make a positive claim that God exists. The problem is that those who make the positive claim that God does not exist pretend they have no burden as well. The principal applies in the case where someone makes the claim that non-belief is the default position. It is not. The default position is one of complete agnosticism.

 

The bolded italics doesn't refer to me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Pseudo Humble, your straw man is getting tattered. I made no positive claim that God does not exist. What is a “complete” agnostic? Whatever that is, what is your proof that God exists? Don’t quote the Bible at me. I don’t accept it as proof of any god. And I do not accept subjective feelings as proof.

 

I did not say you made any claims. You stepped into a conversation I was having with someone else.

 

And you stepped into a forum of, by, and for ex-christians. Who's intruding where?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Pseudo Humble, your straw man is getting tattered. I made no positive claim that God does not exist. What is a “complete” agnostic? Whatever that is, what is your proof that God exists? Don’t quote the Bible at me. I don’t accept it as proof of any god. And I do not accept subjective feelings as proof.

 

By the way, none of you Christ bots ever explicitly define your concept of God. I suspect there are as many definitions as there are believers.

 

Hence the claim personal God.

 

I see! Your God is yours and nobody else's. Sort of like those idols in the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, of course I make a positive claim that God exists. The problem is that those who make the positive claim that God does not exist pretend they have no burden as well.

 

You mean like you have the burden of proof to show that invisible grant-wishing genies do NOT exist?

 

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

Is it sinking in yet? You do NOT believe in grant-wishing genies because there is NO objective evidence for grant-wishing genies -- therefore your default position is grant-wishing genies don't exist.

 

Same argument goes for your god-concept.

 

You have to provide evidence for your outlandish claims before anyone will believe them.

 

With this being said, we can issue forth counter-arguments that shows the serious flaws, inconsistencies, gaps of logic, contradictions and rationalized imaginings in your particular DEFINITION of god that you gathered with your own idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture and deluded imagination.

 

Now move on and provide objective evidence for your christian/god claims.

 

--S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Pseudo Humble, your straw man is getting tattered. I made no positive claim that God does not exist. What is a “complete” agnostic? Whatever that is, what is your proof that God exists? Don’t quote the Bible at me. I don’t accept it as proof of any god. And I do not accept subjective feelings as proof.

 

By the way, none of you Christ bots ever explicitly define your concept of God. I suspect there are as many definitions as there are believers.

 

Hence the claim personal God.

 

I see! Your God is yours and nobody else's. Sort of like those idols in the Bible.

 

No, I think the offer is open to anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Pseudo Humble, your straw man is getting tattered. I made no positive claim that God does not exist. What is a “complete” agnostic? Whatever that is, what is your proof that God exists? Don’t quote the Bible at me. I don’t accept it as proof of any god. And I do not accept subjective feelings as proof.

 

By the way, none of you Christ bots ever explicitly define your concept of God. I suspect there are as many definitions as there are believers.

 

Hence the claim personal God.

 

I see! Your God is yours and nobody else's. Sort of like those idols in the Bible.

 

No, I think the offer is open to anyone.

 

What offer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Pseudo Humble, your straw man is getting tattered. I made no positive claim that God does not exist. What is a “complete” agnostic? Whatever that is, what is your proof that God exists? Don’t quote the Bible at me. I don’t accept it as proof of any god. And I do not accept subjective feelings as proof.

 

By the way, none of you Christ bots ever explicitly define your concept of God. I suspect there are as many definitions as there are believers.

 

Hence the claim personal God.

 

I see! Your God is yours and nobody else's. Sort of like those idols in the Bible.

 

Ah, the perfect plan; where one can appeal to a personal god -- one they delusionally constructed -- and use their personal imaginary god as a supposed authority to push ANY agenda under the sun.

 

We're on to you end -- you're a deluded, whack-job lunatic, grasping for straws.

 

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. -- Susan B. Anthony

 

--S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Pseudo Humble, your straw man is getting tattered. I made no positive claim that God does not exist. What is a “complete” agnostic? Whatever that is, what is your proof that God exists? Don’t quote the Bible at me. I don’t accept it as proof of any god. And I do not accept subjective feelings as proof.

 

By the way, none of you Christ bots ever explicitly define your concept of God. I suspect there are as many definitions as there are believers.

 

Hence the claim personal God.

Kind of like a household diety, right?

 

You know, whenever I see those household shrines to various religious entities, I get the creeps. They're always serial killers, or axe murderers, or just mentally ill people that use human organs in rituals. Yuck!

 

Actually, they look a lot like churches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Pseudo Humble, your straw man is getting tattered. I made no positive claim that God does not exist. What is a “complete” agnostic? Whatever that is, what is your proof that God exists? Don’t quote the Bible at me. I don’t accept it as proof of any god. And I do not accept subjective feelings as proof.

 

By the way, none of you Christ bots ever explicitly define your concept of God. I suspect there are as many definitions as there are believers.

 

Hence the claim personal God.

 

I see! Your God is yours and nobody else's. Sort of like those idols in the Bible.

 

No, I think the offer is open to anyone.

 

What offer?

Believe and go to paradise or suffer eternal torment in hell. Because He loves you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw Sconnor, I am still pondering your question to me. Its been a long day..

 

OK -- at least you have the cojones to address my arguments, unlike the cowering, excuse-spewing, end.

 

--S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Pseudo Humble, your straw man is getting tattered. I made no positive claim that God does not exist. What is a “complete” agnostic? Whatever that is, what is your proof that God exists? Don’t quote the Bible at me. I don’t accept it as proof of any god. And I do not accept subjective feelings as proof.

 

By the way, none of you Christ bots ever explicitly define your concept of God. I suspect there are as many definitions as there are believers.

 

Hence the claim personal God.

 

I see! Your God is yours and nobody else's. Sort of like those idols in the Bible.

 

No, I think the offer is open to anyone.

 

What offer?

Believe and go to paradise or suffer eternal torment in hell. Because He loves you.

 

The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be believed only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith.' -- Robert G. Ingersoll.

 

Notice how insanity and ignorance wholeheartedly, applies to end and OC.

 

--S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A sincere thanks to SConner and Shyone for putting into words feelings that I don't have the oratory skills to express.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A sincere thanks to SConner and Shyone for putting into words feelings that I don't have the oratory skills to express.

You do fine. My brain is beginning to suffer from knotted neurons though. Or maybe it's the constant banging against the wall...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question that occurred to me....was your faith during you initial belief period genuine like a child, or was it skeptical. I don't mean to be an ass here, just was thinking that being the part vs "playing one on TV" crossed my mind. I know there are people here that certainly weren't the latter....but if you were, wouldn't God know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question that occurred to me....was your faith during you initial belief period genuine like a child, or was it skeptical. I don't mean to be an ass here, just was thinking that being the part vs "playing one on TV" crossed my mind. I know there are people here that certainly weren't the latter....but if you were, wouldn't God know?

I was a child. I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence the claim personal God.

I have a serious problem with the claim that God would have to be personal.

 

When we say that someone is a person, it includes that the person is limited in time and space. It also means that the being we call a person has limited mental faculties and has a body. I don't see how this idea of an omnipresent, omniscient, non-temporal, non-spatial creature is a person as well. It means that the definition of "person" must change to include "God-creatures." But does it? I'd say it's a fallacy of equivocation to claim that the pre-Universe xyz-thingy is a "person."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question that occurred to me....was your faith during you initial belief period genuine like a child, or was it skeptical. I don't mean to be an ass here, just was thinking that being the part vs "playing one on TV" crossed my mind. I know there are people here that certainly weren't the latter....but if you were, wouldn't God know?

I was a child. I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

 

I don't see faith on the list...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence the claim personal God.

I have a serious problem with the claim that God would have to be personal.

 

When we say that someone is a person, it includes that the person is limited in time and space. It also means that the being we call a person has limited mental faculties and has a body. I don't see how this idea of an omnipresent, omniscient, non-temporal, non-spatial creature is a person as well. It means that the definition of "person" must change to include "God-creatures." But does it? I'd say it's a fallacy of equivocation to claim that the pre-Universe xyz-thingy is a "person."

 

Also Visit:UnabridgedVisualBritannica Online EncyclopediaESL:Learner's for Kids:Word CentralDictionary Thesaurus Spanish/English Medical

Search "personal" in:

Thesaurus

Spanish/English

Medical Dictionary

Open Dictionary

Browse words next to:

personal

Browse the Dictionary:

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ#personal

10 entries found.

 

1personal (adjective)

2personal (noun)

personal computer (noun)

personal digital assistant (noun)

personal effects (noun plural)

personal equation (noun)

personal foul (noun)

personal pronoun (noun)

personal property (noun)

personal tax (noun)Ads by Google

Achieve Meaningful Use

Confidently demonstrate “meaningful use” with Zynx Health solutions.

www.ZynxHealth.com/MeaningfulUse

 

Top Words of the '00s

 

Odd Words for Underwear

 

Surprising Food Words

 

See All Top Ten Lists

Main Entry: 1per·son·al

Pronunciation: \ˈpərs-nəl, ˈpər-sə-nəl\

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French personel, from Late Latin personalis, from Latin persona

Date: 14th century

1 : of, relating to, or affecting a particular person : private, individual <personal ambition> <personal financial gain>

2 a : done in person without the intervention of another; also : proceeding from a single person b : carried on between individuals directly <a personal interview>

3 : relating to the person or body

4 : relating to an individual or an individual's character, conduct, motives, or private affairs often in an offensive manner <a personal insult>

5 a : being rational and self-conscious <personal, responsive government is still possible — John Fischer> b : having the qualities of a person rather than a thing or abstraction <a personal devil>

6 : of, relating to, or constituting personal property <a personal estate>

7 : denoting grammatical person

8 : intended for private use or use by one person <a personal stereo

 

How do we know that our definition(s) is adequate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 b : having the qualities of a person rather than a thing or abstraction <a personal devil>

I'm thinking this is how it's meant.

 

Do you have a personal devil? :HaHa:

 

Why would they choose devil instead of god here just kinda causes me to giggle a little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 : intended for private use or use by one person <a personal stereo

 

 

8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.