Originally posted by @karoly-aczel And you know this how?
Simple logic.
Does your existence depend on me believing you exist? Is your character and personality based on what I think they should be?
As for the existence of God, I’ve already said it’s not proven, nor did God ever intend it to be provable. But enough evidence exists for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection for one to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened and that He was who He said He was - the Son of the only living God.
Originally posted by @romans1009 <<Again, this is heavily biased thinking. If I can take a step back and objectively imagine the possibility that God does exist, why can't you do the same for His non-existence? (Seeing as He is unproven).>>
Because of the evidence, tiger. Why do you continue to ignore that part of the equation?
You have already conceded God's existence can not be proven, so what significance should we attach to any evidence you tender? (as clearly it is not conclusive, or else God's existence would indeed be proven).
I ask you please to give that serious consideration before responding.
(And next time you include words like 'tiger' i won't respond).
Does your existence depend on me believing you exist? Is your character and personality based on what I think they should be?
As for the existence of God, I’ve already said it’s not proven, nor did God ever intend it to be provable. But enough evidence exists for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection for one to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened and that He was who He said He was - the Son of the only living God.
Outside of the Bible (a book I do not credit as divinely inspired) what is this evidence you have of the Resurrection of Jesus that makes God's existence a default setting?
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke By saying 'atheists don't exist' you are actually saying 'it's impossible for anyone to disagree' with your belief in God. That probably makes you the most arrogant and insecure poster in this forum (not even able to handle the idea of someone genuinely not believing in the God you have convinced yourself exists).
How is that any different from ...[text shortened]... not you believe in them and that 'theists' (singular) don't exist? Would you be cool with that?
I already told you that you are God. This idea will fit nicely if you let it
Do you want to become an old man filled with regret of what could've been?
Originally posted by @karoly-aczel Like what? I doubt you could improve my life but I remain open to the possibility
Btw I'm older than you so please accept the pecking order
Wise man say, 'Age is no guarantee of wisdom.'
Removed
Account suspended
Joined
31 Jan '18
Moves
3456
02 Mar '18 22:031 edit
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke You have already conceded God's existence can not be proven, so what significance should we attach to any evidence you tender? (as clearly it is not conclusive, or else God's existence would indeed be proven).
I ask you please to give that serious consideration before responding.
(And next time you include words like 'tiger' i won't respond).
Are you serious?
You think evidence is not significant unless it proves something? Not sure where you live but in an American courtroom, a jury doesn’t render a verdict based on proof but on a conclusion based on “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
What proof do you have that the sun will rise tomorrow? Because it’s done that every morning for the last umpteen number of years? That’s not *proof* it will rise tomorrow. How do you know the sun won’t collapse, explode or burn itself out tonight? Because scientists say so? That’s not proof. Have scientists never been wrong in the past?
What proof do you have that you won’t get hit by a bus in the next three days? That you’ll be careful? That’s not proof. Maybe you’ll slip crossing the street, break your ankle, be unable to get up and the bus driver will be distracted and run you over. Are you saying with absolute certainty that can’t happen or won’t happen?
Rise
02 Mar '18 20:22
Back to Top