Prove there's a god.

[RiversideRedneck]

karl44 wrote:

God Himself wrote:
If you are always honest, I dont have the capacity to lie and I can speak nothing but fact and reality and truth. If you are always honest, I am never dishonest.
<quoted text>
If I cannot explain the origins of the universe (sufficient to the speaker) then I birth into reality his deity.
It is more power and responsibility, than gives me comfort.

God of Gaps fallacy....

[RiversideRedneck]

karl44 wrote:

<quoted text>
has some god spoken to you?

Not "some god".

God.

[Tide with Beach]

scaritual wrote:

<quoted text> http://www.youtube.com/playlist...
Introspection?
Self examination?
Belief?
Evidence?
Verification?
Reality?
BLASPHEMY!

God: "Don't you forget about me!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[karl44]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
uh-huh...
So you think that atheists often go to college & earn Theological degrees & spend 20, 30, 40 years of their lives studying the Bible?
Trust me, you're wrong. My dad has a Th.M. and my grandpa had a M.Div.
They're very hard to get.

my passing knowledge of genetics, suggests you are lying

Internet claims are --- internet claims

consider the lies you have told on this thread.

I do not care to make internet claims.

You may judge my education, with respect to the secular, and with respect to the theological, by assessing my communication with the thread. AS I DO YOURS

You have displayed only a passing familiarity with apologetic.

I am a recovering christian
I have both a formal theological and a formal secular education, now that I have made these claims, will you concede to my points?

NO?

why not?

[karl44]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
"I Am that I Am"
Tetragrammaton, YHVH
Yahweh
Jehovah
The God of our ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

the most vile entity ever imagined

[karl44]

Black Thunder 42 wrote:

<quoted text>
Why should I?...Other than to take up pages and pages of topix, and only lead to trivial discussions about individual words and meanings of letters incorporated within the texts rather than the obvious transition of the ideas from one belief to the next. It is obvious to the researcher that the transition exists...even the patriarchs are the same when reverse translated.(I am considering writing a book on it)
I think that discussing the texts in the testaments themselves on topix leads to such trivial discussion, that the whole premise of the discussion is lost in the discourse.

that is his intent

deflection

the parallels are obvious to the intelligent.

[RiversideRedneck]

karl44 wrote:

<quoted text>
my passing knowledge of genetics, suggests you are lying
Internet claims are --- internet claims
consider the lies you have told on this thread.
I do not care to make internet claims.
You may judge my education, with respect to the secular, and with respect to the theological, by assessing my communication with the thread. AS I DO YOURS
You have displayed only a passing familiarity with apologetic.
I am a recovering christian
I have both a formal theological and a formal secular education, now that I have made these claims, will you concede to my points?
NO?
why not?

I really don't give a shit if you believe me.

I didn't say that I have a degree, did I?

Nope. I said my dad & grandpa did.

If I were to judge your education based on this thread, I'd have to conclude that you're not very educated. Witty, sarcastic, but based on your many one-liners & lack of grammer & punctuation, I would conclude that you have a limited education.

I don't have a formal education in theology, just an informal one.

[karl44]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
You should tattoo that on your ass.

I can not reach

you want to do it to me?

[Black Thunder 42]

karl44 wrote:

<quoted text>
only to the extent that no attributes are assigned to the god
only to the extent that no empirical act is assigned to the god
otherwise, the claim can be investigated, and found, in the case of the abrahamic god, to be entirely untrue.

Exactly.

[Black Thunder 42]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, they were different religions. That should show you that Christianity wasn't plagiarized.

I never said it was did I.

[RiversideRedneck]

karl44 wrote:

<quoted text>
the most vile entity ever imagined

Why talk about yourself so badly?

[RiversideRedneck]

Black Thunder 42 wrote:

<quoted text>
I never said it was did I.

Wasn't it you?

I don't know, I get all you people mixed up. Many of you claim that Jesus, God & Christianity is a plagiarized pagan story. Or some bullshit like that.

[speedlik]

Apocalypse666 wrote:

Come on and do it.
Prove there's a god.
Don;t read off scripture or anything like that just prove there's a god.

The Sun that rises over the horizon is everyone's God no matter what religion you believe or don't belive it. It creates and allows creation of life and it kills life through Sun exposure, drought and gives cancer to those who are unprotected. It creates forest fires. It gives us warmth and protects us from freezing and gives UVA/UVB rays for fluoridation process to grow our food. The Sun is very much a God. It creates and destroys just like any God from any scripture and it has evil effects of any devil. You can even drop your 666 because it doesn't represent Satan, it represents Nero. I had to be the one to tell you. Don't believe me? Look it up. Good luck on your search for meaning.

[RiversideRedneck]

speedlik wrote:

<quoted text>
The Sun that rises over the horizon is everyone's God no matter what religion you believe or don't belive it. It creates and allows creation of life and it kills life through Sun exposure, drought and gives cancer to those who are unprotected. It creates forest fires. It gives us warmth and protects us from freezing and gives UVA/UVB rays for fluoridation process to grow our food. The Sun is very much a God. It creates and destroys just like any God from any scripture and it has evil effects of any devil. You can even drop your 666 because it doesn't represent Satan, it represents Nero. I had to be the one to tell you. Don't believe me? Look it up. Good luck on your search for meaning.

Sadly, Apocalypse666 has passed on.

But the atheists look down to him for inspiration.

[Tide with Beach]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
OK. So I'll assume that when that science teacher has that Darwin fish in the science class, you'll be right there at the school board getting him in trouble.

If he's got a Jesus with a cross up his ass, then I'd be there getting him in trouble.

I'd also offer him $20 for his Jesus figurine. Might be worth something someday.

[karl44]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Wasn't it you?
I don't know, I get all you people mixed up. Many of you claim that Jesus, God & Christianity is a plagiarized pagan story. Or some bullshit like that.

it is an evolved religion, any amount of study shows the origins, which myths were employed in the assembly

[RiversideRedneck]

Tide with Beach wrote:

<quoted text>
If he's got a Jesus with a cross up his ass, then I'd be there getting him in trouble.
I'd also offer him $20 for his Jesus figurine. Might be worth something someday.

lol, wth?

Where do you come up with this stuff?

[RiversideRedneck]

karl44 wrote:

<quoted text>
it is an evolved religion, any amount of study shows the origins, which myths were employed in the assembly

Right.

And an equal amount of study proves your study wrong.

[Tide with Beach]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
lol, wth?
Where do you come up with this stuff?

Archaeological effing evidence.

Splinters were found.

Lube was found.

Video tape was found.

All of this can be confirmed by believing it to be true.

[God Himself]

Black Thunder 42 wrote:

<quoted text>
I would have to say that "evolution theory" was first a hypothesis emanating from the observance of the world around us by inquisitive individuals seeking answers. The evidence collected was then tested and verified as experiment and only then was it considered a viable theory. There was and is no intent on the part of science to prove or disprove any "supernatural", as it can not even enter into the equation as verifiable or viable as a testable element of experiment.
Why do you keep trying to intermingle the two when they are not even compatible or comparable in experiment...unless you are being less than honest.

FAir enough. I can accept that.

Or at least I was accepting that, up to the part where you say "There was and is no intent on the part of science to prove or disprove any "supernatural", as it can not even enter into the equation as verifiable or viable as a testable element of experiment."

I should like to hear why or how you arrive at that conclusion, especially the last part "... as it can not even enter into the equation as verifiable or viable as a testable element of experiment."

Could you please provide a description of or otherwise identify the the attributes of a supernatural entity that cause it to "... can not even enter into the equation as verifiable or viable as a testable element of experiment"?