There’s been plenty of people born on this planet who never heard about Christianity, either because the were born before Jesus or because they were born in the wrong location.
God didn’t bother sending them their own Jesus so I’m not sure why he’d care about the Martians any more.
I really don’t know what research could possibly support such a claim. Well... except for verifiable miracles. But even that wouldn’t necessarily confirm that the person is a messenger of God. The person could be like an X-man and either pretending or delusional that the powers come from god. Or...
Just want to point out that the existence of conspiracy theories are not evidence for the theory. People theorize that the moon landing was fake; the fact that they theorize such does not mean that some information supporting this theory has “leaked”. People make up stuff all the time.
No disrespect, but how do you know someone is a Messenger of God? If you personally can’t know the will of God, how can you recognize it when another speaks it? How can you distinguish between a crazy homeless guy who thinks he’s God’s messenger, and someone who actually is?
That’s a fair...
I think I could accept that reason could get you to believe that a god exists. I don’t find philosophical or rational explanations satisfying, but I could see someone accepting the arguments as a rational basis for believing god’s existence.
However, I do not think that reason can help you...
Seeing as we can’t even be sure God exists, I’m not sure how we can even begin to speculate what his goals might be.
I’m sure there’s other ways, but none so certain or effective as God simply saying hello.
I think this is a logical breakdown.
But this doesn’t make sense. God cannot both be...
For the sake of argument, let’s assume the Christian concept of God is correct.
As the Omnipotent Creator, he created me— and others like me— who have naturally skeptical minds. Minds that cannot easily take important matters on faith alone. Minds that question. He made me, knowing that his...
So god rejects those who reject him. Regardless of who started it, we are still left with the fact that god is choosing to reject people based on an arbitrary condition he made.
Depends on the god’s goals.
If his goal is for people to acknowledge his existence, then yeah, he should probably do this.
But if he doesn’t care or prefers confusion or doesn’t like some of us or is performing a science experiment or is frightened of us or can’t figure out how to do it...
Trump does have an abysmal track-record regarding charity. But lacking clear evidence that this is another trump scam, I’m hesitant to claim it is, precisely because if we are wrong, it will water-down actual incidents of personal profiteering. It will give our critics ammunition— “You were...
So you’re okay with Trump doing this because democrats would be okay with their guy doing it? What sort of defense is that? “Hey everyone! My guy is just as bad as their guy and I am just as bad as them!”
I’m sorry. Solipsism doesn’t appeal to me.
Your unwillingness to accept the plethora of evidence is unfortunately all too common these days. I doubt anything I can say will sway you from a position that is so removed from reality.
Right— It’s the license for non-hospital private facilities. It doesn’t say anything about hospitals, or indicate that they are solely state-owned. The existence of a licensing agency for private non-hospital facilities does not prove that private hospitals don’t exist.
I have provided quotes...
I agree that an indictment indicates readiness for trial.
Do you have a source? I haven’t heard about this yet. From what I understand, a trial can’t happen unless the defendants are extradited— which obviously, Russia won’t do.
You know what I love about this? Attempting to downplay Trump asking Russia to hack Clinton requires them to dredge up a 20 year old occurrence that must have been so egregious that they are still talking about it 20 years later.
It is. The special counsel, intelligence reports, house and senate committee reports, all are available.
As for evidence vs proof, don’t change the goal posts. We were talking of evidence not “proof” (whatever you mean by that). You don’t believe “hard evidence” exists. You further implied that...
Why would you assume what she said was classified— as opposed to the reasonable conclusion that she stated the part that was unclassified?
Why would “just a report” not be “hard evidence”? Since you are the one with such an odd concept of what does or does not constitute “hard evidence” then...
Here’s an example of what I’m talking about @Stevicus
“In an exclusive interview with NBC News, Jeanette Manfra, the head of cybersecurity at the Department of Homeland Security, said she couldn't talk about classified information publicly, but in 2016, "We saw a targeting of 21 states and an...