-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence
- Thread starter TransmutingSoul
- Start date
You do? You have "evidence" that can confirm Krishna as the 8th avatar of Vishnu, a supreme god in his own right, god of protection, compassion, tenderness, and love?
Wow, we'd all like to see such "evidence."
I'll bet it looks a lot like the Mahabarata -- another book!
I think you should read the Lord of the Rings trilogy a couple of times through -- when you're done, we can discuss the truths of Middle Earth, elves and the Balrog of Morgoth.
That requires examination of the evidence. Not the intent of the OP, but may make a good OP on its own.
Regards Tony
rational experiences
Veteran Member
If a human says my human baby is my god.
Then they knew what they were discussing. In life themselves. The human.
Claim only sex brings life into created form human.
Heavens mass body supports small celled life existing by body mass pressures heavens. Heavens body was a teaching not an action.
Just because a man says the total review my man human baby is my creator. It doesn't make God a man.
Testimony proved you theoried false advice as no man created creation.
A pretty basic human legal proceeding. Human men theists lied.
Such as I choose a colour. I'll discuss it's presence. You didn't own any history about why colours exist anywhere. They just do. As any variable form is coloured a dust or gas.
The testimony was just accept everything is created and let no man change it.
So it was agreed we know our man's evil intentions said the terms I state legality.
Pressure said man thinker owns in law heavens body stated...
why any type of small cell exists.
So if man said small types energies exist after my biology small it's because it was saved small. So we small cells can live. You obvious sky attacked energy so energy saved itself.
Became smaller. Why you believe you invented small energies. Memory talks to you without actual hearing. Proven by science as mind contact. Mind coercion. Brain states.
Men of science blasted it open japeth enlarged expanded reaction from the small. Told why men caused atmospheric mass ground ice melt. Evaporation by huge water bodies. Ark flood UFO historic event.
Flood now a new law in heavens body saved life biology versus falling burning gases the flame.
Legal was already exact.
Only Rich men vying for science technologies return had usurped ancient legal governed holy men.
Also known. They murdered to be reinstated now. Our group warning is unite for families rights legal. Before it's too late.
Then they knew what they were discussing. In life themselves. The human.
Claim only sex brings life into created form human.
Heavens mass body supports small celled life existing by body mass pressures heavens. Heavens body was a teaching not an action.
Just because a man says the total review my man human baby is my creator. It doesn't make God a man.
Testimony proved you theoried false advice as no man created creation.
A pretty basic human legal proceeding. Human men theists lied.
Such as I choose a colour. I'll discuss it's presence. You didn't own any history about why colours exist anywhere. They just do. As any variable form is coloured a dust or gas.
The testimony was just accept everything is created and let no man change it.
So it was agreed we know our man's evil intentions said the terms I state legality.
Pressure said man thinker owns in law heavens body stated...
why any type of small cell exists.
So if man said small types energies exist after my biology small it's because it was saved small. So we small cells can live. You obvious sky attacked energy so energy saved itself.
Became smaller. Why you believe you invented small energies. Memory talks to you without actual hearing. Proven by science as mind contact. Mind coercion. Brain states.
Men of science blasted it open japeth enlarged expanded reaction from the small. Told why men caused atmospheric mass ground ice melt. Evaporation by huge water bodies. Ark flood UFO historic event.
Flood now a new law in heavens body saved life biology versus falling burning gases the flame.
Legal was already exact.
Only Rich men vying for science technologies return had usurped ancient legal governed holy men.
Also known. They murdered to be reinstated now. Our group warning is unite for families rights legal. Before it's too late.
You do? You have "evidence" that can confirm Krishna as the 8th avatar of Vishnu, a supreme god in his own right, god of protection, compassion, tenderness, and love?
Wow, we'd all like to see such "evidence."
I'll bet it looks a lot like the Mahabarata -- another book!
I think you should read the Lord of the Rings trilogy a couple of times through -- when you're done, we can discuss the truths of Middle Earth, elves and the Balrog of Morgoth.
If that is what you wish to look for, then that is up to you, they are your requirements.
Regards Tony
I was responding to what you said you had -- and that I would be interested to see it. Are you now telling me you were being disingenuous and don't actually have it?
Where something is reasonable doesn't depend on who is doing it. Just like whether something is logical doesn't depend on who is doing it. The rules of Reason and logic are universal.
Yes. Those are facts. Do you not see the difference between these and your previous statements?
Here, you are saying that a person has an opinion. There, you were claiming the opinion was a fact. It is a fact that the person has the opinion. But that does not make the opinion a fact.
I don't reject fantastic claims by choice, I reject them because they are fantastic and the claimant refuses to explain how his claims are true via facts. The logical default is that claims are untrue until a claimant can demonstrate truth. You fail this obligation routinely in your time on this debate forum.
What you do refer to as evidence is very poor. Much of it needs evidence itself, and you make no effort to support those issues. Why is it up to us to do your homework? If you are too lazy to defend the truth of your claims you shouldn't post in areas where there are critical thinkers. Arguably it is trolling.
This is disrespectful. You make claims in a debate area open to diverse people and refuse to honor the rules of debate by demanding others do your homework.
Last edited:
No I do not have evidence of what you wanted to prove in relation to Krishna.
Regards Tony
And we critical thinkers have done our homework on proper debate, learning logic, learning fallacies, learning objectivity, and how to recognize bias. You show no signs of doing any homework along these lines as you chose to participate on an open debate forum. You how no interest in following rules of debate to properly explain your views, and that is bad faith.
As far as your religious beliefs and claims, you are obligated to present evidence and a coherent explanation to engage with others respectfully, and you refuse.
Seriously? You assert that how others respond to your claims about evidence is not relevant to a topic called "Evidence"? More bad faith.
I'm curious what you think your posting accomplishes.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Except for you of course. When we ask for evidence from you even though you claim that it exist, there is none provided by you.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I sure wish it would put an end to the endless debate. I need the rest.
Dr. Richard Kimble:
They killed my wife.
Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard:
I know it Richard. But it's over.
Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard:
You know I'm glad. I need the rest.
Dr. Richard Kimble: They killed my wife. Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard: I know it Richard. But it's over. Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard: You know I'm glad. I need the rest.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Whether something is reasonable doesn't depend on who, in their personal opinion, thinks it is reasonable.
Just like whether something is logical doesn't depend on who, in their personal opinion, thinks it is logical.
This is what 'some atheists' simply do not grasp, since they think they are always right, based upon nothing but a biased ego-driven personal opinion.
I provided the 3 sources of evidence and I do not intent to provide facts or proofs from the evidence.
After nearly 1900 posts, I thought that would be more than obvious, especially since I have said it nearly every reply.
Regards Tony
This is why critical thinkers rely on the highest standard used in science, law, logic, etc. The personal opinions are those who hold religious beliefs that lack credible evidence.
Which atheists are doing this? Give examples of their errors.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Good luck finding that kind of evidence for the existence of God. Please let me know when you find it.
I am not going to name names or get into a debate about this.
I will only say that I think it is illogical and unreasonable to expect to have evidence for God when that evidence does not exist.
The logical thing to do, when presented with evidence that believers offer, is not to say "that's not evidence."
The logical thing to say is " that evidence you offered is not good enough to compel me to believe."
At that point there is nothing more that needs to be said. The party is over and we can all go home.
Look at this thread. I just posted post #1900, and all people have been doing is arguing about what is and is not evidence for God. It is only a battle of egos.