It is spiritually discerned my friend, whether you like it or will accept it or not. Therefore it is known.
If we surgically removed all the unsubstantiated claims from your contributions to this forum, I'll bet we could bury the totality on a floppy disk.
If you don't know the answer, don't tell me mine is wrong
All you've really got is an
Argument From Ignorance. Pure and unvarnished. Observe:
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ said:
"Arguments from ignorance infer that a proposition is true from the fact that it is not known to be false."
Example:
(1) No one has been able to disprove the existence of God.
Therefore:
(2) God exists.
How apropos that their go-to example is exactly the sort of stuff that you're shoveling here!
That is what you have, blind faith in something natural somehow bringing about everything.
That shows how much you know
I have not asserted such. Please desist from making
more wild claims that I have, OK?
It is a definition of a word which obviously you don't accept. The prefix ''super'' only means above or beyond like supermodel or supercool etc
Oh really? Kind of like how The Old Testament has been
superseded by The New Testament?
The inner witness is proof. To you it is not as you have not received it. It is personal, and fool proof.
So the "inner witness" is "personal proof?" You're conceding that it is
totally subjective and
not at all demonstrable?
One does not prove God exists
Or in your case: "One does
not even remotely persuade that God exists."
as I keep telling atheists, and you refuse to accept.
You're willing to advocate a belief in what you've already conceded is an unprovable belief? And you have the nerve to label skepticism as "blind faith?"
Premise A: "God proves not man."
Premise B: "Robert Evans is a man."
Conclusion: "Robert Evans Proves Not."
That was remarkably easy! No wonder your arguments are so unpersuasive!
Thank you for providing the argument against your continued participation in this debate.
Your continued participation will only cement the notion that you're either
unable or unwilling to follow your own advice.
You will never accept this argument because, if you do, you have no argument.
I refuse to even accept it
as an argument. It's nonsensical.
So you keep making a metaphysical argument into a physical argument, knowing then that you are an argument, however false. It won't do, sorry. You need to understand and accept what you are arguing.
So you're asserting that God exists physically? Do you have a test for that?
And as for paper bags, one is either saying it is intelligence or it is not
"The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when the arguer claims that his conclusion is one of only two options, when in fact there are other possibilities. The arguer then goes on to show that the 'only other option' is clearly outrageous, and so his preferred conclusion must be embraced."
... or they don't know, hence the paper bag.
Either I accept your false dichotomy, or wear a paper bag over my head? This is the heart of your pseudo-argument? This is the best you can do?
Q. - What makes you think you deserve to sit at the Big Table with the adults? Your arguments are strictly card-table pabulum.
Your rudimentary ideas are not sufficeint to deal with it.
I'm not sure you'll hear this from up there on your high-horse, but "sufficient" is spelled s-u-f-f-i-c-i-e-n-t.
Thanks for playing.
there was sin before the univese as sin is error, and error is the reason we are here.
There was sin before the universe? What existed
before the universe? Wait. Let me rephrase that:
What does your "Inner Witness" tell you existed prior to the creation of the universe?
To support your radically unorthodox assertion, you'll now need to cite some scriptures that state that there was anything but God existing prior to his creation of the universe ... and then you'll need to cite some scripture that asserts that God is sinful.
Because that is exactly what you've reduced your own argument to. Incredible.
Each realm is separate though, so this universe would still be seen as cle--
No. No more silliness from you. One error at a time.
Please cite some scripture that asserts that ANYTHING BUT GOD existed prior to his act of creation and also cite some scripture that supports your assertion that God is sinful.
Or ... you might just concede that you've been whistling theological "Dixie" all along and be done with it.
.
.
.
Coda:
False question. One is through intelligence and one through luck and magic (the atheist universe it seems). There is no other answer, though I stand to be corrected if you think you have an answer.
You've still failed to explain how your belief in creation ex nihilo differs from "luck & magic."
As I said:
One error at a time, please!
