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.
a long post with personal attacks from the off, I like it.
All you've really got is an Argument From Ignorance. Pure and unvarnished. Observe:
No, but it might seem that way to someone ignorant.... please continue with the show:
How apropos that their go-to example is exactly the sort of stuff that you're shoveling here!
They quote said:
''No one has been able to disprove the existence of God.'' which I am not saying. I you are misusing a quote from someone else to prove something you can't prove about something I never said. It is clear that no one is able to disprove it, but this knowledge does not hinge on that. I think you are aware of that, my emotional friend.
I have not asserted such. Please desist from making more wild claims that I have, OK?
Okay, so everything is not natural, it is supernatural, right? Now you will say you never claimed that either. So you are left with I don't know. Great answer! Though in truth, say it or not, if you don't believe in God, you are having to accept that naturaldidit and that is sheer luck. I suppose that is why you are so quick to dismiss it.
Oh really? Kind of like how The Old Testament has been superseded by The New Testament?
The word supernatural was explained: the prefix super means above and beyond from Latin. It can be supermodel, supercharger, superacid, supercool, superabound, superadd, superalloy, superannuable, superaddition, superbike, supercalender, supercargo, supercell, supercar, superclass, and of course, supernatural..... none of which mean God. That was the point. If you use that word that way, are we saying all those others are God in that same sense? no. So don't use it in this argument, it gives you a false reassurance in your argument which is built on quicksand. As for the OT being superceded by the NT, I think that might be a little over your head. After all, we can't even get out of the introduction, let alone into the first chapter and then the NT.
So the "inner witness" is "personal proof?" You're conceding that it is totally subjective and not at all demonstrable?
Who ever said it was??? Metaphysical arguments are not physical arguments. When you accept that you will see you have NO argument at all. You either accept it or don't. I don't expect you to accept it however, as that would be to concede defeat, and I can't see you doing that.
Or in your case: "One does not even remotely persuade that God exists."
God proves not man.
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?"
The inner witness is real and proof and the evidence is the faith of the person. We are living witnesses and have been for thousands of years.
Atheism, which you seem to label as ''skepticism'' is saying that intelligence had nothing to do with creation and that luck and magic does it all, wrapped up in the word natural, with a big bow on the top saying 'I don't know'. That is blind faith to accept that luck can do such things. This universe in itself is so ridiculously unlikely that even a child should see that it is not just going to happen because of some really good fortune. That is the kind of reasoning that Dawkins has with the origin of life on this planet.
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!
What you think that argument shows I have no idea. God proves. It is quite simple.
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.
My subject, not yours.... haha
I refuse to even accept it as an argument. It's nonsensical.
Your arguments are false. If you accept them as false, you have no argument...and, considering that most atheist argue as a form of therapy, you will never concede.. just these ad hominen spurts of nonsense. Carry on though, it gives my something to do.
So you're asserting that God exists physically? Do you have a test for that?
You misunderstand that. God is not physical in the sense we think of.
"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."
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?
Intelligence is involved or it is not. If it is not, then ultimatily at some point, it is all luck. If you don't think it is, then give some other answer other than I don't know, and give me back my dummy... haha
Q. - What makes you think you deserve to sit at the Big Table with the adults? Your arguments are strictly card-table pabulum.
I sit at the table and toss crumbs to the little dogs........... haha (you started 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.
haha.... funny. You speak as one who does not sound that old.
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.
What exists before is what exists now just in another form. Your blindness does not allow you to see that.
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.
Wow! really. I did not know that was all I had to do. Just cite the scripture and then you believe... haha fine, that would work. Let me now go waste my time for a few hours.
Or ... you might just concede that you've been whistling theological "Dixie" all along and be done with it.
.
.
.
Coda:
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!
Intelligence is not luck.... that is what you abscribe to, even though you won't admit it.
