I am sceptical of the Skeptics. Is it wrong?

[use_your_brain]

if the fact that "you consider it true" is enough to make it true, than why are you even wasting your time here. You already know all you need to know, you're your own authority

it is your task next to disprove it.

 

[cambridge79]

3) yes that circular logic is accepted as long as you cannot able to disprove it either.

i'm god, because this piece of paper i've just written says so.
and this piece of paper i've just written must be true cause it's written by god.
disprove it or kneel in front of me.

as you said it's your task to disprove it and circular reasoning is legitimate reasonings. So kneel.

 

[use_your_brain]

i'm god, because this piece of paper i've just written says so.
and this piece of paper i've just written must be true cause it's written by god.
disprove it or kneel in front of me.

as you said it's your task to disprove it and circular reasoning is legitimate reasonings. So kneel.

Who told you that ? that you are a god?

 

[Parsimony]

it is your task next to disprove it.

Your logical fallacy is burden of proof.

 

[cambridge79]

Who told you that ? that you are a god?

i'm god. i don't need people to tell me that. Also the piece of paper says that so it must be true. it's written by god himself.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Who told you that ? that you are a god?

Can you disprove that they are God?

 

[Yerda]

Your logical fallacy is burden of proof.

While it seems to be at odds with genuine discussion or debate, shifting the burden isn't really a fallacy of logic. The burden of proof is a convention between the participants in a debate if it exists at all.

 

[use_your_brain]

Can you disprove that they are God?

Answer my question first.

 

[use_your_brain]

i'm god. i don't need people to tell me that. Also the piece of paper says that so it must be true. it's written by god himself.

How do you prove that you are a god? or prove it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Answer my question first.

So suddenly they have the burden of proof? Tell me then, who has the burden of proof: the person making a claim, or a person who refuses to believe the claim until they have a good reason to?

How do you prove that you are a god? or prove it.

According to your logic, they don't have to. You have to disprove it. And until you can disprove it, you should assume it's true, right?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

it is your task next to disprove it.

I cut myself and I bleed blood, not dirt. Next up?

 

[Corthos]

I don't know.

Ok, thank you. =)

I'm curious to know as well how you feel about verse 54:1?

The Hour has come near, and the moon has split [in two].

It's my understanding that Mohamed would have done this?

Extensive topographical mapping of the moon's surface have indeed found there to be cracks on the moon's surface...

As you can see from the map above of the cracks on the surface of the moon, they aren't a straight crack all the way around, but are instead little cracks all over the moon's surface. Scientists attribute these cracks to the moon's molten core cooling, and the moon shrinking, as far as I understand. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of the moon being split in two at all...

If the moon was split apart in such a way that it could be visibly seen by the naked eye from earth, wouldn't two heavenly bodies with a radius of 1079 miles create massive geological damage upon each other when they would pull themselves back into each other?

Why didn't any other cultures in the world observe and record such an astrologically amazing phenomenon? After all, ancient Arabians weren't the only ones at that time who observed the stars in an in depth way.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

 

[Shad]

1. yes, all salt water and fresh water mix, eventually.
2. Yes Adam is a true myth.

1. You contradict the verse as the verse contains the parameter that the barrier can not be transgressed hence can not be passed.

2. Adam is a myth due to the fact that there is no evidence of Adam what so ever and genetics shows more than a single bloodline within the human species.

What do you mean it doesn't?
Peter narrated that Jesus was not crucified.

Actually the passages, below, shows you never read the text, only read a quote of it. Considering you have demonstrated you rely on apologist websites I can see why you thought it didn't. The body of Christ was crucified. However many gnostics views the body (flesh) differently. Christ is a spiritual being, the body is of no importance. Those that think the body matters are spiritually blind. It is the soul that matters. In what we have of the Apocalypse of Peter (gnostic) the point of perception is hammered home. Hence why no one but Peter sees the spiritual Jesus. They only see the body. The body is not someone else, it is symbol of the materialist view that people have created by distorting the concept of the soul as one with the body, as one in the same, along with religious beliefs about the soul as about the body as well.

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

But I, when I had looked, said "Lord, no one is looking at you. Let us flee this place."

But he said to me, "I have told you, 'Leave the blind alone!'. And you, see how they do not know what they are saying. For the son of their glory instead of my servant, they have put to shame."

And he said to me, "Be strong, for you are the one to whom these mysteries have been given, to know them through revelation, that he whom they crucified is the first-born, and the home of demons, and the stony vessel in which they dwell, of Elohim, of the cross, which is under the Law. But he who stands near him is the living Savior, the first in him, whom they seized and released, who stands joyfully looking at those who did him violence, while they are divided among themselves. Therefore he laughs at their lack of perception, knowing that they are born blind. So then the one susceptible to suffering shall come, since the body is the substitute. But what they released was my incorporeal body. But I am the intellectual Spirit filled with radiant light. He whom you saw coming to me is our intellectual Pleroma, which unites the perfect light with my Holy Spirit."

 

[Aquitaine]

1) ---
2) Another link states in different way.
3) I can disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Very easy.

2) Which link, care to share it?
3) Go ahead, let's hear your evidence against the FSM?

"So let man observe from what he was created. "

"And fail to properly interpret the scripture he has chosen as divine".

 

[cambridge79]

How do you prove that you are a god? or prove it.

why would i need to prove it? I have this piece of paper saying so and i consider it as evidence. so it's up to you to prove i'm not.

 

[use_your_brain]

Ok, thank you. =)

I'm curious to know as well how you feel about verse 54:1?

The Hour has come near, and the moon has split [in two].

It's my understanding that Mohamed would have done this?

Extensive topographical mapping of the moon's surface have indeed found there to be cracks on the moon's surface...

As you can see from the map above of the cracks on the surface of the moon, they aren't a straight crack all the way around, but are instead little cracks all over the moon's surface. Scientists attribute these cracks to the moon's molten core cooling, and the moon shrinking, as far as I understand. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of the moon being split in two at all...

If the moon was split apart in such a way that it could be visibly seen by the naked eye from earth, wouldn't two heavenly bodies with a radius of 1079 miles create massive geological damage upon each other when they would pull themselves back into each other?

Why didn't any other cultures in the world observe and record such an astrologically amazing phenomenon? After all, ancient Arabians weren't the only ones at that time who observed the stars in an in depth way.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

The moon was used to be split into two parts and then compacted again, whether it is followed by a scientific trace or not. I don't pay attention to the cracks observation on the moon. we probably find the sign or not. It is not important to me .

 

[use_your_brain]

why would i need to prove it? I have this piece of paper saying so and i consider it as evidence. so it's up to you to prove i'm not.

because each claim needs proof.

 

[use_your_brain]

2) Which link, care to share it?
3) Go ahead, let's hear your evidence against the FSM?



"And fail to properly interpret the scripture he has chosen as divine".

2) http://www.oregon.gov/dsl/ssnerr/docs/efs/efs33mix.pdf
3) First of all, what is the FSM exactly?

 

[use_your_brain]

1. You contradict the verse as the verse contains the parameter that the barrier can not be transgressed hence can not be passed.

2. Adam is a myth due to the fact that there is no evidence of Adam what so ever and genetics shows more than a single bloodline within the human species.



Actually the passages, below, shows you never read the text, only read a quote of it. Considering you have demonstrated you rely on apologist websites I can see why you thought it didn't. The body of Christ was crucified. However many gnostics views the body (flesh) differently. Christ is a spiritual being, the body is of no importance. Those that think the body matters are spiritually blind. It is the soul that matters. In what we have of the Apocalypse of Peter (gnostic) the point of perception is hammered home. Hence why no one but Peter sees the spiritual Jesus. They only see the body. The body is not someone else, it is symbol of the materialist view that people have created by distorting the concept of the soul as one with the body, as one in the same, along with religious beliefs about the soul as about the body as well.

1.---
2. Adam was a true myth.
3. The Apocalypse of Peter states it was another person that substituted the Jesus. Read again the Crucifixion passages on the Apocalypse of Peter.

 

[use_your_brain]

So suddenly they have the burden of proof? Tell me then, who has the burden of proof: the person making a claim, or a person who refuses to believe the claim until they have a good reason to?


According to your logic, they don't have to. You have to disprove it. And until you can disprove it, you should assume it's true, right?

I can disprove it.