I can't accept God exists and then try to find evidence confirming that premise. As I see it, that would be putting the cart before the horse.That's because there's no evidence you will accept because you can't accept God exists.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I can't accept God exists and then try to find evidence confirming that premise. As I see it, that would be putting the cart before the horse.That's because there's no evidence you will accept because you can't accept God exists.
As we all know, Jews run the whole world
I didn't think I had to label it as sarcasm.No. We don’t ALL know.
Nature comes from God. So we aren't even. To this point I have offered evidence - human nature - and you have offered nothing. In fact when I asked you for your evidence you argued you can't prove a negative. Remember?I recall I claimed that human nature came from nature so I'd say we're even. Of course I can offer evidence of nature, that is more that you have done.
I know that because that's the simplest explanation. One being, entity or whatever you want to call it that has no beginning and no end, is eternal and unchanging as the source of existence.And you know that how?
I could say the same about you as evidenced by your previous sentences.
Man is a social animal so a 'preference for good', as determined by his society, would be an evolutionary plus and be selected for.
No, I just explained what it told me about you. I'm using your experiences as a creator as a proxy which is quite common in science as most things are indirectly measured which means what they are measuring is literally a proxy for what they are investigating.It tells you much about my creation but very little about me as the creator. You have taken creation and, using evidence not found in creation itself, have built a whole vision of the creator.
But you can objectively analyze the case for God's existence which is all I am asking for. You should be exploring both sides without bias. You aren't doing that.I can't accept God exists and then try to find evidence confirming that premise. As I see it, that would be putting the cart before the horse.
That is your claim but you offered no evidence only that your claim could not be disproven.Nature comes from God. So we aren't even.
see aboveTo this point I have offered evidence - human nature - and you have offered nothing. In fact when I asked you for your evidence you argued you can't prove a negative. Remember?
The simplest explanation is that there is no supernatural being at all.I know that because that's the simplest explanation. One being, entity or whatever you want to call it that has no beginning and no end, is eternal and unchanging as the source of existence.
So it is just a coincidence that your God and the Abrahamic God are indistinguishable?Actually you can't say that about my previous sentences because I have been describing God without theological context. You on the other hand are incapable of discussing God unless it is in the context of the Abrahamic God.
In every society there are those that disagree with the established norms. Some prove to be progressive some prove to be reactionary.And yet even when society determined what was "good" (i.e. slavery, incest, treating women poorly, etc.) there were always those who knew better. Your argument for relativity is very weak.
Why do you keep saying that? I have offered human nature as evidence. You do have knowledge of your own human nature, right? Do you ever make immoral arguments?That is your claim but you offered no evidence only that your claim could not be disproven.
see above
No, I just explained what it told me about you. I'm using your experiences as a creator as a proxy which is quite common in science as most things are indirectly measured which means what they are measuring is literally a proxy for what they are investigating.
You do realize something has to exist to pop a universe into existence, right? So are you arguing that nothing exists outside of space and time that could bring forth space and time?The simplest explanation is that there is no supernatural being at all.
I can use your experiences as a creator as a proxy. It's a valid method of investigation.
Human nature is NOT evidence of God any more than it is evidence of Zeus. Since we don't know the source, you can't assume it comes from God. I will be the first to admit that I can't prove there is no God, but that is not a proof there is a God.Why do you keep saying that? I have offered human nature as evidence. You do have knowledge of your own human nature, right? Do you ever make immoral arguments?
I've been doing that since I was 12 and so far God's existence has always come up short.But you can objectively analyze the case for God's existence which is all I am asking for. You should be exploring both sides without bias. You aren't doing that.
A proxy for God? I'm flattered but even so the available information is rather limited, as I previously listed.I can use your experiences as a creator as a proxy. It's a valid method of investigation.
That's because you reject all evidence because you reject the premise.Human nature is NOT evidence of God any more than it is evidence of Zeus. Since we don't know the source, you can't assume it comes from God. I will be the first to admit that I can't prove there is no God, but that is not a proof there is a God.
I don't believe you have. I don't believe you ever have.I've been doing that since I was 12 and so far God's existence has always come up short.
Laughing leads to crying.A proxy for God? I'm flattered but even so the available information is rather limited, as I previously listed.
In science you create a theory to explain the evidence, not the other way around. I prefer the scientific method.That's because you reject all evidence because you reject the premise.