Is the Bible the inerrent word of God?

[Czernobog]

That antiGodists don't understand is nothing new.

The level of their ugliness has grown.

Yet the do not have the language, logic, or symbols to disprove the existence of deity.

Tough that.

Who would ever need to do such a thing? Do you feel compelled to disprove the existence of unicorns or leprechauns?

You simply believe in faith that deity does not exist, which is fine.

So, you simply believe in faith that unicorns, and leprechauns don't exist?

Fallacy of false equivalency and fallacy of degree not kind

Hold to your faiith, Cz.

Neither. Prove that unicorns don't exist. And just as with God lack of evidence of existence is not proof of non-existence.

 

[ScienceRocks]

no

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That antiGodists don't understand is nothing new.

The level of their ugliness has grown.

Yet the do not have the language, logic, or symbols to disprove the existence of deity.

Tough that.

Who would ever need to do such a thing? Do you feel compelled to disprove the existence of unicorns or leprechauns?

You simply believe in faith that deity does not exist, which is fine.

So, you simply believe in faith that unicorns, and leprechauns don't exist?

Fallacy of false equivalency and fallacy of degree not kind

Hold to your faiith, Cz.

If you are going to toss about those assertions, you should explain why they are so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That antiGodists don't understand is nothing new.

The level of their ugliness has grown.

Yet the do not have the language, logic, or symbols to disprove the existence of deity.

Tough that.

Who would ever need to do such a thing? Do you feel compelled to disprove the existence of unicorns or leprechauns?

You simply believe in faith that deity does not exist, which is fine.

So, you simply believe in faith that unicorns, and leprechauns don't exist?

Fallacy of false equivalency and fallacy of degree not kind

Hold to your faiith, Cz.

Neither. Prove that unicorns don't exist. And just as with God lack of evidence of existence is not proof of non-existence.

Both. I don't have to prove anything. Believe as you will, no skin off my ass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That antiGodists don't understand is nothing new.

The level of their ugliness has grown.

Yet the do not have the language, logic, or symbols to disprove the existence of deity.

Tough that.

Who would ever need to do such a thing? Do you feel compelled to disprove the existence of unicorns or leprechauns?

You simply believe in faith that deity does not exist, which is fine.

So, you simply believe in faith that unicorns, and leprechauns don't exist?

Fallacy of false equivalency and fallacy of degree not kind

Hold to your faiith, Cz.

If you are going to toss about those assertions, you should explain why they are so.

You will believe as you will, and you have no intention of accepting anything that contradicts your beliefs.

That is what faith is all about, bub.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Who would ever need to do such a thing? Do you feel compelled to disprove the existence of unicorns or leprechauns?

You simply believe in faith that deity does not exist, which is fine.

So, you simply believe in faith that unicorns, and leprechauns don't exist?

Fallacy of false equivalency and fallacy of degree not kind

Hold to your faiith, Cz.

If you are going to toss about those assertions, you should explain why they are so.

You will believe as you will, and you have no intention of accepting anything that contradicts your beliefs.

That is what faith is all about, bub.

That's nice and all, and the same could be said about you. However, the rules of logic being objective, none of that has any bearing on what is a fallacy and what isn't. So I think you should explain your claims of fallacies.

I will ignore the cheap attempt to equate faith and not faith.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And you stumbled into the problem. Scientific logic is not the standard of proof for belief in deity.

That you don't like the equivalence is not my problem, it is yours.

Believe as you will and give grace to others to do the same.

 

[The Professor]

I have always considered both the Old and the New as the Word. Not that I always understood it but even when I was very young reading it I respected it as the word of God spoken through holy men-people and written down through the ages. .

Again, to be clear, you would agree that the bible - the entire Bible, both Old, and New - are was written for all ages, and the things that were described as abhorrent in the Old Testament, are abhorrent now, and the things that were described as acceptable in the Old Testament, are acceptable today?

If the Old Testament were perfect for all times and under any and all conditions there would be no need for a New Testament. However, the Old Testament was only for a particular people and a particular time. It was never intended to be controlling for all eternity.The Bible specifically states that the Old Testament is no longer authoritative. Here are the relevant versus from the KJV (verse numbers removed for easier reading; all highlights are my own):

“By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.(Hebrews7:22-28).

“Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offerFor if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:5-13, KJV).

Now I expect to hear an argument about How God is perfect and never changes. However, nothing in the above quoted scripture indicates that God had changed; rather, the verses seem to say that God changed the rules because mankind had changed.

 

[RodISHI]

I have always considered both the Old and the New as the Word. Not that I always understood it but even when I was very young reading it I respected it as the word of God spoken through holy men-people and written down through the ages. .

Again, to be clear, you would agree that the bible - the entire Bible, both Old, and New - are was written for all ages, and the things that were described as abhorrent in the Old Testament, are abhorrent now, and the things that were described as acceptable in the Old Testament, are acceptable today?

If the Old Testament were perfect for all times and under any and all conditions there would be no need for a New Testament. The Bible specifically states that the Old Testament is no longer authoritative. Here are the relevant versus from the KJV (verse numbers removed for easier reading; all highlights are my own):

“By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.(Hebrews7:22-28).

“Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offerFor if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:5-13, KJV).

Now I expect to hear an argument about How God is perfect and never changes. However, nothing in the above quoted scripture indicates that God had changed; rather, the verses seem to say that God changed the rules because mankind had changed.

I would have to disagree with you Professor about this. The new was a confirmation of the old if we look at it in a spiritual light instead of with worldly or carnal eyes/senses/precepts.

What am I doing up in the middle of the night? Looking up the word from a dream. Quail to be more specific. The Lord (keeping in mind by the spirit within) told the children not to keep more than they needed in there tents/dwellings when sustenance came from heaven and when they did take more in than they should it rotted in their tents and stank. The tent is just the temporary residence of the entire journey. Breaking down the words of the Hebrew in an attempt to get the full gist of it I came up with 'mine','deaths', 'dread', 'tent peg', 'spears'.

I know that "death" sounds terrible to non believers or those who cannot grasp the spiritual aspect of what that means. The flesh naturally likes its comforts and as carnal humans we do not desire to crucify or shear off those carnal spiritual things we take in for our own tranquility that keep us spiritual fat carnally in holding onto these things in our minds. Instead we should be letting go of or cutting out of our minds as things we need carnally to keep as it prevents us from going forward in his spirit.

To take that even a little farther we can look at the previous word selection in Numbers 11:31 brought. Which is also imparting from the root word to shear or to cut off. With that in mind we can take into account the Quails covering the camp in Exodus 16 and eating of meat and the morning dew. We are also reminded that the covenant made is forever is Psalm 105

A Compendious Hebrew Lexicon: Adapted to the English Language and ...
A Compendious Hebrew Lexicon
Samuel Pike - 1811 - ‎English language
8–שליו שלו שלה to be recare and של) .quietness, tranquillity שלי שלוה כשלו .at ease error or ... שילה

edit: please forgive my grammar errors...wasn't planning on posting so not all here if you know what I mean. I learned if I don't get up and make myself notes with dreams like that it is harder to recall it all in the morning.

 

[The Professor]

I have always considered both the Old and the New as the Word. Not that I always understood it but even when I was very young reading it I respected it as the word of God spoken through holy men-people and written down through the ages. .

Again, to be clear, you would agree that the bible - the entire Bible, both Old, and New - are was written for all ages, and the things that were described as abhorrent in the Old Testament, are abhorrent now, and the things that were described as acceptable in the Old Testament, are acceptable today?

If the Old Testament were perfect for all times and under any and all conditions there would be no need for a New Testament. The Bible specifically states that the Old Testament is no longer authoritative. Here are the relevant versus from the KJV (verse numbers removed for easier reading; all highlights are my own):

“By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.(Hebrews7:22-28).

“Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offerFor if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:5-13, KJV).

Now I expect to hear an argument about How God is perfect and never changes. However, nothing in the above quoted scripture indicates that God had changed; rather, the verses seem to say that God changed the rules because mankind had changed.

I would have to disagree with you Professor about this. The new was a confirmation of the old if we look at it in a spiritual light instead of with worldly or carnal eyes/senses/precepts.

What am I doing up in the middle of the night? Looking up the word from a dream. Quail to be more specific. The Lord (keeping in mind by the spirit within) told the children not to keep more than they needed in there tents/dwellings when sustenance came from heaven and when they did take more in than they should it rotted in their tents and stank. The tent is just the temporary residence of the entire journey. Breaking down the words of the Hebrew in an attempt to get the full gist of it I came up with 'mine','deaths', 'dread', 'tent peg', 'spears'.

I know that "death" sounds terrible to non believers or those who cannot grasp the spiritual aspect of what that means. The flesh naturally likes its comforts and as carnal humans we do not desire to crucify or shear off those carnal spiritual things we take in for our own tranquility that keep us spiritual fat carnally in holding onto these things in our minds. Instead we should be letting go of or cutting out of our minds as things we need carnally to keep as it prevents us from going forward in his spirit.

To take that even a little farther we can look at the previous word selection in Numbers 11:31 brought. Which is also imparting from the root word to shear or to cut off. With that in mind we can take into account the Quails covering the camp in Exodus 16 and eating of meat and the morning dew. We are also reminded that the covenant made is forever is Psalm 105

A Compendious Hebrew Lexicon: Adapted to the English Language and ...
A Compendious Hebrew Lexicon
Samuel Pike - 1811 - ‎English language
8–שליו שלו שלה to be recare and של) .quietness, tranquillity שלי שלוה כשלו .at ease error or ... שילה

edit: please forgive my grammar errors...wasn't planning on posting so not all here if you know what I mean. I learned if I don't get up and make myself notes with dreams like that it is harder to recall it all in the morning.

Great read. Many thanks.

 

[RodISHI]

I have always considered both the Old and the New as the Word. Not that I always understood it but even when I was very young reading it I respected it as the word of God spoken through holy men-people and written down through the ages. .

Again, to be clear, you would agree that the bible - the entire Bible, both Old, and New - are was written for all ages, and the things that were described as abhorrent in the Old Testament, are abhorrent now, and the things that were described as acceptable in the Old Testament, are acceptable today?

If the Old Testament were perfect for all times and under any and all conditions there would be no need for a New Testament. The Bible specifically states that the Old Testament is no longer authoritative. Here are the relevant versus from the KJV (verse numbers removed for easier reading; all highlights are my own):

“By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.(Hebrews7:22-28).

“Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offerFor if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:5-13, KJV).

Now I expect to hear an argument about How God is perfect and never changes. However, nothing in the above quoted scripture indicates that God had changed; rather, the verses seem to say that God changed the rules because mankind had changed.

I would have to disagree with you Professor about this. The new was a confirmation of the old if we look at it in a spiritual light instead of with worldly or carnal eyes/senses/precepts.

What am I doing up in the middle of the night? Looking up the word from a dream. Quail to be more specific. The Lord (keeping in mind by the spirit within) told the children not to keep more than they needed in there tents/dwellings when sustenance came from heaven and when they did take more in than they should it rotted in their tents and stank. The tent is just the temporary residence of the entire journey. Breaking down the words of the Hebrew in an attempt to get the full gist of it I came up with 'mine','deaths', 'dread', 'tent peg', 'spears'.

I know that "death" sounds terrible to non believers or those who cannot grasp the spiritual aspect of what that means. The flesh naturally likes its comforts and as carnal humans we do not desire to crucify or shear off those carnal spiritual things we take in for our own tranquility that keep us spiritual fat carnally in holding onto these things in our minds. Instead we should be letting go of or cutting out of our minds as things we need carnally to keep as it prevents us from going forward in his spirit.

To take that even a little farther we can look at the previous word selection in Numbers 11:31 brought. Which is also imparting from the root word to shear or to cut off. With that in mind we can take into account the Quails covering the camp in Exodus 16 and eating of meat and the morning dew. We are also reminded that the covenant made is forever is Psalm 105

A Compendious Hebrew Lexicon: Adapted to the English Language and ...
A Compendious Hebrew Lexicon
Samuel Pike - 1811 - ‎English language
8–שליו שלו שלה to be recare and של) .quietness, tranquillity שלי שלוה כשלו .at ease error or ... שילה

edit: please forgive my grammar errors...wasn't planning on posting so not all here if you know what I mean. I learned if I don't get up and make myself notes with dreams like that it is harder to recall it all in the morning.

Great read. Many thanks.

It is really nice having the Internet now when things that that come instead of having to search through my old books which take so much longer. Rod would have a wonderful testimony to add to this feeling of dread before death of carnal thoughts are put away. He said he was scared to death flying down to Florida the year the holy spirit visited us there. His testimony on that subject is really cool.


edit: another portion in the food aspect when bread לֶחֶם is mentioned. Again keeping with the battle for the spirit of the son of God portion of eternal breath which is housed within us, our minds. Taking that one step farther and putting it into the carnal aspect we best fight illness in these flesh containers by having good food and clean water.

לָחַ ם (N) to fight, do battle with bread, food לֶֶ֫חֶ ם.

 

[Czernobog]

Who would ever need to do such a thing? Do you feel compelled to disprove the existence of unicorns or leprechauns?

You simply believe in faith that deity does not exist, which is fine.

So, you simply believe in faith that unicorns, and leprechauns don't exist?

Fallacy of false equivalency and fallacy of degree not kind

Hold to your faiith, Cz.

Neither. Prove that unicorns don't exist. And just as with God lack of evidence of existence is not proof of non-existence.

Both. I don't have to prove anything. Believe as you will, no skin off my ass.

LOL. Funny that is the exact same argument we use with God that you insist is irrational. Thank you for playing. Have a nice day. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You simply believe in faith that deity does not exist, which is fine.

So, you simply believe in faith that unicorns, and leprechauns don't exist?

Fallacy of false equivalency and fallacy of degree not kind

Hold to your faiith, Cz.

Neither. Prove that unicorns don't exist. And just as with God lack of evidence of existence is not proof of non-existence.

Both. I don't have to prove anything. Believe as you will, no skin off my ass.

LOL. Funny that is the exact same argument we use with God that you insist is irrational. Thank you for playing. Have a nice day. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

You are babbling. Show where I used or implied "irrational." You can't.

AntiGodists are so easy to sweep away in discussion.

I respect honest atheists and agnostics, though.

 

[Czernobog]

Who would ever need to do such a thing? Do you feel compelled to disprove the existence of unicorns or leprechauns?

You simply believe in faith that deity does not exist, which is fine.

So, you simply believe in faith that unicorns, and leprechauns don't exist?

Fallacy of false equivalency and fallacy of degree not kind

Hold to your faiith, Cz.

If you are going to toss about those assertions, you should explain why they are so.

You will believe as you will, and you have no intention of accepting anything that contradicts your beliefs.

That is what faith is all about, bub.

See, that is not true. All you have to do is present me with objective verifiable evidence of the existence of God, and I will immediately change my position.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You simply believe in faith that deity does not exist, which is fine.

So, you simply believe in faith that unicorns, and leprechauns don't exist?

Fallacy of false equivalency and fallacy of degree not kind

Hold to your faiith, Cz.

If you are going to toss about those assertions, you should explain why they are so.

You will believe as you will, and you have no intention of accepting anything that contradicts your beliefs.

That is what faith is all about, bub.

See, that is not true. All you have to do is present me with objective verifiable evidence of the existence of God, and I will immediately change my position.

See, you just proved how silly you are. I don't have to do anything, while you don't have the logic, symbols, or language to disprove the existence of deity.

AntiGodists are just so silly.

 

[Czernobog]

So, you simply believe in faith that unicorns, and leprechauns don't exist?

Fallacy of false equivalency and fallacy of degree not kind

Hold to your faiith, Cz.

Neither. Prove that unicorns don't exist. And just as with God lack of evidence of existence is not proof of non-existence.

Both. I don't have to prove anything. Believe as you will, no skin off my ass.

LOL. Funny that is the exact same argument we use with God that you insist is irrational. Thank you for playing. Have a nice day. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

You are babbling. Show where I used or implied "irrational." You can't.

AntiGodists are so easy to sweep away in discussion.

I respect honest atheists and agnostics, though.

Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. You didn't say irrational. You said illogical. Now before you demand that you didn't say that, either, allow me to remind you that your claim is:

Yet they do not have the language, logic, or symbols to disprove the existence of deity.

So, we "lack logic" to hold the position we have. What do you call a position that lacks logic? Oh, yeah. Illogical. Your position on unicorns is, apparently, equally illogical. When asked to disprove Unicorns, your response was "I don't hafta!" Which is pretty much what we say when some moron demands that we disprove God.

 

[Czernobog]

So, you simply believe in faith that unicorns, and leprechauns don't exist?

Fallacy of false equivalency and fallacy of degree not kind

Hold to your faiith, Cz.

If you are going to toss about those assertions, you should explain why they are so.

You will believe as you will, and you have no intention of accepting anything that contradicts your beliefs.

That is what faith is all about, bub.

See, that is not true. All you have to do is present me with objective verifiable evidence of the existence of God, and I will immediately change my position.

See, you just proved how silly you are. I don't have to do anything, while you don't have the logic, symbols, or language to disprove the existence of deity.

AntiGodists are just so silly.

You're right you don't have to do anything. You accused me of, and I'm quoting here:

You will believe as you will, and you have no intention of accepting anything that contradicts your beliefs.

I dispute that characterisation, and demonstrated the circumstances under which I will easily change my position. Now, the choice is yours. You can either present me with what I need to change my position, or you can not. But, you no longer get to make you specious claims about my position, because you know that I am willing to change my position, and you know what is necessary to change my position.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fallacy of false equivalency and fallacy of degree not kind

Hold to your faiith, Cz.

Neither. Prove that unicorns don't exist. And just as with God lack of evidence of existence is not proof of non-existence.

Both. I don't have to prove anything. Believe as you will, no skin off my ass.

LOL. Funny that is the exact same argument we use with God that you insist is irrational. Thank you for playing. Have a nice day. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

You are babbling. Show where I used or implied "irrational." You can't.

AntiGodists are so easy to sweep away in discussion.

I respect honest atheists and agnostics, though.

Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. You didn't say irrational. You said illogical. Now before you demand that you didn't say that, either, allow me to remind you that your claim is:

Yet they do not have the language, logic, or symbols to disprove the existence of deity.

So, we "lack logic" to hold the position we have. What do you call a position that lacks logic? Oh, yeah. Illogical. Your position on unicorns is, apparently, equally illogical. When asked to disprove Unicorns, your response was "I don't hafta!" Which is pretty much what we say when some moron demands that we disprove God.

I said you did not have "the language, logic, or symbols to disprove the existence of deity." You don't, or you would show it. You can certainly use a fallacy of false equivalency with unicorns or fairies or leprechauns or honest antiGodists, but none of that matters.

You are a moron if you think I demand you disprove God. I know you can't.

Sad to be you mired in your faith belief.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Cz writes "I dispute that characterisation, and demonstrated the circumstances under which I will easily change my position."

Yep, you wrote it, but you don't mean it.

You need to find out for yourself by yourself, but you are far too proud (and scared) to do that.

 

[hobelim]

Cz writes "I dispute that characterisation, and demonstrated the circumstances under which I will easily change my position."

Yep, you wrote it, but you don't mean it.

You need to find out for yourself by yourself, but you are far too proud (and scared) to do that.

The way I see it, scripture clearly specifies the steps necessary to take before a person evolves into a creature capable of experiencing the actual presence of God, not as a concept or hypothetical construct representative of life but as an actual living being whose existence is absolute.

If they do not take those steps its really extremely dishonest for them to continue to claim that there is no proof for the existence of God or means by which they could find out the truth for themselves.

Its like one person claiming that they have found the elixir of life and then another comes along disputing the claim without ever taking so much as a sip....

If this guy was so interested in finding out the truth about whether God exists or not he would be asking what he should do to find the truth not regurgitating the stupid line that someone else has to prove something to him and then he'll believe.

lol...