Possibilities!

[Hollie]

"And yes, I can disprove it. Disprove my disproof."

Your silly affirmation, so your proof, which you can't do.

You know it, I know it.

You can't disprove my disproof. Didn't think so.

Consider this a free lesson you can use the next time you attempt your pointless " prove it isn't" nonsense.

Your gawd Shiva is transmitting a message. Can you hear the voices?

I said no such thing, and if you suggest I did, you have a problem with integrity.

I said I can't prove God exists, not that you can disprove his existence. You can't. The lesson is yours, Hollie, because your attempt to disprove God's existence is doomed to failure as it always has been and will be.

You sound just like an evangelical, "I know it is true." No, you don't, and you can't prove it.

Odd that a religious zealot would hope to fall back on the "integrity" weasel.

And still you cannot disprove my disproof of your various gawds. As I noted earlier, you need to get on board with the true gawds: the Hindu gawds and not be intellectually lazy and simply accept the gawds of convenience you were given.

When you weasel on integrity, you are a weasel, Hollie. Condemn yourself for your lack of character, not me.

You can't prove your faith that God does not exist. Thus, you have a faith belief in such, the weakness of all atheistic thinking.

Yes, you are intellectually lazy as you talk to your self in the mirror.

I certainly can prove that your gawds do not exist. Prove I can't.

That unseemly drool on your keyboard notwithstanding. why do you insist on an allowance for using a pointless "prove it isn't" argument when I'm simply using your own "standards", (such as they are), to refute your very nonsensical claim.

I'm not responsible for your hurt feelings when the basis of your own argumentation causes you to stutter and mumble.

You Atheists are a hoot.

 

[Hollie]

I don't have to, because I know you can't.

You can't do it empirically, you can't do it philosophically.

You know it, I know it, the world knows it.

You operate by faith.

And still, you can't refute my argument. Poor jake. You're just incensed that you're held to your own standards of fallacious argumentation. What a shame your sidestepping and waffling doesn't grant you an entitlement for lies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stuttering and stumbling and drooling are your behaviors, for you are the one looking in the mirror, Hollie. Personal attacks don't help your argument, and they simply make you appear small minded in character. I understand that you don't like being called weaselly, but that is what you did, and I called you out for it. I always will. That which you accuse me of is your practice.

I know you can't disprove that God exists. You can't do it empirically, you can't do it philosophically. You know it, I know it, the world knows it.

You operate by faith.

 

[Hollie]

Stuttering and stumbling and drooling are your behaviors, for you are the one looking in the mirror, Hollie. Personal attacks don't help your argument, and they simply make you appear small minded in character. I understand that you don't like being called weaselly, but that is what you did, and I called you out for it. I always will. That which you accuse me of is your practice.

I know you can't disprove that God exists. You can't do it empirically, you can't do it philosophically. You know it, I know it, the world knows it.

You operate by faith.

Ah. This must be the "angry jake" persona.

It's a simple matter. You're screeching out that I can't disprove your partisan gawds. I certainly can. Prove I can't.

You just need to get on board with the right gawds, not the hand-me-down gawds you were given.

 

[Judicial review]

how do you know what God thinks until you ask Him?

Have you ever heard of the bible and how it's impossible to be made up? Ok, guess not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stuttering and stumbling and drooling are your behaviors, for you are the one looking in the mirror, Hollie. Personal attacks don't help your argument, and they simply make you appear small minded in character. I understand that you don't like being called weaselly, but that is what you did, and I called you out for it. I always will. That which you accuse me of is your practice.

I know you can't disprove that God exists. You can't do it empirically, you can't do it philosophically. You know it, I know it, the world knows it.

You operate by faith.

Ah. This must be the "angry jake" persona.

It's a simple matter. You're screeching out that I can't disprove your partisan gawds. I certainly can. Prove I can't.

You just need to get on board with the right gawds, not the hand-me-down gawds you were given.

Nope, no anger. Simply correcting an immature individual who makes things up when corrected for a lack of maturity and a lack of integrity.

You need to get on board with a better, inner Hollie, because spitefulness is not useful to a person.

 

[Hollie]

Stuttering and stumbling and drooling are your behaviors, for you are the one looking in the mirror, Hollie. Personal attacks don't help your argument, and they simply make you appear small minded in character. I understand that you don't like being called weaselly, but that is what you did, and I called you out for it. I always will. That which you accuse me of is your practice.

I know you can't disprove that God exists. You can't do it empirically, you can't do it philosophically. You know it, I know it, the world knows it.

You operate by faith.

Ah. This must be the "angry jake" persona.

It's a simple matter. You're screeching out that I can't disprove your partisan gawds. I certainly can. Prove I can't.

You just need to get on board with the right gawds, not the hand-me-down gawds you were given.

Nope, no anger. Simply correcting an immature individual who makes things up when corrected for a lack of maturity and a lack of integrity.

You need to get on board with a better, inner Hollie, because spitefulness is not useful to a person.

There's that expected angry Christian response.

What a shame you angry Christians hold yourselves to a unique standard that only you are allowed to exploit. I can understand that you become incensed that anyone dare challenge your beliefs to partisan gawds, but why not be honest with yourself and others and avoid the pretentious Martyr syndrome?

 

[Judicial review]

Stuttering and stumbling and drooling are your behaviors, for you are the one looking in the mirror, Hollie. Personal attacks don't help your argument, and they simply make you appear small minded in character. I understand that you don't like being called weaselly, but that is what you did, and I called you out for it. I always will. That which you accuse me of is your practice.

I know you can't disprove that God exists. You can't do it empirically, you can't do it philosophically. You know it, I know it, the world knows it.

You operate by faith.

Ah. This must be the "angry jake" persona.

It's a simple matter. You're screeching out that I can't disprove your partisan gawds. I certainly can. Prove I can't.

You just need to get on board with the right gawds, not the hand-me-down gawds you were given.

Nope, no anger. Simply correcting an immature individual who makes things up when corrected for a lack of maturity and a lack of integrity.

You need to get on board with a better, inner Hollie, because spitefulness is not useful to a person.

There's that expected angry Christian response.

What a shame you angry Christians hold yourselves to a unique standard that only you are allowed to exploit. I can understand that you become incensed that anyone dare challenge your beliefs to partisan gawds, but why not be honest with yourself and others and avoid the pretentious Martyr syndrome?

You have the wrong view of Christians and Christians have given you that wrong view. Doesn't mean it's right.

 

[Hollie]

Stuttering and stumbling and drooling are your behaviors, for you are the one looking in the mirror, Hollie. Personal attacks don't help your argument, and they simply make you appear small minded in character. I understand that you don't like being called weaselly, but that is what you did, and I called you out for it. I always will. That which you accuse me of is your practice.

I know you can't disprove that God exists. You can't do it empirically, you can't do it philosophically. You know it, I know it, the world knows it.

You operate by faith.

Ah. This must be the "angry jake" persona.

It's a simple matter. You're screeching out that I can't disprove your partisan gawds. I certainly can. Prove I can't.

You just need to get on board with the right gawds, not the hand-me-down gawds you were given.

Nope, no anger. Simply correcting an immature individual who makes things up when corrected for a lack of maturity and a lack of integrity.

You need to get on board with a better, inner Hollie, because spitefulness is not useful to a person.

There's that expected angry Christian response.

What a shame you angry Christians hold yourselves to a unique standard that only you are allowed to exploit. I can understand that you become incensed that anyone dare challenge your beliefs to partisan gawds, but why not be honest with yourself and others and avoid the pretentious Martyr syndrome?

You have the wrong view of Christians and Christians have given you that wrong view. Doesn't mean it's right.

The only external example of Christianity is Christians.

But yes, my jaundiced view of Christianity does come, in large part, from Christians.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

how do you know what God thinks until you ask Him?

"HIM?"

Would God be of the male gender without the existence of a female God?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I see the very premise of this thread as faulty because it operates from the assumption that there most definitely is a God, that God is singular and would need to chose one, specific human construct in order to discussion to proceed.

I would rather operate from the standpoint that since man's attempt to understand the unknown varies so much, then one should look for the commonalities in order to find the good stuff rather than viewing them all as mutually exclusive and only one of which could be true.

One doesn't have to see them all as EQUALLY possible, as a better approach for the individual would involve weighing the odds. In that regard, I would ascribe the teachings of Jesus or Buddha a much higher probability than I would Mohammad, which would so close to nil as to be indistinguishable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Since God's existence cannot be either proved or disproved empirically and even less philosophically, some of the comments above, including Hollie's, are meaningless

 

[Avatar4321]

how do you know what God thinks until you ask Him?

Have you ever heard of the bible and how it's impossible to be made up? Ok, guess not.

so its impossible for the bible to be made up but all other religious books can be? How do you figure?

the only way to know Gods thoughts is from Him. Even the Bible would be useless without the Holy spirit to reveal it's true mea Ing.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

how do you know what God thinks until you ask Him?

"HIM?"

Would God be of the male gender without the existence of a female God?

God created by a female! ha! Not a chance. Mary was a sinner saved by grace and a vessel God chose to send His Only Begotten Son into the world by. Jesus was before Mary was. Jesus was in the Beginning - see John Chapter one of the New Testament. Mary is NOT a deity and should not be worshiped or prayed to as one. God has always been. No one created God! NO ONE. Especially not a woman! That is ridiculous!

 

[Hollie]

Since God's existence cannot be either proved or disproved empirically and even less philosophically, some of the comments above, including Hollie's, are meaningless

As we know jake is getting rather frantic and is unable to disprove the disproof of his partisan gawds, his protests are meaningless.

 

[September]

how do you know what God thinks until you ask Him?

"HIM?"

Would God be of the male gender without the existence of a female God?

God created by a female! ha! Not a chance. Mary was a sinner saved by grace and a vessel God chose to send His Only Begotten Son into the world by. Jesus was before Mary was. Jesus was in the Beginning - see John Chapter one of the New Testament. Mary is NOT a deity and should not be worshiped or prayed to as one. God has always been. No one created God! NO ONE. Especially not a woman! That is ridiculous!

Its not really that ridiculous.

Tiamat, the primordial draconic saltwater goddess of Chaos, of the ancient Mesopotamian pantheons, who with her freshwater consort Absu filled the primordial Abyss with their waters and gave birth to the following generations of deities, preceded all of the other gods and goddesses, even Anu and Marduk, who seem to have the most in common with the biblical YHWH.

Stories of YHWH confronting the primordial waters, triumphing over Chaos and bringing Order to the Cosmos were no doubt influenced by Mesopotamian religions that came before the Abrahamic religions.​

 

[JakeStarkey]

Since God's existence cannot be either proved or disproved empirically and even less philosophically, some of the comments above, including Hollie's, are meaningless

As we know jake is getting rather frantic and is unable to disprove the disproof of his partisan gawds, his protests are meaningless.

Hollie certainly is frantic that she cannot disprove God's existence, although she says she can. She could say she could fly to the Sun by herself with no more possibility of doing it as proving God does not exist.

Holly, abide with your faith, and be gracious enough to allow others to do the same.

 

[Hollie]

Since God's existence cannot be either proved or disproved empirically and even less philosophically, some of the comments above, including Hollie's, are meaningless

As we know jake is getting rather frantic and is unable to disprove the disproof of his partisan gawds, his protests are meaningless.

Hollie certainly is frantic that she cannot disprove God's existence, although she says she can. She could say she could fly to the Sun by herself with no more possibility of doing it as proving God does not exist.

Holly, abide with your faith, and be gracious enough to allow others to do the same.

You haven't disproved by disproof of your partisan gawds. I can certainly use your "standards" of argumentation to refute your very weak attempt at argument. You run screeching and wailing when that is done, yet you demand special dispensations when your very standards are presented to you.

I was hoping you could expand on your earlier comment about using empirical methods to prove or disprove various gawds. You used the singular term for gawd, presuming your gawds are true and extant to the exclusion of other gawds which are just as well represented as your partisan gawds.

How does one use the methods of empiricism to validate any of your gawds or the other extant gawds? With reference to your asserted gawds, what empirical methods can be employed to examine your supernatural realms, occupied by men in long flowing gowns, fat, naked babies playing harps, etc.?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

We will follow this question to our graves...because we will never know.

Then why do people already assume they have the answer?

They don't.

They believe that they have the answer.

All believing takes is belief - which is easy, ass-u-me-ing one believes!

All believing takes is convincing instead of ass-u-me-ing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hollie, unable to disprove that a God exists, seems to think someone has to disprove her beliefs. Not at all. She can neither prove nor disprove. Her issue, no one else.

Her increasingly shrill language demonstrates her growing discontent.