Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
prove adam and eve were historial figures, that they exists first and not some figures from harry potter or superman from DC comics. I have yet to see a talking snake, have you?
hahahahahha now prove god and SATAN exists before you proceed any further LOL
Originally posted by lce:if man corrupts wat makes u think the bible written by man is not corrupted?
A good response.
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:hahahahahha now prove god and SATAN exists before you proceed any further LOL
simple, god is satan and satan is god.
splendid richard dawkins reply to Intelligent Design, saying everything cannot be left to chance and that there must be a designer. To this he said, ID or god, he said did not explain anything at all. hahahaha. well he is right. to say god created everything in the universe, is like not explaining at all LOL. splendid reply.
Originally posted by SJS6638:A good response.
Why would that be a good response? There was a failure to define what was meant by corruption. Neither was there any argument to support the allegation. Surely you don't just buy into such allegations blindly?
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:hahahahahha now prove god and SATAN exists before you proceed any further LOL
Define what you mean by prove. Chances are, you do not even know the kind of proofs there are and whether the proofs demanded are reasonable.
Burden of prove lies on the side making the claim. Reasonable.
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:splendid richard dawkins reply to Intelligent Design, saying everything cannot be left to chance and that there must be a designer. To this he said, ID or god, he said did not explain anything at all. hahahaha. well he is right. to say god created everything in the universe, is like not explaining at all LOL. splendid reply.
Not only is saying God created the universe a splendid reply, it is the truth as well. The worst kind of explanation is the atheist's belief that the universe created itself from nothing. That's not a splendid reply at all, it's a ridiculous one.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:Burden of prove lies on the side making the claim. Reasonable.
You reply without thinking what I was asking.
Anyway, I can simply redefine theism simply as a lack belief in the non-existence of God. So what burden of proof are you talking about? Duh...
Originally posted by BroInChrist:You reply without thinking what I was asking.
Anyway, I can simply redefine theism simply as a lack belief in the non-existence of God. So what burden of proof are you talking about? Duh...
Yes you can redefine. Its becoming a habit. Accusations without charge. Claiming without proving. Nothing new here
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Yes you can redefine. Its becoming a habit. Accusations without charge. Claiming without proving. Nothing new here
Well, atheists should not be complaining when they are guilty (if not more so) of the same things they accuse others of.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Well, atheists should not be complaining when they are guilty (if not more so) of the same things they accuse others of.
who was complaining? Its only reasonable that the side making a claim to be burdened with providing proof beyond reasonable doubt. Complaining what the other side should should not be complaining is pretty much saying"no u". Ignoratio elenchi...
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
who was complaining? Its only reasonable that the side making a claim to be burdened with providing proof beyond reasonable doubt. Complaining what the other side should should not be complaining is pretty much saying"no u". Ignoratio elenchi...
Sure, I agree it is reasonable to carry a burden of proof for making a claim. But since my claim is that theism is a lack of belief in the non-existence of God, then what burden of proof you talking about?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Sure, I agree it is reasonable to carry a burden of proof for making a claim. But since my claim is that theism is a lack of belief in the non-existence of God, then what burden of proof you talking about?
For this context, double negative makes a positive. Unless you argue otherwise....
to say god created the universe and everything is like not explaining at all. it is as good as not saying in the first place. unlike science, who can explain the phenomenon in detail and equations.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Not only is saying God created the universe a splendid reply, it is the truth as well. The worst kind of explanation is the atheist's belief that the universe created itself from nothing. That's not a splendid reply at all, it's a ridiculous one.
Something From Nothing - a conversation w/ Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
For this context, double negative makes a positive. Unless you argue otherwise....
It is still a lack of belief, a lack. So to be consistent, if lacking a belief means no burden of proof for the atheist then it equally applies to here as well. It has nothing to do with negative or positive claim. A belief is a belief, a claim is a claim. If you claim there is no God then you have a burden of proof on your shoulders.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:If you claim there is no God then you have a burden of proof on your shoulders.
I LOL when I read another of your illogical and incoherent comments. you say there is a god, but could not and will not provide proof. instead you asked those that do not believe in god to provide proof LOL.
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:to say god created the universe and everything is like not explaining at all. it is as good as not saying in the first place. unlike science, who can explain the phenomenon in detail and equations.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Well, atheists should not be complaining when they are guilty (if not more so) of the same things they accuse others of.
Face the fact, not everyone who does not believe in your God is atheist.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Really? What did science explain about why the universe exists at all and how it came to be? Saying nothing created everything not only explains nothing it is not even an explanation of anything. It is a nonsensical claim.
god works in mysterious ways and god is the creator is as good as not explaining.
its a claim, a wild and unsubstantiated claim, nothing more than that.
nonsensical claim? yes you can say that again, because that is exactly what your beliefs are. utter rubbish
All these conflicts and argument, I won't be surprised in the end only a small number of christians are allowed to heaven.
I dun get it. when one dun believe their god one is called an atheist.
similarly do they believe in shiva, brahma, krishna? I bet they dun so wouldnt they be called an atheist also.
Christian means without christ I am nothing that is how they view the word CHRISTIAN. Remove the Christ and the IAN stands for I am nothing.
Thus, without christ others are atheists and what shit ......... christians are previous in the sight of the so called "god".