Butterflyleo:


It is so because OUR UNIVERSE HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE A BEGINNING. A beginning means it never existed before until A CAUSE brought it to be. All we see today IS THE EFFECT of that cause. What we call our universe is the effect of that FIRST CAUSE.

What CAUSED our universe to begin to exist, Never existed within our universe because when it existed, our universe did not until it CAUSED it to.

This is very simple.

I showed this post to my 13yr old cousin and asked if he could understand what Butterflyleo wrote here. He took his time and looked up at me with an enlightened look in his eyes and said "Yes it is easy and simple to understand."

I gave my young cousin a bear hug, I lifted him onto my shoulders and we chanted together WE ARE CREATED BEINGS. WE WERE NEVER FISH NOR MONKEY !!!

I responded to this question here, and really wouldn't think another thread need be created for it. However, op claims "The burden of proof is on the positor", and while I would have been willing to engage on this basis - prove that God and gods do not exist - I would like op to consider that he is no better than I am when it comes to accepting the evidence, much of which already peppers numerous threads on this site, from the other side.

Take an example he put forward about resurrection. How please does that prove that gods exists, even assuming it actually happened and barring any other plausible explanation? Is it because God was called prior to the resurrection? So, suppose a Muslim tells op that an Imam called Allah and someone resurrected, would he be willing to accept that as evidence for the existence of Allah? I pretty much doubt it unless he is the type who accepts that Allah and Yahweh are one and the same. What then if it is claimed that a stone was rubbed on the dead body and it resurrected, would op accept that as divinity of the stone? Would any sensible person not ask for evidence? And why pray tell would the person who performed such an amazing feat not be able to do it again and again and again? I do say, I am an atheist and I lost someone very dear to me years ago. Does anyone really think I wouldn't take my dead person to this resurrector if I knew he could resurrect this person whom I loved and miss dearly? And if the condition for the resurrecting is that I believe, do you really think I would be so stubborn to not do so? You really must believe I am stupid! Thankfully, what you believe does not necessarily have to be true, it would seem, so I thank God that you are very wrong indeed!

But the entire premise of ops argument is defeated in one swell swoop by his own limitation of his own Almighty God to be honest, a point better illustrated in my response in the other thread of similar topic. If op understood his God as he proclaims he does, then please explain to me why that God would not find a way to get around my so called stubborn ability to disbelieve, and make me know? Is this not the God who formed me in my mother's womb and knows me in and out? Or is op admitting that his God is rather limited in its ability to convince me, a mere mortal, of its very own existence? I am afraid if it can't, then that alone is perhaps evidence that it is in no way whatsoever, almighty, as some would have one believe, in which case, in what way is it even a god?

The only evidence op is presenting for the existence of a god is anecdotal. Op's argument further falls on its ass when he claims the existence of his God is a belief, which he attempts to counter by claiming that the atheist's position is also a belief. But he couldn't get around the fact that some of us claim to know that gods do not exist. A suitable counter to ops beliefs are simply the fact that he is not alone in having beliefs about gods. It was once believed that a god called Zeus existed, and Apollo, and Osiris, and Obatala, and Ogun and numerous others who it was claimed created the heavens and the earth and the human beings in it. Is op willing to accept that if anyone still believes in any of these numerous gods, then they therefore are real? I wonder. And then there is the tiny issue of them all being the creator of the universe and the living things in it. Surely they can't all have created the one earth and the entire human race. Or is op willing to accept that gods, including op's god, are rather parochial and regional and that they created the humans in the societies that believe in their existences and maybe tiny parts of the universe?

The facts truly are that outside what one chooses to believe, not enough is known about the universe for anyone to claim that nothing actually existed at a particular point in time, and then some super powerful being made it all appear out of nowhere. The absurdity of such claims simply lie at the question of time, for unless one wishes to claim it is a recent occurrence, like 10,000 years at best, then one must sincerely ask how we know what we claim to believe. And when one considers that the universe is actually billions of years old, then consider how you know what happened so long ago when you most likely do not have a clue what happened four, five thousand years ago? Because it was written in one single book you read? Well perhaps that's the problem then, for surely there are a thousand more books that offer alternatives which might perhaps increase the things that the op would need to consider believing if he could but read more. He'd at least have to wonder if any of those are truer than the one that one believes in, if he were to be honest with himself.

The more unfortunate fact however, is that that op is asking that the facts of his religious book are what should be believed when in actual fact, that is not really the point of those books, in my opinion. I do not think it matters whether one believes that a fire burned and God spoke to Moses, or that an ass spoke to Balaam, or even that Jesus Christ was born of the Holy Spirit and lives forever after. For if there is anything true about those books, it surely isn't the record of facts that they present, but the truths about human nature that they actually teach and which if learnt, could be of benefit to one and the entire human race. The Gospels teach this fact very well, but it would seem op, and very many others, are yet to understand the fact that the error of the Pharisees whom Jesus Christ was alleged to have argued continuously with was that they believed but lacked understanding. It is a great pity. The person whom op and many Christians claim to revere had this lesson written in his blood so that they could live an allegorical or mystical everlasting life, but they waste that blood and revert to the pharisaic nature in humans and claim believing is what their God wants them to do. I say, if it was, then the Pharisees were doing very well thank you and there was no need to send an only begotten son to come and be killed to save anyone. Just continue to do what the Pharisees say should be done and you shall enter the Kingdom of God. One need ask why they were accused of giving stones instead of bread however. Perhaps the person accusing them was being rather harsh on them. To me it seems that they too, like op and many modern Christians think the stones are not stones but the bread, and in actual fact, they know not what the heck they are doing.

Op mentioned that he would not go into the question of the definition of the word 'atheist', but I would. The word 'atheist' used to refer to a person who did not worship the established gods. The great Socrates was killed for this one fact - deriding the gods and the beliefs in them in the society of his time. He however still believed in the existence of the gods, just not in the same way that the Greeks of his day did. If one were to be literal, Jesus Christ too was an atheist in his day, as he too did not believe in God in the same way that the priests of is time prescribed. "Is that not the son of Joseph", they wondered, knowing he had not been taught by them. And just to show he went to a different school is the odd statement, "so that it could be said that out of Egypt I called my son", a rather innocuous statement but one with significance that tends to fly over the heads of many.

I'll end as I began. Op might want to consider that he is no better than I am when it comes to accepting the evidence from the other side. I'm not claiming what I've written above is evidence for there not being a God, or gods. But op, and his sort would very likely claim the entire post is a load of rubbish and not worthy of consideration, just like most atheists would react to his anecdotal evidence for his God. But I am not trying to prove to anyone that there are no gods. I just have no evidence for their existence, and the anecdotal evidence presented for them convinces me more that they definitely do not exist. As to evidence that would convince me otherwise, it really is simple, and I am wiling to set this bar really really low to assist you. You believers would claim that God took mud and breathed life into it and created humans in his own image. And Jesus is written to have asked if you know that ye are gods. When your light shines godly, I'll bow, for their is nothing more godly than a human being who behaves in a godly fashion as if God has indeed breathed into the mud that you truly are, though my bowing does not mean I get to worship that person, as reverence, and probably learning from, is surely sufficient. I just don't sit in the dark and refuse to allow a light to light up where I sit, I suppose. And I am not so stupid (though that's debatable, I am aware!) as to claim that a godly person standing before me does not exist either.

darkchild64:


Well if that is what u think then probably the only option is to witness it live,that won't be such a bad idea

Some time ago you were scrounging for evidence of the invisible spirit called God. I asked you to be first to post video evidence of your own invisible force çallled anger and hate, then I will post video evidence of the true creator God.
Go ahead sir and do the right thing, post it.

vaxx:
flawed as usual, By definition, you can't prove a negative. That's the funny thing about life - if God exists, it can be known for real, but if God does not exist, it is not possible to know for sure. Note, this is not my opinion, I am stating an indisputable fact - if God exists, it can be known, because then God can verify His own existence. And if He does not exist, then it cannot be known. It is simple

This works very well for me. I'm begging you to come to the shop with me when I go there to spend the imaginary one million pounds that is in my bank account with which I intend to buy that spanking brand new red Ferrari I've always wanted. I'll introduce the negative, and you can tell the salesman that he can't prove the money does not exist! I'll let you ride in the spanking brand new red Ferrari on Fruitday, a day in the week that no one can prove does not exist, because "it cannot be known" that it does not exist since it is a negative. Simple!

I have to agree that the Op was prepared with astonishing wisdom and is devoid of bias. Allow me to echo below a brief extract from the incredible Op and to congratulate its author WinnerO1,

I've heard an ex atheist say his proof for Gods existence is simply Love. He explains that no matter how hard we try, logic can't explain love.

I have come to understand something about people who need logic to explain every aspect of reality, and can't understand something. Its induces the most profound of fears and so they reject it as false.

"If I can't understand it with logic, measure it or quantify it, it's false".

It has always been a ridiculous apriori position void of any epistemic humility, laced with the arrogant assumption that you are capable of understanding everything that exists, has existed and will exist.

budaatum:

This works very well for me. I'm begging you to come to the shop with me when I go there to spend the imaginary one million pounds that is in my bank account with which I intend to buy that spanking brand new red Ferrari I've always wanted. I'll introduce the negative, and you can tell the salesman that he can't prove the money does not exist! I'll let you ride in the spanking brand new red Ferrari on Fruitday, a day in the week that no one can prove does not exist, because "it cannot be known" that it does not exist since it is a negative. Simple!

Thank you.

For something to be unprovable is itself prove of negativity.

ScienceWatch:
I have to agree that the Op was prepared with astonishing wisdom and is devoid of bias. Allow me to echo below a brief extract from the incredible Op and to congratulate its author WinnerO1,

I've heard an ex atheist say his proof for Gods existence is simply Love. He explains that no matter how hard we try, logic can't explain love.

I have come to understand something about people who need logic to explain every aspect of reality, and can't understand something. Its induces the most profound of fears and so they reject it as false.

"If I can't understand it with logic, measure it or quantify it, it's false".

It has always been a ridiculous apriori position void of any epistemic humility, laced with the arrogant assumption that you are capable of understanding everything that exists, has existed and will exist.

Lol, ex atheist can't explain love, so therefore God exist.

winner01:

But seriously, why do you guys think every theist thread is out to prove anything to you? Are you thirsty?

Oh come on winner01. You start threads, mention us in the title, mention us in the body of the post itself, throw false statements you very well know we would respond to, and you call us thirsty?

You are smarter than you think we now you are but wish to make us think you are dumb. Well, just in case you are not aware, you failed. It's glaringly evident, and you know that means a lot to we atheists. We see right through you! We just need to make you see it too, I guess.

DeSepiero:


Intervention by God in this sense would mean 'the action of God in affecting or altering the normal or expected course of an event or events.
John first mentioned 'interventionist God' so perhaps he may add to that.

Fair enough. I'm all ears.

DeSepiero:


Judging Intervention of God into different levels of intensity from Bible isn't correct because the bible seems to focus on some middle eastern countries.
Did God intervene in other parts of the world while the New Testament apostles were busy in Israel and its environs?

There were apostles in Africa too but that's not even the case

If we wanna stick to the Judeo christian God in this scenario, then we will only discuss the interventionist policies recorded in the Bible.

budaatum:
I responded to this question here, and really wouldn't think another thread need be created for it.

Phew!! A whole pile of crap I regrettably must say.

Your evidence will be your personal experience going by what you posted. It can be discarded and ridiculed since the only proof will be you and can't be replicated.
So your evidence is invalid.

budaatum:
However, op claims "The burden of proof is on the positor", and while I would have been willing to engage on this basis - prove that God and gods do not exist - I would like op to consider that he is no better than I am when it comes to accepting the evidence, much of which already peppers numerous threads on this site, from the other side.

I haven't seen much evidence from the atheists. What I see here on a daily, is simply a counter or ridicule of evidences provided from the other side. Maybe you should create a separate thread and post evidences validating atheism.

budaatum:


Take an example he put forward about resurrection. How please does that prove that gods exists, even assuming it actually happened and barring any other plausible explanation? Is it because God was called prior to the resurrection? So, suppose a Muslim tells op that an Imam called Allah and someone resurrected, would he be willing to accept that as evidence for the existence of Allah? I pretty much doubt it unless he is the type who accepts that Allah and Yahweh are one and the same. What then if it is claimed that a stone was rubbed on the dead body and it resurrected, would op accept that as divinity of the stone? Would any sensible person not ask for evidence? And why pray tell would the person who performed such an amazing feat not be able to do it again and again and again? I do say, I am an atheist and I lost someone very dear to me years ago. Does anyone really think I wouldn't take my dead person to this resurrector if I knew he could resurrect this person whom I loved and miss dearly? And if the condition for the resurrecting is that I believe, do you really think I would be so stubborn to not do so? You really must believe I am stupid! Thankfully, what you believe does not necessarily have to be true, it would seem, so I thank God that you are very wrong indeed!

I didn't put forward resurrection neither did I put forward any proof. Read the op again carefully, you won't find anything of that sort.

budaatum:

But the entire premise of ops argument is defeated in one swell swoop by his own limitation of his own Almighty God to be honest, a point better illustrated in my response in the other thread of similar topic. If op understood his God as he proclaims he does, then please explain to me why that God would not find a way to get around my so called stubborn ability to disbelieve, and make me know? Is this not the God who formed me in my mother's womb and knows me in and out? Or is op admitting that his God is rather limited in its ability to convince me, a mere mortal, of its very own existence? I am afraid if it can't, then that alone is perhaps evidence that it is in no way whatsoever, almighty, as some would have one believe, in which case, in what way is it even a god?

Wrong! I never made mention of my God, neither did I make the case for my God. I simply analyzed the answers to johnydons questions and made a totally different point. You obviously didn't read the thread patiently.

budaatum:


The only evidence op is presenting for the existence of a god is anecdotal. Op's argument further falls on its ass when he claims the existence of his God is a belief, which he attempts to counter by claiming that the atheist's position is also a belief. But he couldn't get around the fact that some of us claim to know that gods do not exist. A suitable counter to ops beliefs are simply the fact that he is not alone in having beliefs about gods. It was once believed that a god called Zeus existed, and Apollo, and Osiris, and Obatala, and Ogun and numerous others who it was claimed created the heavens and the earth and the human beings in it. Is op willing to accept that if anyone still believes in any of these numerous gods, then they therefore are real? I wonder. And then there is the tiny issue of them all being the creator of the universe and the living things in it. Surely they can't all have created the one earth and the entire human race. Or is op willing to accept that gods, including op's god, are rather parochial and regional and that they created the humans in the societies that believe in their existences and maybe tiny parts of the universe?

The facts truly are that outside what one chooses to believe, not enough is known about the universe for anyone to claim that nothing actually existed at a particular point in time, and then some super powerful being made it all appear out of nowhere. The absurdity of such claims simply lie at the question of time, for unless one wishes to claim it is a recent occurrence, like 10,000 years at best, then one must sincerely ask how we know what we claim to believe. And when one considers that the universe is actually billions of years old, then consider how you know what happened so long ago when you most likely do not have a clue what happened four, five thousand years ago? Because it was written in one single book you read? Well perhaps that's the problem then, for surely there are a thousand more books that offer alternatives which might perhaps increase the things that the op would need to consider believing if he could but read more. He'd at least have to wonder if any of those are truer than the one that one believes in, if he were to be honest with himself.

Wrong again! The op did not present any evidence for God. The op simply examined evidences which a few atheists claim would convince them, and subjected those evidences to scrutiny. The thread is not so difficult to understand. Is it?

budaatum:

The more unfortunate fact however, is that that op is asking that the facts of his religious book are what should be believed when in actual fact, that is not really the point of those books ,In my opinion. I do not think it matters whether one believes that a fire burned and God spoke to Moses, or that an ass spoke to Balaam, or even that Jesus Christ was born of the Holy Spirit and lives forever after. For if there is anything true about those books, it surely isn't the record of facts that they present, but the truths about human nature that they actually teach and which if learnt, could be of benefit to one and the entire human race. The Gospels teach this fact very well, but it would seem op, and very many others, are yet to understand the fact that the error of the Pharisees whom Jesus Christ was alleged to have argued continuously with was that they believed but lacked understanding. It is a great pity. The person whom op and many Christians claim to revere had this lesson written in his blood so that they could live an allegorical or mystical everlasting life, but they waste that blood and revert to the pharisaic nature in humans and claim believing is what their God wants them to do. I say, if it was, then the Pharisees were doing very well thank you and there was no need to send an only begotten son to come and be killed to save anyone. Just continue to do what the Pharisees say should be done and you shall enter the Kingdom of God. One need ask why they were accused of giving stones instead of bread however. Perhaps the person accusing them was being rather harsh on them. To me it seems that they too, like op and many modern Christians think the stones are not stones but the bread, and in actual fact, they know not what the heck they are doing.

This is a disgrace!

The op never mentioned that facts of any religious book should be believed. You certainly did not read the op and were just in a haste to post a counter argument.

budaatum:

Op mentioned that he would not go into the question of the definition of the word 'atheist', but I would. The word 'atheist' used to refer to a person who did not worship the established gods. The great Socrates was killed for this one fact - deriding the gods and the beliefs in them in the society of his time. He however still believed in the existence of the gods, just not in the same way that the Greeks of his day did. If one were to be literal, Jesus Christ too was an atheist in his day, as he too did not believe in God in the same way that the priests of is time prescribed. "Is that not the son of Joseph", they wondered, knowing he had not been taught by them. And just to show he went to a different school is the odd statement, "so that it could be said that out of Egypt I called my son", a rather innocuous statement but one with significance that tends to fly over the heads of many.

I'd like to comment about this but it is regrettable that this is the only point you picked in the whole thread. I'm reluctant to argue this with you when you didn't even read the op to understand at all.

budaatum:


I'll end as I began. Op might want to consider that he is no better than I am when it comes to accepting the evidence from the other side. I'm not claiming what I've written above is evidence for there not being a God, or gods. But op, and his sort would very likely claim the entire post is a load of rubbish and not worthy of consideration, just like most atheists would react to his anecdotal evidence for his God. But I am not trying to prove to anyone that there are no gods. I just have no evidence for their existence, and the anecdotal evidence presented for them convinces me more that they definitely do not exist. As to evidence that would convince me otherwise, it really is simple, and I am wiling to set this bar really really low to assist you. You believers would claim that God took mud and breathed life into it and created humans in his own image. And Jesus is written to have asked if you know that ye are gods. When your light shines godly, I'll bow, for their is nothing more godly than a human being who behaves in a godly fashion as if God has indeed breathed into the mud that you truly are, though my bowing does not mean I get to worship that person, as reverence, and probably learning from, is surely sufficient. I just don't sit in the dark and refuse to allow a light to light up where I sit, I suppose. And I am not so stupid (though that's debatable, I am aware!) as to claim that a godly person standing before me does not exist either.

Maybe you should create a thread to state the evidences of atheism. Who knows? Maybe we might see one or two valid evidences.

budaatum:

Oh come on winner01. You start threads, mention us in the title, mention us in the body of the post itself, throw false statements you very well know we would respond to, and you call us thirsty?

You are smarter than you think we now you are but wish to make us think you are dumb. Well, just in case you are not aware, you failed. It's glaringly evident, and you know that means a lot to we atheists. We see right through you! We just need to make you see it too, I guess.

Quick question.

When atheists mention my moniker in threads, does it mean they are trying to prove atheism right to me?

winner01:
Quick question.

When atheists mention my moniker in threads, does it mean they are trying to prove atheism right to me?

No, not necessarily, unless they have an inflated notion of themselves and think they can possibly come up with some argument that would make you abandon your Almighty God, and there are a few of those. Mostly, they are trying to get your attention to respond to the thread. Rarely, they want to just know your view on the specific topic. Often they want to provoke you for their own silly reasons and engage you in a your god does not exist argument. But you knew this, winner01. You just needed to ask yourself why you begin threads and invite atheists in them. Rarely, they are genuine threads with no obvious motive of provocation (and I wish you'd do more of those since you are intelligent enough to). But often, and especially those with atheist in the topic and peppered with words (the "nothing" in the topic of this one, to mention just one of the numerous in this thread), you just want to provoke atheists, and present a clarion call to your supporters and an avenue for ridicule and a your god is bigger than my god argument.

winner01:
Phew!! A whole pile of crap I regrettably must say.

As predicted.

budaatum:
I'll end as I began. Op might want to consider that he is no better than I am when it comes to accepting the evidence from the other side. I'm not claiming what I've written above is evidence for there not being a God, or gods. But op, and his sort would very likely claim the entire post is a load of rubbish and not worthy of consideration......

ScienceWatch:
I am sorry hear that. I got Perlapertapersous from reading this thread, but when I decided to read the entire thread again, focusing only on what all those wise Theists said, I was healed.
I recommend you read this thread again, slowly, deliberately while focusing only on what these gifted Theists has said. Your cancer will be healed.

Please sir, only scientifically verified evidence of your healing is acceptable, so post a copy of your medical report and details of at least 75 witnesses.

This reply made me ret.ard.ed.

�

winner01:
Phew!! A whole pile of crap I regrettably must say.

Your evidence will be your personal experience going by what you posted. It can be discarded and ridiculed since the only proof will be you and can't be replicated.
So your evidence is invalid.


I haven't seen much evidence from the atheists. What I see here on a daily, is simply a counter or ridicule of evidences provided from the other side. Maybe you should create a separate thread and post evidences validating atheism.


I didn't put forward resurrection neither did I put forward any proof. Read the op again carefully, you won't find anything of that sort.


Wrong! I never made mention of my God, neither did I make the case for my God. I simply analyzed the answers to johnydons questions and made a totally different point. You obviously didn't read the thread patiently.


Wrong again! The op did not present any evidence for God. The op simply examined evidences which a few atheists claim would convince them, and subjected those evidences to scrutiny. The thread is not so difficult to understand. Is it?



This is a disgrace!

The op never mentioned that facts of any religious book should be believed. You certainly did not read the op and were just in a haste to post a counter argument.


I'd like to comment about this but it is regrettable that this is the only point you picked in the whole thread. I'm reluctant to argue this with you when you didn't even read the op to understand at all.


Maybe you should create a thread to state the evidences of atheism. Who knows? Maybe we might see one or two valid evidences.

Some just do copy and paste now from previous responses with the assumption that "its the same crap from theists" so no need to read or understand.

Makes the brain bleed.

just saying... if johnnydon, Dalaman, budaatum,... were present at month Sinai when God spoke to Moses, and the Israelites,when he provided food and drinks, and was working in ways that every individual experienced obviously, none of them, except if their insanity and dishonesty are astronomical, would deny God.

if something like that happens today, would there be any way an atheist can logically say there is no God?

Gggg102:
just saying... if johnnydon, Dalaman, budaatum,... were present at month Sinai when God spoke to Moses, and the Israelites,when he provided food and drinks, and was working in ways that every individual experienced obviously, none of them, except if their insanity and dishonesty are astronomical, would deny God.

if something like that happens today, would there be any way an atheist can logically say there is no God?

If nothing will serve as evidence to atheist then winnner01 is calling his God a liar and a fool because even in the bible it says that there are signs that believers will have that unbelievers will see and believe. If that is true then what the he is telling us that his God doesn't know what he is saying when he made those statements in the bible about believers having sign that unbelievers will see and make them believe.

Gggg102:
just saying... if johnnydon, Dalaman, budaatum,... were present at month Sinai when God spoke to Moses, and the Israelites,when he provided food and drinks, and was working in ways that every individual experienced obviously, none of them, except if their insanity and dishonesty are astronomical, would deny God.

if something like that happens today, would there be any way an atheist can logically say there is no God?

I remember when you created a thread on a topic like this and I said if a god as described in the bible exists there would be no faith needed to accept he exists, it would be KNOWLEDGE, no faith required. whether one wants to obey him or not would now be the issue but his existence is foolproof. For instance in the bible Israelites knew Yahweh existed but still chose the golden calf but that never meant they saying Yahweh no longer existed

I find it funny how such a god happens to exist yet has doubters, worst part is that those that actually think he exists these days rely on faith! of course, some of these people deny its faith but such people usually prove they're lying when they're selling you this idea by telling you to........ - guess what? - have faith!!

Going back to that topic you created - I think that was the first ever discussion between me and you - I said I have knowledge Yahweh does not exist and I explained in details why I KNOW so.
as the discussion went on you saw a lot of sense in my view despite the fact that there was one noisemaker there seeking my attention desperately who's monicker starts with B

How the god of Bible moved from being everywhere interfering about and making itself known in perfectly unambiguous ways to the present god of the bible having his interference indistinguishable from random chance should be thought provoking for peddlers of this god but what do I know?

dalaman:


If nothing will serve as evidence to atheist then winnner01 is calling his God a liar and a fool because even in the bible it says that there are signs that believers will have that unbelievers will see and believe. If that is true then what the he is telling us that his God doesn't know what he is saying when he made those statements in the bible about believers having sign that unbelievers will see and make them believe.

Funny enough majority of the Christians of today that preach to atheists are already showing they don't Believe those verses to be true. They would tell you to believe first and the signs would come later Hahahaha they think the promised signs are bullsheet anyways so they go in total reversal of the order given by their imaginary friend

talk about putting the cart before the horse

hopefulLandlord:

Funny enough majority of the Christians of today that preach to atheists are already showing they don't Believe those verses to be true. They would tell you to believe first and the signs would come later Hahahaha they think the promised signs are bullsheet anyways so they go in total reversal of the order given by their imaginary friend

talk about putting the cart before the horse

They are always quick to show everybody that they do not truly believe in the bible when it matters most. They'll just make things up and run away with it.

winner01:
There were apostles in Africa too but that's not even the case

If we wanna stick to the Judeo christian God in this scenario, then we will only discuss the interventionist policies recorded in the Bible.

If we wanna stick to the Judeo Christian God, we have to honestly admit the fact that the interventions recorded were mostly geographically limited which calls to question our decision to use the bible inspite of that flaw.

ScienceWatch:
I showed this post to my 13yr old cousin and asked if he could understand what Butterflyleo wrote here. He took his time and looked up at me with an enlightened look in his eyes and said "Yes it is easy and simple to understand."

I gave my young cousin a bear hug, I lifted him onto my shoulders and we chanted together WE ARE CREATED BEINGS. WE WERE NEVER FISH NOR MONKEY !!!

But your 13 year old cousin' brain is not fully developed...

dalaman:


If nothing will serve as evidence to atheist then winnner01 is calling his God a liar and a fool because even in the bible it says that there are signs that believers will have that unbelievers will see and believe. If that is true then what the he is telling us that his God doesn't know what he is saying when he made those statements in the bible about believers having sign that unbelievers will see and make them believe.

This is one of the paradox I'm talking about, this is a prove of negative against positive claim in the Bible.

tintingz:
This is one of the paradox I'm talking about, this is a prove of negative against positive claim in the Bible.

Exactly. There are many of such that can be made against the bible.

budaatum:

No, not necessarily, unless they have an inflated notion of themselves and think they can possibly come up with some argument that would make you abandon your Almighty God, and there are a few of those. Mostly, they are trying to get your attention to respond to the thread. Rarely, they want to just know your view on the specific topic. Often they want to provoke you for their own silly reasons and engage you in a your god does not exist argument. But you knew this, winner01. You just needed to ask yourself why you begin threads and invite atheists in them. Rarely, they are genuine threads with no obvious motive of provocation (and I wish you'd do more of those since you are intelligent enough to). But often, and especially those with atheist in the topic and peppered with words (the "nothing" in the topic of this one, to mention just one of the numerous in this thread), you just want to provoke atheists, and present a clarion call to your supporters and an avenue for ridicule and a your god is bigger than my god argument.

I begin this threads to spark discussions. Its not always my position is true, yours is a lie. Learn to be less defensive.

And your previous post was truly a pile of crap. That you predicted it does not mean it isn't.

Butterflyleo:


Some just do copy and paste now from previous responses with the assumption that "its the same crap from theists" so no need to read or understand.

Makes the brain bleed.

Its sickening really and to think he believes there was sense in that

Evangkatsoulis:


But your 13 year old cousin' brain is not fully developed...

Why do you do this everytime ? You deliberately limit a "created" humans cognitive abilities to the physical.brain ONLY.
That 13yr old is wise beyond his because he is initiated into spiritual LIGHT.

I raised him onto my shoulders and we chanted together "WE ARE CREATED BEINGS. WE WERE NEVER FISH NOR MONKEY !!!"

"WE ARE CREATED BEINGS. WE WERE NEVER FISH NOR MONKEY !!!"

If we were once fish as the satanist Richard Dawkins proclaimed, then logically we would have EVOLVED to be better swimmers than fish. Case closed !

ScienceWatch:
Some time ago you were scrounging for evidence of the invisible spirit called God. I asked you to be first to post video evidence of your own invisible force çallled anger and hate, then I will post video evidence of the true creator God.
Go ahead sir and do the right thing, post it.

Well I do not intend to respond to ur type because it is useless so stay on ur own lane,I wasn't talking with you

Gggg102:
just saying... if johnnydon, Dalaman, budaatum,... were present at month Sinai when God spoke to Moses, and the Israelites,when he provided food and drinks, and was working in ways that every individual experienced obviously, none of them, except if their insanity and dishonesty are astronomical, would deny God.

if something like that happens today, would there be any way an atheist can logically say there is no God?

If this happens today, it only means johnydon, dalaman, and Budaatum might think twice about their atheism. It would still be their subjective experience subject to ridicule and mockery from other atheists who did not experience it first hand.

For this to affect the beliefs of every atheist in the world, they'll all have to be present at such a scene and that's impossible.

festwiz:

This reply made me ret.ard.ed.

And your reply made me roll on the floor laughing because that was what I hoped my reply would do for you.

You arrogantly believe that you are "too advanced" and like a poorly tuned engine I simply had to "retard" you. You should function better and more economical from now.
The "pinking" in your brain that sounded like a metallic knocking will be gone.
Go for a drive into the LIGHT and see your improved performance.
I did it for free.