Conflicting statements in the bible

[Tex]

[quote='Tex' pid='436650' dateline='1366922588']

---

A: "The simplest explanation is always the most likely."
T: Why does the universe just "simply exist"?
A: Because that's simple.
T: But it's irrational.
A: You're just too dumb to understand. Why do you "engage in contortions" and revel in the "belief of the believers".
T: That doesn't actually answer my objection.
A: You never made one; you're just dumb.
T: The universe "simply existing" is irrational. Therefore, the claim "the universe exists because it's simple" is irrational.
A: You're so dumb. Your God is evil.
T: That's a red herring, sir. I'd like if you'd address my question.
A: Can't answer me? I think that means you concede. I'll take this as a win.
T: This isn't a contest, and you changed the subject. Talk about the matter at hand.
A: I win. Give me my trophy.
T: I think you're a troll.
A: I should receive laurel and food for life.
A: I am so awesome. No one can beat me.
A: I will probably say that in reality, this conversation is flipped and T stands for Tard.
A: I'm a genius. I connected that T and tard start with the same letter.
A: Where is T? He probably ran away scared.
A: ...
A: Hello?
A: I need to find someone else to give me attention...

---

What does this bit of ridiculous propaganda have to do with the OP regarding biblical contradictions?[/quote[]

I was making fun of Nony and Ryan. That is how they are argue. I find it ridiculous.

I have no doubt you clicked that Submit Post button feeling extremely clever. The problem with these questions is, you rely entirely on physical evidence just as we do. You justify your beliefs on two things: a book, and neurochemical reactions you interpret, in your profound ignorance, as communication from a god.

You ask us to make certain confirmations of the veracity of physical evidence, but this is dishonest. We'll accept your claims of the supernatural the moment you can conclusively demonstrate that they are real to anybody but yourself. Don't try to turn it back around on us. You're still the one making extraordinary claims you cannot demonstrate to be true. You are still full of shit until you can prove otherwise.

I do not "rely" on them to make all claims, as you and Nony do. I am showing the absurdity of the claim, "Physical evidence is the base of all rational claims". The claim itself then would require physical evidence in order to be rational.

If the claim were real, we'd probably would never trust each other and starve to death. All husbands would have to get blood tests on their children so that they may have physical evidence to say "this is my child". All food would need to be tested for poison because you don't have any physical evidence that it's poison-free. Most of the time, we just go by trust. Physical evidence is there to back up the trust, but the large majority of the time the physical evidence doesn't even matter. Think of the Flat Earth Society. You think they would care what evidence was brought to them? They have no trust in us, so they do not trust our evidence. The evidence is moot.

I use physical evidence, yes, but not entirely, and you don't either. And when you demanded evidence from me, Ryan, I gave you it. The only time I couldn't was when you demanded the impossible. The point of the post was to show that physical evidence is not everything nor even necessary.

Also, insults don't actually make your argument better. I hope at least makes you feel better when you do it though.

@Minimalist

I'm glad you're so sure of yourself. I hope it makes you feel better.