Apologetics was much more efficient in ancient times

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

So because men of God in the current age do not perform signs and wonders, there is not proof of God? Is this the arguement?

If so, then maybe there was some event or some marker that divided that age from this one.. And maybe, God changed something that would allow direct access to Him on a personal level for each and every specific indivisual, rather than empowering one person every few generations to proove He is still kicking...

And maybe God got stuck on the toilet?

You're committing an ad hoc fallacy. You're making up unsupported excuses for a lack of evidence.

[Drich]

So because men of God in the current age do not perform signs and wonders, there is not proof of God? Is this the arguement?

If so, then maybe there was some event or some marker that divided that age from this one.. And maybe, God changed something that would allow direct access to Him on a personal level for each and every specific indivisual, rather than empowering one person every few generations to proove He is still kicking...

And maybe God got stuck on the toilet?

You're committing an ad hoc fallacy. You're making up unsupported excuses for a lack of evidence.

lol, no. I spelled it out like that so you might have been able to see the reason and the contrast between OT worship/relationship with God and how we have been able to know/worship god after the events of Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit was poured out on all who believed.

Meaning God no longer has to supercharge one person to be a repersentive, but all can potentially have an indewellment of the Holy Spirit. Which in of itself means that you as a believer are your own wittness/phrophet/testament. That is why I keep saying if you want proof of God then ask, seek and knock as outlined in luke 11.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

And maybe God got stuck on the toilet?

You're committing an ad hoc fallacy. You're making up unsupported excuses for a lack of evidence.

lol, no. I spelled it out like that so you might have been able to see the reason and the contrast between OT worship/relationship with God and how we have been able to know/worship god after the events of Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit was poured out on all who believed.

Meaning God no longer has to supercharge one person to be a repersentive, but all can potentially have an indewellment of the Holy Spirit. Which in of itself means that you as a believer are your own wittness/phrophet/testament. That is why I keep saying if you want proof of God then ask, seek and knock as outlined in luke 11.

Now you're committing the appeal to faith fallacy. "X is true. If you have faith, then you will see that x is true."

The holy spirit is a pathetic substitute for the direct interventions of God in the OT. The holy spirit can't be distinguished from a placebo effect.

You're still committing an ad hoc fallacy anyway. Just because you might give some theological reason doesn't make it any less ad hoc. There's still no evidence to support that reason.

[greneknight]

And maybe God got stuck on the toilet?

You're committing an ad hoc fallacy. You're making up unsupported excuses for a lack of evidence.

lol, no. I spelled it out like that so you might have been able to see the reason and the contrast between OT worship/relationship with God and how we have been able to know/worship god after the events of Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit was poured out on all who believed.

Meaning God no longer has to supercharge one person to be a repersentive, but all can potentially have an indewellment of the Holy Spirit. Which in of itself means that you as a believer are your own wittness/phrophet/testament. That is why I keep saying if you want proof of God then ask, seek and knock as outlined in luke 11.

That's not true. I was baptised as an infant, I was raised a Christian and as a Christian, I have the Holy Spirit in me. I used to believe like a literalist when I was really young. Every young child is a literalist. Most of us just grow out of literalism but in the US, 50% never grew out of it. I have never seen any evidence for God, whether as a literalist or as an enlightened non-superstitious CHristian now.

[Drich]

Now you're committing the appeal to faith fallacy. "X is true. If you have faith, then you will see that x is true."

What I am doing is relaying the promise Given by God and full filled with 2000+ years of faithful followers. Myself being included in that number.

The holy spirit is a pathetic substitute for the direct interventions of God in the OT. The holy spirit can't be distinguished from a placebo effect.

If the placebo is all you have been exposed to then how could you possiably know God?

You're still committing an ad hoc fallacy anyway. Just because you might give some theological reason doesn't make it any less ad hoc. There's still no evidence to support that reason.

"That is why you fail." -yoda

If you want real evidence that something exists then one must Ask, Seek, and knock to obtain it. Not limit your exeriences to simply discuss it's philosiphical feesablity.

It's real simple. If you want to know if there is a God then ask Seek and Knock as He instructs and He will full fill His promise to you. that's it. that all anyone needs to find Real proof of God. If you don't and you wish to demand that God do magic tricks for you and strike you down dead on command as proof... Then well maybe one of you will get lucky.

---

lol, no. I spelled it out like that so you might have been able to see the reason and the contrast between OT worship/relationship with God and how we have been able to know/worship god after the events of Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit was poured out on all who believed.

Meaning God no longer has to supercharge one person to be a repersentive, but all can potentially have an indewellment of the Holy Spirit. Which in of itself means that you as a believer are your own wittness/phrophet/testament. That is why I keep saying if you want proof of God then ask, seek and knock as outlined in luke 11.

That's not true. I was baptised as an infant, I was raised a Christian and as a Christian, I have the Holy Spirit in me. I used to believe like a literalist when I was really young. Every young child is a literalist. Most of us just grow out of literalism but in the US, 50% never grew out of it. I have never seen any evidence for God, whether as a literalist or as an enlightened non-superstitious CHristian now.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Now you're committing the appeal to faith fallacy. "X is true. If you have faith, then you will see that x is true."

What I am doing is relaying the promise Given by God and full filled with 2000+ years of faithful followers. Myself being included in that number.

God's existence is what is at question here. You're merely begging the question as far as I can tell.

The holy spirit is a pathetic substitute for the direct interventions of God in the OT. The holy spirit can't be distinguished from a placebo effect.

If the placebo is all you have been exposed to then how could you possiably know God?

Maybe I was exposed to God. I can't seem to tell though. That's the problem.

You're still committing an ad hoc fallacy anyway. Just because you might give some theological reason doesn't make it any less ad hoc. There's still no evidence to support that reason.

"That is why you fail." -yoda

Don't know what that is suppose to mean. I'm a trekkie so maybe that's the problem.

If you want real evidence that something exists then one must Ask, Seek, and knock to obtain it. Not limit your exeriences to simply discuss it's philosiphical feesablity.

It's real simple. If you want to know if there is a God then ask Seek and Knock as He instructs and He will full fill His promise to you. that's it. that all anyone needs to find Real proof of God. If you don't and you wish to demand that God do magic tricks for you and strike you down dead on command as proof... Then well maybe one of you will get lucky.

I've done all of that crap before several times. But of course, you won't believe that because it didn't work for me. I guess I must have been "insincere" every time I did it.

And apparently, it's wrong now to be convinced by "sings and wonders." In your "knock knock" conversion, if any thing spectacular is excluded from being given to the sincere, then I guess what's left is just vague feelings. Really, what is given by God to the sincere knock knock person?

---

"knock knock"
"who's there?"
"God"
"God who?"
"God you're ugly."

[Drich]

God's existence is what is at question here. You're merely begging the question as far as I can tell.

I am not begging anything. Again I am simply relaying The Promise God made to those who want 'proof.' If you have issue with how it is packaged or marketed then take it up with God. I can't change what He has established.

Maybe I was exposed to God. I can't seem to tell though. That's the problem.

You were and are.. and I agree it is a problem. Do you wish to over come it? If so what are you willing to give to over come this problem?

Don't know what that is suppose to mean. I'm a trekkie so maybe that's the problem.

That is why you fail to understand

I've done all of that crap before several times. But of course, you won't believe that because it didn't work for me. I guess I must have been "insincere" every time I did it.

I believe you made an effort, and you probably did the best that you could. However your effort does not reflect the model of Ask, Seek and Knock as outlined in Luke 11.

And apparently, it's wrong now to be convinced by "sings and wonders."

Signs and wonders are not wrong to experience, but at the same time they should not be what you are looking to build your faith on. If your heart is set on signs and wonders to build your faith on you will be disappointed.

In your "knock knock" conversion, if any thing spectacular is excluded from being given to the sincere, then I guess what's left is just vague feelings. Really, what is given by God to the sincere knock knock person?

Awareness of the presents of God, Via the "Fruits" and "Gifts" of the Holy Spirit. In essence one has God personally indwell them, and the more faithful you are to what has been give to you, the more the more 'aware' you become.
To the point where one can ask anything of God and He will grant what has be ask (not to be confused with prayer)

[Tobie]

I am not begging anything. Again I am simply relaying The Promise God made to those who want 'proof.' If you have issue with how it is packaged or marketed then take it up with God. I can't change what He has established.

You bloody well can. It's been done many times before.

[Drich]

I am not begging anything. Again I am simply relaying The Promise God made to those who want 'proof.' If you have issue with how it is packaged or marketed then take it up with God. I can't change what He has established.

You bloody well can. It's been done many times before.

with the same result. If you want proof then why follow the path that yields a failed result?

[Minimalist]

So because men of God in the current age do not perform signs and wonders, there is not proof of God? Is this the arguement?

No, it is evidence that the "signs and wonders" of antiquity were a load of shit, too. Silly claims to overawe the gullible. And the gullible are religion's target audience.