(June 27, 2013 at 3:33 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Prove that your interpretation is more correct than ours.

That seams to be perpetuating problem for theists, they simply cannot...

Bible is true, literal word of god till the bad part comes in, and then:

(June 27, 2013 at 7:57 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It doesn’t matter whether it is positive or not (even though it is); you still share the burden of proof.

I have not actually made a claim to prove. I don't believe in your God. If you can prove that he exists, I'll believe in him.

Quote:I didn’t provide evidence, I provided proof: you.

Not even close to good enough. Prove that your God exists directly.

Quote:Prove what assertion?

"The fact we can obtain knowledge is proof that my justification is warranted."

Quote:It was not a mere assertion, it was supported by you. You could not justify your belief that your senses were reliable, and yet a Christian can.

Yet another bald assertion. That really must be all you have. Prove it.

Quote:And yet they’re only justified if the God of scripture exists; so I’d say they have a lot to do with Him.

Prove this assertion.

Quote:That’s correct, but supported ones do, and you’ve supported that assertion for me.

I am not proof of any God. Prove that your God exists directly.

Quote:Actually I’d say you’re the one who sucks at all of this, here you have helped me demonstrate exactly what I said I’d demonstrate, and you still seem to be oblivious to the fact that you did it for me.

Such a sorry standard of proof if that's the best you have.

Quote:God planned to exhibit His might and wrath through the destruction of the wicked yes.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion. He expressed regret. Regret indicates an undesired outcome.

Quote:You seem to be ignorant of how the Jews would learn and pass their oral traditions down through the generations, it is actually rather amazing. The Bible is the best preserved and attested book we have of antiquity, scholars all agree on that.

You seem to be ignorant of precisely where this particular tradition began, as that is the entire point.

Quote:Yup, and if you told thousands of people the sentence in “telephone” you could easily get back to the original sentence by examining the similarities and variances in the copies. You act like there is only one manuscript copy we have, we have thousands, and they were separated by hundreds of miles isolating them from tampering. We know what the originals said to an amazing degree of certainty.

How can you know what the originals said when you don't know what the original is? Even if you did, you still cannot prove that the words were inspired by your God, but let's clear the ridiculously improbable hurdle before you tackle the impossible one.

Quote:Why? How would you know it was a flaw existed?

That it is not a perfectly accurate retelling of events indicates flaws. You have four gospels which do not correlate 100%. That Genesis depicts events none of the writers could have witnessed indicates flaws. That the Genesis story obviously does not describe how the world was created, yet another. Or is this where you attempt to show everybody how flowering plants were able to exist without sunlight or rain until God decided that it was necessary for them?

Quote:What did you say about assertions? Care to back yours up?

You have demonstrably not shown that your story is legitimate.

Quote:If I recall correctly, that was not the definition of evil you gave.

I defined it "Evil is what God says is evil". So, you do not recall correctly. Though I expect a semantic argument to follow.

Quote:Ok, which one? Why is it terrible? Be specific.

Every single one. Because you fail, repeatedly, to demonstrate the validity of a single assertion you make, and when confronted by this, your only response is to deflect my questions back at me. You have no answers you can prove, which is pretty sorry because you are making a lot of claims with total certainty. And, for some reason, you feel entitled to not needing to substantiate a single one of them. But, how else would one expect a troll to operate?

(June 29, 2013 at 6:02 am)FifthElement Wrote:

(June 27, 2013 at 3:33 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Prove that your interpretation is more correct than ours.

That seams to be perpetuating problem for theists, they simply cannot...

Bible is true, literal word of god till the bad part comes in, and then:

I've proven the scriptures discussed on this post, no need in continuing to go on. You want listen and I'm not wasting any more time with this.

(June 19, 2013 at 3:01 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: Considering that people are perfectly capable of living happy, moral lives without a belief in a higher power, I would like to hear logical answers from theists as to precisely why belief in a higher power is required in this world. It is a question I have never seen adequately answered.

The problem with this OP is that a higher power doesn't necessarily equate to a personal God, or even a god. For one I think belief in a "higher power" is completely reasonable, even probable, given how vast the universe, not to mention existence, is. I do know you meant the theist version of a higher power, though. Just wanted to say it. If a higher power were the one giving me my morals, I would be even less likely to follow them, just saying.

(June 29, 2013 at 2:27 pm)Godschild Wrote: I've proven the scriptures discussed on this post, no need in continuing to go on. You want listen and I'm not wasting any more time with this.

Why should we believe that you're not twisting it to suit your personal agenda, when other Christians on this very forum interpret things differently from you? Why should anybody think you know anything about scripture other than how to quote it? Because, so far, you have not shown that your interpretation is accurate.

(June 19, 2013 at 3:01 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: Considering that people are perfectly capable of living happy, moral lives without a belief in a higher power, I would like to hear logical answers from theists as to precisely why belief in a higher power is required in this world. It is a question I have never seen adequately answered.

Hawkins has also said a god is not required. But some quack scientists have postulated "all this" being a giant simulation which would still have the problem of infinite regress.