(August 20, 2014 at 11:21 pm)Drich Wrote:

(August 20, 2014 at 10:01 pm)GalacticBusDriver Wrote: Present him for our inspection and we'll see.

Until then, would you please tell the voices in your head we're not interested in what they have to say? Thanks so much.

Again, God is not some trainned monkey i can produce, to perform on your demand. I have absolutly no say in what God does. That however does not mean you can get an audience with Him. You just have to do things His way. (Think meeting the president or queen or whatever head of state you have.) you have to do it their way on their terms. So why not the God of creation? In short you become the monkey.. Which should suit most of you, just fine.
(evolutionists)
Get it? Monkey/evolutionists??

Again with the heads of state thing? Really?!? So, do Obama and the Queen seek to have a personal relationship with me?!? Do they wish me to worship them?!? If they did, I would fully expect them to seek me out as would only be proper from someone wishing to be a part of my daily life.

Not so for gawd, eh? It hasn't got the common courtesy to make itself known to the people it wishes to have a personal relationship with? Sometimes (like now) your gawd sounds like a stalker. Other times it sounds like an abusive spouse. "Love me, or I'll kill you, Bitch!" Not so different from "Love me or burn in hell, filthy sinner!" Either way, not something I would want as a part of my life.

Spare me any bullshit responses, unless you can bring actual, testable, verifiable evidence to the table you have nothing of merit to say on the issue. Your continued spamming of a/s/k is ridiculous. No-one here buys the bullshit.

Drich, you still suck at analogies.

I will agree that gawd is not a trained monkey. I've actually seen one of those and evidence of many others. Something you simply cannot provide for your gawd.

(August 20, 2014 at 11:21 pm)Drich Wrote:

(August 20, 2014 at 10:01 pm)GalacticBusDriver Wrote: Present him for our inspection and we'll see.

Until then, would you please tell the voices in your head we're not interested in what they have to say? Thanks so much.

Again, God is not some trainned monkey i can produce, to perform on your demand. I have absolutly no say in what God does. That however does not mean you can get an audience with Him. You just have to do things His way. (Think meeting the president or queen or whatever head of state you have.) you have to do it their way on their terms. So why not the God of creation? In short you become the monkey.. Which should suit most of you, just fine.
(evolutionists)
Get it? Monkey/evolutionists??

If your deity can't make an appearance in person, or send his messengers/representatives (as apparently happened on an almost daily basis according to the OT) then why should we blindly believe in him?

But we're not monkeys. We're apes.

Why is that so hard for creationists to understand?

(August 20, 2014 at 11:19 pm)Natachan Wrote: You do know the evidence for Jesus is circumstantial, right?

Yep, by design. Otherwise only one of us need knock and the rest would have to believe. As it is we each have the oppertunity to find out for ourselves. Just know if and when you do knock properly and approach God with humility the 'proof' you get will remove mountains of doubt.

Quote:There were a number of people around this time who were apocalyptic prophets around whom cults sprang up. It is likely that The Jesus myth sprang up around one of these figures. And I say "myth" because portions of the gospels are historically not true. And verifiably so.

then please identify said passages and verify. Don't just pretend it can be done.

Quote: course the existence of god has no connection to the veracity of scripture, but if it's your only tool then you're in trouble. You seem unable to provide one piece of independent evidence outside of the gospels and personal subjective experience.

if I told you my very rich uncle told me gather as many people as i can find who are in need, and have them meet him at the down town starbucks at noon on Saturday, and he will fill whatever deserving needs they may have. How would you go about "proofing the veracity of the claim," without resorting to the 'good news' he told me and the personal "subjective" experiences of those in whom He helped?

Now, what if I told you that He would be at the down town starbucks again this Saturday at noon. Then provided you with testimony to those He has already helped, and tell you all you need do is A/S/K. Would you demand the same level of proof your asking for God?

Quote:If you believe because you just want to, that's fine. My mom is like that and I respect her more for admitting it. I don't want to stop you from something that works for you, provided you aren't hurting anyone. But please stop with the circular arguments.

This is an Empty charge. You have yet to provide solid 'proof' of any of the charges you have made. Just because you say the nt can be proven wrong and verified doesn't not make that statement true. Like wise simply calling my reasoning circular also does not make what you said true. Your good at calling people out, just not so good at backing up what you have to say.

Did you see how that is done? I made a charge, and then gave an factual example of your failing.[/quote]

---

(August 20, 2014 at 11:29 pm)Stimbo Wrote: No.

I believe it is spelled Oo. As in Oo, Oo, ah, ah.

I wouldn't know, not being a screeching, nonhuman primate. Please enlighten me.

(August 20, 2014 at 11:32 pm)GalacticBusDriver Wrote: Again with the heads of state thing? Really?!? So, do Obama and the Queen seek to have a personal relationship with me?!? Do they wish me to worship them?!? If they did, I would fully expect them to seek me out as would only be proper from someone wishing to be a part of my daily life.

do you not understand the fundamentals of how analogies work?
Analogy
a correspondence or partial similarity.
"the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects.
"works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"
LOGIC
a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects.
synonyms: similarity, parallel, correspondence, likeness, resemblance, correlation, relation, kinship, equivalence, similitude, metaphor, simile
"there's a thinly veiled analogy between his fiction and his real life"
LINGUISTICS
a process by which new words and inflections are created on the basis of regularities in the form of existing ones.
BIOLOGY
the resemblance of function between organs that have a different evolutionary origin.

According to the good ole google dictionary analogies are not required to share all aspects of the two objects being compared. All they need do is share a specific similarity. Now with that in mind if I choose to highlight one aspect of how a common person approaches a person in high authority, then that is all the compareson need share.

If you go off reservation or out side the bounds of the analogy then you are guilty of building and attacking strawmen.
The following is a good example of failed strawman logic and the liberal usage of red herrings.
[/quote]

Quote:Not so for gawd, eh? It hasn't got the common courtesy to make itself known to the people it wishes to have a personal relationship with? Sometimes (like now) your gawd sounds like a stalker. Other times it sounds like an abusive spouse. "Love me, or I'll kill you, Bitch!" Not so different from "Love me or burn in hell, filthy sinner!" Either way, not something I would want as a part of my life.

Spare me any bullshit responses, unless you can bring actual, testable, verifiable evidence to the table you have nothing of merit to say on the issue. Your continued spamming of a/s/k is ridiculous. No-one here buys the bullshit.

Drich, you still suck at analogies.

I will agree that gawd is not a trained monkey. I've actually seen one of those and evidence of many others. Something you simply cannot provide for your gawd.

---

(August 20, 2014 at 11:45 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I wouldn't know, not being a screeching, nonhuman primate. Please enlighten me.

I don't know stim, I think your selling yourself short here. I bet if you tried you'd be able to figure something out.

---

(August 20, 2014 at 11:33 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(August 20, 2014 at 11:21 pm)Drich Wrote: Again, God is not some trainned monkey i can produce, to perform on your demand. I have absolutly no say in what God does. That however does not mean you can get an audience with Him. You just have to do things His way. (Think meeting the president or queen or whatever head of state you have.) you have to do it their way on their terms. So why not the God of creation? In short you become the monkey.. Which should suit most of you, just fine.
(evolutionists)
Get it? Monkey/evolutionists??

If your deity can't make an appearance in person, or send his messengers/representatives (as apparently happened on an almost daily basis according to the OT) then why should we blindly believe in him?

But we're not monkeys. We're apes.

Why is that so hard for creationists to understand?

Who said He can't/won't do any or all of those things? And who said anything about blind belief? Did you even bother to read the op?

This thread is about finding proof enough to establish and sustain a life long solid proof based belief.

(August 20, 2014 at 11:50 pm)Drich Wrote:

(August 20, 2014 at 11:32 pm)GalacticBusDriver Wrote: Again with the heads of state thing? Really?!? So, do Obama and the Queen seek to have a personal relationship with me?!? Do they wish me to worship them?!? If they did, I would fully expect them to seek me out as would only be proper from someone wishing to be a part of my daily life.

do you not understand the fundamentals of how analogies work?
Analogy
a correspondence or partial similarity.
"the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects.
"works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"
LOGIC
a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects.
synonyms: similarity, parallel, correspondence, likeness, resemblance, correlation, relation, kinship, equivalence, similitude, metaphor, simile
"there's a thinly veiled analogy between his fiction and his real life"
LINGUISTICS
a process by which new words and inflections are created on the basis of regularities in the form of existing ones.
BIOLOGY
the resemblance of function between organs that have a different evolutionary origin.

According to the good ole google dictionary analogies are not required to share all aspects of the two objects being compared. All they need do is share a specific similarity. Now with that in mind if I choose to highlight one aspect of how a common person approaches a person in high authority, then that is all the compareson need share.

If you go off reservation or out side the bounds of the analogy then you are guilty of building and attacking strawmen.
The following is a good example of failed strawman logic and the liberal usage of red herrings.

Quote:Not so for gawd, eh? It hasn't got the common courtesy to make itself known to the people it wishes to have a personal relationship with? Sometimes (like now) your gawd sounds like a stalker. Other times it sounds like an abusive spouse. "Love me, or I'll kill you, Bitch!" Not so different from "Love me or burn in hell, filthy sinner!" Either way, not something I would want as a part of my life.

Spare me any bullshit responses, unless you can bring actual, testable, verifiable evidence to the table you have nothing of merit to say on the issue. Your continued spamming of a/s/k is ridiculous. No-one here buys the bullshit.

Drich, you still suck at analogies.

I will agree that gawd is not a trained monkey. I've actually seen one of those and evidence of many others. Something you simply cannot provide for your gawd.

---

(August 20, 2014 at 11:45 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I wouldn't know, not being a screeching, nonhuman primate. Please enlighten me.

I don't know stim, I think your selling yourself short here. I bet if you tried you'd be able to figure something out.
[/quote]

Really?!? I was merely expanding on your analogy. How often we've all heard the claim that gawd want us to worship it and love it and to have a personal relationship with us. None of these things are desired or sought after by heads of state so your claim that we must seek gawd and cannot expect it to seek us out (as we rightly would for anyone else wanting those same things) are unwarranted. You wish to throw out a red herring and call it a straw man, you go right ahead. The simplest explanation is that your analogy simply won't bear up under scrutiny.

BTW - your "correspondence or partial similarity" is so razor thin as to be nearly invisible, which is why you suck at analogies.

(August 20, 2014 at 11:45 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I wouldn't know, not being a screeching, nonhuman primate. Please enlighten me.

Nonhuman primates screech vehemently at this insulting implication.

(August 20, 2014 at 11:45 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I wouldn't know, not being a screeching, nonhuman primate. Please enlighten me.

For that, you will be the first to die when the apes take over.

What, me worry? Roddy McDowell could beat the snot out of that any day and twice on Sunday.

(August 21, 2014 at 12:58 am)Stimbo Wrote: What, me worry? Roddy McDowell could beat the snot out of that any day and twice on Sunday.

Now be afraid. Be very afraid.