Debate: God Exists

[Drich]

[quote pid='1517291' dateline='1488236504']


I think maybe the British mind is simply not wired for 'dry' humor even if I wrap it in a poop joke.

---

Britsh humour V American humour, which is deeper?




[/quote]
Dude pisses self...

I'm sure the water coolers the day after this first aired were all the buzz, no really I cant stop laughing..
Wpp

[downbeatplumb]

Britsh humour V American humour, which is deeper?

Dude pisses self...

I'm sure the water coolers the day after this first aired were all the buzz, no really I cant stop laughing..
Wpp

Is that what you took from it. So sad.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Britsh humour V American humour, which is deeper?

Dude pisses self...

I'm sure the water coolers the day after this first aired were all the buzz, no really I cant stop laughing..
Wpp

I don't know about what makes Americans laugh, but I'd say that this is more representative of British humour.

[Drich]

Again, without objective evidence, it deserves no attention, except by a psychologist.

what an empty foolish statement. have you not even been apart of this discussion to this point? What 'objective evidence' can one hope for when trying to vet a set of instructions? What don't yu understand that God only offers evidence in the way of the Holy Spirit and only if you follow the path He has laid out.

It's real simple, either one follows said directions or one does not. how do you annalize or rationalize a simple set of instructions?

If God says look here for me this way, and you look there your way, then by your actions are you not wanting to find nothing? Who are you to expect God to meet you on your terms?

No god has ever told me to do anything, so your point is pointless.

So.. you are saying you are not apart of Humanity? God left instruction directing all of Humanity to seek Him in a very specific way through the bible. Unless you are not apart of Humanity considered yourself told by an official messenger.

If a douche bag fails to get a joke, does it mean the joke is without humor?

No of course not. douche bags fail to get really good jokes all the time, as they are most often occupied in building themselves up. So busy infact they often see intentional attempts at self deprecating humor, as an unintentional error no matter how ridiculous the mistake would have been in order for them to be right.

Butt (pun) that's ok because it just underscores the level of douche baggery one must be set to endure to bring the gospel to the 'unwashed masses.'  
maybe I should all my jokes

So THAT'S your shtick.  Asshole for Christ.  I bet people just convert in piles around your feet.

they leave pile around my feet.. kinda the same thing no?

That's the thing sport. we are all hurdling toward the day that God does indeed 'present' Himself, but unfortunately it will be far too late to seek or find redemption at that point.

[/quote]

Your god seems to be quite the dick.  And you are so god-like.

[Neo-Scholastic]

OLD SCHOOL





AMERICAN same era

[TubbyTubby]

have you not even been apart of this discussion to this point?

Separate the 'a' from 'part' so that it means what you want it to say rather than the complete opposite. You're such a cock sure arrogant tit on any and every subject, who refuses to give ANY ground, that we need to start small.

I've pointed this single basic grammar error out on the odd occasion over the past two years yet you still refuse to take it on board. It's an indisputable fact that your use of 'apart' instead of 'a part' is wrong.

Will you correct this, knowing full well you are wrong, or do you want to argue the point?

[Harry Nevis]

Again, without objective evidence, it deserves no attention, except by a psychologist.

what an empty foolish statement. have you not even been apart of this discussion to this point? What 'objective evidence' can one hope for when trying to vet a set of instructions? What don't yu understand that God only offers evidence in the way of the Holy Spirit and only if you follow the path He has laid out.

That's because you're too ignorant to understand that I don't start with the assumption that god exists.  And the Holy Sprit crap is just rationalization.  If he existed and gave a damn whether I believed or not, he wouldn't play games with evidence.

No god has ever told me to do anything, so your point is pointless.

So.. you are saying you are not apart of Humanity? God left instruction directing all of Humanity to seek Him in a very specific way through the bible. Unless you are not apart of Humanity considered yourself told by an official messenger.

Another bullshit assertion.

If a douche bag fails to get a joke, does it mean the joke is without humor?

No of course not. douche bags fail to get really good jokes all the time, as they are most often occupied in building themselves up. So busy infact they often see intentional attempts at self deprecating humor, as an unintentional error no matter how ridiculous the mistake would have been in order for them to be right.

Butt (pun) that's ok because it just underscores the level of douche baggery one must be set to endure to bring the gospel to the 'unwashed masses.'  
maybe I should all my jokes

So THAT'S your shtick.  Asshole for Christ.  I bet people just convert in piles around your feet.

they leave pile around my feet.. kinda the same thing no?

Don't know what that means.

That's the thing sport. we are all hurdling toward the day that God does indeed 'present' Himself, but unfortunately it will be far too late to seek or find redemption at that point.

Your god seems to be quite the dick.  And you are so god-like.

[/quote]

[pocaracas]

No god has ever told me to do anything, so your point is pointless.

So.. you are saying you are not apart of Humanity? God left instruction directing all of Humanity to seek Him in a very specific way through the bible. Unless you are not apart of Humanity considered yourself told by an official messenger.

The thing is, Drich, that you cannot claim for certain that the bible (nor any other so-called holy book) is a set of instructions by god itself.
All we know is that some people wrote the books currently found in the Bible.
Even if those people were being honest when setting those words on paper, we cannot be certain that they were not being influenced by other people.... let alone be certain that they were being influenced by a god.

But we do know that many people write falsehoods... even if they are rooted in the desire to help others, that doesn't make them any less false.... even if they, at first glance, seem true.
One famous example of such falsehood is the Geocentric model for the Solar System. When it was adopted, it accounted for the motion of most celestial objects well enough... it was a well-intentioned mistake.

How can we make sure that a holy book is not such a mistake?

[Nonpareil]

what an empty foolish statement. have you not even been apart of this discussion to this point? What 'objective evidence' can one hope for when trying to vet a set of instructions?

Some demonstration that following them gets the claimed result would suffice.

[SuperSentient]

Again, without objective evidence, it deserves no attention, except by a psychologist.

what an empty foolish statement. have you not even been apart of this discussion to this point? What 'objective evidence' can one hope for when trying to vet a set of instructions? What don't yu understand that God only offers evidence in the way of the Holy Spirit and only if you follow the path He has laid out.

It's real simple, either one follows said directions or one does not. how do you annalize or rationalize a simple set of instructions?

If God says look here for me this way, and you look there your way, then by your actions are you not wanting to find nothing? Who are you to expect God to meet you on your terms?

That is the big problem. It is equivalent to the "invisible dragon in my garage" problem. You point out that God only speaks to those that accept his existence, no logic or reasoning to provide, which means you can't expect a critical thinker to accept it (at least on that way of looking at it). After all, you have to start on presupposition that God may not exist and deduce from empirical observations and accepted logic to get to that as a potential reasonable conclusion.