Evidence: The Gathering

[Jackalope]

Bloody fucking hell, I could eat alphabet soup and shit a better argument.

[brewer]

The delusions just won't let you stop.

Since when did stories, anecdotes and testimonials become facts? Oh yeah, I forgot, when your delusional.

[Dystopia]

Good introduction - Very compelling to the average reader - But where is the argument itself?

Because you just typed random arguments for god's existence, I'll provide a list of fallacies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[abaris]

So, for the past couple of months, I've been listening to skeptics saying, "Show me the evidence, show me the evidence" again and again as if by repetition, they can somehow ward off seeing the existence of God, the existence of Jesus and the resurrection.

You can't be serious. I'm not quoting the whole diatribe since it's nothing more than been there, done that.

Ehrman's all you got? What makes him exemplary? He's a theologian not a historian. And it shows in his work. And the shroud of Turin, of course. Please, give me a fucking break.

[Longhorn]

One does not simply bullshit gawd into existence, Randall.

As long as it's you doing the talking for the big guy, he can get fucked for all I care.

[Randy Carson]

The Shroud of Turin?  Really?  Really, really?  

The Shroud of Turin or Turin Shroud (Italian: Sindone di Torino) is a length of linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have suffered physical trauma in a manner consistent with crucifixion. There is no consensus yet on how the image was created. It is believed by some to be the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, despite radiocarbon dating tests from 1988 dating it to the Medieval period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

For the rest you're just rehashing what we killed in your last thread.

Apparently, you are ignorant of the fact that the 1988 carbon dating was flawed due to poor sample selection. This has been well-documented.

[abaris]

Apparently, you are ignorant of the fact that the 1988 carbon dating was flawed due to poor sample selection. This has been well-documented.

Or so some say. May be, may be not. Doesn't make it the real deal in any case, since there hasn't been another scientific investigation to check the facts.

[Crossless2.0]

Among a host of long-debunked knee-slappers, I love these: the argument from change; the argument from the origin of the idea of God, the argument from desire, the argument of common consent. And then we get a rehash of Pascal's Wager and the Shroud of Turin -- just in case anyone missed how empty your position really is.

How do you copy/paste such nonsense without your brain seeping out of your nostrils? Have you no shame? Perhaps a better question might be, "Why do you have so little faith that you feel compelled to adorn yourself in such shabby and ineffective armor?" You convince only yourself.

[Randy Carson]

Bloody fucking hell, I could eat alphabet soup and shit a better argument.

If you were to attempt it, it would be the first bowel movement you've had since I joined the forum.

As things stand, I have yet to see you make any attempt at a coherent argument of any sort.

Consequently, we know what you're full of.

[Jenny A]

Randy,
This thread isn't a topic, it's an unending list and the only item on the list you've even begun to flesh out is the same item you've been discussing in the minimal facts thread for weeks. No one will be able to follow any discussion of any item on the list. Pick one proof of god lay it out in a thread all of it's own. Read and respond to the criticisms of it. Expect to hear that it's old news, because they all are.