Christians - even the Bible says that Jesus was not God so why do you say he was ?

[jenny1972]

good point why dont i believe in pink unicorns but do believe in God if im a superstitious person wouldnt i just believe in everything ? you believe in what you have been convinced of if i become convinced that God does not exist then i will disbelieve until then i will believe what i have been convinced of ... your not going to believe until you get proof why should i disbelieve without proof?

Stop with the word salad's it's giving me a shooting pain in the back of my head.

Just because you manipulate a simple rule just enough so that it confuses you enough to make you unsure of the answer doesn't make it logical.


I've been convinced of this thing called reason. I don't know why, it just seemed like the reasonable thing to do(see what I did there).
You know why? Because no matter what, what is unreasonable to me may be reasonable to you, reason must always exist in the conscious mind, you can't purposefully be unreasonable, even if you did somehow, you are still making a decision that you think it's reasonable to be unreasonable. Therefore if we follow that logic, since reason is always a subjective virtue implanted in our minds, if you can't provide a reason for believing something, there's no explanation for believing it. I don't have to provide a reason for your lack of reason, it's a double negative, I can't disprove a reason that doesn't exist in the first place. Whether or not that "reason" is a credible one, can be answered in a debate of objective and subjective truths, where we can attempt to distinguish objective, from subjective. However, to not provide a reason for believing something, and act like my inability to produce a counter to an argument that never existed in the first place is some sort of justification for that belief, and to follow by acting high and mighty because you managed to not only confuse yourself, but the person in opposition enough so that the question becomes murky and in turn shattering a chance to draw a definite conclusion, that's intellectual suicide.

[Sorry for being repetitive, and answering with a word salad. It's a bit hard to argue against an intentionally confusing argument without providing an equally confusing response. I really had to pause a lot while writing this, and had to push my brain in order to not confuse myself in the process.]

yes it is confusing and i have no idea what your saying maybe you can simplify it so that it makes sense to other people ? you said ' you cant counter an argument that doesnt exist in the first place ' what are you referring to ?