RE: Dualism
July 6, 2009 at 4:02 pm
(This post was last modified: July 6, 2009 at 4:08 pm by fr0d0.)
You have no fucking opponent Rabbit. ~ This is a discussion thread not a serious debate.
Obviously from your list you have read none of my responses. Of course I summise you understand even less.
1. I assert that God, especially the Christian God is unprovable in the literal sense.
2. There is no point LOL
3. As I understand to some considerable depth the Christian definition of God, that's my point of reference, which you agreed to consider.
4. repeat point 1
5. I hold that the Bible is interpreted differently according to writing style
6. I reflect that the Christian faith was born out of slavery and that this is it's primary focus.
7. I observe that people are at fault and not the aim to follow Christ
8. I accurately told you what I believe.
9. I assert that faith in God cannot be based on hard fact but can be conclusively established.
10. Your non rebuttal of my assertion that God isn't provable was to say "Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god." Entirely missing the mark. You dragged out my misinterpretation and rudely ridiculed it.
11. I acknowledged the difference between the statements
12. You entered what you think was a 'debate' attempting to ridicule and insult without understanding what was being discussed, pursuing your own agenda on the "reason people believe in God".
Here's a summation of your excellent points:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I think you're taking several steps back Kyu. You think this literally means that God left verifiable proof of his existence?
Please show me the evidence in the Bible that has eluded mankind since this statement was made.
Obviously from your list you have read none of my responses. Of course I summise you understand even less.
1. I assert that God, especially the Christian God is unprovable in the literal sense.
2. There is no point LOL
3. As I understand to some considerable depth the Christian definition of God, that's my point of reference, which you agreed to consider.
4. repeat point 1
5. I hold that the Bible is interpreted differently according to writing style
6. I reflect that the Christian faith was born out of slavery and that this is it's primary focus.
7. I observe that people are at fault and not the aim to follow Christ
8. I accurately told you what I believe.
9. I assert that faith in God cannot be based on hard fact but can be conclusively established.
10. Your non rebuttal of my assertion that God isn't provable was to say "Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god." Entirely missing the mark. You dragged out my misinterpretation and rudely ridiculed it.
11. I acknowledged the difference between the statements
12. You entered what you think was a 'debate' attempting to ridicule and insult without understanding what was being discussed, pursuing your own agenda on the "reason people believe in God".
Here's a summation of your excellent points:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(July 6, 2009 at 2:23 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:(July 5, 2009 at 6:17 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: God tells Moses in Exodus 33 that no one can see him, but only see where he has been. To me this is a definite statement regarding proof of God not being possible.
It ("only see where he has been") also quite clearly implies that god leaves a trail of evidence which is what I have been saying to you ad nauseum.
Kyu
I think you're taking several steps back Kyu. You think this literally means that God left verifiable proof of his existence?
Please show me the evidence in the Bible that has eluded mankind since this statement was made.
