I'll just admit I haven't been following all these walls of text...
You guys seem to be having fun by yourselves... enjoy.
I'll just point out one detail that popped into view on this reply... noticed what I bolded
Am I the only one who notices a pattern?
You base this god's existence of a book.
It's like (strawman time) claiming the harry potter exists, based on the 7 books written by J.K Rowlins, and all the remaining contributions about the subject, including the movies.
This is exactly how an atheist views the "god of scripture". A fictional entity.
Without the book, you have nothing on the character.
The extraordinary proof some atheists require is something completely defying the known laws of Nature, like.... e.g. a constantly floating rock above a lake.... or an eternally burning bush... something extraordinary, something evidently extraordinary... that doesn't require drinking the kool aid, nor putting on the loony glasses.
If you put the book aside and discount oral tradition as faulty, you have nothing, zero, didly squat, nada, niente.... well, you have the gaps
You guys seem to be having fun by yourselves... enjoy.
I'll just point out one detail that popped into view on this reply... noticed what I bolded
(April 26, 2013 at 4:45 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I do not need to know you, scripture says all unbelievers are delusional, and you’re an unbeliever so you would fall in that class.
[...]
Yup, because if scripture is infallible you would not have a deep enough grasp of reality to make such claims, so again you are being biased by assuming scripture is fallible by asserting that you have a deep enough grasp of reality to prove it’s fallible, that’s called begging the question.
[...]
Joseph Smith didn’t use magic glasses; he said he used the Urim and Thummim stones. You’re deflecting though, the point is that your representation of the God of scripture and what you think He ought to have done is nothing more than a fallacious misrepresentation. God is not some passive being desperately hoping that people will come to a knowledge of the truth on their own terms.
[...]
What does that have to do with anything I just said? Scripture says the gospel will spread to all of the other nations, so you actually just supported scripture. The point is that Christians are not believing in God because they want protection (as you misrepresented), they believe in Him because they are His adopted children.
[...]
We are discussing the subject matter, namely your inability to present a logically coherent and cogent view of reality without believing in the God of the Bible.
[...]
You cannot reconcile the fact that you claim to be open-minded and yet you assume that scripture is not the word of God a priori. You cannot verify the fact that you claim to only believe in that which is verifiable and yet you believe in a whole host of claims that are by their own nature unverifiable.
Am I the only one who notices a pattern?
You base this god's existence of a book.
It's like (strawman time) claiming the harry potter exists, based on the 7 books written by J.K Rowlins, and all the remaining contributions about the subject, including the movies.
This is exactly how an atheist views the "god of scripture". A fictional entity.
Without the book, you have nothing on the character.
The extraordinary proof some atheists require is something completely defying the known laws of Nature, like.... e.g. a constantly floating rock above a lake.... or an eternally burning bush... something extraordinary, something evidently extraordinary... that doesn't require drinking the kool aid, nor putting on the loony glasses.
If you put the book aside and discount oral tradition as faulty, you have nothing, zero, didly squat, nada, niente.... well, you have the gaps
