How do you know God isn't dead?

[smax]

I did look it up, and the definition is exactly what I said it was. Definitions matter.

Basically, you've conceded that you couldn't figure it out, even though almost everyone else did right away.

If that makes you feel smart, more power to you little buddy!

Are you serious? You’re not sophisticated enough to realize that a sound deductive proof always trumps inductive reasoning? I bet illusionists love having you in their audience.

Sound?

Have you never read Genesis?

We've covered this. Do you have short term memory in addition to your obvious issues with mental illness?

There’s this thing Christians like to call “the Fall.”

Yeah, and there's this thing people who live in reality like to call "Manufacturer's defect."

Nope, it’s just a creature in rebellion against his creator.

And a creator powerless to do anything about it?

That depends. It’s interesting you admit you deserve one though.

Not nearly as interesting as the fact that I wont get one.

The truth of a premise is in no way dependent upon who accepts it. Premises are assumed to be true until otherwise refuted.

You have a ton to learn about proof, and what it actually it is. I'll help you along here by actually proving you wrong right now so that you will have a much better understand of what proof actually is.

A false antecedent is a premise known to be false, fictional, imaginary, or unnecessary. In a conditional sequence, a false antecedent may be the basis for any consequence, true or false.

The subjects of literature are sometimes false antecedents. For example, the contents of false documents, the origins of stand-alone phenomena, or the implications of loaded words. Also, artificial sources, personalities, events, and histories. False antecedents are sometimes referred to as "nothing", or "nonexistent", whereas nonexistent referents are not referred to.

Art and acting often portray scenarios without any antecedent except an artist's imagination. For example, mythical heroes, legendary creatures, gods, and goddesses.

I shouldn't take too much credit, as another poster tried to explane this to you several pages ago to no avail.

And, in your defense, we all have to excercise a greater degree of patience with you. You are suffering a mental illness, and as such, your ability to distinguish between fictional and actual characters is significantly compromised.

It's okay, the problem is being worked on.

I in no way made up Yahweh.

That's true, you didn't invent the pet rock, you just bought one. True story.

No you did not. Why would you fix one of your own quotes for yourself? They’re very strict about that rule here, which is a very good thing about this forum.

Is your name attached to the quote, yes or no?

I rest my case.

You know people’s actions are necessarily consistent with what they really believe because of what Forrest Gump says in a movie?

Some wars require weapons of mass destruction, others require nothing more than sling shots. Pretty obvious what this one is.

That they do.

Do you even try to be objective at all or ever? I'm just trying to figure out what kind of patient I've got on my hands here.

I do not struggle to interact with anyone.

Gary Busey says that same thing all the time.

That’s the fallacy of the hasty generalization. There are 2.3 billion Christians in the World, how many have you been around?

2.29 billion. Prove I haven't.

No, like the fact that you claim that once we’re dead we’re gone, and therefore this is all the time we have, and yet you sit there and waste all of this time on an internet forum. If you really believed in annihilation there’s no way you’d be sitting there wasting your time debating the existence of something that you claim to know doesn’t exist with people who do believe it exists. Talk about a person’s actions not matching up with claimed beliefs.

Every word of that response was completely subjective. And, without any objective appeal, you have no point whatsoever.

Not only this, but if you indeed knew that God didn’t exist why are you so horrible at backing this claim up? Surely you’ve got at least a half-way decent argument to support this claim, and yet all you present is a multitude of logically fallacious arguments, incoherent statements, total arbitrariness, and personal attacks; it’s all very underwhelming.

First of all, I've yet to attack anything so general as "The existence God". My aims have clearly attacked the inventions of religion.

The truth is, I don't care much for the subject of "God's existence". I see no real point in that discussion.

That said, I couldn't disagree with you more about the merits of my arguments so far. Since I've joined this forum, I've challenged the existence of a PERSONAL GOD with the following:

1. I've asked for verifiable action to prove god is real and active. None has been provided.

2. I've pointed out scientific impossibilties in the Bible, and I'll admit, I'm no scientist.

3. I've pointed out inconsistencies in the Bible.

4. I've mocked god and lived to tell about it. (The Bible says "God cannot be mocked..." --- Gal 6:7)

5. I've challenged believers to prove that prayer is effective. They have not.

I'm sure none of these points are new, but that makes them no less valid. And more are to come. Many more.

You’re really not going to make many friends here if you keep this sort of childish behavior up. Pocaracas and I have had a few debates, but I would not say I have ever necessarily gotten the better of him, he’s just a very intellectually honest and rather sophisticated poster on here, and that’s why he’s willing to call you out on your mistakes.

Something's very fishy here. Haven't quite put my finger on it, but I suspect I will. It's all a little convenient, that's all I'll say for now.

You’re absolutely right, like I said earlier, once smax granted us Yahweh’s existence this debate was over, well at least should have been ten pages ago, but he’s persistent.

Us?