How do you know God isn't dead?

[Statler Waldorf]

The first one, mated with the previous homo sapiens. In time, the previous species became recessive and faded away, leaving only the homo sapiens sapiens species.
Do you find it hard to think of new species appearing slowly, over the course of many generations? Do you think a new species appears spontaneously from the offspring of the previous one?

I find it very hard to believe that a member of one species can mate with the member of another species since species are defined (biological concept definition) as groups of animals that cannot produce fertile offspring. What gave birth to the first Human though and why was that animal not also Human? Thanks for the response!

I can't... but if I don't trust them, then what can I do? what can I learn? what am I?

If the Universe is merely matter in motion, how does it make any sense that we should be able to assume we can trust our ability to reason, sense, and remember? That seems to be a huge problem for the naturalist.

Ah... you're doing it again: you're trying to sneak a conceptual being who was granted hypothetical life on the pages of an internet forum into real life. I don't agree that "God is not dead" nor that he was ever alive.

I never said you agreed that He was ever alive, but a being that never existed cannot be dead (what you believe) and a being that did exist who cannot die is not dead either (what I believe), so as I said, we both agree that God is not dead.

You can't will a being into existence, so show me the money; how do you know God exists?

He has to exist in order for us to know anything at all, a purely natural, material, and Godless Universe would render all knowledge impossible; so as far as I can know anything at all I can know that God exists.

I set the trap and you take the bait. I've quietly established an extremely predictable pattern on your part. And, the funny thing is, I warned you that I was going to do just that a couple pages back and you still took the bait.

What trap was that?

But, yeah, you're my TOOODOOR.

Tudor.

Scripture claims there is no lineage to Joseph. Or does it? Hmmmm.....

Jews viewed adopted lineages just as important as blood lineages, try to keep up.

This might be the biggest crock of shit you've produced yet. The NIV, NLT, ESV, NASB, KJB (CE) HCSB, ISV, NET, ABPE, GWT, KJV, AKJV, ASV, DRB, ERV, WBT, WNT, WEB, and YLT all disagree with your assessment, which is completely and utterly baseless.

Yes, those are English translations and paraphrases. The Aramaic text uses the word “father” and the Greek text uses a term that can be translated as father or husband, which incidentally is a different word than Luke uses in his genealogy which can only be translated as husband. Matthew is talking about Mary’s bloodline and Luke is talking about Joseph’s (adopted father of Jesus). Nobody in the early Church viewed this as an issue at all because they were quite familiar with the original language.

Even your selective reasoning with the Aramaic texts is baseless.

No it’s not; the Aramaic text says the bloodline in Matthew is Mary’s father’s genealogy, his name was Joseph and he was the son of Jacob.

where most of the Atheists here do not have the religious background to call you out on this ridiculous take of yours.

My apologies, but you’re one of the most ignorant atheists on here when it comes to Christianity.

Oh, and thanks for admitting that Jewish customs and tradition had more to do with the inspiratiion of scripture than your alleged "holy spirit".

Obviously you need to read up on what Biblical literalism is.

By the way, you're not honest enough to compel me to answer any of your questions. You either won't like or accept the answers, or, as I just learned, you'll make some shit up out of thin air.

I knew you couldn’t answer them, that’s why I asked them.

On a final note, (Bolding added by SW)

Promise?

As I, and others, pointed out, the use of an obviously false premise is a common practice of non-theists.

You used an obviously true premise though, so this is irrelevant.

I'm not surprised that some non-theists took exception to the approach.

Nor was I surprised.

From my perspective, almost all of the most important and effective questions a non-theist can pose to a theist, are ones posed from the theist's perspective.

You seriously think that asking someone how they know that something that logically cannot die is not dead is an effective question? That’s funny.

Theist's, in general, are suffering from mental illness.

Wrong, the vast majority of people on Earth are theistic, so that by definition is the normal healthy human mental condition. You’re the one who apparently has developed an illness that makes you claim to not believe in the existence of something you know to exist.

In this thread, gods activity was called into question, and theists failed to uphold their position with any of their responses to that question.

You’re irrationality was called out by several non-theists in this very thread; I do not blame them one bit, you’re an embarrassment to their kind.