Evidence God Exists

[AngelThMan]

If a person kills their kid to defy and test God, then they do not love Jesus, and therefore are not covered.

And where did I say ANYTHING about defying or testing God? I'm saying if they truly believe in such doctrine (heaven and hell) to the point where their actions have very real implications in the afterlife, why not rid their children of the stresses of life and allow them eternity in God's good graces?

This isn't about people defying anything, I'm giving a hypothetical account for people who truly believe that what they are doing is in accordance with their religious dogma.

God's doctrine clearly denounces murder, and condemns cultures that sacrifice their children. So if a Christian kills their kid to send them to heaven, they are clearly defying and testing God. To present an effective hypothetical account you need to have a better understanding of the dogma.

You obviously didn't get the point and ignored any refutations to your wild claim that intelligent humans = God.

It's arrogant and delusional that you keep calling your arguments refutations. You believe your own statements, and in an atheist forum you may get a lot of support. But in the real world they would not be considered refutations in the least. I've read all arguments, addressed them, and explained why I rejected each and every one of them. If you've ignored my responses, then it's on you.

Many pages back I tossed you a checkmate question, which you cleverly bypassed. To refresh your memory, and everyone else's, this is when we were still in our back and forth debate about humans' world dominion. You kept denying that humans have control of the world, claiming we don't have control over other species...

---

We have the capability to understand the world around us in a unique way, but in no way to we control or command all others.

Sure, that's why killer whales are in captivity at Sea World. More denial.

And orcas in the zoo are proof of what? The definition I provided said "control over all", which we do not have.

Okay. Would you agree then that humans have control over more animal species than any other species has over other species?

It's largely irrelevant to the conversation what my speculation is on this certain subject. Can you back up your claim (humans have control over more animal species than any other species has over species) with evidence?...

---

Another forum member called you on your evasiveness...

---

Wow... 4 pages of avoiding the answer and you accuse Angel of not producing the goods!

This seems genuine: the Dominant Animal by Stanford scientists Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich
http://morethebook.org/dominantanimal.org/press/excerpt

How about you provide ideas as to how humans could consider themselves top of the food chain/ adaptable/ technologically advanced/ most intelligent... then perhaps we could move on.

---

Tav, I've just demonstrated with evidence that it is you who is 'intellectually dishonest.' All you care about is winning, not getting to the truth, and it is you who has ignored my refutations.

And yet you've accused me of 'intellectual dishonesty' and of posting ad hominem arguments.

You apparently don't know what Ad Hominem means, as evidenced by this post:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-3113-pos...l#pid62991

I would qualify your claims that I've been "soundly defeated" and that I "ignore refutations" as ad hominems, as they're really personal attacks and appeals to others with beliefs like yours.

...Rational adults solve disputes in this way, not by regurgitating dogma and unfounded claims.

More ad hominem, which is what you constantly accuse me of. Point out where I've 'regurgitated dogma.' I purposely guard against doing this. You're regurgitating atheist cliches.