An unorthodox belief in God.

[mickiel]

So, ladies and gentlemen, this is what we now know: Mickiel doesn't know what evidence is, what claims are, or what the basis of debate and the burden of proof is. He doesn't know what logical fallacies are, and he doesn't care enough to look into any of this.

And so the question we now all must ask is this: why should we continue to argue with a person who literally does not understand how argumentation works, and is perfectly willing to disrespect us by wallowing in his ignorance and pretending that it's superior to logic?

Well I do my best. One poster here said he needs more to accept that god is real, I understand that; its not a simple x=y kind of thing; the evidence is empirical in some areas, more visible by experience or personal observation, such as answered prayer or intervention by unseen things, like you should have died in that accident but came away unscratched; or common sense - things which can be independent of specialized knowledge like science, such as Consciousness only can be derived from consciousness, life from life, humans from human and so on.

But yet Can god be deduced from a mathematical equation? I tried to show yes, by using the common sense that the universe is designed to be just what it is; every position of the planets around earth had to be exact, especially the distance between it and the sun. No closer no further, it had to be arranged by an arranger, a designer who mathematically deduced those distances; that was labeled as no evidence. I disagreed with that as well.

Can god be proven by laws? Well yes, gravity, transmutation, polarity, cause and effect, vibration or gestation; all laws we agree exist, yet the common sense of understanding that laws are formulated by a law giver, even the laws of man, is ignored and even those great laws are being transferred over to being created and put in place by random unorganized occurance and senseless nature, as if those things have creative minds.

The question is why do I continue to argue?

The answer is I got nothing better to do.

[Napoléon]

Not sure whether this thread is showcasing the best of atheist forums or the absolute worst.

[JesusHChrist]

It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

[mickiel]

Not sure whether this thread is showcasing the best of atheist forums or the absolute worst.

Oh come now Emperor , have a heart. Even I can use things I don't agree with and see some good in it. Such as " The Toledot Yeshu", an anti religious historical work that even admits jesus existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledot_Yeshu

---

It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

Its the best of times, even the biblical king Solomon copper mines may have been found;


http://www.jewishpress.com/news/proof-of...013/09/08/

[Mystical]

Oh, that's cute. You think the bible is historically accurate.

Where's Min?

[One Above All]

OP, explain something to me. You claim to believe in a god, but not be religious. However, you also have a mythology (a belief about how we came to be) attached to your belief. This is contradictory. Can you accurately explain how you can believe in a god, have a mythology, possibly things that your god wants you/us to do (though I'm not sure about this part, it seems to be a universal theme in theism), and beliefs about what your god is, what it wants, and why it did things, and not be religious?

[Ravenshire]

So, what facts did you find that "prove" your gawd? Even if it is only a "personal proof" (whatever the hell that is).

Man, that's like asking me to write a book. I have found thousands of them, and the list is still growing. But this thread is about science prior relationship to the church.

Believe me, a new thread on that topic would be well attended: we haven't had new theist arguments for a while.

As to your initial argument, the split between science and the church can be pinned down to one thing: the intellectual honesty of those who respected the scientific method. To be clear, science isn't against god, it's against untrue things, and things without evidence- like gods- are really very close to being untrue things. Certainly, they aren't things we should accept as true.

The fact that science split from the church has nothing to do with jealousy, or a lust for power or any of that nonsense; it was simply because the church was unable to back up its claims with evidence befitting the scientific method, which is actually a trivially easy thing to do. That the church stumbled at the very first hurdle doesn't reflect poorly on science, but rather on the church itself.
[/quote]

Well, I asked for facts. He said he had "thousands" and it would take a new thread. Esquilax invited him to create such thread and here we are.

Facts? I've yet to see one. What I have seen are (please google any following phrase with which you are un-familliar) bare assertions, logical fallacies, arguments from ignorance, god-of-the-gaps, circular reasoning, etc... In short, your usual, typical theist bullshit party.

mickiel, please present some of the facts you claim to have that prove the existence of god, and the evidence that supports said facts. It's your claim that you have facts that prove god. The burden of is on you.

---

And I am not outnumbered, I'm just getting started; you're going to need those numbers before this is over.

---

It got most of these 12 discoveries right as well

http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a026.html

You're talking about a book which is allegedly the holy word of the divine creator of the universe. How could it be anything less than perfect? Yet it is. Not just once or twice, but all through the damned thing. Your gawd must be a serious lack-wit.

---

I been demonstrating it for 12 pages now, wonder why you can't see it?

You've been demonstrating jack shit!

---

The way I know, is the exact same way you know things

No. It's not. Really. It's absolutely not.

[bennyboy]

http://www.facingthechallenge.org/cyrene.php

http://www.greatarchaeology.com/Caiaphas_ossuary.php

QFT

[Ravenshire]

I like debating

No you don't You like flinging shit at the wall to see what sticks.

---

Evidence is something that gives signs of proof, and I have given a lot of those signs, they are being ignored or dismissed as not being evidence. It supports proof.

Proper evidence is testable and verifiable. Your bare assertions are neither, therefore are not evidence.

---

evolution is inherited change, its a process which cannot create ANYTHING!

It's the process that created EVERYTHING (living on this planet) including your incredibly closed mind. Read a book for fucks sake!

---

I am curious, would anything I would have said have matter to you?

If you bring actual, testable, verifiable evidence to the table you'll find it matters to most, if not all, of us here.

[Simon Moon]

Its the best of times, even the biblical king Solomon copper mines may have been found;

How many times do we have to tell you;

1. we don't claim the Bible gets everything wrong historically and archeologically.

2. the Bible gets more wrong than it gets right historically and archeologically.

3. the historical and archeological things that the Bible gets right, on their own, offer ZERO evidence that a god exists.

If so, why isn't the historical and archeological things the Iliad and Odyssey gets right evidence for Zeus, Hera, Venus, etc?

You really don't understand what counts as evidence for your god claims. Seriously. You don't.