An unorthodox belief in God.

[Mister Agenda]

Once again, I'll ask you to stop re-defining terms to suit your ends. Archaeological evidence that people or places existed lend exactly zero gravity to the claim of existence or nonexistence for your deity.

I use terms as I understand them. I don't redefine anything.

Then apparently you don't learn anything either. When I find I've been misusing a word, I start using it correctly. It would benefit you to try that, too.

[mickiel]

I think its possible , but they are not letting anyone in to examine it.

If they let someone in to examine it, how do you think they would be able to determine if it was really Abraham?

The same way they determined that they have found simon the cyrenians bones, and the high priest caiaphs bones:

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

[Mister Agenda]

I've got news for you pal. If you believe in God you are religious. That definition applies to all believers independently if they are part of a institutionalized theological system or not.

It's not believing in some sort of God that makes him religious, it's all the things he believes about that God.

[mickiel]

I use terms as I understand them. I don't redefine anything.

Then apparently you don't learn anything either. When I find I've been misusing a word, I start using it correctly. It would benefit you to try that, too.

I still disagree, if we took the question of gods existence to court, archaeological evidence cannot be ruled out.

You are just ruling it out.

[Silver]

if we took the question of gods existence to court, archaeological evidence cannot be ruled out.

[Mister Agenda]

I got news for you; you cannot label or define me; I define myself.

Yet another anti-labellist.

[Nine]

I got news for you; you cannot label or define me; I define myself.

Yet another anti-labellist.

I'm a fucking snowflake damnit!!!

* Nine sobs

I'M SPECIAL!!

[Fidel_Castronaut]

It was not you who intimidated me, it was another Mod.

Yet notice how vastly differing our minds are, our discernment. The fact that the majority of earth, even the universe , is not hospitable for life shows me that life had to be designed and limited to areas; its like a parent telling a child, you can go in the back yard and play, but you cannot go outside of the yard. They can do what they want inside the yard, but that's it, no further.

I don't understand your analogy? Surely it would be the opposite had their been a creator, in that everything would be exploitable and explorable?

Why bother to create an almost infinite space that nobody (from earth) will ever see, let alone be able to inhabit?

Man is limited, life is confined, both signs and evidence of a limiter. A confiner. If nature designed life, WHY did it limit it? WHY? The bible at least EXPLAINS WHY god limits it, nature does not. Science does not.

Mick this is another argument from ignorance.

You don't know the answer so you chose 'any' answer.

It's akin to asking a complicated math question that would be impossible to work out in your head, then claiming because you could invent an answer then it must be correct. That's not how it works.

It's disingenuous to claim an answer when really you have no basis to claim it as factual.

[Napoléon]

Mick this is another argument from ignorance.

41 pages. 41 damn pages, of people telling him this.

He doesn't get it. He doesn't want to get it. He never will get it.

[Nine]

To me it stops being fun after the first 2/3 pages of intentional ignorance.