An unorthodox belief in God.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

If you look at the thread Mick cited which proves his 'research', what you'll actually read is a guy having a conversation with himself.

You don't really want evidence, you want a dart board to throw your rants at. You will reject all things thrown at you, and you know it. This EVIDENCE wall is something you hide behind.

Evasion ; constant denial; then you start with more defense; discredit, insult, and then get rid of it.

Answer my above request. Cite your research into ontology here.

I'm not insulting you. I've not ranted to you. In fact I've been pretty cordial to you and we're certainly not going to get rid of you unless you break our rules, which thus far you haven't. So no worries there. Attacking me won't help your cause

Seems like you're on the defensive here because you're being backed into a corner.

Anyway, citations please. Show your workings and readings into ontology to evidence how you've arrived at your conclusion that a 'god' exists. What sources did you consult and how did they support/critique your thesis that god exists?

[Nine]

Insanity, do you really think this guy is using reason? Rethoric is NOT reason!

No, I'm not that daft. Reason is a rare thing among the theistic types round these interwebz. Well actually just about everyone on the interwebz thinking about it.

[mickiel]

Evasion ; constant denial; then you start with more defense; discredit, insult, and then get rid of it.

Denial of what? The absurd claim of something called a god that isn't even precisely defined let alone self-evident to all others.

You are the one denying that all you have is a crapload of bullshit to sell. Thinking yourself as original, with any knowledge. Can one believe the arrogance of these idiots?

Oh and you are not arrogant? Oh so your a genius?

---

You don't really want evidence, you want a dart board to throw your rants at. You will reject all things thrown at you, and you know it. This EVIDENCE wall is something you hide behind.

Evasion ; constant denial; then you start with more defense; discredit, insult, and then get rid of it.

Answer my above request. Cite your research into ontology here.

I'm not insulting you. I've not ranted to you. In fact I've been pretty cordial to you and we're certainly not going to get rid of you unless you break our rules, which thus far you haven't. So no worries there. Attacking me won't help your cause

Seems like you're on the defensive here because you're being backed into a corner.

Anyway, citations please. Show your workings and readings into ontology to evidence how you've arrived at your conclusion that a 'god' exists. What sources did you consult and how did they support/critique your thesis that god exists?

I just gave you the first one.

[Confused Ape]

What!! 29 historians recording jesus existed makes no sense?

You haven't got round to answering my post about the mystery of Jesus's tombs. You told me what your concept of God is but who did you think Jesus is? Why is Jesus so important?

Here's a link to me post to save you hunting for it.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-26538-po...#pid684294

[Fidel_Castronaut]

No.

You said you've researched the topics you've cited on that thread, and I chose one (ontology).

So show us your working. What did you deduce from your research into ontological discourse and what sources did you consult?

How did you arrive at the conclusion that god exists through your research into ontology? Show us.

You've researched it right? So it shouldn't be hard to paste your actual research here.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/
Sure, we can start with this: and after you step on it I can continue with more on just that; after you mangle the next, I'll give the next.

What did you deduce from the above article and how did it affect your thesis that 'god' exists?

By the way, it's pretty easy to ascertain when someone googles 'ontological argument for gods existence' and then pastes the URL here.

https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=F...8gfroYCQAg

I'm not looking for copy and paste from other websites, I'm looking for your input. YOUR input.

[LastPoet]

Oh and you are not arrogant? Oh so your a genius?

A person is never arrogant to ask for demonstrations of other persons claims. Just reasonable. Define and make proof of your god. Otherwise, just shut the fuck up as you know nothing.

I can at least use the "you're" contraction right, you raving idiot, didn't your god taught you how to spell?

[mickiel]

What!! 29 historians recording jesus existed makes no sense?

You haven't got round to answering my post about the mystery of Jesus's tombs. You told me what your concept of God is but who did you think Jesus is? Why is Jesus so important?

Here's a link to me post to save you hunting for it.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-26538-p...#pid684294

I think jesus was from god, no doubt. I do not believe jesus is god; god is god, jersus is jesus; the importance of jesus is his sacrifice, his death for humanities sins. Because of that, all of us will be with god. Why god wanted us to be born in flesh, suffer and die, THEN be born again into his spirit world, I have little idea. But jesus was a key to us being able to be put in this giant incubator, ( earth), and then maturing inside of this giant womb with all its acids, and then be delivered by god. Its now a birthright that includes ALL atheist, no one is left out.

[LastPoet]

Well then, its official, this is a nutcase.

[mickiel]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/
Sure, we can start with this: and after you step on it I can continue with more on just that; after you mangle the next, I'll give the next.

What did you deduce from the above article and how did it affect your thesis that 'god' exists?

By the way, it's pretty easy to ascertain when someone googles 'ontological argument for gods existence' and then pastes the URL here.

https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=F...8gfroYCQAg

I'm not looking for copy and paste from other websites, I'm looking for your input. YOUR input.

First they ask for sources, now its back on me; interesting. I already gave my personal example with " The Dimes." Remember finding 100 dimes on the ground, perfectly balanced on their edges, aligned. That can only be deliberately done. We theist view that deliberance as proof; the order in the universe and in the physical world is deliberate. Intentional. You believe and accept the opposite; to you its luck; unintentional and random.

---

Well then, its official, this is a nutcase.

Why are you reading what a nut case has to say??

[Fidel_Castronaut]

What did you deduce from the above article and how did it affect your thesis that 'god' exists?

By the way, it's pretty easy to ascertain when someone googles 'ontological argument for gods existence' and then pastes the URL here.

https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=F...8gfroYCQAg

I'm not looking for copy and paste from other websites, I'm looking for your input. YOUR input.

First they ask for sources, now its back on me; interesting. I already gave my personal example with " The Dimes." Remember finding 100 dimes on the ground, perfectly balanced on their edges, aligned. That can only be deliberately done. We theist view that deliberance as proof; the order in the universe and in the physical world is deliberate. Intentional. You believe and accept the opposite; to you its luck; unintentional and random.

1. What does the above have to do with either ontological arguments for god's existence or the article you cited.

2. How do you know what I do or don't believe? I can't remember ever telling you anything about that?

Mick, I'm not going to lie, it's coming across that you actually lied about knowing anything about ontology and that, subsequently, everything else you've posted is a lie.

One more shot. Show your working, your research, into your studies on ontology. I don't want a simple post to an article that shows nothing aside the fact you can google ontology. I want your understanding and how your research into ontology has revealed its support for gods existence. You said you've researched it, but you haven't shown us anything that proves that.