Why knocking is so important.

[Ravenshire]

Wow. Drich calling out someone else for a bad analogy...

[Baqal]

Your analogy is not valid. The claim I made placed you in a position to receive a similar result, to what I have experienced here, with you placing no more effort in this endeavor than you would when seeking out anything important in your life.

What the hell is wrong with you? I am just asking you how can you know for things to be true, how much and what kind of evidence you need for them.

You analogy stacks the physically impossible upon the inconceivable and provides no direction or possible direction as to how to accomplish such a task.
My explaination of luke 11 simply asks for a mustard seeds of faith.

Really? Physically impossible? As opposed to a wizard in the sky that poofs things into existence.
I gave you a scenario of me accomplishing something extraordinary, and then telling you that I've done it. What do you need to be convinced that I have actually done it?

[Anomalocaris]

Appeals to cliche' and generalities does not empirical validation make.

Or rather when have you ever defeated anything I have said with empirical validation. Please post a quote number or provide a link. Otherwise know you just quoted a cliche' atheistic answer to what you believe to be a general Christian response.

When your claimed efficacy for your A/S/K bullshit can not be replicated by us, your claim failed empirical validation. You've been weaseling, posturing, dodging, beating your chest, and whining ever since in order to pretend that sticking to your wish thinking, after it had failing a empirical validation outside your head, doesn't mark you as not only an idiot even amongst morons, but a disingenuous, impertinent, and morally cowardly idiot to boot.

[Drich]

Appeals to cliche' and generalities does not empirical validation make.

Or rather when have you ever defeated anything I have said with empirical validation. Please post a quote number or provide a link. Otherwise know you just quoted a cliche' atheistic answer to what you believe to be a general Christian response.

When your claimed efficacy for your A/S/K bullshit can not be replicated by us, your claim failed empirical validation. You've been weaseling, posturing, dodging, beating your chest, and whining ever since in order to pretend that sticking to your wish thinking, after it had failing a empirical validation outside your head, doesn't mark you as not only an idiot even amongst morons, but a disingenuous, impertinent, and morally cowardly idiot to boot.

Maybe re read what you wrote again. You made the claim that states;
' to the mind of the idiots, invincible wishful thinking can never be defeated by empirical validation.'

which would indicate you provided such validation. You are not going to be allowed to move the goal post here and then say I have failed to supply such validation. If it is as you said, and you have provided emperical validation against anything I have said, then now is your oppertunity to persent it. Otherwise this is your oppertunity to admit you are wrong.

---

Again I am just a beggar trying to tell other beggars where to find food. You want proof? I ate it, but there is more if you just A/S/K for it.

Actually you're only posing as a beggar and trying to convince everyone that a huge pile of shit is really food if only we fool ourselves into thinking we can eat it; when in actuality, you don't have any food any more than the rest of us.

And just like Chuck's observation, that wasn't a cliché either.

cli·ché
klēˈSHā kli-,kli-,ˈklēˌSHā/
noun
1.
a phrase or opinion that is overused and betrays a lack of original thought.

Chuck's use of the cliche' is so over used that it did not even apply to this topic, and it was kudo'ed. It's like you guys are on automatic pilot and have turn your brains off. This appeal to 'emperical evidence' is used generally in an arguement pitting YEC creationism against evolution where actual evidence has been provided. Chuck has not provided any contrary evidence to anything said in almost 50 pages of dialog. yet he claimed it because that is how atheist closes a YEC/Evolution arguement. This 'smart guy' does not seem to understand in order to claim the use of 'empirical evidence' requires the actual use of said evidence.

Therefore his empty appeal to this closing arguement very easily falls under the term cliche' because it is so over used the person using it does not even understand it proper or timely use.

:Facepalm:

---

What the hell is wrong with you? I am just asking you how can you know for things to be true, how much and what kind of evidence you need for them.

Asked and answered. The proof required for God, is direct contact with God. Again this is what is offered in Luke 11.

Really? Physically impossible? As opposed to a wizard in the sky that poofs things into existence.
I gave you a scenario of me accomplishing something extraordinary, and then telling you that I've done it. What do you need to be convinced that I have actually done it?

That is why your analogy failed.

The claims I provided are not from me. I am simply showing you all the claims/promises God has made to us. I have also pointed out that He will provide the proof you need to establish and maintain your relationship.

That would be like watching you climb that building if that is what is needed.[/quote]

---

Wow. Drich calling out someone else for a bad analogy...

again just because you do not understand how analogies work.. does not mean one it bad because you failed to understand you do not have the freedom to use them outside how they are presented.

[FatAndFaithless]

The claims I provided are not from me. I am simply showing you all the claims/promises God has made to us. I have also pointed out that He will provide the proof you need to establish and maintain your relationship.

"I'm not making any claims, I'm just asserting and defending the claims this other being has made". Yeah, that means you're making the claims too, Drippy. "He'll provide the evidence once you agree with me" isn't much better when it comes to argument. Giving us some evidence outside of the Bible or other than "he'll reveal himself" would be a liiiiiitle helpful if you actually want to convince anyone of anything having to do with reality.

[Drich]

The claims I provided are not from me. I am simply showing you all the claims/promises God has made to us. I have also pointed out that He will provide the proof you need to establish and maintain your relationship.

"I'm not making any claims, I'm just asserting and defending the claims this other being has made". Yeah, that means you're making the claims too, Drippy. "He'll provide the evidence once you agree with me" isn't much better when it comes to argument. Giving us some evidence outside of the Bible or other than "he'll reveal himself" would be a liiiiiitle helpful if you actually want to convince anyone of anything having to do with reality.

Ok, let's finish your proposal to it's logical conclusion then shall we?

Alright what outside evidence are you looking for?

[FatAndFaithless]

"I'm not making any claims, I'm just asserting and defending the claims this other being has made". Yeah, that means you're making the claims too, Drippy. "He'll provide the evidence once you agree with me" isn't much better when it comes to argument. Giving us some evidence outside of the Bible or other than "he'll reveal himself" would be a liiiiiitle helpful if you actually want to convince anyone of anything having to do with reality.

Ok, let's finish your proposal to it's logical conclusion then shall we?

Alright what outside evidence are you looking for?

Try something not from the Bible. Especially considering that members of other religions make the same claims of seeking God and having him reveal himself to you.

[Baqal]

Asked and answered. The proof required for God, is direct contact with God. Again this is what is offered in Luke 11.

I have not mentioned God anywhere except when I wanted to make this comparison when you said that this achievement is physically impossible, and that was not even direct. Pay some attention right here: I'm not referring to God specifically. How do you know for anything to be true? What is your standard of evidence? How much evidence would you need to believe me if I told you something extraordinary, like the story above?

That is why your analogy failed.
The claims I provided are not from me. I am simply showing you all the claims/promises God has made to us. I have also pointed out that He will provide the proof you need to establish and maintain your relationship.
That would be like watching you climb that building if that is what is needed.

No, you are showing me the claims/promises the Bible has made to us. I think I have mentioned somewhere that you need to distinguish God's Word from a book that claims to be the God's Word. And this proposal you're offering to me kind of sounds like begging the question: you're basically saying that I need to believe in God in order to believe in God.
My analogy has nothing to do with God or anything for that matter. I just want to know your standard by which you determine the truth of things, that's all.

[Ravenshire]

again just because you do not understand how analogies work.. does not mean one it bad because you failed to understand you do not have the freedom to use them outside how they are presented.

Project much?

[Simon Moon]

Ok, let's finish your proposal to it's logical conclusion then shall we?

Alright what outside evidence are you looking for?

What evidence for the existence of a god other than the one you believe in, would you be looking for?

Yeah, it's kind of like that.