20 arguments for the existence of God

[KIYX]

There is evidence, but theres no need to provide it.

Hahahahaha.

Oh man this is hilarious.

This is probably some of the worst apologetics I've seen.

"Guys I want you to believe as I do but I refuse to show you the evidence I have!"

Oh man.

Bravo sir. I have indeed been trolled.

 

[KIYX]

No need to prove something A Priori through A Posteriori means either.

So as I thought you were just throwing about terms that you didn't understand to try to make yourself feel more intelligent.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Ravi Zecharias is just that smart. See his biography.

Ravi Zacharias International Ministries :: Meet Ravi Zacharias

 

[hamashiachagape]

Hahahahaha.

Oh man this is hilarious.

This is probably some of the worst apologetics I've seen.

"Guys I want you to believe as I do but I refuse to show you the evidence I have!"

Oh man.

Bravo sir. I have indeed been trolled.

I don't want you to believe in anything. I don't care what you believe from an intellectual perspective. Thats your decision to be intellectually honest or not.

 

[KIYX]

Prove it.

What exactly am I to be proving?

 

[hamashiachagape]

Can you prove that the FSM has no legitimacy? no? I didn't think you could, I rest my case.

You're begging the question. Wait for the refutation, as I give it again.

Bobby Henderson describes the FSM is invisible.

Thats problematic. If he's Flying, and he is Spaghetti, then he has a tangible substance. Thus he can't by his very nature be invisible.

 

[KIYX]

I refuted Atheism.

Yes you've made the claim that you've refuted it.

And yet you've yet to refute anything.

 

[hamashiachagape]

What exactly am I to be proving?

Your position. Weren't you paying any attention to what you were asserting?

 

[hamashiachagape]

Yes you've made the claim that you've refuted it.

And yet you've yet to refute anything.

Ha, Ravi Zecharias did it for me.

This is how these arguments usually end. "You haven't refuted it." No actually people just haven't paid close enough attention to the refutation.

 

[KIYX]

I don't want you to believe in anything.

Why lie about it?

Your OP argues for the existence of your god. To now claim you don't want others to believe as you do is dishonest.

Thats your decision to be intellectually honest or not.

I am intellectually honest. I have seen no reason to believe in your god and thus do not belief.

 

[hamashiachagape]

You should read his book. He refutes the positions of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris in his book "The End of Reason: A response to the New Atheists."

Its actually hilarious as to how small it is too.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Why lie about it?

Your OP argues for the existence of your god. To now claim you don't want others to believe as you do is dishonest.

I am intellectually honest. I have seen no reason to believe in your god and thus do not belief.

My God? I'm not proving my God yet.

Sure it has arguments for the existence of God. Not mine though. As I pointed out those were Catholic Apologists. I'm a Messianic Jew.

 

[KIYX]

You're begging the question. Wait for the refutation, as I give it again.

Bobby Henderson describes the FSM is invisible.

Thats problematic. If he's Flying, and he is Spaghetti, then he has a tangible substance. Thus he can't by his very nature be invisible.

LOL

You'd have a point if invisible meant intangible but it doesn't. So both you and Bobby Henderson don't understand the words you are using.

 

[KIYX]

Ha, Ravi Zecharias did it for me.

Sorry, but no he didn't. His arguments are just as bad as yours.

 

[hamashiachagape]

LOL

You'd have a point if invisible meant intangible but it doesn't. So both you and Bobby Henderson don't understand the words you are using.

Either way. Intangible means it has not the propencity to be touched and spaghetti does.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

This consistent argument by authority is getting old, not to mention the ironic resorting to ad hoc special pleading. "God is absolutely necessary so there's no reason to argue whether there's evidence, therefore God exists". It's that kind of poor apologetics that demonstrates the superiority of mitigated fideism.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Sorry, but no he didn't. His arguments are just as bad as yours.

Are we done with the kicking and screaming yet?

 

[hamashiachagape]

This consistent argument by authority is getting old, not to mention the ironic resorting to ad hoc special pleading. "God is absolutely necessary so there's no reason to argue whether there's evidence, therefore God exists". It's that kind of poor apologetics that demonstrates the superiority of mitigated fideism.

I'm not a Fideist though.

It might be getting old, but its still nonetheless true.

When all other positions besides God are not true, it is NOT ad hoc special pleading. It is true by default. You don't follow the reasoning.

 

[KIYX]

You should read his book. He refutes the positions of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris in his book "The End of Reason: A response to the New Atheists."

Its actually hilarious as to how small it is too.

Why would I care about his response to people's opinions who I don't really care what they think one way or another?

 

[hamashiachagape]

Why would I care about his response to people's opinions who I don't really care what they think one way or another?

Because they are your opinions too.