20 arguments for the existence of God

[KIYX]

I'd actually love to see you dialogue with Ravi Zecharias, would be entertaining.

No doubt!

I'd ask for evidence and he'd use your argument of, "Because I said so."

Riveting!

 

[hamashiachagape]

No doubt!

I'd ask for evidence and he'd use your argument of, "Because I said so."

Riveting!

I can see how much you've studied Zecharias's writings based on the above claims.

I'd honestly encourage it. He's got some nice material out.

 

[KIYX]

Okay. I don't think you're following.

I'm following along quite well.

You apparently seek to add a 21st argument to your list.

"God exists because I said so."

 

[hamashiachagape]

I'm following along quite well.

You apparently seek to add a 21st argument to your list.

"God exists because I said so."

You're not because I"m stating God exists regardless of whether I say so.

 

[KIYX]

With the refutation of Atheism, it becomes unnecessary.

Which you have yet to do, so once again we come down to, "Because I said so."

Sorry, I understand that tactic might work on the playground but it doesn't work here.

 

[KIYX]

Really? Prove that God, an all powerful being, can not do what a human can do.

So when I'm discussing your anthropomorphizing of atheism you now think that were talking about your god?

Man picks up a chair and its not a violation of gravity. So how can God's doing so violate the law of gravity?

When your done debating yourself we can pick this back up.

 

[KIYX]

I already refute Agnosticism. You are not following the arguments.

Yes I am, and you have done no such thing.

Again making the claim without actually doing it is pretty useless.

 

[KIYX]

Irrelevant to the discussion against God's existence.

Not at all.

You want us to take your word when there is absolutely zero reason to do so.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Which you have yet to do, so once again we come down to, "Because I said so."

Sorry, I understand that tactic might work on the playground but it doesn't work here.

Okay, lets go over it again then.

On page 49 of The End of Reason, Zecharias states "Sam Harris does not believe that Atheism should be a Philosophical category. He notes that one does not describe himself or herself as a 'non-alchemist' or 'non-astrologer.' But if in a discussion about your fturue someone looks at your hand and asks for your date of birth so that he can study the planetary alignment that day, it might be to your advantage to know whether he is in fact an astrologer, or a pizza maker who reads palms as an avocation. If you are facing serious health issues and a stranger gives you a potion to drink, it would be of interest to know whether this is an alchemist or a pharmacist, or a witch doctor you are dealing with. When you are debating every definition of life ranging from origin to destiny, it makes sense to know whether you hold to an Atheistic worldview or something else."

Hence Atheism is a Philosophy, that is anti-Philosophical. That is what Ravi is proving here. 2nd law of noncontradiction is violated, and you have a self refutation.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Okay, further now, ready?

 

[KIYX]

If the FSM exists, he is not God.

Actually based upon what you've stated he'd be the superior god, he can actually change.

 

[KIYX]

More kicking and screaming I see.

Well I am sure your mommy will be right along to take care of you.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Actually based upon what you've stated he'd be the superior god, he can actually change.

Then he woudl cease to be God. God can not change.

Consistent we see in Hebrews 6:17 "17Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath."

 

[hamashiachagape]

Well I am sure your mommy will be right along to take care of you.

Why do you persist with your kicking and screaming?

 

[KIYX]

Yada yada yada.

Find the origins of what you believe.

Mythicism is a Philosophical position. I'm not declaring that you're lying. I'm stating Atheists are borrowing from Mysticism, a mistake that Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the leaders of your movement, make.

Hahaha.

I don't belong to a movement, anymore than someone who doesn't collect stamps has a hobby.

 

[KIYX]

You're not because I"m stating God exists regardless of whether I say so.

Which of course you have yet to provide ANY evidence for so yes you are stating that your god exists "because I say so".

 

[hamashiachagape]

Which of course you have yet to provide ANY evidence for so yes you are stating that your god exists "because I say so".

I think you're the one with the reasoning of "because I say so."

At least thats what has been demonstrated logistically thus far.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Hahaha.

I don't belong to a movement, anymore than someone who doesn't collect stamps has a hobby.

Thats Mysticism. Someone who doesn't collect stamps may still have a hobby too .

 

[hamashiachagape]

Are we ready to go forth with Zecharias's argument yet?

 

[KIYX]

Okay, lets go over it again then.

On page 49 of The End of Reason, Zecharias states "Sam Harris does not believe that Atheism should be a Philosophical category. He notes that one does not describe himself or herself as a 'non-alchemist' or 'non-astrologer.' But if in a discussion about your fturue someone looks at your hand and asks for your date of birth so that he can study the planetary alignment that day, it might be to your advantage to know whether he is in fact an astrologer, or a pizza maker who reads palms as an avocation. If you are facing serious health issues and a stranger gives you a potion to drink, it would be of interest to know whether this is an alchemist or a pharmacist, or a witch doctor you are dealing with. When you are debating every definition of life ranging from origin to destiny, it makes sense to know whether you hold to an Atheistic worldview or something else."

Hence Atheism is a Philosophy, that is anti-Philosophical. That is what Ravi is proving here. 2nd law of noncontradiction is violated, and you have a self refutation.

Ah so again it comes down to "What ravi said".

I'm sorry but I know you like Ravi, but he's not convincing at all. Nowhere near it.