Look what I found:

[Jazer]

Actually, it's an imaginary concept.

Tell that to the drunk and the prostitute.
They will say I was dead but now I am alive.
Jesus saved me. Even if we are just saved from ourselves.
There is nothing imaginary about being born again in Christ.
Ask the person who has never been loved. God's love is real.

The imagination, is VERY powerful.
As a man thinketh in his heart. So is he.
Is the imagination of the heart good or evil?
What the mind can conceive, the body can acheive.

I am all for it, lets talk about the power of the imagination.

 

[Jazer]

a new car and house.

With God if you want new then you have to give up the old.
Some people are not willing to do that, they cling to what they have.
They just will not trade in all their old filthy rags, to be made new in Christ.

 

[Jazer]

In no way is it a gift, gifts are given freely.
This is something you have to do something to get.
Thus it is a reward.

Freely given, freely received. You can refuse a gift.

It's rude, crude and socially uncouth, but you can refuse.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, as a matter of fact. I freely admit my ignorance as far as the bible is concerned. Hence why I don't bother arguing over bible passages.

What's wrong? can't take a GOD SAID IT, THAT SETTLES IT approach?

Instead, you're afraid you would have to 'bother to argue over them'?

Even real Bible critics acknowledge what the Bible says.

 

[Belk]

What's wrong? can't take a GOD SAID IT, THAT SETTLES IT approach?

Instead, you're afraid you would have to 'bother to argue over them'?

Even real Bible critics acknowledge what the Bible says.

Since I neither believe in a God nor think the bible likely to be the word of one if he existed no, I am unable to take that approach. Nor would I if I found substantive evidence that the word is incorrect.

I guess it is a good thing I do not count myself as a real bible critic then, isn't it AV? Or are you equating my being critical of the things you say with the bible again?

 

[RickG]

What's wrong? can't take a GOD SAID IT, THAT SETTLES IT approach?

"An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!" (Stephen Hawking)

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary." (Stephen Hawking)

 

[Freodin]

What's wrong? can't take a GOD SAID IT, THAT SETTLES IT approach?

I haven't met anyone who can agree on this kind of approach. No one. Not a single person.

 

[AV1611VET]

I haven't met anyone who can agree on this kind of approach. No one. Not a single person.

So if you see that on a bumper sticker of a car, it is the car -- not the driver -- that is agreeing with it?

 

[Freodin]

So if you see that on a bumper sticker of a car, it is the car -- not the driver -- that is agreeing with it?

Some people my claim to hold that position... but they don't.
It's not that they are lying... they just haven't thought about it enough.

 

[Jazer]

What's wrong? can't take a GOD SAID IT, THAT SETTLES IT approach?

Perhaps the issue is that people do not seem to agree on what God said.
How do we know who represents God and who does not represent God?

 

[Belk]

Perhaps the issue is that people do not seem to agree on what God said.
How do we know who represents God and who does not represent God?

Indeed, that would be problem #2.

 

[Tiberius]

Actually, Corvus, I made this thread some time ago, but I made it in General Apologetics, and now I don't have access to it.

So I hunted up the link that's in the OP and made this thread again, so I can qv people to it whenever I want to make the point that they have no right to say Heaven, or God, or Jesus, or angels, or even the Flood doesn't exist because they haven't seen the evidence.

Until they can see every cubic centimeter of this universe, and see it simultaneously, they have no right to say God doesn't exist.

Oh wow, this is a wonderful argument.

"We haven't seen that it isn't true, so therefore we must entertain the possibility that it is true."

I can turn into a squirrel.

(SOURCE)

You can't prove that I can't, so you must entertain the notion that I can!

Wow! I can prove anything with this!

 

[AV1611VET]

I can turn into a squirrel.

Neat.

Show me 6000 years of people who believe you can, preserved documentation, two major nations on the face of the earth, time divided up between BS and AS, and a host of martyrs; all of whom believe you can (and did) -- and I still won't believe you.

 

[Tiberius]

So your logic is flawed.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Those arguing that the entire universe must be searched to show the non-existence of God also typically accept that God is omnipresent.

While one cannot show that no gods exist, it would seem that one can disprove an omnipresent one without getting off the sofa.

 

[Tiberius]

Besides, if I don't need to count every number in order to show there are no even prime numbers greater than two, why should I need to search the entire universe in order to show there is no God?

 

[Davian]

Neat.

Show me 6000 years of people who believe you can,

Age does nothing to indicate the validity of any religion, even those older than yours.

We know squirrels exist.

Establishing the existence of deities is still a work in progress.

preserved documentation,

Unless all you have are copies.

two major nations on the face of the earth,

Which two?

time divided up between BS and AS,

The people that create the system get to create the nomenclature. What about the names of the months, or the days of the week? The literal translation of the terms may or may not reflect reality, just as you and I are of the species H. Sapiens.

and a host of martyrs; all of whom believe you can (and did)

Martyrdom does not validate ones' beliefs. How could they, when, with martyrs as a group, they are contradictory?

-- and I still won't believe you.

Do you have similar reasons to the above for believing in your particular religion? *Why* do you believe?

 

[Belk]

Neat.

Show me 6000 years of people who believe you can, preserved documentation, two major nations on the face of the earth, time divided up between BS and AS, and a host of martyrs; all of whom believe you can (and did) -- and I still won't believe you.

Neither would I seeing as how none of those things have any bearing on wether someone can turn into a squirrel or not. You have some very odd ideas on what constitutes evidence don't you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Those arguing that the entire universe must be searched to show the non-existence of God also typically accept that God is omnipresent.

While one cannot show that no gods exist, it would seem that one can disprove an omnipresent one without getting off the sofa.

You need a machine that can do this, for a start:

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

 

[Jazer]

Neat. Show me 6000 years of people who believe you can,

Squirrels like to eat nuts so we should have no problem feeding him to a squirrel.