SHEEPEOPLE

[Michael]

Truth can be demonstrated.

Sure, but not to everyone's personal satisfaction.

 

[Michael]

I am still waiting to see them defined.

You don't care about anyone's actual definition and you aren't interested in understanding them. I gave you a perfectly empirical definition of God to work with, and you simply handwaved at it. There's nothing complicated about the definition I provided, you simply don't want to hear it or deal with it. Any evidence presented is simply ignored and/or ridiculed.

 

[Michael]

Or, they are unable to present their beliefs in a coherent, falsifiable fashion, and define the terms that they are using is a robust manner.

I provided you with a perfectly empirical and coherent definition of God and the various terms like monotheism and panentheism were defined before I was born. You don't care. You quite literally *refuse* to understand and use those terms properly, starting with the concept of monotheism.

Your personal emotional need for falsification is another example of your *non scientific* approach to the topic of God.

 

[Michael]

Bible stories are not "historical examples".

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-09/huoj-dok090903.php

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is closed for review.

 

[High Fidelity]

MOD HAT ON

Staff has come to consensus to leave the thread closed due to multiple rule violations and the issue of it becoming a general apologetics thread -- something that is not allowed.

It's also become off-topic to the forum it's in.

Please be more mindful in the future to avoid General Apologetics because it often times saturates a thread to where it needs to be closed.

MOD HAT OFF​