Demigawd

Thanks for pointing out that a good portion of evangelism relies on fear and intimidation, rather than an actual inherient worth.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, berate them with bellicose bullshit.

Visionary7

fyi, Jesus is my personal psychiatrist....

lol!...

CF is my home internet bible turf..

sign up and visit it a little more often, maybe I can help you out..

http://www.crossandflame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7248

Visionary7

If go I go in a mode of preaching the good news of the messiah, it is still blashpemed by sceptics.. If I post death/judgement scripture, then God is immoral...

to blameless you show your self blameless
to the faithful your show your self faithful
but to the crooked you show yourself shrewd.

Face it, It is logically reasonable that my revelation of that if there was no God, we would not be talking about God..

Try your best refute and good luck..

Here is a thread pertaining to this.

Athiests should sing up and fire away thier refutes my thread at the CF turf, which is God's blessed sanctuary.. unless ofc, the parties involved are afraid of lack of support from thier fellow athiests.

http://www.crossandflame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5911

Don't be scared, I'm only here to remove that speck of sawdust from your eye..

mongrel

Blasphemed, or refuted?

Anyway, it seems to me that there's not a lot of "good news"- or sense, for that matter- involved in a myth about some omni-everything creator who supposedly sacrificed his only son(or himself, depending on your POV) to himself, to appease his own anger at his own creation.

If the cap fits...

People talk about leprechauns, too...

Why not discuss it right here? Unless, of course, you're afraid of lack of support from your fellow Christians...

DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR

It's not my intention to be your psychiatrist, Visionary7, personal or otherwise.
I'll take it that you are joking with your overdone/overused "lol" after your remark. That's a first step in realizing your beliefs are what they are

No thanks, but I do appreciate the gesture, like I said mental patients think I am God or Satan or both, I try to steer clear of such things and people.

Demigawd

All you've done is grammatically restructered the following statement: Since I'm talking about God, God exists.

Better luck next time you attempt to stump the infidels.

Visionary7

No,The infidels rely on the world of unspirtual knowlege and earthly wisdom..

The Lord reigns, he is robed in majesty,

You can't refute it or present a decent agurment againist the Word of of my God.....I present you a propostion and instead it was taken as "I was trying to stump you,"

Where is the wise man? where is the scholar?

All the theories and and anti-god paradoxes and problems present as an arguement to the Word. I just don't see Atheism standing up to the principles of God.

I'm not trying to stump the infidels, Nor I am my trying to be hostile.

Present me some reasonable arguements and facts..

DinoStoned

Well, let's replace the word God with... say, leprechauns, as mongrel so kindly suggested.
Then we get-
Face it, It is logically reasonable that my revelation of that if there were no leprechauns, we would not be talking about leprechauns.

The same goes for Nirvana, Heaven, Zeus, the Invisible Pink Unicorn or basically every concept that mankind has ever invented.

Of course the paradoxes are presented as an argument to the Word of God, since the Word of God insists that it is always right. The purpose of those theories are to prove that the Word of God is not right all the time.

And you don't see Atheism standing up to the principles of God. Fine. We don't see the concept of God as able to stand against atheism. It works both ways.

EverLastingGodStopper

Claims require evidence. You made this claim, please provide evidence. May I assume the majestic robes are silk, not terry cloth? How big are they?
Wise men (and women) and scholars can be found in colleges and universities. This fact can be proven online by running a Google search for "college" or "university," or in real life by visiting the campus of one's local institution of higher learning.

chapka

I already did; you just ignored it.

As for your new formulation (if there was no god, there's no logical reason to be talking about god):

Do you believe in White Power and the Master Race? If not, how can you explain the fact that people sometimes come onto totally unrelated message boards and talk about these things? After all, isn't it logically reasonable that if there were no Master Race, white supremacists and black supremacists wouldn't be arguing about the characteristics of the Master Race?

Please note that I'm not implying that you, yourself, are a racist. But I fail to see how any argument you may make against my proposition doesn't also apply to your own.

If you want to see how your argument is not "logically reasonable," just reduce it to a syllogism. You've said:

Now, I assume that what you meant to say was "It is logically reasonable that if there were no god, we would not be talking about god."

You've given us two parts of a syllogism here:

P1: We are talking about God

and

C1: Therefore, God exists

By themselves, these two things don't form a syllogism. This doesn't mean that your statement is right or wrong, just that it has a suppressed premise. Your critics have taken the legitimate logical step of filling in the simplest possible premise, which is:

P2: People only talk about things that exist

The problem is that this premise is false, as the leprechaun example shows. Again, that doesn't mean your statement is false; it just means that in order to prove it, you need to state your suppressed premise(s).

Remember, you've already been given several counterexamples: leprechauns, the Master Race, and Islam. Assuming you don't believe in any of these things, you need to come up with a premise that does not apply to these counterexamples.

If you have questions about the requirements of formal logical reasoning, feel free to post or PM me. But if you can't fulfill these requirements, I hope you'll admit that your argument is not, in fact, logically reasonable.