theophilus

Yeah, maybe you could stick your finger in an electric socket and you'd achieve enlightenment.

You'll never know until you try it (don't give me that non-sense about what has happened before; you've never done it "before).

theophilus

You see, this is the problem with misquoting scripture and choosing scripture selectively.

What he said was, "if you ask anything IN MY NAME, I will do it." Go look up what the phrase "in my name means." Also, he was speaking to his disciples. He said nothing about proving himself by doing tricks for unbelievers.

Besides, how do you know that this has not happened?

theophilus

There's nothing to "fulfill." This was not a command; "Go, into all the world and pick up serpents."

Besides these things were done and recorded in the book of Acts, so you're not being honest (there is no record of anyone drinking "any deadly thing," but then, they would have done this unknowingly, wouldn't they.

theophilus

But that assumes He hasn't and not that you're just unwilling to see the evidence. In fact, that's exactly the case, according to the Bible. So, unless you know that he hasn't given sufficient and compelling evidence, it seems like you're in a bind.

theophilus

Besides the fact that this test is not valid for immaterial entities, God has, in fact, given us a specimen; Jesus Christ, i.e., God incarnate. Now, you'd have to know that he wasn't God to deny this. How would you know that?

theophilus

Been there done that - the fact that imperfect men imperfectly follow scripture does not mean it is not a coherent system.

Harrumphrey

I'm not sure where you find mutual exclusiveness here. This is infidels.org and you are a theist making a case in favor of theism. We don't find it favorable, especially when argued so ineffectually. And now it no longer has to do with belief at all, is that it? We believe in god, but we're in rebellion against him by denying him? Is that your tune now?

Allah thinks you're rebelling against him and so does Vishnu. They're both *very* annoyed with you, as well they should be. How dare you dispute their authority, instead of prostrating yourself before them and wallowing in your slave-virtues?

Now run around in your little ontological circle like the little rodent-brained sycophant that you are.

No, I'm afraid I don't see. Oh, I know, we poor rebellious souls are to be pitied, though not as much as I pity your poor mind, enslaved to its own silly ideation.

Well that explains a lot.

Perhaps, again, it is you who make the assumptions. Did I claim to know what life is "all about"? To the contrary, I acknowledge and accept the *MYSTERY* of existence, on its own terms. I don't attempt to hang an arbitrary anthropocentric mask on the cosmos because it makes for a convenient answer in the absence of anything more plausible. Again, it is *YOU* who has not read carefully, because otherwise you would bear in mind that my claim is that god is UNproved, not DISproved. Perhaps you are not sufficiently supple to perceive this distinction. What I claim, in fact, is that we don't have the answers and neither do you. You just pretend to.

Your holier-than-thou airs are nauseating. They don't strengthen your case, so why persist in them?

Why don't you go preach to the converted? You're wasting your energy here, if that isn't obvious by now. For one thing, you lack the intellectual force to get even a single point across without it being torn to shreds.

More claptrap. You're hopelessly confused. Morals are intellectual and only that -- what else would they be? -- and have no referent in nature. Morals change from society to society and from century to century. The "laws of logic" are also an intellectual tool, of which you patently have zero understanding. There is no "fundamental nature" of morals, imperative or otherwise. Religionists pretend to have the monopoly on morals and good works, but centuries of religious violence and unrest testify against this claim.

Some of your attempts at argument are really quite abysmally stupid. But thanks for the chuckles.

Does anybody else want to take a crack at this one? Words temporarily fail me.

Of course it would appear to you unreasonable that those who don't share your idiotic faith would require evidence to support its myriad idiocies.

I could turn the tables by asking why you don't believe in Zeus or the Midgard Serpent. Oh -- but maybe you do. You've seen Santa Claus, or so you say? Has any other fantastic fauna made itself known to you? See if you can find me one of those talking donkeys from the bible. I think it would make a cool pet.

Silent Dave

Red herring. Thanks for playing.


Dave

HRG

In fact, the existence of atheists refutes the bible - or you would have to assume that an omnipotent being can only create evidence which depends on the "willingness to see". If evidence is compelling, it is so whether people are "willing to see" or not.
But I know that he - if he exists - hasn't given sufficient and compelling evidence. Proof: I am not compelled to believe, else I would believe; sufficient evidence by definition compels to believe (like the proof of a mathematical theorem, or the evidence that the earth ís not flat).

Regards,
HRG.

Jack the Bodiless

"The God of the Bible" just isn't good enough as a definition. Millions of Christians believe things about the "God of the Bible" which directly contradict what millions of OTHER Christians believe about the "God of the Bible".

For instance, the Bible contains verses that directly contradict the notion that God is "all powerful, everywhere present, and all-knowing".

The claim that "MY God is the God of the Bible" is merely another case of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.