What kind of evidence would prove god ?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Any argument that doesn't terminate in "because God" would do fine.

Ok, just to be clear, you are rejecting any argument that cannot support itself beyond simply asserting that God has done something.

Cause, you know ... you might want to think about that for a second

Why would those arguments do fine, but simply asserting "because God", wouldn't. Didn't we agree that God could do this if he wanted to? Why then would you need an argument to distinguish between whether he has or hasn't actually done it. What if I'm confident in "because God"? If I am why would we need anything else?


... has the penny dropped yet?

Lelantos

antiskeptic wrote: »

Have you seen The Life of Pi?

Have you seen "The Life of Brian"?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Have you seen The Life of Pi?

The film (and book) which says

that religion and god are just stories people make up and choose to believe because they rather them to the truth

?

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Zombrex wrote: »

Ok, just to be clear, you are rejecting any argument that cannot support itself beyond simply asserting that God has done something.

Just to be clear: I'm asking that you provide argument for your assertion that creation is God's primary revelation.

If your argument relies on something that God has done then that takes us down one path (to swift conclusion of the discussion). If coming up with some other argumentation then we can look at that to see whether it indeed avoids terminating at something God has done.

Why would those arguments do fine

Because they would give you an out from the position where you would have to face the conclusions already outlined as a result of the argument at post 19 holding.

but simply asserting "because God", wouldn't. Didn't we agree that God could do this if he wanted to? Why then would you need an argument to distinguish between whether he has or hasn't actually done it. What if I'm confident in "because God"? If I am why would we need anything else?

Maybe you could decide which answer you're going to give ("because God" or something else) and we can see where it leads?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Any argument that doesn't necessarily terminate back at "because of act and decision of God" would do fine for a start. If accepting that all arguments will terminate so then by all means attempt to support primacy of Creation (in the matter of God's self revelation).

This is magnificent. Not only has antiskeptic, somewhere or other, mathematically proved the existence of his own favorite deity, but I think he's solved the Halting Problem too -- totes amazeballs!

BTW, I think the term "Post 19" should become a forum meme for truths so profound that only really, really, really super-clever people can see them.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Just to be clear: I'm asking that you provide argument for your assertion that creation is God's primary revelation.

Yes, and I'm saying I don't have to because God.

Some what of an unsatisfactory answer, isn't it

antiskeptic wrote: »

Because they would give you an out from the position where you would have to face the conclusions already outlined as a result of the argument at post 19 holding.

I'm perfectly happy with those conclusions. God can make creation his primary revelation, therefore he did (because God), therefore any revelation to you is a lie, therefore you cannot trust revelations from God.

QED as it where.

Because God seems enough, doesn't it? I mean what argument do you have to counter "because God"? Are you going to say God couldn't have done these things? Are you going to say God didn't do these things? You are left with the inescapable conclusion that you cannot trust revelations from God.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes, and I'm saying I don't have to because God. Some what of an unsatisfactory answer, isn't it

I think you've lost sight of what our convention on supposing God exists for the purpose of discussion allows you to do.

You can suppose God exists in order to examine what would follow from that fact. But if making a claim as to what God has actually done (by way of stating his having revealed something to you via Creation) then you've stepped over to the side of being a believer for the sake of discussion.

In which case, you've left the boundary of post 19 (which addresses unbelievers and conclusions they have to draw - which involves them assuming that God exists for the purpose of examining why it is they must draw those conclusions) and have become just another opinion in the vast pool of believing opinions.

Welcome Brother Zombrex!

Sarky

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Bloody hell, "because God" really is good enough for him. That's tragic and scary.


Also I am calling "Post 19" whenever someone says something stupid from now on. That'll learn 'em.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think you've lost sight of what our convention on supposing God exists for the purpose of discussion allows you to do.

Er, no. What you are slowly realising is that the supposing God exists doesn't allow you to do what you thought it did.

I got tired of trying to explain this you so I simply flipped it. If God exists then you either didn't get a revelation or he was lying to you because God

Now naturally, since that was an argument you wish to accept, you didn't accept it and wanted to know what argument or method or logic I was using to suppose that that was the case.

"Because God" didn't seem all that satisfactory to you. And it shouldn't be all that satisfactory to you, because it is a nonsense argument (interestingly enough it didn't seem satisfactory to you only when the conclusion is contrary to what you wish to believe)

But then it was also a nonsense argument when you used it at the start of the thread. Anything God does to give you coincidence he exists is good enough because God. Er, no, not satisfactory. Because we run into the same issue, the inability to discern fact from fiction.

Notice this is true even if "because God" is actually the case. For all we know creation is the primary revelation, and God is lying to you when he told you some other revelation contrary to this. That is possible. But merely proposing it is possible, or even if it were true, still produces an unsatisfactory outcome. You still required I supported the claim.

As you are realising you need more than simply supposing God might have done something to conclude he did, even if he actually did do that thing.

Which brings us back to "post 19" as you like to call it. It is not satisfactory that God merely makes you think something is true. That is no more satisfactory than me claiming creation is primary. Creation might be primary. I might believe it is primary. But cannot produce an argument, either for you, or (more importantly) for myself as to why its. As such you don't accept it, and frankly I shouldn't accept it either.

This is easier for you to see when the conclusion is one you don't like. So next time you think you have the mother of all "got-cha's" on this forum simply apply the same logic to an undesirable conclusion (eg God lying) and see if you still find the conclusion satisfactory.

And just by and by, the most telling and relevant bit of this whole discussion was when you stated God cannot lie. That revealed the most about your position and how shaking its under pinnings are, because of course if God exists there is no reason to suppose he can't lie and you wouldn't know the difference if he did.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Zombrex wrote: »

I got tired of trying to explain this you so I simply flipped it. If God exists then you either didn't get a revelation or he was lying to you because God

Because God what? Contradicted himself?

Now naturally, since that was an argument you wish to accept, you didn't accept it and wanted to know what argument or method or logic I was using to suppose that that was the case.

"Because God" didn't seem all that satisfactory to you. And it shouldn't be all that satisfactory to you, because it is a nonsense argument (interestingly enough it didn't seem satisfactory to you only when the conclusion is contrary to what you wish to believe)

The reason it is unsatisfactory has to do with your transgressing the boundaries of the realm you are confined to operating in. You have no potential be definitive in your assessment about what God has done confined as you are to both unbelief and the empirical/fallible.

Anything God does to give you coincidence he exists is good enough because God. Er, no, not satisfactory. Because we run into the same issue, the inability to discern fact from fiction.

The issue you run into is where you would obtain your satisfaction on the matter of God's existence demonstrated empirically. If not "because God has given you that confidence via a means of his choosing". Assuming you agree that it rests on him alone, you might begin to differentiate the basis of your confidence from mine.


Remember you're confined to arguing as one who supposes God could demonstrate himself empirically to your satisfaction.

Notice this is true even if "because God" is actually the case. For all we know creation is the primary revelation, and God is lying to you when he told you some other revelation contrary to this.

You seem to relying on your 'contradiction' here. You've never actually pointed out what that contradiction is supposed to be. I don't see a contradiction between creation and Revelation.

It is not satisfactory that God merely makes you think something is true. That is no more satisfactory than me claiming creation is primary. Creation might be primary. I might believe it is primary. But cannot produce an argument, either for you, or (more importantly) for myself as to why its. As such you don't accept it, and frankly I shouldn't accept it either.

There is nothing amiss in God making you think something true since the issue you persistently avoid (who makes you think anything is true?) tells you that's precisely what's happening, irrespective of method employed. Again, you value method, forgetting he who gives method it's value.

What shouldn't be self-satisfactory is making definitive claims via means which a priori haven't the potential to equip you to be definitive. So by all means have a view that creation is primary (and because the means whereby you conclude that involves method, you can be expected to have a methodological basis for your position).

But realise that a non-definitive view means another isn't forced to agree with what you see as contradication. Especially not when there isn't a problem reconciling a Revealed person and what he reveals of himself through Creation

And just by and by, the most telling and relevant bit of this whole discussion was when you stated God cannot lie. That revealed the most about your position and how shaking its under pinnings are, because of course if God exists there is no reason to suppose he can't lie and you wouldn't know the difference if he did.

Nor could you, for you have no independent of God means of establishing truth. And so you exclude yourself from the a discussion which supposes God able to reveal himself. Taking refuge in a jar

Kiwi in IE

If I were to see or hear 'God' or 'an Angel', I would be presenting at A&E and requesting a prescription for psychotropic medication.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Because God what? Contradicted himself?

Just because God? What other explanation is required?

antiskeptic wrote: »

The reason it is unsatisfactory has to do with your transgressing the boundaries of the realm you are confined to operating in.

Why would that make an argument unsatisfactory to you, if you are not bound to operate in the same realm?

antiskeptic wrote: »

The issue you run into is where you would obtain your satisfaction on the matter of God's existence demonstrated empirically.

Well no, the issue is why you are not satisfied by my assertion that creation is God's primary revelation, that creation contradicts your personal revelation, and therefore God is either lying or not communicating with you at all.

You asked me to support this argument with some logic beyond simply invoking the possibility that all of it could be true.

So the question now is what argument would you find satisfactory, and why is it not satisfactory that I simply appeal to "because God" as an argument.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If not "because God has given you that confidence via a means of his choosing".

Would that be satisfactory to you for the arguments presented, if I simply stated that God has given me the confidence that all of what I claimed is true?

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is nothing amiss in God making you think something true since the issue you persistently avoid (who makes you think anything is true?) tells you that's precisely what's happening, irrespective of method employed. Again, you value method, forgetting he who gives method it's value.

As apparently do you, since you are requesting a method beyond mere assertion in order to be convinced of the truth of my statements.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What shouldn't be self-satisfactory is making definitive claims via means which a priori haven't the potential to equip you to be definitive. So by all means have a view that creation is primary (and because the means whereby you conclude that involves method, you can be expected to have a methodological basis for your position).

But realise that a non-definitive view means another isn't forced to agree with what you see as contradication. Especially not when there isn't a problem reconciling a Revealed person and what he reveals of himself through Creation

But if I am merely stating what is true, and this information comes from God, then you are wrong and I am right.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nor could you, for you have no independent of God means of establishing truth.

But isn't your point that there is no method independent of God for establishing truth.

So are you not required to believe what I have told you?

pauldla

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Zombrex wrote: »

Just because God? What other explanation is required?

Whether an explanation can be demanded depends on the circumstances. But it's not so much an explanation that's being asked for at this point .. so much as a "what is it you are asserting"

Zombrex: "Creation is primary revelation"
Anti: "How do you know that?"
Zombrex "Because God..."
Anti " Because God what (said so, revealed so, would operate that way...)?"
Zombrex "Just because God.."

Why would that make an argument unsatisfactory to you, if you are not bound to operate in the same realm?

Your argument is unsatisfactory just as your running up the soccer field towards goal with the ball under your arm is unsatisfactory. You are breaking the rules which confine you. They would be God's rules in the case of his existence and so I'd be caused to wonder were it that you could stitch a case together whilst abiding by them


That I have the potential to operate in a realm outside those rules has nothing to do with what confines you.

Well no, the issue is why you are not satisfied by my assertion that creation is God's primary revelation, that creation contradicts your personal revelation, and therefore God is either lying or not communicating with you at all.

Per above: as an unbeliever you can at best hold a tentative opinion.

I am under no compulsion to be satisfied by assertions constructed so. More importantly, you should realise yourself that I need not be satisfied by the tentative, having the potential for sure knowledge through Revelation

You asked me to support this argument with some logic beyond simply invoking the possibility that all of it could be true.

Since that is the field you're confined to operate in. Failing a means to undermine my position, we're back to the issue of (self-evident) potential. Which is where this all started.

So the question now is what argument would you find satisfactory, and why is it not satisfactory that I simply appeal to "because God" as an argument.

You have no potential to appeal to that argument. Not without becoming a believer for the sake of discussion. Out of bounds...

Would that be satisfactory to you for the arguments presented, if I simply stated that God has given me the confidence that all of what I claimed is true?

Do so and you become a believer and the discussion ends because you're no longer the addressee of the argument at 19. Perhaps you could deal with the point (often) made:

antiskeptic wrote:

If not "because God has given you that confidence via a means of his choosing".

..in other words, how it is you raise empiricism necessarily above Revelation if God is the one assigning confidence quotients to both means of self revelation? Whilst staying within the confines you're enclosed by.

And without ducking the issue..

As apparently do you, since you are requesting a method beyond mere assertion in order to be convinced of the truth of my statements.

But if I am merely stating what is true, and this information comes from God, then you are wrong and I am right.

Out of bounds.

But isn't your point that there is no method independent of God for establishing truth.

So are you not required to believe what I have told you?

Out of bounds.

Sarky

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

So YOUR "Because God" is correct, but whenever anyone else uses the exact same argument against you, it's out of bounds? Really? I'm beginning to think you haven't read post #19, kiddo.

robindch

Post 19 is where it's at.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whether an explanation can be demanded depends on the circumstances. But it's not so much an explanation that's being asked for at this point .. so much as a "what is it you are asserting"

Zombrex: "Creation is primary revelation"
Anti: "How do you know that?"
Zombrex "Because God..."
Anti " Because God what (said so, revealed so, would operate that way...)?"
Zombrex "Just because God.."

Yup. Again given this is also the basis of your original argument (post 19) I'm curious as to why you find this unsatisfactory.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your argument is unsatisfactory just as your running up the soccer field towards goal with the ball under your arm is unsatisfactory. You are breaking the rules which confine you. They would be God's rules in the case of his existence and so I'd be caused to wonder were it that you could stitch a case together whilst abiding by them

Again the question is why is it unsatisfactory to you, not mean. Considering that you have asserted you are not bound by my rules, why would this explanation be unsatisfactory to you?

Or to put it another way, which of your standards is this assertion failing, given that you clearly haven't accepted it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Per above: as an unbeliever you can at best hold a tentative opinion.

But as a believer you are not troubled by such issues, correct? (see above)

antiskeptic wrote: »

I am under no compulsion to be satisfied by assertions constructed so. More importantly, you should realise yourself that I need not be satisfied by the tentative, having the potential for sure knowledge through Revelation

How do you know what I'm asserting has not been revealed as the truth by God himself, either to me or someone else?

Whether I'm a believer or not does not reshape reality, or truth, does it?

antiskeptic wrote: »

..in other words, how it is you raise empiricism necessarily above Revelation if God is the one assigning confidence quotients to both means of self revelation?

I'm not, I'm saying that this truth I'm asserting (primary revelation, lie etc) could be divine revelation.

I'm curious now as to why you are falling back on self imposed standards to say that you are not convinced by this because it is not satisfactory to you.

Surely you are required, by post 19, to accept anything I say because it might be divine revelation?

If we can have confidence in divine revelation then why are you asserting that you are not satisfied by what I'm saying, which might be divine revelation.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Zombrex wrote: »

Again the question is why is it unsatisfactory to you, not me. Considering that you have asserted you are not bound by my rules, why would this explanation be unsatisfactory to you?

Remember we're only dealing in potential here. And when discussing that we're both confined by the same rules - even if within the discussion, on a point of argument I'm not so confined. Consider:

By the rules of reasoning: you are required to accept the potential of my position (i.e. that in the case of God's existence, I may have access to another of his means of revelation than you. A consequence of that potential being true, is that I'm not bound by the same rules of how I know things that you are).

By the rules of reasoning: there is no potential in your position, since you've stepped outside the bounds of reason in asserting God has done something whether occupying the position of:

- Unbeliever. You cannot issue concrete statements about what God would do if he existed. The means available to you has no potential to equip you so.

- Unbeliever. You can issue statements about what God has potential to do if he exists. Potential doesn't mean it has happened, which allows for the potential in argument at 19 to exist. Which is all the argument at 19 was about.

- Believer. The argument isn't addressed at you.

Or to put it another way, which of your standards is this assertion failing, given that you clearly haven't accepted it.

See above.

But as a believer you are not troubled by such issues, correct? (see above)

The potential is that I needn't be troubled. It would only take God to act as suggested and that would be that. Whether that potential has been realised in my case needn't concern you - the issue for you is that the potential available to me is a possible answer to your question.

How do you know what I'm asserting has not been revealed as the truth by God himself, either to me or someone else?

Whether I'm a believer or not does not reshape reality, or truth, does it?

If you are a believer then you don't belong in this discussion. If an unbeliever then whilst it may be the case that the truth is revealed to you, you haven't the potential to know that's the case - other than tentatively.

I'm not, I'm saying that this truth I'm asserting (primary revelation, lie etc) could be divine revelation

If it was and it contradicted Revelation (a contradiction claimed but not elaborated upon much by you) then you'd have a good point. As it is:

if we can have confidence in divine revelation then why are you asserting that you are not satisfied by what I'm saying, which might be divine revelation.

a) You have no means to ascertain whether it is or isn't divine revelation (if retaining your status as an unbeliever).

b) Creation revelation doesn't contradict Revelation that I can see (the potential for non-contradiction being something which you must grant) and so the potential conflict turns out not to be one from my perspective


Other than suppose God could be lying, which also places you out of bounds (and in a jar) I don't see what you've got left to stand on.

Sarky

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Sarky wrote: »

So YOUR "Because God" is correct, but whenever anyone else uses the exact same argument against you, it's out of bounds? Really? I'm beginning to think you haven't read post #19, kiddo.

And around and around you go.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Remember we're only dealing in potential here.

Er, no.

Any means which leads to your being satisfied God exists is as good as any other means.

Ok, I've told you something about God. Yet you are not satisfied with it. That seems nonsensical given your post 19. On what grounds are you saying you are not satisfied with it?

Or to put it another way, how do you know it isn't God revealing something to you via me? Given that you cannot rule that possibility out, you are forced to be satisfied with what I told you.

Otherwise you are just arbitrarily deciding what revelations from God you will or will not be satisfied with.

antiskeptic wrote: »

By the rules of reasoning: there is no potential in your position, since you've stepped outside the bounds of reason in asserting God has done something whether occupying the position of:

- Unbeliever. You cannot issue concrete statements about what God would do if he existed. The means available to you has no potential to equip you so.

- Unbeliever. You can issue statements about what God has potential to do if he exists. Potential doesn't mean it has happened, which allows for the potential in argument at 19 to exist. Which is all the argument at 19 was about.

- Believer. The argument isn't addressed at you.

That doesn't make any sense. God cannot communicate to you through an unbeliever? What? Why exactly is that the case?

So first God couldn't lie, now he cannot communicate through an unbeliever. You seem to be just making stuff up as you go.

antiskeptic wrote: »

a) You have no means to ascertain whether it is or isn't divine revelation (if retaining your status as an unbeliever).

So because I am not a believer, it could not have been a divine revelation, because all divine revelations, about anything, result in the person believing.

And you assert this how exactly?

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Zombrex wrote: »

Er, no. Any means which leads to your being satisfied God exists is as good as any other means.

This point came up much earlier in discussion with Oldrnwisr. I explained then what I meant by the above statement, in the context of the post as a whole. I granted then and grant now that I could have put it better (by that time I couldn't edit it anymore).

This is what I said to Oldrnwisr then (editing to clarify):

a) I did grant in (the argument at post 19's) conclusion that it was possible that God could assign greater confidence raising to one method over another. That it is possible doesn't mean it is so. That it could be the Revelation method which is granted superiority is merely an attempt to underline the arguments conclusion - underline by way of niggling the empiricist.

b) That makes my opening statement (that one means is as good as another) possibly true - and for a want of knowing which means is best we might as well pick the one as the other. Somewhat sloppy granted, but let's call it a working conclusion drawn in advance of the argument.

In other words:

- which means is best for God to reveal himself is for God to decide.

- which means is best for revealing which means best for God to reveal himself is also for God to decide.

- Revelation has the potential to be best in both the above situations. As does creation.

Because either has potential to be best and because the unbeliever doesn't know which God would make best (prior to finding out from God), the unbeliever would best refrain from making demands on God re: which means He must use to reveal himself. As far as he, the unbeliever should be concerned, one method used by God is as good as another.

That's as far as post 19 goes.


Furthermore:

IF Revelation is best AND God has Revealed to me, THEN I would know that the potential (that the argument at post 19 gives Revelation) has been realised. Now I assert God has Revealed himself so - the potential for which you must grant - but I am not relying on that assertion to support the argument made at post 19.

That doesn't make any sense. God cannot communicate to you through an unbeliever? What? Why exactly is that the case?

Where did I say or infer that God couldn't communicate via an unbeliver in that text?

Let me remind you that my aim in the section you quote has to do with challenging your ability to make concrete statements about the primacy of creation as God's means of revealing his existence (in the case he existed).

I'm not making comment (in the quoted part of the discussion) about what God can or cannot do. Rather, I'm pointing out that you have no potential to make concrete statements given the rules that confine you as an unbeliever. It's a technical point on the rules of discussion given the position you occupy.

Could you address that challenge (or refrain from relying on concrete claims that God has made creation his primary revelation)? Here's the section of the post again.

By the rules of reasoning: there is no potential in your position (making concrete statement)\, since you've stepped outside the bounds of reason in asserting God has done something whether occupying the position of:

- Unbeliever. You cannot issue concrete statements about what God would do if he existed. The means available to you has no potential to equip you so.

- Unbeliever. You can issue statements about what God has potential to do if he exists. Potential doesn't mean it has happened, which allows for the potential in argument at 19 to exist. Which is all the argument at 19 was about.

- Believer. The argument isn't addressed at you.

So first God couldn't lie

I've not said God couldn't lie. Not in the sense that the argument relies on him not lying.

I've said that if you suppose he could lie, then you've gone out of bounds on the discussion - since the argument addresses those who suppose God could demonstrate his existence empirically.

I don't see how you could hold that God could demonstrate his existence whilst at the same time supposing God able to lie in his revelation to you about his existence.

So because I am not a believer, it could not have been a divine revelation, because all divine revelations, about anything, result in the person believing. And you assert this how exactly?

God of course could convey a message to me through you without your knowing it was from God (otherwise that would make you a believer). I wouldn't call that a Revelation from your perspective since you'd fit it into your naturalistically-arrived at knowledge.

However, if that 'revelation' demands that God contradict himself (and such 'lying' is excluded by the terms of this discussion) then I can plump for the obvious option that it's an opinion sourced in Zombrex alone.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Sarky wrote: »

And around and around you go.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but popcorn..?

lancessupply

An extraordinary event/miracle, like raising someone from the dead, creating a new planet etc. etc.

god and the bible are biggest load of bull**** in history only used to try keep people in check...anyone who believes in it is a clueless waste of space

Dades

lancessupply, heads up - I think I just heard the school bell.

Lelantos

Dades wrote: »

lancessupply, heads up - I think I just heard the school bell.

Probably not as eloquently expressed as we'd like, but the core of his statement is quite true

StompToWork

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

I think the term "god" will become more and more ambiguous as time goes on. At the moment, the most popular view of god is the omnipitent, omnipresent consciousness who created the universe and is intimately involved in how it is all run (which is, for the most part, the basis of quite an amount of religious beliefs throughout our small little planet)

Over time, I believe that view will get thinner and thinner, until eventually, god will become nothing more than the attempt to understand the very finer details of how the universe came to be, as well as the ongoing philisophical debates surrounding "Who am I, who are you, and what are we all doing here".

It will end up being that The God is in The Detail.

Sarky

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sticks and stones may break my bones but popcorn..?

Zombrex has repeatedly shown you why your assertions are crap. You don't have a leg to stand on and you know it. I know this because God revealed it to me in a dream last night. I'm satisfied that God thinks you're wrong. Therefore you're wrong.

I freaking post #19.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Sarky wrote: »

Zombrex has repeatedly shown you why your assertions are crap. You don't have a leg to stand on and you know it. I know this because God revealed it to me in a dream last night. I'm satisfied that God thinks you're wrong. Therefore you're wrong

You've declared yourself a believer (for the sake of discussion) and so fall outside the boundaries of post 19

Not so easy huh..

Sarky

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Nope. It was revelation, and it satisfied me. God Almighty said you were wrong. Who are you to argue with God? Nobody, that's who.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

God Almighty said you were wrong. Who are you to argue with God? Nobody, that's who.

Indeedy. God herself told me the same thing.