Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[bodecea]

I have better proof than that, but nothing I would share with the swine on these boards.

Of course. And you strike me as a fine representative of the 21st century christian.

 

[Boss]

What other animals have sentience?

Almost all upper primates have acute sentience and ability to reason. Even most mammals have some sentient ability, they hunt and gather food, they congregate in packs, someone even posted art work done by elephants earlier, this has been a fascinating thread.

What I think is the deal here, is you and I have a different definition of "sentience" and that is why you continue to view "sentience" as unique to humans. I feel that if you explain this to me, we'll find that you believe the collective combination of attributes which make up "humanity" are what you are defining as "sentience" and that is not an accurate definition of the word. You are taking an intellectually dishonest shortcut, by claiming "sentience" as an explanation for everything. If that is your argument, our human spirituality is responsible for our "sentience" (by your def). There can be no other logical conclusion, because our "sentience" certainly is unique to the species, and so is our spirituality.

Now, the next step, is for you to scientifically explain where our "sentience" came from. If you are certain it wasn't from our spiritual connection, which billions profess to... then it has to come from natural selection, evolutionary in nature... but... we find nothing else in nature that has these 'humanistic' attributes comprising "sentience." We find no trace of any other species of life, worshiping things that aren't real, or creating placebos for knowledge, or to cope with death... it doesn't happen anywhere else in the natural world.

Pardon me, if all of this sounds like "because I say so" to you... I am only presenting legitimate and valid scientific points that we can look up and confirm as we please. Every argument you have presented, has been refuted with science, logic, and nature itself.

You offered a very strange comment. You claim that every argument I have presented has been refuted with science, logic and nature, itself. Oddly, I have maintained consistently that your claims to spirit worlds are contrary to science, logic and nature.

So, where have you refuted my position of the natural world being bereft supernatural realms refuted with science, logic and nature?

Nothing strange at all about my comment. Your explanations have been refuted with science and what we know about nature. Human spirituality exists and humans connect to something spiritually, and this makes us distinctly different than all other life forms. Nothing you have yet to offer, disproves spiritual nature. Yet, you continue to act as though, something you've presented, has established this as a fact. Your ONLY solid argument seems to be, that spiritual nature doesn't have physical or material presence that you can detect. Of course, spiritual entities aren't supposed to have physical and material presence, or they would be physical entities. So the only point you have made, is irrelevant.

There is nothing "supernatural" about human spirituality, it is an attribute we've had for all our existence as a species in the physically natural world, so it is very much a part of nature. Indeed, it is an intrinsic behavior of humans, and has always been our most defining attribute. How can any sane person call that "supernatural?" It sounds perfectly NATURAL to me.

 

[Hollie]

Almost all upper primates have acute sentience and ability to reason. Even most mammals have some sentient ability, they hunt and gather food, they congregate in packs, someone even posted art work done by elephants earlier, this has been a fascinating thread.

What I think is the deal here, is you and I have a different definition of "sentience" and that is why you continue to view "sentience" as unique to humans. I feel that if you explain this to me, we'll find that you believe the collective combination of attributes which make up "humanity" are what you are defining as "sentience" and that is not an accurate definition of the word. You are taking an intellectually dishonest shortcut, by claiming "sentience" as an explanation for everything. If that is your argument, our human spirituality is responsible for our "sentience" (by your def). There can be no other logical conclusion, because our "sentience" certainly is unique to the species, and so is our spirituality.

Now, the next step, is for you to scientifically explain where our "sentience" came from. If you are certain it wasn't from our spiritual connection, which billions profess to... then it has to come from natural selection, evolutionary in nature... but... we find nothing else in nature that has these 'humanistic' attributes comprising "sentience." We find no trace of any other species of life, worshiping things that aren't real, or creating placebos for knowledge, or to cope with death... it doesn't happen anywhere else in the natural world.

Pardon me, if all of this sounds like "because I say so" to you... I am only presenting legitimate and valid scientific points that we can look up and confirm as we please. Every argument you have presented, has been refuted with science, logic, and nature itself.

You offered a very strange comment. You claim that every argument I have presented has been refuted with science, logic and nature, itself. Oddly, I have maintained consistently that your claims to spirit worlds are contrary to science, logic and nature.

So, where have you refuted my position of the natural world being bereft supernatural realms refuted with science, logic and nature?

Nothing strange at all about my comment. Your explanations have been refuted with science and what we know about nature. Human spirituality exists and humans connect to something spiritually, and this makes us distinctly different than all other life forms. Nothing you have yet to offer, disproves spiritual nature. Yet, you continue to act as though, something you've presented, has established this as a fact. Your ONLY solid argument seems to be, that spiritual nature doesn't have physical or material presence that you can detect. Of course, spiritual entities aren't supposed to have physical and material presence, or they would be physical entities. So the only point you have made, is irrelevant.

There is nothing "supernatural" about human spirituality, it is an attribute we've had for all our existence as a species in the physically natural world, so it is very much a part of nature. Indeed, it is an intrinsic behavior of humans, and has always been our most defining attribute. How can any sane person call that "supernatural?" It sounds perfectly NATURAL to me.

It is odd that you describe my explanations (the natural world is absent spirit realms ), as being refuted by science. You don't seem to be paying attention. How does science refute a natural world?

 

[daws101]

I have better proof than that, but nothing I would share with the swine on these boards.

Of course. And you strike me as a fine representative of the 21st century christian.

don't you mean 12th century.? the willful ignorance hasn't changed.
sometimes I think "they" miss the good ole days when they could burn heretics for sport!

 

[daws101]

You offered a very strange comment. You claim that every argument I have presented has been refuted with science, logic and nature, itself. Oddly, I have maintained consistently that your claims to spirit worlds are contrary to science, logic and nature.

So, where have you refuted my position of the natural world being bereft supernatural realms refuted with science, logic and nature?

Nothing strange at all about my comment. Your explanations have been refuted with science and what we know about nature. Human spirituality exists and humans connect to something spiritually, and this makes us distinctly different than all other life forms. Nothing you have yet to offer, disproves spiritual nature. Yet, you continue to act as though, something you've presented, has established this as a fact. Your ONLY solid argument seems to be, that spiritual nature doesn't have physical or material presence that you can detect. Of course, spiritual entities aren't supposed to have physical and material presence, or they would be physical entities. So the only point you have made, is irrelevant.

There is nothing "supernatural" about human spirituality, it is an attribute we've had for all our existence as a species in the physically natural world, so it is very much a part of nature. Indeed, it is an intrinsic behavior of humans, and has always been our most defining attribute. How can any sane person call that "supernatural?" It sounds perfectly NATURAL to me.

It is odd that you describe my explanations (the natural world is absent spirit realms ), as being refuted by science. You don't seem to be paying attention. How does science refute a natural world?

is it just me? or have we heard the nonsense before?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The Christian God is a spirit and is theistic with creative forces what is the difference in your view ?

There may not be any, I don't claim to know this. As I said earlier, it is spiritually possible for god to exist as a personal god, meaning that my god and your god are completely different, yet also the same. We can't wrap our minds around such a thing, because it seems to defy logic as we know it. Again, we don't need to fully understand something to determine it does exist.

what !what about the Christian trinity? that's three in one but also individuals...millions of people claim to wrap their heads around that parlor trick.

Do the same thing about scientific theories as you would the trinity learn it before you type

 

[Youwerecreated]

posts# 2690-2694 are the most blatant case of sphincter sucking I've seen in years !
any body want to pitch in on some Vaseline? boss's anal aperture must really sting now!

Here is the pervert once again.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What other animals have sentience?

Almost all upper primates have acute sentience and ability to reason. Even most mammals have some sentient ability, they hunt and gather food, they congregate in packs, someone even posted art work done by elephants earlier, this has been a fascinating thread.

What I think is the deal here, is you and I have a different definition of "sentience" and that is why you continue to view "sentience" as unique to humans. I feel that if you explain this to me, we'll find that you believe the collective combination of attributes which make up "humanity" are what you are defining as "sentience" and that is not an accurate definition of the word. You are taking an intellectually dishonest shortcut, by claiming "sentience" as an explanation for everything. If that is your argument, our human spirituality is responsible for our "sentience" (by your def). There can be no other logical conclusion, because our "sentience" certainly is unique to the species, and so is our spirituality.

Now, the next step, is for you to scientifically explain where our "sentience" came from. If you are certain it wasn't from our spiritual connection, which billions profess to... then it has to come from natural selection, evolutionary in nature... but... we find nothing else in nature that has these 'humanistic' attributes comprising "sentience." We find no trace of any other species of life, worshiping things that aren't real, or creating placebos for knowledge, or to cope with death... it doesn't happen anywhere else in the natural world.

Pardon me, if all of this sounds like "because I say so" to you... I am only presenting legitimate and valid scientific points that we can look up and confirm as we please. Every argument you have presented, has been refuted with science, logic, and nature itself.

You offered a very strange comment. You claim that every argument I have presented has been refuted with science, logic and nature, itself. Oddly, I have maintained consistently that your claims to spirit worlds are contrary to science, logic and nature.

So, where have you refuted my position of the natural world being bereft supernatural realms refuted with science, logic and nature?

Not strange at all,you can't debate anything related to science because you don't know what it is.

 

[newpolitics]

You can't be this dumb. It's just not possible. I think you are faking all of this just to get attention! Also, funny that you chide others for name-calling when you call me stupid and an idiot. You're an asshole.

What you are claiming is that everything is relative and subjective, and it isn't, because objective reality exists, and certain things are true and certain things are false.

We weren't talking about what is true and false or objective reality. Don't wriggle away from what you stated and try to pretend we are arguing something different.

If we are not talking about the truth or objective reality, then there is no point to your OP.

We experience objective reality subjectively, which means there is an objective reality that exists independently from our minds, with a truth that we do not decide, only arrive at if we are able to. We don't get to choose what is true and what is false about objective reality, yet this is what you are attempting to imply.

No it's not, we're not talking about objective reality. Why do you keep trying to spin your idiotic statement into something else? You stated that evidence is not subjective, and indeed, evidence IS subjective.



We're not talking about objective reality... had you stated that objective reality wasn't subjective, it would make sense to be talking about it here, but that's not what you said. You claimed evidence was, "by definition," not subjective, and evidence is always subjective.

If we are not talking about objective reality, then your argument is useless. Since you just admitted we are not talking about objective reality, you concede that the OP demonstrates nothing about reality.

The truths about reality in the physical material universe. Like the truth that humans have always been spiritual. The most successful method at ascertaining truths about spiritual reality are gained through human spirituality.

What other method would there be to reach the spiritual? Could you give an example? If not, you can not say it is the most successful method, since you don't have any other methods to compare it against. Just pointing out how flawed your general sense of logic is.

Humans are still very spiritually connected. Should we go through all the things science thought and was wrong about? Of course, if science had adopted your philosophy on evidence not being subjective, there is no telling what wrong-headed science we'd be worshiping today.

You have yet to prove that humans are at all spiritual connected.

Pay attention... I said the definition doesn't indicate evidence must be subjective or objective. This is because you stated "evidence, by definition, is not subjective" and that is a false statement. I correctly stated that subjectivity and objectivity are rationales we apply based on our perceptions of the evidence. Evidence is not altruistic or unassailable, it can be disputed, and this is because evidence is subjective. From there, you have chosen to run away from your false claim and pretend we are talking about something else.

"Evidence not being subjective by definition", means that nowhere in the definition of "evidence" is subjectivity indicated. To reword this so you understand, "subjective" is not part of the definition of evidence. You find a definition of evidence that indicates "subjectivity" and I'll concede that point. Until then, stfu.

Objectivity is not based on our perceptions. It is the opposite. Our perceptions are based on objective reality. Without an objective reality, there would be nothing to perceive, and we would not exist. Saying evidence is subjective is idiotic. A fossil, which is evidence for evolution, is not subjective. It is exists objectively, just like a rock, or a car, or a tree, or the sun. If you assert otherwise, then you admit that you don't believe in objective reality, and that reality itself is simply a figment of your imagination (solipsism). I doubt you want to go there, because then you are forced to concede your position, since god would simply be a construct of your mind and doesn't actually exist, and we are all just figments of your imagination.

What you are trying to address, and failing, is whether one considers something evidence at all, and this is related to epistemology, or how we know what we know.

I'm perfectly sorted and not the least bit confused. You are the one who claimed evidence, by definition, is not subjective. I merely challenged your idiocy. Now you are trying to walk that back, change the subject and pretend you were talking about something else, and hurling insults at me as fast as you can. It's amusing and funny to watch you spin, not frustrating to me in the least.

You are very confused, and have demonstrated this with the myriad contradictions you have presented throughout this thread. You are not challenging anything about my position.

Evidential standards which apply to physical evidence in courts, are not applicable to spiritual entities, it is illogical to insist they be applied. As I said, if we were trying to prove physical existence of god in a court, there is no evidence to support this. I've never argued otherwise, but god is a spiritual entity, which doesn't provide physical evidence. If your mind can accept spiritual evidence, the spiritual evidence is overwhelming, and this is why billions of people over thousands of years, have practiced spirituality, and continue to do so.

You haven't provided a shred of "spiritual evidence."

But I thought, by definition, all evidence was not subjective? Now you are saying something different. Epistemology is simply the theory of knowledge. It can just as easily be rationally applied to examination of spiritual nature and spiritual evidence, you just don't believe in spiritual nature or spiritual evidence.

I never said, all evidence was not subjective. I said it was not contained in the definition. Let me try this again, since you don't seem to get what I was saying: Subjectivity is not a concept that is contained in the definition of evidence. Therefore, evidence can be either subjective or objective, since it is not specified. You admitted this, then continue on to say that all evidence is subjective. Again, contradicting yourself! You are a contradiction machine!

It appears you just looked up epistemology. That much is obvious. Of course epistemology is applied to spiritual beliefs. Theist fundamentalists, such as yourself, have a differing epistemology, which is to say, the method by which they consider knowledge to be knowledge. Theirs is based on faith, not evidence. Faith, is grounded on intuition, which is categorically unreliable at getting at objective truth. Just look at how successfully scientific epistemologies have been relative to spiritual ones. It is staggering. Epistemology doesn't say anything about the truth value of supernatural propositions such as yours, and doesn't attempt to, but it does objectively comment on the rationale behind considerations of knowledge, and when faith-based epistemologies are compared to evidence-based ones, it is clear who wins out. Just look at the world around you. Were airplanes built by appealing to the supernatural or on faith? Nope.

You also don't have empirical evidence that god doesn't exist or that human spiritual belief is a fallacy or delusion. Billions and billions of people over thousands and thousands of years, confirm an intrinsic human connection to spiritual nature. The evidence of this is indeed, empirical. There is no physical evidence of material existence of a spiritual entity, and if there ever is such a discovery, the spiritual becomes physical. You are demanding illogical evidence. It's not any different than me demanding that you have God confirm your scientific theories for me, before I will accept them as valid.

This is a classic attempt to switch the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on you, who claimed that a god AND a spiritual realm exists.

Again, you are completely wrong. Proof is even more subjective than evidence. Science does not deal in "certainty." Nothing in science claims to be certain and absolute, it is all predicated on probability and prediction. Something with very high predictable probability, can be subjectively evaluated as "certain" by man, but that is reasoning and perception.

You clearly don't know what proof is, what it means, or where it is applied. I'm not going to educate you, since you appear to want to remain delusional.

Spiritual evidence, for those who accept it, is certainly not anecdotal. The fact that you reject spiritual nature, makes it anecdotal to you, from your perception. I have not argued otherwise. You continue to try and apply illogical criteria to spirituality and spiritual existence, and since spiritual existence means something completely different than physical existence, you can't relate.

YOU ARE SUCH A MORON. If spiritual evidence isn't anecdotal, then you are saying it is empirical? Where is it? If I can see it, touch it, smell, or taste it, why haven't I? Evidence being empirical, means it exists objectively, because empirical evidence is defined as that which you can sense through the five senses. This means you are sensing something in... objective reality. You admitted yourself that god does not exist in physical reality, yet we are only capable of interacting with physical reality. You argument of citing human belief for 70,000 years, means nothing, unless you can prove a sense by which humans could interact with the spiritual. This would be called a "sensus divinitatis," without which, your citation of human belief amounts to an argument from popularity.

Sensus divinitatis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Sensus divinitatis ("sense of divinity"), also referred to as sensus deitatis ("sense of deity") or semen religionis ("seed of religion"), is a term first used by John Calvin to describe a hypothetical human sense. Instead of knowledge of the environment (as with, for example, smell or sight), the sensus divinitatis is alleged to give humans a knowledge of God.[1]

In Calvin's view, there was no reasonable non-belief. The sensus divinitatis is sometimes used to argue that there are no genuine atheists.

That there exists in the human mind and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity [sensus divinitatis], we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead…. …this is not a doctrine which is first learned at school, but one as to which every man is, from the womb, his own master; one which nature herself allows no individual to forget.[2]

Alvin Plantinga posits a modified form of the sensus divinitatis whereby all have the sense, only it does not work properly in some humans, due to sin.[3]

Jonathan Edwards, the 18th century American theologian, claimed that while every human being has been granted the capacity to know God, successful use of these capacities requires an attitude of "true benevolence.""

You need to prove a Sensus Divinitatis, otherwise, you admit that humans have no way of knowing about the spiritual realm.

70,000+ years... billions and billions of human testimonials.

Argument from Popularity. FAIL.

Now you are back to admitting that evidence is subjective. A fossil materially exists in a physical state that can be confirmed by physical science. I've not contradicted this. Whether I subjectively think fossils prove evolution, is a determination made on my perception of the evidence. However, evolution neither disproves god or spiritual nature.

Did I ever say that evolution disproves god or spiritual nature? No, I didn't. However, I'm glad we can agree that a fossil exists objectively. I would also agree that ones perception of the evidence or whether something can be called evidence, is subjective. This is basic epistemology. However, this does not mean that the evidence itself is subjective, unless it is anecdotal evidence, in which case, the evidence is entirely subjective. Empirical evidence is not subjective. It can be pointed to, smelt, heard, touched, or tasted, and therefore does not merely exist in the mind. Therefore, empirical evidence exists objectively. Anecdotal evidence exists subjectively. Your evidence is entirely anecdotal and subjective, since it can't be sense with any of our five human senses.

Theists simply deny that any inferences are possible within certain scientific disciplines, such as evolutionary biology, but are okay with inference within other disciplines, which itself is special pleading.

I don't know what theists deny, I am not a theist. I've not denied evolution, although, I have pointed out there is no evidence of cross-genus speciation. There is also no special pleading, those who don't accept spiritual nature can never accept spiritual evidence. It is a "special pleading" to demand physical evidence of something that isn't physical nature.

You are not an atheist, and you have no idea what special pleading means. So please, stop trying to simply copy me by using a term you don't understand in whichever way you think sounds good to you. It isn't special pleading to demand physical evidence for a spiritual thing, so get your fucking concepts straight. Special pleading means to lay an exemption for something, or to imply a double-standard. I am not implying a double-standard. In fact, you are. You are saying there is a different standard of evidence that applies to the spiritual.

The hypocrisy is that this level of skepticism would disallow any inferences to be drawn from the bible, or from the phenomenon of human spiritual belief itself. You are in essence, being internally inconsistent, but I don't expect you to see this or respond to it. You will simply insult, condescend, and re-assert your OP like it is a fucking revelation from a god. Using your standards, you should also believe in aliens, Bigfoot, unicorns, and blu-blue. If all you have to go on for truth-claims is hearsay, then you are subject to believe in anything anyone ever tells you. This is why anecdotal "evidence" is hardly evidence at all, and alone is not sufficient to establish the veracity of a claim, unless corroborated by empirical evidence.

My arguments do not mention the bible. You've backed none of your claims that spiritual nature doesn't exist, with anything approaching empiricism. You have no empirical evidence to support such an argument. You have danced around your idiotic claim that evidence is not subjective, and actually made the argument that it's indeed subjective, then you pretend I argued otherwise. You've also claimed that proof is not subjective, and then walked that back as well. What you mean to say is, TRUTH is not subjective, and if that was what you had initially said, I would have agreed. Evidence and proof, are not necessarily truth. Your perception may be that evidence proves a truth, but I don't have to share your perceptions.

Again, it is not my burden to prove that the spiritual nature doesn't exist. It is your burden to prove that it does. Therefore, I don't need empirical evidence, which according is irrelevant in this case. Since this spiritual realm doesn't interact with humans in any way, you have yet to answer how humans KNOW there is a spiritual realm. Belief is not evidence, and belief is not knowledge, yet you are claiming knowledge about the spiritual in making this claim. I can't wait to hear more of your vapid bullshit.

 

[daws101]

There may not be any, I don't claim to know this. As I said earlier, it is spiritually possible for god to exist as a personal god, meaning that my god and your god are completely different, yet also the same. We can't wrap our minds around such a thing, because it seems to defy logic as we know it. Again, we don't need to fully understand something to determine it does exist.

what !what about the Christian trinity? that's three in one but also individuals...millions of people claim to wrap their heads around that parlor trick.

Do the same thing about scientific theories as you would the trinity learn it before you type

so your ignorance extends to what you believe too!


The traditional view of God that has been held by Christians for the last 2,000 years is that he exists as three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit* - not that there are three separate Gods, nor that he is one God wearing three different hats (traditionally called Modalism) - but that there is only one God who exists as three distinct Persons. This view has its roots in the Bible and was spelled out in credal form by the church of the fourth century. CHRISTIANITY EXPLAINED: Understanding the Trinity

now slapdick how is that any different the what I said: "the Christian trinity? that's three in one but also individuals.."....it's not..

if you're attempt to talk shit at least be accurate.

 

[daws101]

posts# 2690-2694 are the most blatant case of sphincter sucking I've seen in years !
any body want to pitch in on some Vaseline? boss's anal aperture must really sting now!

Here is the pervert once again.

so now stating fact is a perversion.
you're kissing boss's ass as any good sycophant should .


SYCOPHANT


: a servile self-seeking flatterer

—Synonyms apple-polisher, bootlicker, brownnoser, fawner, flunky (also flunkey or flunky), lickspittle, suck-up, toady


Related Words yes-man; apparatchik, company man; hanger-on, leech, parasite, sponge, sponger; henchman, lackey, lapdog, minion, running dog, satellite, slave, stooge; admirer, cultist, devotee, enthusiast, fan, groveler, idolater (or idolator), worshipper (or worshiper), zealot; adherent, camp follower, convert, disciple, follower, me-tooer,

 

[daws101]

Almost all upper primates have acute sentience and ability to reason. Even most mammals have some sentient ability, they hunt and gather food, they congregate in packs, someone even posted art work done by elephants earlier, this has been a fascinating thread.

What I think is the deal here, is you and I have a different definition of "sentience" and that is why you continue to view "sentience" as unique to humans. I feel that if you explain this to me, we'll find that you believe the collective combination of attributes which make up "humanity" are what you are defining as "sentience" and that is not an accurate definition of the word. You are taking an intellectually dishonest shortcut, by claiming "sentience" as an explanation for everything. If that is your argument, our human spirituality is responsible for our "sentience" (by your def). There can be no other logical conclusion, because our "sentience" certainly is unique to the species, and so is our spirituality.

Now, the next step, is for you to scientifically explain where our "sentience" came from. If you are certain it wasn't from our spiritual connection, which billions profess to... then it has to come from natural selection, evolutionary in nature... but... we find nothing else in nature that has these 'humanistic' attributes comprising "sentience." We find no trace of any other species of life, worshiping things that aren't real, or creating placebos for knowledge, or to cope with death... it doesn't happen anywhere else in the natural world.

Pardon me, if all of this sounds like "because I say so" to you... I am only presenting legitimate and valid scientific points that we can look up and confirm as we please. Every argument you have presented, has been refuted with science, logic, and nature itself.

You offered a very strange comment. You claim that every argument I have presented has been refuted with science, logic and nature, itself. Oddly, I have maintained consistently that your claims to spirit worlds are contrary to science, logic and nature.

So, where have you refuted my position of the natural world being bereft supernatural realms refuted with science, logic and nature?

Not strange at all,you can't debate anything related to science because you don't know what it is.

bullshit! hollies' handed you your ass on that little gem too many times to remember.
masochist much.?

 

[Youwerecreated]

what !what about the Christian trinity? that's three in one but also individuals...millions of people claim to wrap their heads around that parlor trick.

Do the same thing about scientific theories as you would the trinity learn it before you type

so your ignorance extends to what you believe too!


The traditional view of God that has been held by Christians for the last 2,000 years is that he exists as three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit* - not that there are three separate Gods, nor that he is one God wearing three different hats (traditionally called Modalism) - but that there is only one God who exists as three distinct Persons. This view has its roots in the Bible and was spelled out in credal form by the church of the fourth century. CHRISTIANITY EXPLAINED: Understanding the Trinity

now slapdick how is that any different the what I said: "the Christian trinity? that's three in one but also individuals.."....it's not..

if you're attempt to talk shit at least be accurate.

I don't believe in the trinity knock yourself out but it was wise to post something but let me straighten you out on one thing though.

Three representations of one God. Remember Christians and Jews are monotheistic.

 

[Youwerecreated]

posts# 2690-2694 are the most blatant case of sphincter sucking I've seen in years !
any body want to pitch in on some Vaseline? boss's anal aperture must really sting now!

Here is the pervert once again.

so now stating fact is a perversion.
you're kissing boss's ass as any good sycophant should .


SYCOPHANT


: a servile self-seeking flatterer

—Synonyms apple-polisher, bootlicker, brownnoser, fawner, flunky (also flunkey or flunky), lickspittle, suck-up, toady


Related Words yes-man; apparatchik, company man; hanger-on, leech, parasite, sponge, sponger; henchman, lackey, lapdog, minion, running dog, satellite, slave, stooge; admirer, cultist, devotee, enthusiast, fan, groveler, idolater (or idolator), worshipper (or worshiper), zealot; adherent, camp follower, convert, disciple, follower, me-tooer,

You are a pervert your posts show that.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You offered a very strange comment. You claim that every argument I have presented has been refuted with science, logic and nature, itself. Oddly, I have maintained consistently that your claims to spirit worlds are contrary to science, logic and nature.

So, where have you refuted my position of the natural world being bereft supernatural realms refuted with science, logic and nature?

Not strange at all,you can't debate anything related to science because you don't know what it is.

bullshit! hollies' handed you your ass on that little gem too many times to remember.
masochist much.?

Hollie can't debate without copying and pasting and she does the same as you post stuff that don't even address the question. What are you trying desperately to suck up so you still might have friends in this forum

You have always been a joke.

 

[daws101]

Do the same thing about scientific theories as you would the trinity learn it before you type

so your ignorance extends to what you believe too!


The traditional view of God that has been held by Christians for the last 2,000 years is that he exists as three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit* - not that there are three separate Gods, nor that he is one God wearing three different hats (traditionally called Modalism) - but that there is only one God who exists as three distinct Persons. This view has its roots in the Bible and was spelled out in credal form by the church of the fourth century. CHRISTIANITY EXPLAINED: Understanding the Trinity

now slapdick how is that any different the what I said: "the Christian trinity? that's three in one but also individuals.."....it's not..

if you're attempt to talk shit at least be accurate.

I don't believe in the trinity knock yourself out but it was wise to post something but let me straighten you out on one thing though.

Three representations of one God. Remember Christians and Jews are monotheistic.

since you don't believe in the trinity then beside spitting on 2,000 years of Christian wisdom, your answer is irrelevant and anti Christian.
good job of fucking yourself slapdick..

 

[daws101]

Here is the pervert once again.

so now stating fact is a perversion.
you're kissing boss's ass as any good sycophant should .


SYCOPHANT


: a servile self-seeking flatterer

—Synonyms apple-polisher, bootlicker, brownnoser, fawner, flunky (also flunkey or flunky), lickspittle, suck-up, toady


Related Words yes-man; apparatchik, company man; hanger-on, leech, parasite, sponge, sponger; henchman, lackey, lapdog, minion, running dog, satellite, slave, stooge; admirer, cultist, devotee, enthusiast, fan, groveler, idolater (or idolator), worshipper (or worshiper), zealot; adherent, camp follower, convert, disciple, follower, me-tooer,

You are a pervert your posts show that.

wrong again it describes you perfectly.
it also has the added benefit of pointing out your sad sexual repression..
your an ass kisser ..own it!

 

[daws101]

Not strange at all,you can't debate anything related to science because you don't know what it is.

bullshit! hollies' handed you your ass on that little gem too many times to remember.
masochist much.?

Hollie can't debate without copying and pasting and she does the same as you post stuff that don't even address the question. What are you trying desperately to suck up so you still might have friends in this forum

You have always been a joke.

is this false accusation day or what?
unlike yourself I don't have to curry friendship.
so again you're making shit up to make believe you won some credibility.
me a joke? that statement just bleeds irony..

 

[Youwerecreated]

so your ignorance extends to what you believe too!


The traditional view of God that has been held by Christians for the last 2,000 years is that he exists as three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit* - not that there are three separate Gods, nor that he is one God wearing three different hats (traditionally called Modalism) - but that there is only one God who exists as three distinct Persons. This view has its roots in the Bible and was spelled out in credal form by the church of the fourth century. CHRISTIANITY EXPLAINED: Understanding the Trinity

now slapdick how is that any different the what I said: "the Christian trinity? that's three in one but also individuals.."....it's not..

if you're attempt to talk shit at least be accurate.

I don't believe in the trinity knock yourself out but it was wise to post something but let me straighten you out on one thing though.

Three representations of one God. Remember Christians and Jews are monotheistic.

since you don't believe in the trinity then beside spitting on 2,000 years of Christian wisdom, your answer is irrelevant and anti Christian.
good job of fucking yourself slapdick..

Someone is getting Angry. Daws not all Christians believe in the trinity doctrine. By your reasoning everyone should be a Catholic.

Hmm, what ignorance you display.

 

[Youwerecreated]

so now stating fact is a perversion.
you're kissing boss's ass as any good sycophant should .


SYCOPHANT


: a servile self-seeking flatterer

—Synonyms apple-polisher, bootlicker, brownnoser, fawner, flunky (also flunkey or flunky), lickspittle, suck-up, toady


Related Words yes-man; apparatchik, company man; hanger-on, leech, parasite, sponge, sponger; henchman, lackey, lapdog, minion, running dog, satellite, slave, stooge; admirer, cultist, devotee, enthusiast, fan, groveler, idolater (or idolator), worshipper (or worshiper), zealot; adherent, camp follower, convert, disciple, follower, me-tooer,

You are a pervert your posts show that.

wrong again it describes you perfectly.
it also has the added benefit of pointing out your sad sexual repression..
your an ass kisser ..own it!

My Daddy can beat your Daddy up.