Hypothetical question for my fellow atheists

[Czernobog]

Since when is a rainbow an optical illusion? You know something about color bands, based on wavelength, thru a medium that seems to have escaped scientists for centuries?

Apparently you don't know what an optical illusion is...

Nor do you .... if you are so scientifically naive to claim that a rainbow is an optical illusion, I'm afraid we have nothing to discuss.

it is an optical illusion created by wave lengths of light passing through droplets of water.

An optical illusion is when someone sees something that isn't really there. A rainbow is real. It is the result of water droplets bending light and separating the colors. So it is not an illusion. It is real.

rainbow

A rainbow is an optical illusion—it does not actually exist in a specific spot in the sky. The appearance of a rainbow depends on where you're standing and where the sun (or other source of light) is shining.

The exact same link I posted. LOL

 

[Czernobog]

Rainbows are, indeed, an illusion. You guys get an "F" on the 8th grade science quiz for today.

You are such a dick. Rainbow are not an illusion. It is a physics effect caused by deflection of light. At least we don't call that an illusion in science.

Rainbows are, in fact, an illusion, as they fool the brain into thinking it is looking at an object which exists at a certain distance. You can complain all you like, but you are simply wrong.

We don't call that an illusion generally speaking, as long as we have an scientific explanation of how it is caused by the effect of light!

We have scientific explanations for most optical illusions.

 

[Czernobog]

You have no argument, either. You simply have a string of authoritative statements (your premises) that you just made up, and which you assert as true. no argument is required to counter a word you said.

My arguments are very well presented.

God doesn't base His morality on physical bodies as we do. What's wrong with this argument?

That's not an argument. It is an assertion. An assertion that you are making with no supporting evidence.

God bases His morality on souls instead of bodies. This is a valid argument.

Again, not an argument at all. An assertion made made with no supporting evidence

You don't have the evidence of what you did yesterday. This is yet another valid argument.

You are just too dumb to notice. I pointed it for you and yet all you can do is trolling.

A non-sequitur, and ad hominem in a single statement.

 

[Czernobog]

I did look into it. And your own admission is that the dancing sun is no different than a rainbow. There is nothing miraculous about a rainbow. It is nothing more than an optical illusion.

I mean, you can back this up, and begin with the appearance of the Virgin Mary". It's rather important to note that the "appearance" occurred with small children - impressionable, and highly imaginative. Tell me, do you remember the Salem Witch trials? It started much the same way. Young, impressionable, imaginative children all claiming to have had very similar circumstances. As the trials continued it became socially important to have "experienced" the terrors of the "Witch". Suggestibility, combined with peer pressure, and before long you have hysteria over witchcraft that wasn't happening. There are many cases in history of this same type of shared imagined experience.

As for the dancing sun, itself, it was nothing more than an optical illusion caused by thousands of people looking up at the sky, hoping, expecting, and even praying for some sign from God. It is of course dangerous to stare directly at the sun, and to avoid permanently damaging their eyesight, those at Fátima that day were looking up in the sky around the sun, which, if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.

Sorry to disappoint. There are very few, if any, "miracles", outside of the Bible, which is highly suspect, that have ever happened throughout history, that do not have perfectly rational explanations. I'm sorry that I wasn't wowed by your dancing sun, but it really wasn't all that remarkable.

Since when is a rainbow an optical illusion? You know something about color bands, based on wavelength, thru a medium that seems to have escaped scientists for centuries?

Apparently you don't know what an optical illusion is...

Nor do you .... if you are so scientifically naive to claim that a rainbow is an optical illusion, I'm afraid we have nothing to discuss.

it is an optical illusion created by wave lengths of light passing through droplets of water.

An optical illusion is when someone sees something that isn't really there. A rainbow is real. It is the result of water droplets bending light and separating the colors. So it is not an illusion. It is real.

Not exactly. And optical illusion is a visual stimulus that represents what is perceived in a way different from the way it is in reality. The "colours" of the rainbow are nothing more than light being processed by the brain, as it passes through water, and the rainbow, itself, does not even occur where our eyes percieve it. Hence, it is, in fact, an optical illusion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You have no argument, either. You simply have a string of authoritative statements (your premises) that you just made up, and which you assert as true. no argument is required to counter a word you said.

My arguments are very well presented.

God doesn't base His morality on physical bodies as we do. What's wrong with this argument?

God bases His morality on souls instead of bodies. This is a valid argument.


You don't have the evidence of what you did yesterday. This is yet another valid argument.

You are just too dumb to notice. I pointed it for you and yet all you can do is trolling.

Neither of those are even arguments. They are only statments. And given that theyvare asserted without any evidence, they can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The empirical results are an illusion, eh? fascinating. Are you going to start waving a pocketwatch, and then ask me for $100?

i haven't seen any empirical results- all I have seen is your unsubstantiated claims- less substantial than even an illusion.

That's because you have not looked. I invite you to do so.

Your invitation is as ethereal as your claims.

I don't think you understand what the word "ethereal" means, as that was not a appropriate use of the word. Again, I invite you to go look at some of the science on this issue.... the lab trials, on human beings...

Ethereal :lacking material substance :immaterial, intangible

I know, and I dont think it was appropriate. The science is real, and the invitation was real. Why are you resisting? Are you afraid you might learn something?

 

[badger2]

The ambiguous trident or blivet is just such an illusion, though Bernie Sanders as the middle tine of the blivet means that the optical part becomes something other than optical, because at a certain point, socialism becomes impossible, about as impossible as immortality. The absolute presence of immortality would not even be desirable. This meshes well with xian mental geometry for Bergson's concept of the Triplicity of Flux (Deleuze, Bergsonism). But the Indigene perceives the trident correctly the first time. Not necessarily so for White Eyes. The theologian's deception is a quasi-optical illusion based on the fundamental illusion of not being dead once we already are. It is extremely difficult to think this non-being, which links to Sanders's impossible socialism. Thus, the pathologies of the theologian were no doubt involved in the 2016 election process.

 

[Czernobog]

The ambiguous trident or blivet is just such an illusion, though Bernie Sanders as the middle tine of the blivet means that the optical part becomes something other than optical, because at a certain point, socialism becomes impossible, about as impossible as immortality. The absolute presence of immortality would not even be desirable. This meshes well with xian mental geometry for Bergson's concept of the Triplicity of Flux (Deleuze, Bergsonism). But the Indigene perceives the trident correctly the first time. Not necessarily so for White Eyes. The theologian's deception is a quasi-optical illusion based on the fundamental illusion of not being dead once we already are. It is extremely difficult to think this non-being, which links to Sanders's impossible socialism. Thus, the pathologies of the theologian were no doubt involved in the 2016 election process.

Not only do not understand any of this blather, I also do not see how it is even a little relevant to the topic.

 

[Spare_change]

So you dismiss it without really looking into it. That's the typical atheist reaction, I thought you were different, but guess not.

I did look into it. And your own admission is that the dancing sun is no different than a rainbow. There is nothing miraculous about a rainbow. It is nothing more than an optical illusion.

I mean, you can back this up, and begin with the appearance of the Virgin Mary". It's rather important to note that the "appearance" occurred with small children - impressionable, and highly imaginative. Tell me, do you remember the Salem Witch trials? It started much the same way. Young, impressionable, imaginative children all claiming to have had very similar circumstances. As the trials continued it became socially important to have "experienced" the terrors of the "Witch". Suggestibility, combined with peer pressure, and before long you have hysteria over witchcraft that wasn't happening. There are many cases in history of this same type of shared imagined experience.

As for the dancing sun, itself, it was nothing more than an optical illusion caused by thousands of people looking up at the sky, hoping, expecting, and even praying for some sign from God. It is of course dangerous to stare directly at the sun, and to avoid permanently damaging their eyesight, those at Fátima that day were looking up in the sky around the sun, which, if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.

Sorry to disappoint. There are very few, if any, "miracles", outside of the Bible, which is highly suspect, that have ever happened throughout history, that do not have perfectly rational explanations. I'm sorry that I wasn't wowed by your dancing sun, but it really wasn't all that remarkable.

Since when is a rainbow an optical illusion? You know something about color bands, based on wavelength, thru a medium that seems to have escaped scientists for centuries?

Apparently you don't know what an optical illusion is...

Nor do you .... if you are so scientifically naive to claim that a rainbow is an optical illusion, I'm afraid we have nothing to discuss.

it is an optical illusion created by wave lengths of light passing through droplets of water.

Bzzzzzzt - I'm sorry. Don, do we have a nice parting gift for Slyhunter?

It is not an illusion .... it is an actual physical condition. You need to better define "illusion".

 

[Spare_change]

By definition ---- if there was proof, it couldn't be a miracle.

Amazing how you try to pervert the English language in order to support an unsupportable supposition.

Well, you should certainly explain to Blackrook that he is clueless about the nature of miracles, then. After all, he is the one who claimed the Fatima Sun Dance was "proof" of God's existence.

Proof of God's existence CAN be manifested in a miracle ... but that only presumes that you accept the act AS a miracle.

God's existence is NOT the miracle.

never claimed it was, and your statement is completely devoid of reason. What you basically just said is, "If you believe something is a miracle, then it's a miracle. If not, then it wasn't,".

Sooo...what if I think something is a miracle, but you don't. Does that make it a miracle, or a not miracle?

Lemme guess...It makes it a miracle for me, but not a miracle for you. Right?

Perversion of the English language, again?

I never said that if "If you believe something is a miracle, then it's a miracle. If not, then it wasn't".

But, I can understand why you choose to think that's what was said. Convenient for you, isn't it? Intellectually dishonest, but convenient.

I guess, if you prefer convenience over truth, it works for you.

So how about you explain the highlighted portion of your statement oh great intellect:

"Proof of God's existence CAN be manifested in a miracle ... but that only presumes that you accept the act AS a miracle."

Because - [expletive deleted] - if you don't accept it as a miracle, then you can't accept the "miracle" as being proof of His existence.

 

[Spare_change]

I did look into it. And your own admission is that the dancing sun is no different than a rainbow. There is nothing miraculous about a rainbow. It is nothing more than an optical illusion.

I mean, you can back this up, and begin with the appearance of the Virgin Mary". It's rather important to note that the "appearance" occurred with small children - impressionable, and highly imaginative. Tell me, do you remember the Salem Witch trials? It started much the same way. Young, impressionable, imaginative children all claiming to have had very similar circumstances. As the trials continued it became socially important to have "experienced" the terrors of the "Witch". Suggestibility, combined with peer pressure, and before long you have hysteria over witchcraft that wasn't happening. There are many cases in history of this same type of shared imagined experience.

As for the dancing sun, itself, it was nothing more than an optical illusion caused by thousands of people looking up at the sky, hoping, expecting, and even praying for some sign from God. It is of course dangerous to stare directly at the sun, and to avoid permanently damaging their eyesight, those at Fátima that day were looking up in the sky around the sun, which, if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.

Sorry to disappoint. There are very few, if any, "miracles", outside of the Bible, which is highly suspect, that have ever happened throughout history, that do not have perfectly rational explanations. I'm sorry that I wasn't wowed by your dancing sun, but it really wasn't all that remarkable.

Since when is a rainbow an optical illusion? You know something about color bands, based on wavelength, thru a medium that seems to have escaped scientists for centuries?

Apparently you don't know what an optical illusion is...

Indeed, a rainbow is an optical illusion. It appears to be "at a certain distance", when it is really the effect of all the water droplets in your line of sight that are at a certain angle to the light source.

Let the squawkers squawk.

So, you accept that the rainbow exists? Or not? Of course, I guess that depends on your definition of "rainbow", wouldn't you think?

Man, it truly is boring talking with dolts who choose not to actually discuss the issue, but merely try to find different ways to phrase the same thought, and then pretend that the rephrasing constitutes proof that the original phase was accurate. Mental gymnastics for idiots, I guess .....

A rainbow is a multicolored arc made by light striking water droplets.

The most familiar type rainbow is produced when sunlight strikes raindrops in front of a viewer at a precise angle (42 degrees). Rainbows can also be viewed around fog, sea spray, or waterfalls.

A rainbow is an optical illusion—it does not actually exist in a specific spot in the sky. The appearance of a rainbow depends on where you're standing and where the sun (or other source of light) is shining.

rainbow

​

LOL --- if you wish .... last time I checked, the interaction between light waves and water droplets is an actual physical manifestation. You're trying to redefine reality in order to fit your preconceived position.

You are being struck by light waves constantly. Do they exist? Or, is that an illusion, too?

 

[Spare_change]

Because the sun did not actually move. It was an image of the sun, visible to only some. Not everyone there saw it happen.

In other words there was no "miracle"; just an optical illusion. Not proof of anything.

By definition ---- if there was proof, it couldn't be a miracle.

Amazing how you try to pervert the English language in order to support an unsupportable supposition.

Well, you should certainly explain to Blackrook that he is clueless about the nature of miracles, then. After all, he is the one who claimed the Fatima Sun Dance was "proof" of God's existence.

Proof of God's existence CAN be manifested in a miracle ... but that only presumes that you accept the act AS a miracle.

God's existence is NOT the miracle.

"Proof of God's existence CAN be manifested in a miracle ... but that only presumes that you accept the act AS a miracle. "

.... which is circular and nonsensical.

Obviously, your powers of logic are too shallow to understand.

Go back to junior high.

 

[Czernobog]

Since when is a rainbow an optical illusion? You know something about color bands, based on wavelength, thru a medium that seems to have escaped scientists for centuries?

Apparently you don't know what an optical illusion is...

Indeed, a rainbow is an optical illusion. It appears to be "at a certain distance", when it is really the effect of all the water droplets in your line of sight that are at a certain angle to the light source.

Let the squawkers squawk.

So, you accept that the rainbow exists? Or not? Of course, I guess that depends on your definition of "rainbow", wouldn't you think?

Man, it truly is boring talking with dolts who choose not to actually discuss the issue, but merely try to find different ways to phrase the same thought, and then pretend that the rephrasing constitutes proof that the original phase was accurate. Mental gymnastics for idiots, I guess .....

A rainbow is a multicolored arc made by light striking water droplets.

The most familiar type rainbow is produced when sunlight strikes raindrops in front of a viewer at a precise angle (42 degrees). Rainbows can also be viewed around fog, sea spray, or waterfalls.

A rainbow is an optical illusion—it does not actually exist in a specific spot in the sky. The appearance of a rainbow depends on where you're standing and where the sun (or other source of light) is shining.

rainbow

​

LOL --- if you wish .... last time I checked, the interaction between light waves and water droplets is an actual physical manifestation. You're trying to redefine reality in order to fit your preconceived position.

You are being struck by light waves constantly. Do they exist? Or, is that an illusion, too?

I'm redefining nothing. That was a direct quote from National Geographic. So, now you know more than actual scientists? Narcissist, much?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I did look into it. And your own admission is that the dancing sun is no different than a rainbow. There is nothing miraculous about a rainbow. It is nothing more than an optical illusion.

I mean, you can back this up, and begin with the appearance of the Virgin Mary". It's rather important to note that the "appearance" occurred with small children - impressionable, and highly imaginative. Tell me, do you remember the Salem Witch trials? It started much the same way. Young, impressionable, imaginative children all claiming to have had very similar circumstances. As the trials continued it became socially important to have "experienced" the terrors of the "Witch". Suggestibility, combined with peer pressure, and before long you have hysteria over witchcraft that wasn't happening. There are many cases in history of this same type of shared imagined experience.

As for the dancing sun, itself, it was nothing more than an optical illusion caused by thousands of people looking up at the sky, hoping, expecting, and even praying for some sign from God. It is of course dangerous to stare directly at the sun, and to avoid permanently damaging their eyesight, those at Fátima that day were looking up in the sky around the sun, which, if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.

Sorry to disappoint. There are very few, if any, "miracles", outside of the Bible, which is highly suspect, that have ever happened throughout history, that do not have perfectly rational explanations. I'm sorry that I wasn't wowed by your dancing sun, but it really wasn't all that remarkable.

Since when is a rainbow an optical illusion? You know something about color bands, based on wavelength, thru a medium that seems to have escaped scientists for centuries?

Apparently you don't know what an optical illusion is...

Nor do you .... if you are so scientifically naive to claim that a rainbow is an optical illusion, I'm afraid we have nothing to discuss.

it is an optical illusion created by wave lengths of light passing through droplets of water.

Bzzzzzzt - I'm sorry. Don, do we have a nice parting gift for Slyhunter?

It is not an illusion .... it is an actual physical condition. You need to better define "illusion".

Yes dummy, it is an optical illusion.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, you should certainly explain to Blackrook that he is clueless about the nature of miracles, then. After all, he is the one who claimed the Fatima Sun Dance was "proof" of God's existence.

Proof of God's existence CAN be manifested in a miracle ... but that only presumes that you accept the act AS a miracle.

God's existence is NOT the miracle.

never claimed it was, and your statement is completely devoid of reason. What you basically just said is, "If you believe something is a miracle, then it's a miracle. If not, then it wasn't,".

Sooo...what if I think something is a miracle, but you don't. Does that make it a miracle, or a not miracle?

Lemme guess...It makes it a miracle for me, but not a miracle for you. Right?

Perversion of the English language, again?

I never said that if "If you believe something is a miracle, then it's a miracle. If not, then it wasn't".

But, I can understand why you choose to think that's what was said. Convenient for you, isn't it? Intellectually dishonest, but convenient.

I guess, if you prefer convenience over truth, it works for you.

So how about you explain the highlighted portion of your statement oh great intellect:

"Proof of God's existence CAN be manifested in a miracle ... but that only presumes that you accept the act AS a miracle."

Because - [expletive deleted] - if you don't accept it as a miracle, then you can't accept the "miracle" as being proof of His existence.

So, Fort Fun was right. You have developed a nice little circular, insular argument for you. Of course miracles are proof of God...if you believe it is a miracle. Of course, you're only going to believe it's a miracle, if you already believe in God. How convenient.

 

[Spare_change]

Proof of God's existence CAN be manifested in a miracle ... but that only presumes that you accept the act AS a miracle.

God's existence is NOT the miracle.

never claimed it was, and your statement is completely devoid of reason. What you basically just said is, "If you believe something is a miracle, then it's a miracle. If not, then it wasn't,".

Sooo...what if I think something is a miracle, but you don't. Does that make it a miracle, or a not miracle?

Lemme guess...It makes it a miracle for me, but not a miracle for you. Right?

Perversion of the English language, again?

I never said that if "If you believe something is a miracle, then it's a miracle. If not, then it wasn't".

But, I can understand why you choose to think that's what was said. Convenient for you, isn't it? Intellectually dishonest, but convenient.

I guess, if you prefer convenience over truth, it works for you.

So how about you explain the highlighted portion of your statement oh great intellect:

"Proof of God's existence CAN be manifested in a miracle ... but that only presumes that you accept the act AS a miracle."

Because - [expletive deleted] - if you don't accept it as a miracle, then you can't accept the "miracle" as being proof of His existence.

So, Fort Fun was right. You have developed a nice little circular, insular argument for you. Of course miracles are proof of God...if you believe it is a miracle. Of course, you're only going to believe it's a miracle, if you already believe in God. How convenient.

How asinine. Once again, you intentionally distort what was said.

If you believe in God, miracles are possible ... if you don't believe in God, miracles are impossible. Instead, you attribute it to all kinds of witchy things - like extra-terrestrials, unidentified, or unproven, scientific actions, or mass illusions of millions of people. It can't be a miracle, so it must be some other undefined source.

Therefore, in order to believe it is a miracle, you must believe in God (because God is the source of miracles). Otherwise, whatever happened falls into this nebulous area that you create to justify those things you don't understand.

 

[Czernobog]

never claimed it was, and your statement is completely devoid of reason. What you basically just said is, "If you believe something is a miracle, then it's a miracle. If not, then it wasn't,".

Sooo...what if I think something is a miracle, but you don't. Does that make it a miracle, or a not miracle?

Lemme guess...It makes it a miracle for me, but not a miracle for you. Right?

Perversion of the English language, again?

I never said that if "If you believe something is a miracle, then it's a miracle. If not, then it wasn't".

But, I can understand why you choose to think that's what was said. Convenient for you, isn't it? Intellectually dishonest, but convenient.

I guess, if you prefer convenience over truth, it works for you.

So how about you explain the highlighted portion of your statement oh great intellect:

"Proof of God's existence CAN be manifested in a miracle ... but that only presumes that you accept the act AS a miracle."

Because - [expletive deleted] - if you don't accept it as a miracle, then you can't accept the "miracle" as being proof of His existence.

So, Fort Fun was right. You have developed a nice little circular, insular argument for you. Of course miracles are proof of God...if you believe it is a miracle. Of course, you're only going to believe it's a miracle, if you already believe in God. How convenient.

How asinine. Once again, you intentionally distort what was said.

If you believe in God, miracles are possible ... if you don't believe in God, miracles are impossible. Instead, you attribute it to all kinds of witchy things - like extra-terrestrials, unidentified, or unproven, scientific actions, or mass illusions of millions of people. It can't be a miracle, so it must be some other undefined source.

Therefore, in order to believe it is a miracle, you must believe in God (because God is the source of miracles). Otherwise, whatever happened falls into this nebulous area that you create to justify those things you don't understand.

All you did was rephrase what I just said you said: If you believe in God it is a miracle. If you believe it is a miracle, you must believe in God. Of course you added an adorable zinger: If science cannot current explain a thing, then it must be God, or more accurately it must be a "miracle", so God.

 

[Spare_change]

Perversion of the English language, again?

I never said that if "If you believe something is a miracle, then it's a miracle. If not, then it wasn't".

But, I can understand why you choose to think that's what was said. Convenient for you, isn't it? Intellectually dishonest, but convenient.

I guess, if you prefer convenience over truth, it works for you.

So how about you explain the highlighted portion of your statement oh great intellect:

"Proof of God's existence CAN be manifested in a miracle ... but that only presumes that you accept the act AS a miracle."

Because - [expletive deleted] - if you don't accept it as a miracle, then you can't accept the "miracle" as being proof of His existence.

So, Fort Fun was right. You have developed a nice little circular, insular argument for you. Of course miracles are proof of God...if you believe it is a miracle. Of course, you're only going to believe it's a miracle, if you already believe in God. How convenient.

How asinine. Once again, you intentionally distort what was said.

If you believe in God, miracles are possible ... if you don't believe in God, miracles are impossible. Instead, you attribute it to all kinds of witchy things - like extra-terrestrials, unidentified, or unproven, scientific actions, or mass illusions of millions of people. It can't be a miracle, so it must be some other undefined source.

Therefore, in order to believe it is a miracle, you must believe in God (because God is the source of miracles). Otherwise, whatever happened falls into this nebulous area that you create to justify those things you don't understand.

All you did was rephrase what I just said you said: If you believe in God it is a miracle. If you believe it is a miracle, you must believe in God. Of course you added an adorable zinger: If science cannot current explain a thing, then it must be God, or more accurately it must be a "miracle", so God.

No, I did NOT add that zinger ---- once again, you've intentionally perverted what was said.

Frankly, your lack of logic and truth, coupled with your unwillingness to listen to alternative ideas, has begun to bore me.

Just go away.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So how about you explain the highlighted portion of your statement oh great intellect:

"Proof of God's existence CAN be manifested in a miracle ... but that only presumes that you accept the act AS a miracle."

Because - [expletive deleted] - if you don't accept it as a miracle, then you can't accept the "miracle" as being proof of His existence.

So, Fort Fun was right. You have developed a nice little circular, insular argument for you. Of course miracles are proof of God...if you believe it is a miracle. Of course, you're only going to believe it's a miracle, if you already believe in God. How convenient.

How asinine. Once again, you intentionally distort what was said.

If you believe in God, miracles are possible ... if you don't believe in God, miracles are impossible. Instead, you attribute it to all kinds of witchy things - like extra-terrestrials, unidentified, or unproven, scientific actions, or mass illusions of millions of people. It can't be a miracle, so it must be some other undefined source.

Therefore, in order to believe it is a miracle, you must believe in God (because God is the source of miracles). Otherwise, whatever happened falls into this nebulous area that you create to justify those things you don't understand.

All you did was rephrase what I just said you said: If you believe in God it is a miracle. If you believe it is a miracle, you must believe in God. Of course you added an adorable zinger: If science cannot current explain a thing, then it must be God, or more accurately it must be a "miracle", so God.

No, I did NOT add that zinger ---- once again, you've intentionally perverted what was said.

Frankly, your lack of logic and truth, coupled with your unwillingness to listen to alternative ideas, has begun to bore me.

Just go away.

He obviously listened to your ideas, as he was about the only person with enough tolerance for you to respond to them all directly. You should be thanking him for listening to you as much as he did. I imagine it was pure torture.

 

[Spare_change]

Because - [expletive deleted] - if you don't accept it as a miracle, then you can't accept the "miracle" as being proof of His existence.

So, Fort Fun was right. You have developed a nice little circular, insular argument for you. Of course miracles are proof of God...if you believe it is a miracle. Of course, you're only going to believe it's a miracle, if you already believe in God. How convenient.

How asinine. Once again, you intentionally distort what was said.

If you believe in God, miracles are possible ... if you don't believe in God, miracles are impossible. Instead, you attribute it to all kinds of witchy things - like extra-terrestrials, unidentified, or unproven, scientific actions, or mass illusions of millions of people. It can't be a miracle, so it must be some other undefined source.

Therefore, in order to believe it is a miracle, you must believe in God (because God is the source of miracles). Otherwise, whatever happened falls into this nebulous area that you create to justify those things you don't understand.

All you did was rephrase what I just said you said: If you believe in God it is a miracle. If you believe it is a miracle, you must believe in God. Of course you added an adorable zinger: If science cannot current explain a thing, then it must be God, or more accurately it must be a "miracle", so God.

No, I did NOT add that zinger ---- once again, you've intentionally perverted what was said.

Frankly, your lack of logic and truth, coupled with your unwillingness to listen to alternative ideas, has begun to bore me.

Just go away.

He obviously listened to your ideas, as he was about the only person with enough tolerance for you to respond to them all directly. You should be thanking him for listening to you, you insufferable sack of s***

Familiar with the term "sychophant"??

Look it up ---- you'll see your 6th grade graduation picture.