Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is a 'supported claim' something that you have personally seen and touched?How about my statement that humans would not have developed as we have if we were not created in the image of God? I said 'developed', not 'evolved'.What is evolving is your argument. Did your last one not work out so well? Are we on to human creativity?
I guess I do not follow what you are saying here?
But as far as arguments for the existence of God is concerned, I have hundreds of arguments. What is lacking is an open and honest audience.
Arguments can be made on any side of any subject. They are a dime a dozen. The only thing which matters is objective evidence. Simply pointing to something and saying "See?" does not cut it. You have to be able to demonstrate that the something could not have existed otherwise. So unless you can present objective evidence which you can objectively link to God, then all of your arguments are of no value.
Do you have objective evidence?
An unsupported claim. On what basis do you claim humans would not have developed?
So do you not believe in the judicial system?Is a 'supported claim' something that you have personally seen and touched?How about my statement that humans would not have developed as we have if we were not created in the image of God? I said 'developed', not 'evolved'.I guess I do not follow what you are saying here?
But as far as arguments for the existence of God is concerned, I have hundreds of arguments. What is lacking is an open and honest audience.
Arguments can be made on any side of any subject. They are a dime a dozen. The only thing which matters is objective evidence. Simply pointing to something and saying "See?" does not cut it. You have to be able to demonstrate that the something could not have existed otherwise. So unless you can present objective evidence which you can objectively link to God, then all of your arguments are of no value.
Do you have objective evidence?
An unsupported claim. On what basis do you claim humans would not have developed?
No. It would be something we both can see and touch. Objective evidence must be observable, repeatable and able to be witnessed by anyone. So I ask again, on what basis do you claim humans would not have developed?
What is evolving is your argument. Did your last one not work out so well? Are we on to human creativity?No, that is what I was saying. There is an infinitesimal chance that a rain drop fall on a exact location at an exact time at exactly that temperature, etc, but it happens. In hind sight, it was 100% it would occur, now isn't it?Well "plausible" now becomes a matter of personal opinion. Many scientists conclude the mathematical chance of a DNA assembling itself in the most precise way necessary for it to function are infinitesimal. Not to mention now the chances get even worse when you consider random chance had to assemble a living cell that has a thousand machines working in harmony within it. Mathematics cannot be your defense.
Note: Perhaps I misunderstood what you were first saying to me? If so, my apologies.
That's a very strange thread of an argument you are hanging on to, IMO.
The universe is what, 13.7 billion years old? Well you can have 13.7 billion X 13.7 billion years and the Mona Lisa will never assemble itself on canvas through natural processes, much less a human brain evolving from a snail by random nature.
I guess I do not follow what you are saying here?
But as far as arguments for the existence of God is concerned, I have hundreds of arguments. What is lacking is an open and honest audience.
Arguments can be made on any side of any subject. They are a dime a dozen. The only thing which matters is objective evidence. Simply pointing to something and saying "See?" does not cut it. You have to be able to demonstrate that the something could not have existed otherwise. So unless you can present objective evidence which you can objectively link to God, then all of your arguments are of no value.
Do you have objective evidence?
So do you not believe in the judicial system?Is a 'supported claim' something that you have personally seen and touched?How about my statement that humans would not have developed as we have if we were not created in the image of God? I said 'developed', not 'evolved'.Arguments can be made on any side of any subject. They are a dime a dozen. The only thing which matters is objective evidence. Simply pointing to something and saying "See?" does not cut it. You have to be able to demonstrate that the something could not have existed otherwise. So unless you can present objective evidence which you can objectively link to God, then all of your arguments are of no value.
Do you have objective evidence?
An unsupported claim. On what basis do you claim humans would not have developed?
No. It would be something we both can see and touch. Objective evidence must be observable, repeatable and able to be witnessed by anyone. So I ask again, on what basis do you claim humans would not have developed?
I am actually quite interested, turzovka, how is it you have understanding of God?What is evolving is your argument. Did your last one not work out so well? Are we on to human creativity?No, that is what I was saying. There is an infinitesimal chance that a rain drop fall on a exact location at an exact time at exactly that temperature, etc, but it happens. In hind sight, it was 100% it would occur, now isn't it?
That's a very strange thread of an argument you are hanging on to, IMO.
The universe is what, 13.7 billion years old? Well you can have 13.7 billion X 13.7 billion years and the Mona Lisa will never assemble itself on canvas through natural processes, much less a human brain evolving from a snail by random nature.
I guess I do not follow what you are saying here?
But as far as arguments for the existence of God is concerned, I have hundreds of arguments. What is lacking is an open and honest audience.
Arguments can be made on any side of any subject. They are a dime a dozen. The only thing which matters is objective evidence. Simply pointing to something and saying "See?" does not cut it. You have to be able to demonstrate that the something could not have existed otherwise. So unless you can present objective evidence which you can objectively link to God, then all of your arguments are of no value.
Do you have objective evidence?
When Pope Benedict was asked how do we know God exists in an interview back when he was still cardinal, he said there are thousands of books and the extraordinary lives of hundreds of saints which testify to the truth, you want it answered in one paragraph?
I do not want to summarize in one post as though that's all I got to defend the truth. I do have a position paper of about 10,000 words but it won't post here. Suffice it to say the miracle at Fatima 1917 and life of Joan of Arc are all that is necessary to know that God exists, and which one.
What is evolving is your argument. Did your last one not work out so well? Are we on to human creativity?No, that is what I was saying. There is an infinitesimal chance that a rain drop fall on a exact location at an exact time at exactly that temperature, etc, but it happens. In hind sight, it was 100% it would occur, now isn't it?
That's a very strange thread of an argument you are hanging on to, IMO.
The universe is what, 13.7 billion years old? Well you can have 13.7 billion X 13.7 billion years and the Mona Lisa will never assemble itself on canvas through natural processes, much less a human brain evolving from a snail by random nature.
I guess I do not follow what you are saying here?
But as far as arguments for the existence of God is concerned, I have hundreds of arguments. What is lacking is an open and honest audience.
Arguments can be made on any side of any subject. They are a dime a dozen. The only thing which matters is objective evidence. Simply pointing to something and saying "See?" does not cut it. You have to be able to demonstrate that the something could not have existed otherwise. So unless you can present objective evidence which you can objectively link to God, then all of your arguments are of no value.
Do you have objective evidence?
When Pope Benedict was asked how do we know God exists in an interview back when he was still cardinal, he said there are thousands of books and the extraordinary lives of hundreds of saints which testify to the truth, now you want it answered in one paragraph?
I do not want to summarize in one post as though that's all I got to defend the truth. I do have a position paper of about 10,000 words but it won't post here. Suffice it to say the miracle at Fatima 1917 and life of Joan of Arc are all that is necessary to know that God exists, and which one.
But by your acceptable quality of evidence someone would have to get stabbed in the courtroom itself for someone to be convicted. And even then perhaps not.So do you not believe in the judicial system?Is a 'supported claim' something that you have personally seen and touched?How about my statement that humans would not have developed as we have if we were not created in the image of God? I said 'developed', not 'evolved'.
An unsupported claim. On what basis do you claim humans would not have developed?
No. It would be something we both can see and touch. Objective evidence must be observable, repeatable and able to be witnessed by anyone. So I ask again, on what basis do you claim humans would not have developed?
Would you like me to take you to a courtroom where I can show you the judge, jury and attorneys? I can point you to where to find the state code where you live.
What is evolving is your argument. Did your last one not work out so well? Are we on to human creativity?That's a very strange thread of an argument you are hanging on to, IMO.
The universe is what, 13.7 billion years old? Well you can have 13.7 billion X 13.7 billion years and the Mona Lisa will never assemble itself on canvas through natural processes, much less a human brain evolving from a snail by random nature.
I guess I do not follow what you are saying here?
But as far as arguments for the existence of God is concerned, I have hundreds of arguments. What is lacking is an open and honest audience.
Arguments can be made on any side of any subject. They are a dime a dozen. The only thing which matters is objective evidence. Simply pointing to something and saying "See?" does not cut it. You have to be able to demonstrate that the something could not have existed otherwise. So unless you can present objective evidence which you can objectively link to God, then all of your arguments are of no value.
Do you have objective evidence?
When Pope Benedict was asked how do we know God exists in an interview back when he was still cardinal, he said there are thousands of books and the extraordinary lives of hundreds of saints which testify to the truth, now you want it answered in one paragraph?
I do not want to summarize in one post as though that's all I got to defend the truth. I do have a position paper of about 10,000 words but it won't post here. Suffice it to say the miracle at Fatima 1917 and life of Joan of Arc are all that is necessary to know that God exists, and which one.
If that satisfies you, that is fine with me. If you wish to present that as evidence and expect it to be accepted by anyone who does not already believe, you are going to be disappointed.
But by your acceptable quality of evidence someone would have to get stabbed in the courtroom itself for someone to be convicted. And even then perhaps not.So do you not believe in the judicial system?Is a 'supported claim' something that you have personally seen and touched?An unsupported claim. On what basis do you claim humans would not have developed?
No. It would be something we both can see and touch. Objective evidence must be observable, repeatable and able to be witnessed by anyone. So I ask again, on what basis do you claim humans would not have developed?
Would you like me to take you to a courtroom where I can show you the judge, jury and attorneys? I can point you to where to find the state code where you live.
I am actually quite interested, turzovka, how is it you have understanding of God?What is evolving is your argument. Did your last one not work out so well? Are we on to human creativity?That's a very strange thread of an argument you are hanging on to, IMO.
The universe is what, 13.7 billion years old? Well you can have 13.7 billion X 13.7 billion years and the Mona Lisa will never assemble itself on canvas through natural processes, much less a human brain evolving from a snail by random nature.
I guess I do not follow what you are saying here?
But as far as arguments for the existence of God is concerned, I have hundreds of arguments. What is lacking is an open and honest audience.
Arguments can be made on any side of any subject. They are a dime a dozen. The only thing which matters is objective evidence. Simply pointing to something and saying "See?" does not cut it. You have to be able to demonstrate that the something could not have existed otherwise. So unless you can present objective evidence which you can objectively link to God, then all of your arguments are of no value.
Do you have objective evidence?
When Pope Benedict was asked how do we know God exists in an interview back when he was still cardinal, he said there are thousands of books and the extraordinary lives of hundreds of saints which testify to the truth, you want it answered in one paragraph?
I do not want to summarize in one post as though that's all I got to defend the truth. I do have a position paper of about 10,000 words but it won't post here. Suffice it to say the miracle at Fatima 1917 and life of Joan of Arc are all that is necessary to know that God exists, and which one.
I've tried using Fatima as proof of God, but not even Protestants will look at it. Which makes sense. If Fatima is true, then all Protestants should become Catholics, because we have miracles and they don't.
I am actually quite interested, turzovka, how is it you have understanding of God?What is evolving is your argument. Did your last one not work out so well? Are we on to human creativity?
I guess I do not follow what you are saying here?
But as far as arguments for the existence of God is concerned, I have hundreds of arguments. What is lacking is an open and honest audience.
Arguments can be made on any side of any subject. They are a dime a dozen. The only thing which matters is objective evidence. Simply pointing to something and saying "See?" does not cut it. You have to be able to demonstrate that the something could not have existed otherwise. So unless you can present objective evidence which you can objectively link to God, then all of your arguments are of no value.
Do you have objective evidence?
When Pope Benedict was asked how do we know God exists in an interview back when he was still cardinal, he said there are thousands of books and the extraordinary lives of hundreds of saints which testify to the truth, you want it answered in one paragraph?
I do not want to summarize in one post as though that's all I got to defend the truth. I do have a position paper of about 10,000 words but it won't post here. Suffice it to say the miracle at Fatima 1917 and life of Joan of Arc are all that is necessary to know that God exists, and which one.
I will try something later, if it interests you. The problem is what I wrote requires a lot of reading to emphasize my case fairly. And no one around here reads anything that long, they will get bored. But my case is all about miracles, all kinds of miracles. They all point to Jesus Christ, not Muhammad or the Hindu gods. It is the preponderance of them that makes their veracity all the more convincing.
And over the years I post one in great detail, then another months later, and so on. They are discounted with either flimsy suggested alternatives or by the skeptic thinking if he can disprove this one to his way of thinking then that proves God is false. No, he has to disprove a hundred different events, miracles, historical facts, etc. And then we are back to someone having to read a volume of information for us to make our case more soundly.
I've tried using Fatima as proof of God, but not even Protestants will look at it. Which makes sense. If Fatima is true, then all Protestants should become Catholics, because we have miracles and they don't.
I am actually quite interested, turzovka, how is it you have understanding of God?I guess I do not follow what you are saying here?
But as far as arguments for the existence of God is concerned, I have hundreds of arguments. What is lacking is an open and honest audience.
Arguments can be made on any side of any subject. They are a dime a dozen. The only thing which matters is objective evidence. Simply pointing to something and saying "See?" does not cut it. You have to be able to demonstrate that the something could not have existed otherwise. So unless you can present objective evidence which you can objectively link to God, then all of your arguments are of no value.
Do you have objective evidence?
When Pope Benedict was asked how do we know God exists in an interview back when he was still cardinal, he said there are thousands of books and the extraordinary lives of hundreds of saints which testify to the truth, you want it answered in one paragraph?
I do not want to summarize in one post as though that's all I got to defend the truth. I do have a position paper of about 10,000 words but it won't post here. Suffice it to say the miracle at Fatima 1917 and life of Joan of Arc are all that is necessary to know that God exists, and which one.
I will try something later, if it interests you. The problem is what I wrote requires a lot of reading to emphasize my case fairly. And no one around here reads anything that long, they will get bored. But my case is all about miracles, all kinds of miracles. They all point to Jesus Christ, not Muhammad or the Hindu gods. It is the preponderance of them that makes their veracity all the more convincing.
And over the years I post one in great detail, then another months later, and so on. They are discounted with either flimsy suggested alternatives or by the skeptic thinking if he can disprove this one to his way of thinking then that proves God is false. No, he has to disprove a hundred different events, miracles, historical facts, etc. And then we are back to someone having to read a volume of information for us to make our case more soundly.
The basic problem with this is that if God actually wanted us to be sure on this question it would be extremely easy to make it so. If you have to write long dissertations to make your point, the God clearly has no such desire. Perhaps it is better to stop wondering and just do the best we can.
You are mixing up the belief in the existence of and an understanding of. I get my understanding from the Old Testament. Do you have a book or is your understanding from personal experience? or from a churchI am actually quite interested, turzovka, how is it you have understanding of God?What is evolving is your argument. Did your last one not work out so well? Are we on to human creativity?
I guess I do not follow what you are saying here?
But as far as arguments for the existence of God is concerned, I have hundreds of arguments. What is lacking is an open and honest audience.
Arguments can be made on any side of any subject. They are a dime a dozen. The only thing which matters is objective evidence. Simply pointing to something and saying "See?" does not cut it. You have to be able to demonstrate that the something could not have existed otherwise. So unless you can present objective evidence which you can objectively link to God, then all of your arguments are of no value.
Do you have objective evidence?
When Pope Benedict was asked how do we know God exists in an interview back when he was still cardinal, he said there are thousands of books and the extraordinary lives of hundreds of saints which testify to the truth, you want it answered in one paragraph?
I do not want to summarize in one post as though that's all I got to defend the truth. I do have a position paper of about 10,000 words but it won't post here. Suffice it to say the miracle at Fatima 1917 and life of Joan of Arc are all that is necessary to know that God exists, and which one.
I will try something later, if it interests you. The problem is what I wrote requires a lot of reading to emphasize my case fairly. And no one around here reads anything that long, they will get bored. But my case is all about miracles, all kinds of miracles. They all point to Jesus Christ, not Muhammad or the Hindu gods. It is the preponderance of them that makes their veracity all the more convincing.
And over the years I post one in great detail, then another months later, and so on. They are discounted with either flimsy suggested alternatives or by the skeptic thinking if he can disprove this one to his way of thinking then that proves God is false. No, he has to disprove a hundred different events, miracles, historical facts, etc. And then we are back to someone having to read a volume of information for us to make our case more soundly.
I am actually quite interested, turzovka, how is it you have understanding of God?Arguments can be made on any side of any subject. They are a dime a dozen. The only thing which matters is objective evidence. Simply pointing to something and saying "See?" does not cut it. You have to be able to demonstrate that the something could not have existed otherwise. So unless you can present objective evidence which you can objectively link to God, then all of your arguments are of no value.
Do you have objective evidence?
When Pope Benedict was asked how do we know God exists in an interview back when he was still cardinal, he said there are thousands of books and the extraordinary lives of hundreds of saints which testify to the truth, you want it answered in one paragraph?
I do not want to summarize in one post as though that's all I got to defend the truth. I do have a position paper of about 10,000 words but it won't post here. Suffice it to say the miracle at Fatima 1917 and life of Joan of Arc are all that is necessary to know that God exists, and which one.
I will try something later, if it interests you. The problem is what I wrote requires a lot of reading to emphasize my case fairly. And no one around here reads anything that long, they will get bored. But my case is all about miracles, all kinds of miracles. They all point to Jesus Christ, not Muhammad or the Hindu gods. It is the preponderance of them that makes their veracity all the more convincing.
And over the years I post one in great detail, then another months later, and so on. They are discounted with either flimsy suggested alternatives or by the skeptic thinking if he can disprove this one to his way of thinking then that proves God is false. No, he has to disprove a hundred different events, miracles, historical facts, etc. And then we are back to someone having to read a volume of information for us to make our case more soundly.
The basic problem with this is that if God actually wanted us to be sure on this question it would be extremely easy to make it so. If you have to write long dissertations to make your point, the God clearly has no such desire. Perhaps it is better to stop wondering and just do the best we can.
I can't answer that one.
I suppose that is why for the vast majority it remains more a matter of faith. Not that they do not still have good reasons for their faith.
This is a really bad example but if a parent really wanted their child not to cross the street it would be extremely easy to prevent them, tie the kid to a tree.I am actually quite interested, turzovka, how is it you have understanding of God?I guess I do not follow what you are saying here?
But as far as arguments for the existence of God is concerned, I have hundreds of arguments. What is lacking is an open and honest audience.
Arguments can be made on any side of any subject. They are a dime a dozen. The only thing which matters is objective evidence. Simply pointing to something and saying "See?" does not cut it. You have to be able to demonstrate that the something could not have existed otherwise. So unless you can present objective evidence which you can objectively link to God, then all of your arguments are of no value.
Do you have objective evidence?
When Pope Benedict was asked how do we know God exists in an interview back when he was still cardinal, he said there are thousands of books and the extraordinary lives of hundreds of saints which testify to the truth, you want it answered in one paragraph?
I do not want to summarize in one post as though that's all I got to defend the truth. I do have a position paper of about 10,000 words but it won't post here. Suffice it to say the miracle at Fatima 1917 and life of Joan of Arc are all that is necessary to know that God exists, and which one.
I will try something later, if it interests you. The problem is what I wrote requires a lot of reading to emphasize my case fairly. And no one around here reads anything that long, they will get bored. But my case is all about miracles, all kinds of miracles. They all point to Jesus Christ, not Muhammad or the Hindu gods. It is the preponderance of them that makes their veracity all the more convincing.
And over the years I post one in great detail, then another months later, and so on. They are discounted with either flimsy suggested alternatives or by the skeptic thinking if he can disprove this one to his way of thinking then that proves God is false. No, he has to disprove a hundred different events, miracles, historical facts, etc. And then we are back to someone having to read a volume of information for us to make our case more soundly.
The basic problem with this is that if God actually wanted us to be sure on this question it would be extremely easy to make it so. If you have to write long dissertations to make your point, the God clearly has no such desire. Perhaps it is better to stop wondering and just do the best we can.
You are mixing up the belief in the existence of and an understanding of. I get my understanding from the Old Testament. Do you have a book or is your understanding from personal experience? or from a churchI am actually quite interested, turzovka, how is it you have understanding of God?I guess I do not follow what you are saying here?
But as far as arguments for the existence of God is concerned, I have hundreds of arguments. What is lacking is an open and honest audience.
Arguments can be made on any side of any subject. They are a dime a dozen. The only thing which matters is objective evidence. Simply pointing to something and saying "See?" does not cut it. You have to be able to demonstrate that the something could not have existed otherwise. So unless you can present objective evidence which you can objectively link to God, then all of your arguments are of no value.
Do you have objective evidence?
When Pope Benedict was asked how do we know God exists in an interview back when he was still cardinal, he said there are thousands of books and the extraordinary lives of hundreds of saints which testify to the truth, you want it answered in one paragraph?
I do not want to summarize in one post as though that's all I got to defend the truth. I do have a position paper of about 10,000 words but it won't post here. Suffice it to say the miracle at Fatima 1917 and life of Joan of Arc are all that is necessary to know that God exists, and which one.
I will try something later, if it interests you. The problem is what I wrote requires a lot of reading to emphasize my case fairly. And no one around here reads anything that long, they will get bored. But my case is all about miracles, all kinds of miracles. They all point to Jesus Christ, not Muhammad or the Hindu gods. It is the preponderance of them that makes their veracity all the more convincing.
And over the years I post one in great detail, then another months later, and so on. They are discounted with either flimsy suggested alternatives or by the skeptic thinking if he can disprove this one to his way of thinking then that proves God is false. No, he has to disprove a hundred different events, miracles, historical facts, etc. And then we are back to someone having to read a volume of information for us to make our case more soundly.
