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.
Let's say I found something you made but I didn't know you made it. Could I study It? Could I learn things from it?How exactly are those arguments of logic?What have I shouted down exactly?There's no point in discussing that with me. God can be solved through logic.
Well, you say God can be solved through logic. The problem is, you seem to be shouting things down in order to reach that logic.
It's logical that the Sun revolves around the Earth as long as you shout down anyone who says otherwise. Right?
"So please don't waste our time with childish arguments like whose God or how many Gods. Fair enough?"
You forgot you wrote this?
Do you think you will find evidence for the existence of God in writings?
The logical argument for God starts with what he created and what we can observe from that.
Imagine you're in a box. You have no way of knowing what is on the outside of the box. You can't see, you can't hear, you can't touch the outside of the box.
Then you say "I know everything, I know what is on the outside of the box".
What are the chances you're lying? About 34234324432234234234%
You're starting with a conclusion, that an invisible being that wants us to study a book for secrets meanings made everything. You can study what was made, but you can't conclude that it was made by such a being. There's no connection.Let's say I found something you made but I didn't know you made it. Could I study It? Could I learn things from it?How exactly are those arguments of logic?What have I shouted down exactly?Well, you say God can be solved through logic. The problem is, you seem to be shouting things down in order to reach that logic.
It's logical that the Sun revolves around the Earth as long as you shout down anyone who says otherwise. Right?
"So please don't waste our time with childish arguments like whose God or how many Gods. Fair enough?"
You forgot you wrote this?
Do you think you will find evidence for the existence of God in writings?
The logical argument for God starts with what he created and what we can observe from that.
Imagine you're in a box. You have no way of knowing what is on the outside of the box. You can't see, you can't hear, you can't touch the outside of the box.
Then you say "I know everything, I know what is on the outside of the box".
What are the chances you're lying? About 34234324432234234234%
If you are looking for signs of God I suggest you start studying what he made.
If you are looking to confirm your bias I suggest you keep doing what you are doing.
When you die, ask him.When I say "obvious" I mean he is in plain site every day. Is it because he wants us to live our lives without knowing for sure that he exists? It would seem so, but why?
I can study the box. I can study what is in the box. And I can study how the box and what is in the box evolved. And through this process I can learn a great deal.You're starting with a conclusion, that an invisible being that wants us to study a book for secrets meanings made everything. You can study what was made, but you can't conclude that it was made by such a being. There's no connection.Let's say I found something you made but I didn't know you made it. Could I study It? Could I learn things from it?How exactly are those arguments of logic?What have I shouted down exactly?
"So please don't waste our time with childish arguments like whose God or how many Gods. Fair enough?"
You forgot you wrote this?
Do you think you will find evidence for the existence of God in writings?
The logical argument for God starts with what he created and what we can observe from that.
Imagine you're in a box. You have no way of knowing what is on the outside of the box. You can't see, you can't hear, you can't touch the outside of the box.
Then you say "I know everything, I know what is on the outside of the box".
What are the chances you're lying? About 34234324432234234234%
If you are looking for signs of God I suggest you start studying what he made.
If you are looking to confirm your bias I suggest you keep doing what you are doing.
Let's say I found something you made but I didn't know you made it. Could I study It? Could I learn things from it?How exactly are those arguments of logic?What have I shouted down exactly?Well, you say God can be solved through logic. The problem is, you seem to be shouting things down in order to reach that logic.
It's logical that the Sun revolves around the Earth as long as you shout down anyone who says otherwise. Right?
"So please don't waste our time with childish arguments like whose God or how many Gods. Fair enough?"
You forgot you wrote this?
Do you think you will find evidence for the existence of God in writings?
The logical argument for God starts with what he created and what we can observe from that.
Imagine you're in a box. You have no way of knowing what is on the outside of the box. You can't see, you can't hear, you can't touch the outside of the box.
Then you say "I know everything, I know what is on the outside of the box".
What are the chances you're lying? About 34234324432234234234%
If you are looking for signs of God I suggest you start studying what he made.
If you are looking to confirm your bias I suggest you keep doing what you are doing.
But you can't tell who or what made the box, that would be pure speculation.I can study the box. I can study what is in the box. And I can study how the box and what is in the box evolved. And through this process I can learn a great deal.You're starting with a conclusion, that an invisible being that wants us to study a book for secrets meanings made everything. You can study what was made, but you can't conclude that it was made by such a being. There's no connection.Let's say I found something you made but I didn't know you made it. Could I study It? Could I learn things from it?How exactly are those arguments of logic?"So please don't waste our time with childish arguments like whose God or how many Gods. Fair enough?"
You forgot you wrote this?
Do you think you will find evidence for the existence of God in writings?
The logical argument for God starts with what he created and what we can observe from that.
Imagine you're in a box. You have no way of knowing what is on the outside of the box. You can't see, you can't hear, you can't touch the outside of the box.
Then you say "I know everything, I know what is on the outside of the box".
What are the chances you're lying? About 34234324432234234234%
If you are looking for signs of God I suggest you start studying what he made.
If you are looking to confirm your bias I suggest you keep doing what you are doing.
I can study the box. I can study what is in the box. And I can study how the box and what is in the box evolved. And through this process I can learn a great deal.You're starting with a conclusion, that an invisible being that wants us to study a book for secrets meanings made everything. You can study what was made, but you can't conclude that it was made by such a being. There's no connection.Let's say I found something you made but I didn't know you made it. Could I study It? Could I learn things from it?How exactly are those arguments of logic?"So please don't waste our time with childish arguments like whose God or how many Gods. Fair enough?"
You forgot you wrote this?
Do you think you will find evidence for the existence of God in writings?
The logical argument for God starts with what he created and what we can observe from that.
Imagine you're in a box. You have no way of knowing what is on the outside of the box. You can't see, you can't hear, you can't touch the outside of the box.
Then you say "I know everything, I know what is on the outside of the box".
What are the chances you're lying? About 34234324432234234234%
If you are looking for signs of God I suggest you start studying what he made.
If you are looking to confirm your bias I suggest you keep doing what you are doing.
You won't be able to conclude that until you have made an earnest attempt at studying it.I can study the box. I can study what is in the box. And I can study how the box and what is in the box evolved. And through this process I can learn a great deal.You're starting with a conclusion, that an invisible being that wants us to study a book for secrets meanings made everything. You can study what was made, but you can't conclude that it was made by such a being. There's no connection.Let's say I found something you made but I didn't know you made it. Could I study It? Could I learn things from it?How exactly are those arguments of logic?
Do you think you will find evidence for the existence of God in writings?
The logical argument for God starts with what he created and what we can observe from that.
Imagine you're in a box. You have no way of knowing what is on the outside of the box. You can't see, you can't hear, you can't touch the outside of the box.
Then you say "I know everything, I know what is on the outside of the box".
What are the chances you're lying? About 34234324432234234234%
If you are looking for signs of God I suggest you start studying what he made.
If you are looking to confirm your bias I suggest you keep doing what you are doing.
Yes, you can. But you can't learn what is outside the box.
Or I could be like you guys and be ignorant and ignore the physical evidence that we can study.
You won't know that until you have tried.But you can't tell who or what made the box, that would be pure speculation.I can study the box. I can study what is in the box. And I can study how the box and what is in the box evolved. And through this process I can learn a great deal.You're starting with a conclusion, that an invisible being that wants us to study a book for secrets meanings made everything. You can study what was made, but you can't conclude that it was made by such a being. There's no connection.Let's say I found something you made but I didn't know you made it. Could I study It? Could I learn things from it?How exactly are those arguments of logic?
Do you think you will find evidence for the existence of God in writings?
The logical argument for God starts with what he created and what we can observe from that.
Imagine you're in a box. You have no way of knowing what is on the outside of the box. You can't see, you can't hear, you can't touch the outside of the box.
Then you say "I know everything, I know what is on the outside of the box".
What are the chances you're lying? About 34234324432234234234%
If you are looking for signs of God I suggest you start studying what he made.
If you are looking to confirm your bias I suggest you keep doing what you are doing.
You won't be able to conclude that until you have made an earnest attempt at studying it.I can study the box. I can study what is in the box. And I can study how the box and what is in the box evolved. And through this process I can learn a great deal.You're starting with a conclusion, that an invisible being that wants us to study a book for secrets meanings made everything. You can study what was made, but you can't conclude that it was made by such a being. There's no connection.Let's say I found something you made but I didn't know you made it. Could I study It? Could I learn things from it?Imagine you're in a box. You have no way of knowing what is on the outside of the box. You can't see, you can't hear, you can't touch the outside of the box.
Then you say "I know everything, I know what is on the outside of the box".
What are the chances you're lying? About 34234324432234234234%
If you are looking for signs of God I suggest you start studying what he made.
If you are looking to confirm your bias I suggest you keep doing what you are doing.
Yes, you can. But you can't learn what is outside the box.
I have and disagree with your uniformed opinion.
You are skipping steps.Where's your connection to an invisible being that wants us to study a book for secret meanings? You have none.Or I could be like you guys and be ignorant and ignore the physical evidence that we can study.
Indirectly through the study of what's in the box. The same way you can learn about a painter by studying the painting.You won't be able to conclude that until you have made an earnest attempt at studying it.I can study the box. I can study what is in the box. And I can study how the box and what is in the box evolved. And through this process I can learn a great deal.You're starting with a conclusion, that an invisible being that wants us to study a book for secrets meanings made everything. You can study what was made, but you can't conclude that it was made by such a being. There's no connection.Let's say I found something you made but I didn't know you made it. Could I study It? Could I learn things from it?
If you are looking for signs of God I suggest you start studying what he made.
If you are looking to confirm your bias I suggest you keep doing what you are doing.
Yes, you can. But you can't learn what is outside the box.
I have and disagree with your uniformed opinion.
How can I study what's outside the box?
Like what? Is it time to move the goalposts already?You are skipping steps.Where's your connection to an invisible being that wants us to study a book for secret meanings? You have none.Or I could be like you guys and be ignorant and ignore the physical evidence that we can study.
Only because paintings are real and so are painters and we can compare their works... You're assuming that your invisible friend is real. Nobody has proven that. Yet.Indirectly through the study of what's in the box. The same way you can learn about a painter by studying the painting.You won't be able to conclude that until you have made an earnest attempt at studying it.I can study the box. I can study what is in the box. And I can study how the box and what is in the box evolved. And through this process I can learn a great deal.You're starting with a conclusion, that an invisible being that wants us to study a book for secrets meanings made everything. You can study what was made, but you can't conclude that it was made by such a being. There's no connection.
Yes, you can. But you can't learn what is outside the box.
I have and disagree with your uniformed opinion.
How can I study what's outside the box?
Indirectly through the study of what's in the box. The same way you can learn about a painter by studying the painting.You won't be able to conclude that until you have made an earnest attempt at studying it.I can study the box. I can study what is in the box. And I can study how the box and what is in the box evolved. And through this process I can learn a great deal.You're starting with a conclusion, that an invisible being that wants us to study a book for secrets meanings made everything. You can study what was made, but you can't conclude that it was made by such a being. There's no connection.
Yes, you can. But you can't learn what is outside the box.
I have and disagree with your uniformed opinion.
How can I study what's outside the box?
I am starting with the only evidence we have and evaluating it.You're starting with a conclusion, that an invisible being that wants us to study a book for secrets meanings made everything. You can study what was made, but you can't conclude that it was made by such a being. There's no connection.Let's say I found something you made but I didn't know you made it. Could I study It? Could I learn things from it?How exactly are those arguments of logic?What have I shouted down exactly?
"So please don't waste our time with childish arguments like whose God or how many Gods. Fair enough?"
You forgot you wrote this?
Do you think you will find evidence for the existence of God in writings?
The logical argument for God starts with what he created and what we can observe from that.
Imagine you're in a box. You have no way of knowing what is on the outside of the box. You can't see, you can't hear, you can't touch the outside of the box.
Then you say "I know everything, I know what is on the outside of the box".
What are the chances you're lying? About 34234324432234234234%
If you are looking for signs of God I suggest you start studying what he made.
If you are looking to confirm your bias I suggest you keep doing what you are doing.
Like you are trying to figure out who God is before you figure out who God is but in your case you are trying to use who God is to prove he doesn't exist.Like what? Is it time to move the goalposts already?You are skipping steps.Where's your connection to an invisible being that wants us to study a book for secret meanings? You have none.Or I could be like you guys and be ignorant and ignore the physical evidence that we can study.
