I beg your pardon. Then my revised answer to your question is that your archeological findings are incorrect since YHWH had no beginning and has no end. He is from eternity to eternity - essentially, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
I find my source more credible than yours. YMMV. - Jesse.
You can see my “Join Date” in each of my posts. But you knew that, right?
And when you’re asked to give specifics, you fail to. Why? You’re making it seem more likely that you don’t have confidence in your assertion.
Uh, huh. Now you’re wasting ours.
Thanks for the permission?
No, I’m talking about your proposition. you said, “in order to validate religion and understand where the universe came from i proposed that something cannot come from nothing and i haven’t read any posts that counter this.”
It’s countered merely by reminding you that making a proposition is evidence of nothing. You have to not only have evidence that something can’t come from nothing or always exist, you have to explain how your animate god can exist when He violates your own condition. Merely stating that animate things get a free pass but inanimate things don’t doesn’t cut it. Explain why already instead of wasting everyone’s time.
That’s your rebuttal to point #2?
You said “2. as the universe contains both inanimate and animate somethings, the universe came from an animate something: inanimate somethings cannot create animate somethings.”
You claimed your God was animate. By your own rationale, he came from another animate thing.
Yes, you are. I showed you how many times. Merely claiming “I am not” doesn’t cut it. Show how you’re not giving God a free pass or stop wasting thread space.
Yeah, Cosmosdan, but who would want to be an average protestant? 
- Jess.
I made an observation about the dogmatic mindset. That’s a stated position. You responded one of your many unsupported generalizations about religion. When I referred to it as your personal dogma {another position I stand by and provided evidence for in the form of a definition} you decided to redirect the discussion rather than defend your generalization. It’s a common tactic for you.
It’s in the specific details and your broad stroke generalizations such as your earlier post.
Yes, you occasionally offer evidence. I’d even say you make some good valid points on a regular basis. Just as often you go off to some outrageous extreme and when challenged directly on the details of your post you can’t and won’t defend your position. I’ve never even seen you acknowledge those extremes as an opinion unsupported by evidence. You just keep on asserting it as a fact.
This is off the specifics I’m talking about and irrelevant.
Read my statement again and be assured I will.
My posts prove otherwise. I regularly challenge believers on the details of their belief and the lack of evidence. The subject is much more nuanced and full of specific details that should be addressed for the sake of understanding. Your broad stroke, sweeping generalization, blanket condemnation shows a total disregard for those details in is quite frankly, ignorant. I treat religious ignorance the same way.
I’m not interested in wasting bandwidth on a discussion of your posting style. It’s been done repeatedly and doesn’t do any good.
well the game is over for me–hate to waste bandwidth you know–guess i brought the proverbial knife to a gun fight. i am curious though, for those waiting for proof of God–when it really is all around you if you take the time to look and use the gift of intelligent insight given to you by God–any theories what you’ll say to God when the proof is staring you in the face?
That’s strange, because when I look around me I see the wonders of nature and the magnificence that the human race has gotten to a point where we understand science and can explain why and how we got here, without having to resort to ancient fairy tales. When I see animals I also think of the slow journey their ancestors took and the millions of years it took to get there.
You might see god’s mighty, obviously because you believe in a god. Your argument has no impact whatsoever on me, for I only accept things as factual when there is evidence for its existence.
I presume you mean the Bible. But what does it have to do with writings and imagery about Yahweh previous to the writing of the Bible? Why would the ancient Jewish people worship a Storm God named Yahweh and leave a bunch of evidence of having done so, and done so in a manner that evolves into the Biblical Yahweh? Are you saying that these ancient writings don’t exist? Or that they’re a secret plot by atheists with time machines who went back and planted fake evidence?
Any evidence counter to the Bible is ipso facto wrong?
out of the game but following along…try the following link to an article you may find interesting
Methinks thou dost presume too much. No, I don’t believe I mentioned the Bible as my Source. I have answered your question, however. Restating it isn’t going to get you a different response. You’ve heard, I’m sure, what they say about the definition of insanity? 
Jesse.
No, what’s happened is that you accused me of that, and have refused to state any examples of my “outrageous” claims, despite my asking. Which conveniently for you means that I can’t provide any evidence for them.
Oh, garbage. The fact that I refuse to walk into what you obviously intend as some sort of rhetorical trap doesn’t mean the “debate is over”. The fact that you refuse to make your point without manipulation doesn’t speak well for you though.
No, you never clarified what you wanted to know. And your assertion is wrong anyway; no, I’ve never left the country but so what ? Talking to people in person would just get me highly unreliable, anecdotal evidence. And you do realize that you’ve just handwaved away all of the historical record beyond our present lifespan as “theoretical” ?
For that matter, amusingly, you’ve just relegated the very religion you are trying to defend to theoretical status; that’s a step up in it’s status for me, but probably not for you.
Our technology is only up to creating polio virus and self replicating RNA from scratch at the moment. And your basic point is incorrect anyway; just because nature can do it doesn’t mean we can.
No, you talked about my “personal dogma” without either specifying my “dogma”, much less a reason for it being wrong. Asserting that the sky is blue isn’t “dogma”, nor is demanding evidence of those who claim that the sky is plaid.
It’s at the core of any discussion about the validity of religion. Where’s the evidence ? And lacking evidence, why give it any more credence than any other claim of an impossibility ?
No; if you did you’d argue against ALL religion, since NONE of it has any evidence beyond people’s unsupported and contradictory word. No doubt you will call this a “dogma”.
No, it’s not. All religion is baseless ( and you think I’m wrong ? Evidence ? ); thus the term “faith”. The details don’t matter, since they are all based on falsehood. I don’t see why the details of religion matter than any other superstition.
Since that’s not going to happen, I won’t say anything to your fairy tale superthug. There’s no reason to believe that souls are any more possible than God either.
And by the way, we have been asking for evidence, not proof; both of his existence, and that he’s possible.
What is your source?
YHWH.
In other words, you made it up.
Prove it!
And while you’re at it, please answer the questions you neglected to earlier.
Jesse.
Edited to add: If I’d wanted to utilize other words, I would have.
I don’t need to; you are the one claiming that a supernatural being exists, not I.
I answered your question about if I’d left the country, and pointed out that it was meaningless anyway. And I’m not going to play your silly “did I touch you” game.
Der Trihs,
I didn’t claim anything. I was asked to cite my source, so I cited my Source, and you called me a liar by saying that I fabricated the Source. That’s not kosher.
If answering a simple question, which would result in setting a precedent here, is inconsequential to you then why not just answer it?
Yes, I have an agenda, I wish to prove something, and will do so if you will answer the question.
Again, did someone tap you three times on the shoulder or not?
And would you mind terribly pointing me to where you answered my question about you leaving the USA? I can’t seem to find it. TIA.
Jesse.
You are claiming a “source” that I have no reason to think is even possible, much less exists. “YHWH” isn’t any more valid or plausible a source than Sauron. If you claimed that Sauron was your “source” I’d have the same reaction.
Because it’s obviously meant as some sort of rhetorical trap, and I declined to cooperate. And then you got all pushy and pretended my disinclination to answer your trick question means you “win” a point you haven’t even bothered to state, and that irritates me.
You are the one making a claim; answer your question itself.
In this exchange.
[quote=“Der_Trihs, post:457, topic:478421”]
Your level of belief or disbelief does not give you leave to call someone else a liar. Just because you have no personal experience with God, as is true of so many other things (self admitted by you on this thread) in life, does not mean that God does not exist, it simply means that you don’t think He does, and who cares about that?
Yes, I did notice that you were irritated. I may be wrong, but it’s my belief that you know perfectly well why I’m asking the question and what would result if you answered it. If I am wrong, then please accept my apology. If I am correct, however, refusing to answer isn’t kosher.
.
Der Trihs, asking a question is not making a claim - under any circumstances.
Jesse.
I’m trying to avoid calling you a liar because of the rules of the forum; would you prefer “deluded” ? And NO ONE has any “personal experience” with God, since there’s no such thing. If you disagree, where’s the evidence ?
I think that you intend to make some goofy, obviously incorrect analogy between faith and claims of shoulder tapping.
“Are you the one who murdered my wife ?” That contains the claim that a murder has occurred, and a claim of innocence on the part of the speaker.
You are asking me if my shoulder was tapped on; you are clearly claiming that it happened.
[quote=“Der_Trihs, post:459, topic:478421”]
Then you’re not very good at it are you? You can think I’m ‘Deluded’ all you want to, it doesn’t bother me because I have experienced what you clearly have not, and clearly don’t want to. It is not possible for you to say with any degree of certainty or credibility what another has or has not experienced. I see no reason for either of us to flog the horse to death yet again. I know YHWH, you don’t. All that proves is that we don’t share that particular Acquaintance.
Hardly, I don’t specialize in ‘goofy.’ I have a specific point to make that needs to be made here. If you won’t cooperate, that’s fine, but remember I’ve been talking to atheists for a very long time. I will make my point with someone a little less… paranoid. (No disrespect intended.)
Not at all. I asked YOU whether your shoulder had been tapped on - OR NOT. I did not once presuppose what your answer would be. You might even find the point I intend to make interesting. Most do, but as they say, there’s an exception for most rules.
Jesse.