I don’t have a congregation and for the hundreth time, I am not a member of any group; would you please stop trying to make me one.
Who’s crying? Sarcasm, yes. Laughing at your pitiful attempt at proof, yes. It appears that you don’t understand what a logical argument is. A randomly chose selection of headings from an encyclopedia would be a better proof of god than what you posted.
Care to defend any of them? or does that task scare you?
What a waste of time-“sarcasm” already means that.
I’ll defend any of them, lets have it.
It was a joke - **you have a congregation of ONE - YOU **- you walk alone - all of that - when you use your definitions like you do - they only make sense to YOU.
You are so ‘afraid’ to be tied to a group that you go out of your way to take offense.
Truth is truth and I like truth; the truth is I am not religious, and I am not part of any group; and I am dedicated to defending that about myself, not afraid of it.
I walk alone for a reason.
You just proved that the Bible is wrong. They thought that day and night were separate entities, which had to be created. We know that day is just when we are facing the sun, and night is when we are blocked from seeing the sun by the bulk of the Earth. They had no idea that nighttime in Jerusalem was daytime in the as yet undiscovered America.
As for self creation, do you think that drops of rain and flakes of snow are directly created by God or “self-created?”
I did you the service of responding to each of your points. I have many better things to do than to write essays about why each are wrong. If you wish to choose one or two you think you can defend I’d be happy to respond in more depth. But you are going to have to start with a far better explanation of why it proves God.
I thought you were going to show me what proof I wanted to defend; now you ask me if God created rain and snow.
Wow.
Because it sounds so cool to use the phrase repeatedly as an excuse for people getting frustrated with your private language and circular reasoning-“They banished me Because I Walk Alone”(cue wailing harmonica as the Man in Black walks down that dusty abandoned road into the sunset.)
There are many responses to that post I could attempt to make, I am afraid that all of them would go beyond your ability to reason.
You are simply not listening.
Enjoy your journey - I will interrupt it no longer.
You choose one, and I’ll respond to it in depth; I am not going to construct any more list, I think its against the rules.
I listen to everything, but I do not agree with everything;
Peace on your journey as well.
Would you like me to do Proteins?
ROFLMFAO!
For a non-Christian non-religionist, you sure do wear that coat of many colors a lot. Creation.com? Really? The next time you want to find out what is being taught our children about science, I would advise you to crack open a actual science textbook.
Its not a lot of choices out there; and people here like cites, I learned that from you.
If you got that from me, then you aren’t a very good pupil…and don’t even try to put forth that creation.com was one of the few ways on the internet to learn about science.
The cite breaks down proteins very good in my view; and your the one who asked me for a cite for everything; I thought at one point you were going to ask me for a cite that proves I am me.
I very much doubt anyone would object to two or three items in depth. However, I’m happy to oblige. Here are three
Kalam Cosomological argument
The fossil record
Life spans
The first of these is probably the best one on your list. I’m curious how well you understand it. The second is more or less evidence against the God of Genesis, if not God in general. The third is kind of bizarre, and I don’t even understand its relevance.
Remember, I’m not proposing to use these to disprove God - my aim is to counter any argument you have for why these prove God. There are some types of gods, like tri-omni ones, which are logically inconsistent, but there are many types of Gods for which no evidence exists but which are not falsifiable in principle or not falsifiable in the foreseeable future.
I like this cite as well;