What is acceptable proof of GOD?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: TzarChasm once you start breaking down post shill style it just steers away from what the meaning of the whole post was. If my intentions were to convey the meanings you assume then i would have wrote it that way. it is a deflection tactic and not necessary if you actually want to hear my words.

breaking down a paragraph into its individual sentences doesnt change what the paragraph says. it just makes the message easier to process.

a reply to: TzarChasm it is a tactic of those trying to lose meaning. If someone gave you a new car and you tore it apart could you then drive it? We see this in many threads where the goal is to try to paint something different than it is. Our minds are not so shallow that we can not comprhend a paragraph. It gets even funnier when it is one or two sentences and it is done. The news outlets and spoof comics love to do it.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: Tangerine



everything you said is your fuel and without it you would have an easier time hearing me.

I hear you. I find you very unconvincing.

That could be because i am not trying to convincing you of anything. If i were them i would perform feats that you could not comprhend. It is you that has to convince yourself if you want to believe the proof is everywhere. this is not a competition for me. Based on my other statments here if i tried pointing out reason after reason for you to believe then really i would just be feeding your disbelief and making your wall taller and stronger.

You spend a great deal of time proselytizing and that is specifically intended to convince. The fact that you aren't good at it doesn't mean you're not trying.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: deadeyedick



a reply to: Tangerine







everything you said is your fuel and without it you would have an easier time hearing me.

I hear you. I find you very unconvincing.

That could be because i am not trying to convincing you of anything. If i were them i would perform feats that you could not comprhend. It is you that has to convince yourself if you want to believe the proof is everywhere. this is not a competition for me. Based on my other statments here if i tried pointing out reason after reason for you to believe then really i would just be feeding your disbelief and making your wall taller and stronger.

You spend a great deal of time proselytizing and that is specifically intended to convince. The fact that you aren't good at it doesn't mean you're not trying.

my goal is for you to find your way to the truth. particapation is optional. yes there are pros here and there are cons here

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: deadeyedick



a reply to: Tangerine







everything you said is your fuel and without it you would have an easier time hearing me.

I hear you. I find you very unconvincing.

That could be because i am not trying to convincing you of anything. If i were them i would perform feats that you could not comprhend. It is you that has to convince yourself if you want to believe the proof is everywhere. this is not a competition for me. Based on my other statments here if i tried pointing out reason after reason for you to believe then really i would just be feeding your disbelief and making your wall taller and stronger.

You spend a great deal of time proselytizing and that is specifically intended to convince. The fact that you aren't good at it doesn't mean you're not trying.

my goal is for you to find your way to the truth. particapation is optional. yes there are pros here and there are cons here

Truth is a belief. There are many truths. There is no such thing as THE Truth. You are suffering from the delusion that you have THE Truth and you are proselytizing to convert us to follow YOU.

a reply to: Tangerine
no if you are refering to the op then what i say is 100% true because it is based on what the book says about proof and that is that the ultimate proof of God will be found in death. you are displaying the character of what you accuse me by ranting on about how the book is false. so what is the problem that you have here?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Tangerine
no if you are refering to the op then what i say is 100% true because it is based on what the book says about proof and that is that the ultimate proof of God will be found in death. you are displaying the character of what you accuse me by ranting on about how the book is false. so what is the problem that you have here?

Fact is based on testable evidence not claims. Your book is filled with claims but extremely short on testable evidence. When it comes to the existence of God, it contains zero testable evidence. I take your book's claims about God to carry the same weight as the Harry Potter book's claims that Hogwarts exists.

You seem unable to accept that you are not remotely persuasive.

a reply to: Tangerine bs i stated that the fact is that the book says that proof of God is in death not that death is proof of God. your just being contrary trying to stir up people with your nam calling and twisting. Now i will take it further and say the bible is fact just so you have something to play with. petty

This will be my last post on this thread.

The thread is about prooving GOD's existence, but as soon as someone make a comment (you know who you are) you make a comment just saying that there is no testable evidence.

Well, since you say. that there is no testable proof. Show us your evidence that THIS HIGHER being don't exist.

This will be my last post on this thread.

The thread is about prooving GOD's existence, but as soon as someone make a comment (you know who you are) you make a comment just saying that there is no testable evidence.

Well, since you say. that there is no testable proof. Show us your evidence that THIS HIGHER being don't exist.

a reply to: Abednego
too bad you made no sense on your last post here. if you did not notice i stayed away from posting here until the end of the thread just so people could have their say without my comments mucking up the topic. btw it was about the different levels of proof that individuals have as their point of believing and not about proving anything. your contempt runs deep.

originally posted by: Abednego
This will be my last post on this thread.

The thread is about prooving GOD's existence, but as soon as someone make a comment (you know who you are) you make a comment just saying that there is no testable evidence.

Well, since you say. that there is no testable proof. Show us your evidence that THIS HIGHER being don't exist.

It's impossible to prove a negative. I don't expect you to understand that. I do expect you to improve your grammar.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Abednego
This will be my last post on this thread.

The thread is about prooving GOD's existence, but as soon as someone make a comment (you know who you are) you make a comment just saying that there is no testable evidence.

Well, since you say. that there is no testable proof. Show us your evidence that THIS HIGHER being don't exist.

It's impossible to prove a negative. I don't expect you to understand that. I do expect you to improve your grammar.

Spanish speaking guy trying to explain in English. I'll take that, I do have to improve my grammar.