So Boerd

Nexus Of Worlds Multiverse

Who is in charge of accepting?

Nexus Of Worlds Multiverse

GreivousKhan said
That's basically what I have been saying. You can't expect to fondle a bullet for a post or more and expect it to defeat a more logical prepped defense.

You can...aim

State-Church Separation

But to answer this question specifically, any kind of way to proving the God's concrete existence.
How specifically? I don't know, I'm not a scientist. And scientists have a way of proving things through the very last method you'd expect them to.

Let me adopt a different tactic. Every scientist on Planet Earth, Dawkins included, knocks on your door and says there is a God. Do you then believe?

State-Church Separation

I did not say prove the Christian God, I said ANY God, even a non-descript one.

You have nothing, not being able to provide said evidence is proof of that.

Um, no it isn't. That's just flat wrong. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science 101.

A Nation Divided - Civil War RP

Also, the presidents should both be players, as grand strategy and allocation of material was their call.

A Nation Divided - Civil War RP

We should probably use real armies however, even if we don't use real generals

Ads And You!

Magic Magnum said
If we want to be technical you can make the argument with that logic that anytime a woman has a period is a potential for life/a great individual that is wasted and we are possibly throwing away a great person. So obviously the only moral thing to do is to make women always pregnant. :P

Obviously there is a continuum. We have something clearly human, a newborn baby, and something clearly not, a gamete. The discussion now lies on where the line is drawn.

State-Church Separation

But that doesn't change the fact there is currently no evidence to support it.

Prove it.

State-Church Separation

This is becoming too much text for me to answer timely on my phone, but I will focus in on one aspect and return to your biblical citations later.

I never dodged it, that is the minimum.

Beating Science, even if Religion is get's some kind of evidence I'm not suddenly going to convert when Science still has even more evidence.
Especially when said religious proof doesn't even point towards a specific god.

.

Ladies and gentlemen, if I ever talk about the Holy Apostolic Ecumenical Church of Science, this is the example want you to think of. Belief in a God in no way contradicts science. There are plenty of Nobel Laureates who believe in a God. This God you believe in could be anything you want, as consistent with Science as you want. So I will ask the question more directly.

What PIECES of evidence do you require. List and describe them.

State-Church Separation

First you need to prove there is a God that exists, which basically mean having more evidence than science has... and at the moment Religion has 0 so you really need to get working on that. :P
But even then all you have established is that a God exist, not which god. So once you did that, you also need to prove out of the countless religions that exist that yours in the right one.

You dodged the question. What is the minimum specific evidence I must produce?

Can you prove I have zero evidence? No, you can't and I will spare you the trouble of saying "I don't have to", which you DO if you are going to make a definitive statement rather than "I do not know if there is evidence". Strong show of faith on your part

@Bible citations. I have answered the John citation. Second, it is clear that all things does not mean all things. That John citation proves it by providing clarification. All things which were made were made by Him. Regarding the others, they in no way contradict my points.