No proof beyond the evidence


There’s no greater argument for the existence of God than the truth of His existence. Atheists completely discount this truth, while challenging every true Christian to present proof.

Since it is impossible to prove the existence of God beyond the fact itself and beyond the overwhelming evidence in all of God’s creation, the type challenge atheists make to Christians is both a foolish challenge and an impossible task for the Christian.

Since atheists recognize that it is impossible to prove the existence of God beyond the truth itself and beyond the overwhelming evidence that they deliberately discount, they blindly and deceptively regard such impossibility as real proof that God doe not exist.

This deceptive principle has been exemplified time-after-time in courts of law. For example: A person commits a very heinous crime. All the evidence that prove the person’s guilt is presented in court by the prosecutor. The evidence overwhelmingly prove the person’s guilt.

However, the criminal denies he committed the crime, and his lawyers, while seeking to deceptively prove his innocence, do all they can to discount the evidence presented by the prosecutor. And while discounting the evidence, the defense attorneys constantly challenges the prosecutor to prove their client is guilty.

What the defense attorneys do is cleverly discount the evidence in the minds of the jurors and shift focus from the overwhelming evidence to challenging the prosecutor to prove their client’s guilt to the jurors beyond the evidence. This becomes an impossible task and the jurors are deceived into regarding this impossibility as an inability of the prosecutor to prove that the criminal is guilty. Therefore the jury regards the criminal as not guilty. Juries are deceived by this diabolical tactic all the time.

Explore posts in the same categories: No proof beyond the evidence

23 Comments on “No proof beyond the evidence”

  1. Spencer Says:

    It is possible to prove god exists if he does indeed exist.
    However, if there is no god, it would be impossible to disprove him since an omnipotent god could hide from us.
    Since god can only be proven, and not dis proven, the only fair means of debate is to start with the assumption that there is no god until there is proof of his existence. To defend the position of atheism then, one must refute the “proofs” the other side presents. If there exists a proof in which there cannot be found fault, then god is proven, until then, we must continue to assume the position of atheism. This is the same way the legal system works, the client doesnt go up and prove hes innocent, that would be absurd. Instead he must refute the claims that he is guilty.

    Innocent until proven guilty.

    Godless until proven otherwise.

    In discussions with atheists, I don’t hear any evidence for the validity of atheism. There are no “proofs” that God does not exist in atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard — especially since you can’t prove a negative regarding the existence of God. Of course, that isn’t to say that atheists haven’t attempted to offer some proofs that God does not exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in all places and all times, there is no God? You can’t. Besides, if there was proof of God’s non-existence, then atheists would be continually using it. But we don’t hear of any such commonly held proof supporting atheism or denying the existence of God. The atheist position is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative. Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism’s truth, and there are no proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.

    Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis of adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and negate any evidences presented for God’s existence in order to give intellectual credence to their position. If they can create an evidential vacuum in which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more intellectually viable. It is in the negation of theistic proofs and evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed life.

    There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually defensible, and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In other words, the atheist would have to propose that it may be possible that there is no God.1 But stating that something is possible doesn’t mean that it is a reality, or that it is wise to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is a possibility? Not at all. Simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more than “It is possible,” or “There is no evidence for God,” otherwise, there really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter, and the atheist should step up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice cream exists.

    At least we Christians have evidences for God’s existence, such as fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus’ resurrection, the Transcendental Argument, the entropy problem, etc.

    There is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for the existence of God does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism cannot be proven, and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible. At best, atheists can only say there are no convincing evidences for God that have been presented so far. They cannot say there are no evidences for God, because the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence presented so far has been insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented in the future that will suffice. The atheist must acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has been undiscovered, and that the existence of God is possible. This would make the atheist more of an agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God’s existence.

    This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because Christianity makes very high claims concerning God’s existence, which challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.

    Believer until proven otherwise.

    • Spencer Says:

      First of all, I’m a soft atheist, so i do admit to the possibility of god. Second, please disprove the existence of the infinitely small, invisible teapot that orbits between earth and mars. It can’t be detected, but it IS there.

      Just curious, why do you fail to correctly capitailize the word “God?”

      • Spencer Says:

        Because it’s not a proper noun when it’s not a name. I should have said “A god”. Youll notice sometimes i say “It” im doing this to distinguish between the concept of god and your “God”.

        If you want to interpret the capital as a stress of importance, then I guess this must mean Atheists are as important as God.
        If we’re talking about christianity/judaism, “god” is a proper noun and you should capitalize it. It doesn’t matter about whether someone believes in God or not… to me, it’s like asking whether you would capitalize “abraham lincoln.”. The rules of English grammar require a capital letter for all dieties, e.g. Zeus, God, Nero, Allah, etc. If, however, you were talking about gods in general, it is a lower case.
        On a personal level, for you to unnecessarily spell God’s name with a lower case is actually an ATTEMPTED insult and you WILL be held accountable for that. The fact is that you hate God.You don’t bother to capitalize God/god, because you think that is a rule by theists. Why do you spend so much time attacking something that you claim to not believe in? We are not stupid you know. Don Quixote attacked windmills because he thought that windmills were his enemy, yet those very same windmills posed no threat. You have what we call the * Don Quixote syndrome.* You are defending yourself against invisible enemies and that is because you think they exist. You hate God and Christianity and that’s what drives your incessant attacking of the two. My friend, you are the one with the IQ of 2 if you think we don’t have your agenda figured out lock, stock, and barrel. You’re about as transparent as glass. You’re not an atheist You’re not even an agnostic. You’re a militant God hater that fears God and would rather spit in his face than acknowledge his sovereignty. Your father is Satan and he speaks through your black heart. If credibility is what you desire then admit to the obvious.
        You hate God and you hate Christians. You know,”those invisible enemies.”

  2. Spencer Says:

    The really sad part is you actually copied and pasted some of that. And once again, you’ve posted something else to stray for the original point. You still haven’t responded to my argument, well done.

    The “obvious tendency of nature from disorder to order and organization” is, of course, only an assumption of evolutionists. The real tendency in the natural world, as expressed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is from order and organization to disorder. This very obvious problem is commonly bypassed by evolutionists with the naive statement that the earth is a system open to the energy of the sun and that this fact resolves the problem! Creationists in turn have reminded them that while an open system and available energy constitute necessary conditions before a growth in order (or information) can take place, they are not sufficient conditions. In addition, there must be a pre-coded program containing the necessary information to direct the growth of the system and one or more conversion mechanisms to convert the external energy into the highly specific work of internal growth. Since the vast system of the hypothetically evolving biosphere as a space-time continuum seems to lack both a program and mechanism, it is clearly precluded by the Second Law.2

    It has been especially difficult to imagine ways to get life started in the first place. How can unordered non-living chemical elements be combined naturalistically into the extremely sophisticated ordered information in a replicating system? The common belief that this problem has been practically solved by modern biochemists is premature, to say the least. Freeman Dyson says:

    We are still at the very beginning of the quest for understanding of the origin of life. We do not yet have even a rough picture of the nature of the obstacles that prebiotic evolution has had to overcome. We do not have a well-defined set of criteria by which to judge whether any given theory of the origin of life is adequate.3
    The nature of the problem in trying to account for the origin of a replicating system has been well expressed by Angrist and Hepler:

    Life, the temporary reversal of a universal trend toward maximum disorder, was brought about by the production of information mechanisms. In order for such mechanisms to first arise it was necessary to have matter capable of forming itself into a self-reproducing structure that could extract energy from the environment for its first self-assembly. Directions for the reproduction of plans, for the extraction of energy and chemicals from the environment, for the growth of sequence and the mechanism for translating instructions into growth all had to be simultaneously present at that moment. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance and often divine intervention is prescribed as the only way it could have come about.

    The study of biological processes and phenomena indicates that significant evolutionary developments are not observable in the modern world. Similarly the great gaps in the fossil record make it extremely doubtful that any genuine evolution, as distinct from small changes within the kinds, ever took place in the past.
    There is one consideration, however, which goes well beyond the implications of the above difficulties. Not only is there no evidence that evolution ever has taken place, but there is also firm evidence that evolution never could take place. The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no evolutionary mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome. Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts. If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution must be impossible.

    The evolutionary model of origins and development requires some universal principle which increases order, causing random particles eventually to organize themselves into complex chemicals, non-living systems to become living cells, and populations of worms to evolve into human societies. However the only naturalistic scientific principle which is known to effect real changes in order is the Second Law, which describes a situation of universally deteriorating order. “This law states that all natural processes generate entropy, a measure of disorder”
    “Entropy, in short, is the measurement of molecular disorder. The law of the irreversible increase in entropy is a law of progressive disorganization, of the complete disappearance of the initial conditions.”2
    It can hardly be questioned that evolution is at least superficially contradicted by entropy. The obvious prediction from the evolution model of a universal principle that increases order is confronted by the scientific fact of a universal principle that decreases order. Nevertheless evolutionists retain faith that, somehow, evolution and entropy can co-exist, even though they don’t know how.

    In a nutshell Spencer, evolutionary religion teaches that these two laws can be subverted or twisted to allow them to be bypassed thereby allowing increases in energy and organization. You’re applying a situation that has intelligent design involved, to one which you claim doesn’t. That isn’t logical. Why does the evolutionist use the argument of intelligence in action, to argue that none was involved? With a basic understanding of the laws, you would know that localized instances of higher organization are allowed at the expense of greater disorganization of the larger system. If you are truly interested in learning more, a high school physics class would have much to offer you.

    Evolution is accepted by zoologists not because
    it has been observed to occur, or is supported
    by logically coherent arguments, but because…
    no alternative explanation is credible. Whilst
    the fact of evolution is accepted by every
    biologist, the mode in which it has occurred and
    the mechanism by which it has been brought about
    are still disputable. …the theory of evolution
    itself is a theory universally accepted not because
    it can be proved by logical coherent evidence to be
    true, but because the only alternative is special
    creation, which is clearly incredible.”
    – D.M.S. Watson, “Adaptation”, Nature,
    August 10, 1929, Vol. 124

  3. Spencer Says:

    Can you actually reply to me instead of deleting my posts or changing the subject? I challenge you to disprove the existence of the invisible undetectable teapot between earth and mars

    So you want to be an evolutionist?
    Congratulations! You’ve decided to be an evolutionist, and expose the evil lies of creationists.Here’s the three things you’ll need- A website-An idol A short memory Lets go through them one by one, shall we? A website-This is an absolute necessity. You need to have access to an evolution website with lots of polemics that you can copy and paste from. When creationists respond to your posts or ask questions about evolution, you need a resource from which to post responses without actually thinking of them on your own. Note: If you are unusually committed, you may wish to start a
    website of your own. To do this, simply go to a lot of existing web sites, save the source code, and paste it into the source code for your site. Don’t worry about checking for accuracy, the important
    thing is to make a statement about evolution, even if the statement happens to be wrong.
    An idol -You need to have one person who you regard as absolutely right about
    everything. This person needs to have two qualities: He needs to be a scientist, obviously. He needs to have a Ph.D. This is because every single time you refer to this person, you will use the title Dr.For instance: Dr. Sagan has clearly shown that cretionists are idiots.A short memory This is important, because many times creationists will refute your
    assertions. If you remember these refutations it will only confuse you and possibly lead you to question the theory of evolution, which
    might lead you down the path to religionism.Here’s the three things you need to avoid at all costs:
    Scientific knowledge
    Understanding of logic
    If you’re genuinely curious about the world around you, you can get into all sorts of trouble. This is because curiosity can lead to a search for truth, but, as your college biology professor told you,
    exploring the real philosophical foundations of science holds the danger of showing you that the Bible contains significant truth. So whatever you do, don’t get curious. Don’t ask questions unless you
    already have the appropriate answers from a materialist worldview. Scientific knowledge Evolutionism depends on a basic misunderstanding of how science works. If you somehow discover how real science works, many arguments for biological evolution will lose their force.Therefore it is absolutely incumbent upon you to avoid developing scientific knowledge.
    Understanding of logic It’s OK to know a few basic things about logic, such as that an ad hominem argument is inherently fallacious. Creationists will  sometimes point out that you are woefully ignorant about science, and it’s useful to be able to dismiss these observations as ad hom arguments.

    But be careful. If you understand logic too well,evolutionist arguments will begin to fail to make sense and so will
    the viewpoint of methodological naturalism. And you’ll find yourself
    questioning whether the theory of evolution really is internally
    consistent. And one thing you must never do is question your
    assumptions. Leave that to the real scientists .

    Conclusion If you follow these simple rules, you may well have a fulfilling and
    exciting life as an evolutionist. So remember to quote your website
    (and your idol) incessantly, instantly forget any refutations offered
    in return and whatever you do, don’t read anything about evolution
    that wasn’t written by someone strongly in favor of it.

  4. Spencer Says:

    Care to actually reply now?

    Care to read my response?
    I am very busy, so if I answered it incorrectly then please by all means correct me.

  5. Spencer Says:

    I read it, it would be nice if you replied to what I WROTE however. Ill state this again, with words omitted to save your precious time.


    Invisible teapots let’s see.
    Invisibility is impossible unless one speaks of invisibility from the perspective of being out of ones immediate proximity and out of visual sight, hence the tiny little tepot exists, but it just cannot be seen unless one positions themselves within an approximate parallax
    and viewing distance.
    An invisible teapot is a scientific impossibility out of the realm of natural physics.
    An invisible teapot in space is a possibility if it were to be placed there by one of this Earths space missions, and of course residing out of the direct line sight of the observers proximity.Hence it’s possible that it could be there but highly improbable.
    Evolution exists only in the imagination.

    • Spencer Says:

      I must point out however, that this teapot is in fact, so small ti cannot be detected and if it was any bigger it would be invisible anyways.
      The teapot is an exception to the basic laws of physics, so it can have these properties.

      Might I ask where you got the idea that the teapot doesn’t exist?

      You stated it was invisible and I gave you the conditions under which it could be seen.
      Now you change the goalposts by adding that the teapot cannot be detected.
      Translation: I’ve come to to pontificate not debate.

      • Spencer Says:

        I simply said that the teapot is too small to detect, we have no means of observing it visually or by any other means due to its size.
        However it is also invisible in the sense that light passes right through it without reflecting or refracting.

        I really am curious how you got it in your head that there isn’t teapot in space.

        Because an invisible teapot has mass and a molecular structure hence your mathematics and physics don’t add up. Now wind is invisible but I can see its effects. A tiny teapot in space is never an impossibility but if its there as I previously stated it can be seen. Your logic is horrid.
        You other posts will be approved as soon as I have the time to rebut. Right now I am very busy.

  6. Spencer Says:

    So, you don’t believe in it because it cant be observed and exhibits traits that violate natural laws?


    Intelligent design is observable hence so is God’s work. God exists outside of time think a a circle as opposed to the traditional time/space continuum. (spelling mine)Cosmic evolution=origin of time space and matter
    Chemical evolution = Big bang and if true it produced only hydrogen and helium-tell us how the other 105 elements got here.
    Stellar evolution=No one has ever seen a star forming and out of the 11 trillion that each of us can personally own not a single one has ever been observed forming.There are Novae and Supernovae. And bright spots in the crab nebula don’t prove a thing. All they prove is there is a bright spot getting brighter. Dust is clearing with a star behind it in all probability.

    Humans and chimps have thousands of differences. Evolutionists had originally claimed that the gap was only 1.6% in difference. Doesn’t sound like much but calculated out that gap is 480000000 nucleotides and a change of only 3 is fatal to an animal. There is no possibility of change period.(Human Genome Project CEM factsheet)
    Later on they found out it’s only 95% similarity and the latest research shows a 7.7% difference and the more it’s studied the worse the problem gets.-(Nature May 27,04 pg 382-388)
    A baby attaches 15000 cells to its body per every minute during gestation and each cell has the equivalent complexity of a space shuttle. Id like to see you on the end of a supply dept. turning out 15000 shuttles per minute. Its impossible for any human to ever do.

    The human DNA code for a single human being when calculated out would fill the Grand Canyon 78 times over with textbooks.

    One single strand would stretch to the moon and back 550,000 times in the equivalent of information contained within it, and we’ve only explored 1% of the DNA structure to date.
    Now if you want to think that you are a product of chance, then how in the hell are you going to trust even one single thought in your 3 lbs. brain which incidentally has enough electrical wiring in it to far surpass every single strand of wire in every computer. machine, electrical device in the entire world.

    That’s right Silly me… you want to talk about teapots.

    • Spencer Says:

      I really would like to talk about teapots of you don’t mind, we can argue all of these things in another thread but id prefer you stayed on topic or we will never get anywhere.

      Wind cannot be seen, yet it exists. You say we can see the effects of wind so we know it exists. Well then, what effects would this teapot have on us if it did or didn’t exist? The universe is exactly as it would be if the teapot were there. Light passes through glass unaffected and the few molecules that make up the teapot still are unobservable due to their size.
      Again, where did you get the idea that the teapot doesn’t exist? Did you read it somewhere? Did someone tell you?

      Teapots are a silly analogy and I get your point but lets move on and talk real science. Address the Biological facts I posted. If you need resources I can provide them. How can all of the complex intelligence account for a chance encounter.The fact is that God exists outside of time and space so you are assuming the incorrect attributes. Your premise is off. If I could put God in a test tube then he’d cease to be God. I can prove God indirectly thru ID. I have faith. I know people that have had bonafide miracles outside of science occur.I believe in demons. I’ve been to haunted homes and have witnessed the phenomena.I have observed things that science has no science for. I was not alone during these occurences.Ill leave you with this.
      “To the atheist no amount of proof is possible. To the faithful no amount of proof is needed.”

      • Spencer Says:

        Another attempt to change the subject? No, sorry I have a point to this and I can tell you’re catching on. The teapot example (known as Russel’s teapot) demonstrates that one must start with a position of skepticism and look for evidence of somethings existence rather than beginning with the assumption that it exists. If we were to assume things exist unless proven otherwise, wed end up believing in lots of ridiculous things (like invisible flying teapots).
        My other point is you came to the conclusion that the teapot does not exist on your own, yet many others don’t believe in it either. This is because it is a lack of belief and not a positive assertion, so the idea does not need an author. By the same token, since atheists begin with a position of skepticism, the lack of belief in god does not need to be authored by any specific person. I think this clearly demonstrates that atheism was NOT authored by satan as you claim.

        Now, if you’ll address these points and we resolve THIS discussion, I’ll indulge you on your attack on evolution but heres how it must go:

        An atheist believe that life, at the beginning, spontaneously generated itself. When asked for evidence of this thesis, an atheist might say: “Prove to me it didn’t happen that way.” No one could; that’s the sort of negative that cannot be subjected to testing. The issue is: show me the evidence that life “jump-started” itself.
        If my case for God is valid, one is logically driven (by default) to the conclusion that there is compelling evidence for God’s existence. In legal jargon, this is called a prima facie case; if there is nothing to refute it, it reasonably may be accepted as true, and atheism — its opposite — fails.

        (1) All known evidence indicates that matter is incapable of creating itself. The first law of thermodynamics states that “matter” is neither being created nor destroyed; it only changes from one form to another. There is not a shred of evidence that any material object has ever created itself.

        (2) All evidence suggests that matter is not eternal. The second law of thermodynamics states that as matter undergoes transformation, there is a negative effect, a running-down process. This implies a commencement point (just as a wound-up clock implies a starting time). Since matter is incapable of creating itself (and yet it exists), and since it had a commencement point, logic suggests it had a non-material cause.

        (3) All evidence indicates that inorganic matter is incapable of generating life. But since life exists, a reasonable deduction is: there must be an explanation for life that is extraneous to, and independent of, the material.

        (4) All evidence indicates that no strictly material object has moral sensitivity, i.e., a conviction of right versus wrong. In view of this, it is a reasonable conclusion that mankind’s moral sensitivity is to be found in a moral source beyond the material.

        (5) All evidence indicates that objects characterized by design have been produced by an intelligent designer. The universe, earth’s environment, molecules, cells, biological organisms, etc., reflect design. They thus point to an intelligent Designer.

        Atheism has nothing to compare with this line of positive argumentation. All it can say is, “I deny, I deny!” It is the “religion” of negativism.

  7. Spencer Says:

    We take turns finding problems with each others beliefs, You begin with a problem you have with evolution, we will discuss it with no changing the topic or moving on until we reach a conclusion about that specific point. I will then point out a problem I have with the bible. We then discuss that until we reach a conclusion, so on and so forth.

    Translation: I wish to manipulate. Sorry but ….umm….no….Ill call the shots.

    • Spencer Says:

      Sorry, i forgot how much you live to change the subject and throw random facts at me that are irrelevant to what I’m saying. Very well, lets not reach a conclusion. I have a question for you then, what would it take for you to stop believing in you god? What would convince you that your current way of thinking is wrong?

      It could never happen while I am alive. Miracles-the paranormal quantified by scientists as well as the Vatican scientists (All Phd’s) The Bible, personal testimony of myself as well as millions of other people. Science at the sub-molecular structure -The inability of evolution to provide any evidence. My own IQ (High triple digits – “I am borderline Mensa”) Quantum Mechanics.
      What would it take for you to believe in a God? May I recommend watching ID closely and the developments taking place with an open mind? Shed you pre-concieved notions about religion and Christians,Jews etc. Do as I have done and approach it from the outside and weigh all of the evidence.Until you agree to that our communication level shall remain low to non-existent. I am not out to convert you and could care less what you do. But do not come into this forum to shed tears because I will not play your games.You have a whole lot to lose if you are wrong and there is a God. Hell is a real place and there is life after death.(NDE-Spirits-etc.) There is a real evil called Satan and his greatest accomplishment is convincing you there is no God.

      • Spencer Says:

        I’m talking about Christianity, could anything at all convince you that Christianity was wrong?


  8. Spencer Says:

    My IQ is around 136 by the way

    139 here. I can see you are very intelligent by our exchange, but you lack a basic understanding of the true scientific method if you believe in evolution. You were lied to, and indoctrinated as well thus causing you to lose your faith in God at some point in your life.That’s fine… and if that makes you happy so be it. But please don’t belittle Chrstians for their beliefs because you beliefs rely on the supernatural as well.I have looked at the evidence and weighed it, and came to a sound logical conclusion that the universe begs an intelligent designer. I have witnessed the paranormal first hand, and I believe there are things in this universe that science has no name for, and we as humans cannot comprehend. (God) The traditional theocratic doctrine fall far short of explaining and defining God in an orderly universe. God exists outside of time and space (think quantum mechanics millions of years into a bleak dystonian future where all knowledge may be first hand.) Even intelligent men like Schermer and Dawkins are beginning to turn the corner as evolution loosens its deadly grip on them. And please don’t assume all Christians are dumb because there are Christian scientists much smarter than Dawkins, Schermer and many of the rest. If you want to go on believing a fairy tale such as evolution may I suggest that you step outside the box as I had earlier. You can figure out if you lay your preconcieved notions about Christianity aside. Yes there are many people that call themselves Christian that never should have and many are true hypocrites….But these are not the truest of Christians and they do a disservice to the real ones. Leave religion out of intelligent design and go forward. Place them both on the scale-cross reference both sides – and draw your own conclusions. Now I know what you are thinking, “Do I know that I am that hypocrite that I mention?” I do know that I am far from perfect and carry anger about many things but that in no way makes me weak. Do I hate you personally? No…. If we met we would probably get along very well…. What I do despise is the hypocrisy and deadly doctrine that atheism carries. IMHO I hate the sin but not the sinner. God knows Ive sinned enough in my past but sin is a foreign concept to you. Moral atheism is a whole other topic.

    • Spencer Says:

      Suppose an angel came to you and personally told you Christianity was not the way. How would you respond to that?

      That would be a non-sequitar since angels are of Christian origin.

      • Spencer Says:

        I was just using angel as an example, some other holy divine being then, comes and tells you that you’ve been led astray and that there is no Jesus and your worldview is wrong. What would you do?

        I’d have to question whether this being you speak of is actually divine or not. There are tests for that.

  9. Spencer Says:

    Very well then, I’ll come up with a hypothetical scenario. You’re walking down the street with a friend, you both see a bright light in front of you and it takes the shape of a featureless human. It then speaks to you, saying what you believe in not the true way and that you must worship it instead. It then tells you your purpose of existence and what it wants of you.
    What do you do?

    I’d say Satan is the lord of the morning. A deciever. Plus thats a straw man. Its never going to happen.

    • Spencer Says:

      If you wont listen to a divine being just because he contradicts your beliefs, don’t expect me to listen to some asshole with a blog.

      Youve commited enough logical fallacy here to cover the taxonomy of such. What more can I say?

  10. Spencer Says:

    You could point out the fallacy, that would be a nice start.

  11. Spencer Says:

    I cant debate you, you constantly assert with no explanation, if i make a point you tell me it’s a fallacy without saying what. Or you say I don’t address your points without telling me what i missed.

    Let’s not forget deleting posts that ask you what I’m missing!

    Care to back up your assertions?

    Why don’t you stop lying to yourself and lying to me. Evolution doesn’t even exist in the first place.
    I was converted from evolution years ago! No ne has ever observed it and no one ever will.
    The Word of God is sufficient for Christians because we (at least many of us) have seen His power and answers to prayer many times. We don’t believe your ‘theory’.
    EVery single thing that exists is evidence of a divine Creator. He made it all and He made it after a pattern, especially life.
    Open your eyes blind man.

    • Spencer Says:

      So back up your bloody assertions, point out my fallacies instead of telling me im wrong, give me evidence, inform me. You’re not arguing, you’re preaching. Show me the flaws in my reasoning.

      Fair enough.
      What is your single largest proof that leads you to evolution?
      The one largest, and personal scientific fact that hinges on your belief.
      And Please don’t respond with an, “All Christians are dumb and Christianity is stupid,” canned response.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: