Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth I Seek
......what about the Torah?
|
Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about?
Sometimes I read something and I think "o that's a new idea" (which means I haven't encountered it before, not that it didn't exist before) so I look it up. Usually in a book but there is Conservapedia of course if you can't be bothered going to a library.
Or you could
Google the subject. Then when you start saying it's wrong you can also say why it's wrong although it may be correct in which case you could say why it's correct but you do need to look something up. It's probably better if you just comment on subjects you're already familiar with however.
Quote:
As for the factual evidences against his existence... the simple fact there isn't any prove in favor of his existence leads me to believe he doesn't exist.
|
yes in your case it probably does however
Absence of proof is not Proof of absence. When looking stuff up though, and thinking "oooooooooooo that sounds good; I wonder what it means? I'll post that that'll stumpm" it tends to have unpredictable effects. In this example, for example:
Quote:
If I claim I have a ring in my pocket you may believe it or not, it's a question of faith and while it is in my pocket it
. . . cannot be verified.
. . . If I take the ring off my pocket it can be verified and it's a factual proof.
|
the following is likely to occur:
Code:
If I claim I have made a World you may believe it or not, it's a question of faith and while it is shrouded in thick darkness it cannot be verified.
If I create light or otherwise enable you to see the World I claim to have made it can be verified and it's a factual proof.
That is what God is saying. He claims to have made a World. And according to your evidentiary values He needs to produce that world for you to see so that "it can be verified and it's a factual proof."
He has done so.
You can't have one standard for your own statements and another standard for everyone else. Just because you originate some bizarre claptrap does not make it valid any more than thinking it sounds "cool" makes it valid. Such
genetic fallacy is doomed to failure. Origins without internal consistency have no standing.