That's nice but not sure how that helps you deal with your never ending problem that you still can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, and your timeless spaceless imaginary cause for the universe from nothing has no mind as God does, so God trumps your idol since a mind is needed to create a mind.
Everyday a million and one people believe things that are false. A million of them don't blame it on god. When they figure it out, they blame it on being wrong.
"a mind is needed to create a mind" is a quaint claim, but without any reasoning to support it, it doesn't hold much sway.
You like to quote the bible as rebuttal. You should stick to what the bible says and not what you want it to say. Otherwise, someone has to decide what the biblical words will mean when some biblical words are needed, and then you have a cult, not a religion.
God never asked you to blame him. How silly. The fact that people are wrong all the time does not address your problem you still can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs.
The reasoning for why a mind is needed to create a mind is because the lesser can never produce the greater. This has been said so many times. I think you deserve an infraction for wanting a reason when it was already given.
Again, you are accusing but where is the evidence to support your accusation as valid? You've not shown where I am not in concordance with the Bible. When I accuse I give a reason, but you do not. You're like Satan the great accuser who also doesn't need a reason. You take after your father the Devil. A chip off the old block.
Quoting the Bible is good since the proof is in the Bible, the very proof you are unable to overturn. Praise the Lord!
The naturalistic explanation is that they were wrong in their beliefs. I have already stated this. You need to infract yourself.
It has been said many times and I asked you to explain what analysis reached that claim but you ignored my request and consistently repeat it like it is self-evident. It is not. You need to infract yourself.
I have shown where you are not in accordance with the truth and with science. You say that I do not give reasons but you do not present a single example of this. You need to infract yourself. That's three infractions, you need to ban yourself.
The policy that those who debate can shut down an opponent by banning them can best be described as cowardly and anti-intellectual. It exemplifies an environment that precludes an open-minded exchange of ideas.
If you can't handle debate then that should be made clear on the home page and don't invite debaters from other forums to join. Moderator-debaters are the nemesis of informed, articulate members who wish to engage in dynamic, unencumbered debate.
This is not a valid response for you need to account for how they could be wrong. Since you fail to do so and only self-assert, that's worthy of an infraction such as self-declaration.
Since many times it has already been said that we observe nothing in which the lesser can produce the greater that is the reason you keep avoiding. You deserve an infraction for circumventing.It has been said many times and I asked you to explain what analysis reached that claim but you ignored my request and consistently repeat it like it is self-evident. It is not. You need to infract yourself.
Since you are unable to reproduce your alleged claim, then you are just blowing smoke, again, deserving of an infraction for belligerency.I have shown where you are not in accordance with the truth and with science. You say that I do not give reasons but you do not present a single example of this. You need to infract yourself. That's three infractions, you need to ban yourself.
You are not permanently banned, only temporarily banned for these repetitive errors. It is the hope that you will reflect on these mistakes you make over and over again to come to the table to discuss more openly next time. It is important that in a debate one party not become abusive as are you doing with these obstinate behaviors. To continue in such a debate persisting in these antics is cowardly on your part and unintellectual not only for you but anyone in discussing with you.The policy that those who debate can shut down an opponent by banning them can best be described as cowardly and anti-intellectual. It exemplifies an environment that precludes an open-minded exchange of ideas.
You are note engaging or dynamic but a dullard. The debate is viable as long as you abide in the board etiquette. After all we wouldn't want a forum of just mindless zombies such as yourself for that is really boring.If you can't handle debate then that should be made clear on the home page and don't invite debaters from other forums to join. Moderator-debaters are the nemesis of informed, articulate members who wish to engage in dynamic, unencumbered debate.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks