-->
@keithprosser
Liar and troll. Take your own advise.
Become a theist
Posts
Total:
496
-->
@BrutalTruth
Well stated.You assume that I assume these things because you can't seem to comprehend the idea of not having an affirmative belief of the origins of the universe. Just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't mean I assumed something.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@keithprosser
Keith has stated discussing a religion you are not in is wrong. Any posts by him at this point are lies and trolling.
Verbatim quote,
"It's probably best to avoid Judaic terms, unless you are Jewish (OR) referencing material that is specific to Judaism such as Midrash, which is damn rare on DArt." [LINK]
So it would seem to be more of a suggestion or preference (probably best) and not a matter of "right and wrong".
And furthermore, in the quote keithprosser leaves an enormous exception for non-Jews, specifically suggesting that if you are not a member of a specific religion, you should probably reference material that is considered generally authoritative by that religion.
-->
@3RU7AL
So two hypocrites. Got it.
-->
@3RU7AL
My advice was only to take care when using jargon. Really I was trying to be nice and avoid blurting out that PW's OP about the Torah was simply wrong.
No good deed goes unpunished, they say!
-->
@keithprosser
Troll and lying hypocrite. Noted.
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm just not sure why anyone would imagine that the "YHWH" is somehow more likely than Vishnu, or Marduk or Pangu.What evidence do you have for Vishnu, Marduk or Pangu? What writing convey they exist and how does those writing connect to history and the world as to what is?From Ancient India - http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/From Ancient Babylon - https://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/blc/blc11.htmThey contain three contradictory accounts. Which is true since logically they all can't be right? When I asked for your evidence I did not ask for a link and thirty thousand pages of reading. What is it you want me to gather from these links?
All of your questions and arguments and appeals to ignorance "you can't prove me wrong" lead to one conclusion.
YOU SEEM TO HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO BLOOMING IDEA WHAT "UNFALSIFIABLE" MEANS.
What is Falsifiability?
Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.
For example, someone might claim "the earth is younger than many scientists state, and in fact was created to appear as though it was older through deceptive fossils etc.” This is a claim that is unfalsifiable because it is a theory that can never be shown to be false. If you were to present such a person with fossils, geological data or arguments about the nature of compounds in the ozone, they could refute the argument by saying that your evidence was fabricated to appeared that way, and isn’t valid.
Importantly, falsifiability doesn’t mean that there are currently arguments against a theory, only that it is possible to imagine some kind of argument which would invalidate it. Falsifiability says nothing about an argument's inherent validity or correctness. It is only the minimum trait required of a claim that allows it to be engaged with in a scientific manner – a dividing line between what is considered science and what isn’t. Another important point is that falsifiability is not any claim that has yet to be proven true. After all, a conjecture that hasn’t been proven yet is just a hypothesis.
-->
@PGA2.0
You really need to get your head around the fact that what you believe are the words of men.Another assertion that you cannot prove.
I believe it is easy to demonstrate that a human wrote and published and transported and sold and bought every single copy you've ever seen.
-->
@PGA2.0
Blind indifferent chance happenstance, with no intent, reason, meaning, or logic...sound reasonable?
Do you believe that gods make it rain only in specific places at specific times?
Do you believe that gods make earthquakes and hurricanes and forest fires only in specific places at specific times?
Or do you rather believe that gods have better things to think about and or do, and that some weather and earthquakes and forest fires are "blind indifferent chance happenstance, with no intent, reason, meaning, or logic"?
I mean, if EVERYTHING was INTENTIONALLY directed by an omnipotent being, then that would be pretty "f'd-up", right?
I mean, if the "YHWH" could convert the evil oppressor, Saul of Tarsus into an instant saint by scaring the bujesus out of him with a holy messenger angel, doesn't it seem that the "YHWH" would have or could have done the same thing to at least hundreds if not thousands of others, like, you know Stalin or Pol Pot or Torquemada or Richard Dawkins?
-->
@PGA2.0
If you create something, did you exist before you created it?
(IFF) the "YHWH" was the first and only "thing" to exist,
(THEN) everything that is created or shaped by the "YHWH" MUST BE MADE FROM PIECES OF THE "YHWH".
-->
@PGA2.0
@disgusted
It is your belief that because no evidence has been found for some events recorded in the Bible that it is a fiction, yet many other events are proven by archeological evidence. You pick and choose only the points the boost your belief and you try to make this event a falsity yet you never consider the other possibilities, a few of which I pointed out.And more insults and ad hominems.
There don't appear to be any insults or personal attacks in the text you quoted from disgusted.
Please explain what you mean.
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm just not sure why anyone would imagine that the "YHWH" is somehow more likely than Vishnu, or Marduk or Pangu.What evidence do you have for Vishnu, Marduk or Pangu? What writing convey they exist and how does those writing connect to history and the world as to what is?From Ancient India - http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/From Ancient Babylon - https://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/blc/blc11.htmThey contain three contradictory accounts. Which is true since logically they all can't be right? When I asked for your evidence I did not ask for a link and thirty thousand pages of reading. What is it you want me to gather from these links?All of your questions and arguments and appeals to ignorance "you can't prove me wrong" lead to one conclusion.YOU SEEM TO HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO BLOOMING IDEA WHAT "UNFALSIFIABLE" MEANS.What is Falsifiability?Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.For example, someone might claim "the earth is younger than many scientists state, and in fact was created to appear as though it was older through deceptive fossils etc.” This is a claim that is unfalsifiable because it is a theory that can never be shown to be false. If you were to present such a person with fossils, geological data or arguments about the nature of compounds in the ozone, they could refute the argument by saying that your evidence was fabricated to appeared that way, and isn’t valid.Importantly, falsifiability doesn’t mean that there are currently arguments against a theory, only that it is possible to imagine some kind of argument which would invalidate it. Falsifiability says nothing about an argument's inherent validity or correctness. It is only the minimum trait required of a claim that allows it to be engaged with in a scientific manner – a dividing line between what is considered science and what isn’t. Another important point is that falsifiability is not any claim that has yet to be proven true. After all, a conjecture that hasn’t been proven yet is just a hypothesis.
You listed three religions that have contradictions to them concerning their gods, so logic (specifically the law of noncontradiction -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWVzHOhGSC0; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWvg6xrxRiU) dictates they cannot all be correct if any are. Now you are off on another tangent that has nothing to do with the questions I asked you. Here they are again:
1. Which is true since logically they all can't be right? (they are contrary beliefs about gods)
2. What is it you want me to gather from these links? (about these specific gods?)
Here are two more questions:
1. Are Vishnu, Marduk, or Pangu the same god, and if so what is said about them should not be contradictory?
2. Do you believe the descriptions of these gods contain contradictions?
-->
@3RU7AL
You really need to get your head around the fact that what you believe are the words of men.Another assertion that you cannot prove.I believe it is easy to demonstrate that a human wrote and published and transported and sold and bought every single copy you've ever seen.
The Bible claims that the original manuscripts, before copyist errors, were God's revelation to humanity. From the 24,000 plus Greek manuscript fragments of the NT, over 5000 full manuscripts, early church writings that contained quotes and references to the NT, what do you think the likelihood is that the original copies can be put together in their entirety today?
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.
2 Peter 1:20-21
2 Peter 1:20-21
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Even though these statements mean nothing to you there are thousands upon thousands of statements throughout the Bible that make reference to God speaking or God revealing.
If prophecy is God speaking and revealing something before it happens then what happens should come true exactly as prophesied. I can make a good, reasonable, logical case that it does. I do not believe you can make a good counter-argument.
-->
@3RU7AL
Blind indifferent chance happenstance, with no intent, reason, meaning, or logic...sound reasonable?Do you believe that gods make it rain only in specific places at specific times?Do you believe that gods make earthquakes and hurricanes and forest fires only in specific places at specific times?Or do you rather believe that gods have better things to think about and or do, and that some weather and earthquakes and forest fires are "blind indifferent chance happenstance, with no intent, reason, meaning, or logic"?I mean, if EVERYTHING was INTENTIONALLY directed by an omnipotent being, then that would be pretty "f'd-up", right?I mean, if the "YHWH" could convert the evil oppressor, Saul of Tarsus into an instant saint by scaring the bujesus out of him with a holy messenger angel, doesn't it seem that the "YHWH" would have or could have done the same thing to at least hundreds if not thousands of others, like, you know Stalin or Pol Pot or Torquemada or Richard Dawkins?
I don't believe in gods, I believe in one God.
God has given what is necessary for salvation yet human beings are stubborn and want to follow their own desires as Romans 1:18-20 points out.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Richard Dawkins, Stalin, etc., have volition and they chose to ignore and suppress the knowledge of God. Here is what Romans 1 has in common:
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions;
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
When you ignore God, suppress the knowledge of Him, disrespect Him, do not seek Him, He lets you go your own way.
-->
@PGA2.0
You listed three religions that have contradictions to them concerning their gods, so logic dictates they cannot all be correct if any are. Now you are off on another tangent that has nothing to do with the questions I asked you. Here they are again:
Just because competing hypotheses are logically mutually exclusive, THIS DOES NOT MEAN that any one of them is necessarily "TRUE".
1. Which is true since logically they all can't be right? (they are contrary beliefs about gods)
(IFF) they are unfalsifiable claims (THEN) their truth value cannot be either confirmed or denied. This is our epistemological limit.
2. What is it you want me to gather from these links? (about these specific gods?)
I am placing you in the atheist seat.
- You say, "the YHWH is real and true because ancient book says so and prophecy came true".
I say, "the Marduk or Ahura Mazda or Brahman is real and true because ancient book says so and prophecy came true".
- Then you say, "I don't believe in any of these fake gods because anyone can write an ancient book and their prophecies are too vague".
Then I say, "I don't believe in the YHWH because anyone can write an ancient book and their prophecies are too vague".
- Then you say, "TLDR, I'm not reading thousands of pages of ancient texts about any of these fake gods because it would be a waste of my time and it doesn't matter if the text says it is true or not because of course it will say it is true, that's what anyone would expect it to say, even if it was totally fake".
Then I say, "TLDR, I'm not reading thousands of pages of ancient texts about the YHWH because it would be a waste of my time and it doesn't matter if the text says it is true or not because of course it will say it is true, that's what anyone would expect it to say, even if it was totally fake".
Here are two more questions:1. Are Vishnu, Marduk, or Pangu the same god, and if so what is said about them should not be contradictory?
All three are 100% mutually exclusive. All three of them are unfalsifiable.
2. Do you believe the descriptions of these gods contain contradictions?
It is difficult to write thousands of pages of ancient text without at least a few logical contradictions. But I'm certain, that just like the Jews and the Muslims and the Christians, they have many detailed and scholarly excuses for any apparent conflicts.
For example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk
-->
@3RU7AL
If you create something, did you exist before you created it?(IFF) the "YHWH" was the first and only "thing" to exist,(THEN) everything that is created or shaped by the "YHWH" MUST BE MADE FROM PIECES OF THE "YHWH".
False analogy. Is what you create, say a painting, you (a piece of you), or is it an expression from you?
Genesis 1:31
31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Everything He made was very good until the human God made in His image and likeness, with a will, chose to do what God warned not to do. God warned Adam that he would suffer the consequences of separation from God in the Garden once he took the fruit. God wants a relationship with humanity who want to love and know Him. Adam chose to do his own thing, thus the curse was given. What is the purpose of the curse? It is so humans see what life is like apart from God. We see the inhumanity of our fellow humans every day, who choose to follow their own desires and do what is evil. Sin is a reminder of what it means to live a life apart from God and when people realize their sin and brokenness some turn to Him and seek Him out. Others digging in and resist Him all the more and cause more evil with their suppression of His light and goodness in their life.
-->
@3RU7AL
It is your belief that because no evidence has been found for some events recorded in the Bible that it is a fiction, yet many other events are proven by archeological evidence. You pick and choose only the points the boost your belief and you try to make this event a falsity yet you never consider the other possibilities, a few of which I pointed out.And more insults and ad hominems.There don't appear to be any insults or personal attacks in the text you quoted from disgusted.Please explain what you mean.
In reference to which post? You left out what I was responding to, so how many posts ago was this?
-->
@PGA2.0
There don't appear to be any insults or personal attacks in the text you quoted from disgusted.Please explain what you mean.In reference to which post? You left out what I was responding to, so how many posts ago was this?
-->
@3RU7AL
You listed three religions that have contradictions to them concerning their gods, so logic dictates they cannot all be correct if any are. Now you are off on another tangent that has nothing to do with the questions I asked you. Here they are again:Just because competing hypotheses are logically mutually exclusive, THIS DOES NOT MEAN that any one of them is necessarily "TRUE".
That is true, but it certainly means that they all can't be true and possibly none of them are true. That is my contention.
1. Which is true since logically they all can't be right? (they are contrary beliefs about gods)(IFF) they are unfalsifiable claims (THEN) their truth value cannot be either confirmed or denied. This is our epistemological limit.
The coherence and correspondence of what is said can be checked out to their reasonableness. If they make prophetic utterances the quality and quantity of those statements can be checked out as to the falsifiability of the claim.
When is the earliest recoverable document/manuscript from each religion found? Do you know the answer?
2. What is it you want me to gather from these links? (about these specific gods?)I am placing you in the atheist seat.
- You say, "the YHWH is real and true because ancient book says so and prophecy came true".
I say, "the Marduk or Ahura Mazda or Brahman is real and true because ancient book says so and prophecy came true".
- Then you say, "I don't believe in any of these fake gods because anyone can write an ancient book and their prophecies are too vague".
Then I say, "I don't believe in the YHWH because anyone can write an ancient book and their prophecies are too vague".
I say give me the evidence that you believe makes these three gods believable as opposed to Yahweh so I can dispute your claims.
- Then you say, "TLDR, I'm not reading thousands of pages of ancient texts about any of these fake gods because it would be a waste of my time and it doesn't matter if the text says it is true or not because of course it will say it is true, that's what anyone would expect it to say, even if it was totally fake".
Then I say, "TLDR, I'm not reading thousands of pages of ancient texts about the YHWH because it would be a waste of my time and it doesn't matter if the text says it is true or not because of course it will say it is true, that's what anyone would expect it to say, even if it was totally fake".
I asked for the reasonableness of these gods and you avoided the proof or evidence. I am quite willing to discuss the reasonableness of the biblical God and I have offered to demonstrate that He is reasonable to believe as opposed to your three gods.
Here are two more questions:1. Are Vishnu, Marduk, or Pangu the same god, and if so what is said about them should not be contradictory?All three are 100% mutually exclusive. All three of them are unfalsifiable.
Are they reasonable and what evidence do they give to their reasonableness since you brought up the subject and now want me to do all the bull work?
2. Do you believe the descriptions of these gods contain contradictions?It is difficult to write thousands of pages of ancient text without at least a few logical contradictions. But I'm certain, that just like the Jews and the Muslims and the Christians, they have many detailed and scholarly excuses for any apparent conflicts.
List a few that we can discuss them since you are certain.
As I said before, I do not defend the reasonableness of any other god but the Judeo-Christian God.
For example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk
-->
@PGA2.0
I mean, if EVERYTHING was INTENTIONALLY directed by an omnipotent being, then that would be pretty "f'd-up", right?I mean, if the "YHWH" could convert the evil oppressor, Saul of Tarsus into an instant saint by scaring the bujesus out of him with a holy messenger angel, doesn't it seem that the "YHWH" would have or could have done the same thing to at least hundreds if not thousands of others, like, you know Stalin or Pol Pot or Torquemada or Richard Dawkins?I don't believe in gods, I believe in one God.God has given what is necessary for salvation yet human beings are stubborn and want to follow their own desires as Romans 1:18-20 points out.
Ok, so Saul of Tarsus wasn't stubborn enough to fully exercise his own free-will? Saul of Tarsus was just casually capturing and torturing Christians?
Richard Dawkins, Stalin, etc., have volition and they chose to ignore and suppress the knowledge of God. Here is what Romans 1 has in common:
I get it now, Saul of Tarsus lacked "volition". I guess he was just lucky that the "YHWH" made him into a puppet.
When you ignore God, suppress the knowledge of Him, disrespect Him, do not seek Him, He lets you go your own way.
Saul of Tarsus was not "seeking the YHWH". That's why it took a holy hit man and a talking donkey to change his mind.
-->
@3RU7AL
For example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk
I'll answer these alleged contradictions when I get some spare time.
-->
@3RU7AL
It might be that the moon snuck down one night and scooped up all the evidence so therefore you are right. Do you understand anything outside of your playground rhetoric?
That is an ad hom. It implies that my answers are childlike and rhetorical. It avoids answering the question I asked you. So, it attacks the man rather than the question.
-->
@3RU7AL
Uh, I get it. That was disgusted. My apologies.
-->
@3RU7AL
I mean, if EVERYTHING was INTENTIONALLY directed by an omnipotent being, then that would be pretty "f'd-up", right?I mean, if the "YHWH" could convert the evil oppressor, Saul of Tarsus into an instant saint by scaring the bujesus out of him with a holy messenger angel, doesn't it seem that the "YHWH" would have or could have done the same thing to at least hundreds if not thousands of others, like, you know Stalin or Pol Pot or Torquemada or Richard Dawkins?I don't believe in gods, I believe in one God.God has given what is necessary for salvation yet human beings are stubborn and want to follow their own desires as Romans 1:18-20 points out.Ok, so Saul of Tarsus wasn't stubborn enough to fully exercise his own free-will? Saul of Tarsus was just casually capturing and torturing Christians?
And God showed him the error of his ways. Then, when Saul realize he was persecuting the God he served he repented and turned to Him.
Richard Dawkins, Stalin, etc., have volition and they chose to ignore and suppress the knowledge of God. Here is what Romans 1 has in common:I get it now, Saul of Tarsus lacked "volition". I guess he was just lucky that the "YHWH" made him into a puppet.
He repented when shown the error of his ways. He used his volition.
When you ignore God, suppress the knowledge of Him, disrespect Him, do not seek Him, He lets you go your own way.Saul of Tarsus was not "seeking the YHWH". That's why it took a holy hit man and a talking donkey to change his mind.
He was seeking God, and God revealed Himself. Until that point Saul did not grasp the full extent of who God was, Father, Son, and Spirit.
-->
@PGA2.0
Just because competing hypotheses are logically mutually exclusive, THIS DOES NOT MEAN that any one of them is necessarily "TRUE".That is true, but it certainly means that they all can't be true and possibly none of them are true. That is my contention.
Nice, I'm glad we can agree on this fundamental principle.
(IFF) they are unfalsifiable claims (THEN) their truth value cannot be either confirmed or denied. This is our epistemological limit.The coherence and correspondence of what is said can be checked out to their reasonableness. If they make prophetic utterances the quality and quantity of those statements can be checked out as to the falsifiability of the claim.When is the earliest recoverable document/manuscript from each religion found? Do you know the answer?
The earliest Hindu texts are from approximately 1000 BCE. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Hindu_texts
The earliest Zoroastrian texts are from approximately 2000 BCE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism
The earliest Chinese mythological texts are from approximately 3000 BCE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_mythology#Shells_and_bones
Then you say, "I don't believe in any of these fake gods because anyone can write an ancient book and their prophecies are too vague".Then I say, "I don't believe in the YHWH because anyone can write an ancient book and their prophecies are too vague".I say give me the evidence that you believe makes these three gods believable as opposed to Yahweh so I can dispute your claims.
Forget about the "YHWH" for a second. Start from scratch. The evidence is roughly equivalent for each, they all have ancient writings and prophecies (that are confirmed by the writings).
Then you say, "TLDR, I'm not reading thousands of pages of ancient texts about any of these fake gods because it would be a waste of my time and it doesn't matter if the text says it is true or not because of course it will say it is true, that's what anyone would expect it to say, even if it was totally fake".Then I say, "TLDR, I'm not reading thousands of pages of ancient texts about the YHWH because it would be a waste of my time and it doesn't matter if the text says it is true or not because of course it will say it is true, that's what anyone would expect it to say, even if it was totally fake".I asked for the reasonableness of these gods and you avoided the proof or evidence. I am quite willing to discuss the reasonableness of the biblical God and I have offered to demonstrate that He is reasonable to believe as opposed to your three gods.
The evidence is roughly equivalent for each, they all have ancient writings and prophecies (that are confirmed by the writings).
1. Are Vishnu, Marduk, or Pangu the same god, and if so what is said about them should not be contradictory?All three are 100% mutually exclusive. All three of them are unfalsifiable.Are they reasonable and what evidence do they give to their reasonableness since you brought up the subject and now want me to do all the bull work?
The evidence is roughly equivalent for each, they all have ancient writings and prophecies (that are confirmed by the writings).
2. Do you believe the descriptions of these gods contain contradictions?It is difficult to write thousands of pages of ancient text without at least a few logical contradictions. But I'm certain, that just like the Jews and the Muslims and the Christians, they have many detailed and scholarly excuses for any apparent conflicts.List a few that we can discuss them since you are certain.
I have no idea what your personal standard of evidence are. Although I have a strong feeling that you would not accept prima facie, a writing that said something like "and then the prophet said, in 200 years there will be a war" and then in the same document, "and it came to pass, exactly 200 years later, that there was a war". If you want some examples of ancient contradictions and specific rationalizations,
check out this short clip - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk
As I said before, I do not defend the reasonableness of any other god but the Judeo-Christian God.
Forget about the "YHWH" for a second. Start from scratch. The evidence is roughly equivalent for each, they all have ancient writings and prophecies (that are confirmed by the writings).
How can you claim that the "YHWH" is "more reasonable" than other gods if you don't even know anything about other gods?
-->
@PGA2.0
Ok, so Saul of Tarsus wasn't stubborn enough to fully exercise his own free-will? Saul of Tarsus was just casually capturing and torturing Christians?And God showed him the error of his ways. Then, when Saul realize he was persecuting the God he served he repented and turned to Him.
Saul of Tarsus didn't exactly have a random epiphany. The "YHWH" sent a hitman to ambush the guy on the road to Damascus.
I get it now, Saul of Tarsus lacked "volition". I guess he was just lucky that the "YHWH" made him into a puppet.He repented when shown the error of his ways. He used his volition.
I'm pretty sure anyone who saw a holy assassin and heard a talking donkey would have leapt to the same conclusion.
Saul of Tarsus was not "seeking the YHWH". That's why it took a holy hit man and a talking donkey to change his mind.He was seeking God, and God revealed Himself. Until that point Saul did not grasp the full extent of who God was, Father, Son, and Spirit.
I'm pretty certain Saul of Tarsus was waylaid and threatened with certain death.
I'm just wondering why, if it worked so well for Saul of Tarsus, why the "YHWH" wouldn't or couldn't do the exact same thing to everyone else?
-->
@PGA2.0
It might be that the moon snuck down one night and scooped up all the evidence so therefore you are right. Do you understand anything outside of your playground rhetoric?That is an ad hom. It implies that my answers are childlike and rhetorical. It avoids answering the question I asked you. So, it attacks the man rather than the question.
It appears to be a mild characterization of your rhetoric specifically and not of you as a person.
It would be similar to someone saying something like, "these atheists don't even know what basic logic is" or "atheists just deny the reality of my god because they won't admit how biased they are", or something like that, which I would consider more of a genuine expression of exasperation rather than a "personal attack" or "insult".
-->
@PGA2.0
(IFF) the "YHWH" was the first and only "thing" to exist,(THEN) everything that is created or shaped by the "YHWH" MUST BE MADE FROM PIECES OF THE "YHWH".False analogy. Is what you create, say a painting, you (a piece of you), or is it an expression from you?
False analogy. I am not a god. I am not the first and only "thing" to exist.
Imagine for a second that you are god, and you pop into existence.
You look around and there is nothing, just you, all alone.
You then decide, hey I should make some stuff.
Do you go to the store and buy some art supplies?
No.
Because there is no store.
You are going to have to make things out of yourself.
-->
@PGA2.0
For example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKkI'll answer these alleged contradictions when I get some spare time.
Let me help you out - http://tektonics.org/film/gameshow.html
The point isn't about whether or not the contradictions can be rationalized.
The point is that all ancient texts have similar contradictions AND similar rationalizations.
-->
@3RU7AL
Everything is made through God's word and spirit.
Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
God does not pop into existence, there was never a time when God did not exist. Time was created by God. God can certainly create from nothing. That is what God does with his Word and Spirit.
But yes, God is in everything. That doesn't mean that a rock is part of God.