Evidence for God

Author: rbelivb 2 years ago

Posts

Total: 191

#181

thett3

Debates: 2

Posts: 2,064

thett3

01.09.2022 09:25AM

-->

@rbelivb

Therefore, you cannot deduce the cause of that feeling from the feeling itself. If you have a general feeling of love or being watched over by a larger being, and you refer to this feeling as "God" - then the relation between the meaning you personally ascribe to God and the religious concept of God still remains completely indeterminate.

To you, not to me. Which is the entire point. We each have our own choice

#182

Stephen

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,616

Stephen

01.11.2022 08:51AM

-->

@Tradesecret

Stephen wrote: I read what you say you have lifted from Wikipedia - the same Wikipedia that you decry and dismiss when anyone else uses it as any kind of evidence to support their claims. I just love those double standards.

Tradesecret wrote: LOL! Please produce a link to me decrying wikapedia?

My word.

Ok then.

This from the man that crows of being taught to "memorise the whole bible from a very early age".

let me remind you Reverend, is this near enough?

Tradesecret wrote: Do you have any support for this from credible experts
Stephen wrote: What would you consider to be a "credible expert"? #39
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/413-who-can-explain-this-verse-to-me?page=2&post_number=39

Tradesecret wrote: Someone who has studied and been peer reviewed by his field. Not wikapedia or an armchair theologian. #40
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/413-who-can-explain-this-verse-to-me?page=2&post_number=40

I just love your double standards, Reverend.

#183

Tradesecret

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,437

Tradesecret

01.12.2022 10:59PM

-->

@Stephen

LOL @ you.

I am not decrying wikapedia. I asked you for some real sources and studies. Wiki has its place. But it is not as a a reliable source. It is useful. It contains lots of information. but it is not corroborated. Nor is it to be relied upon as authoritative.

I use it for definitions - etc. And as a source from time to time. Yet, it is not a primary source. You do understand the difference don't you? Actually I am not sure you do.

#184

Stephen

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,616

Stephen

01.13.2022 06:28AM

-->

@Tradesecret

I am not decrying wikapedia.

Of course you are. And now you have shown to be a hypocrite HERE above>> #182 you are attempting to backpedal and excuse you blatant double standards.

Wiki has its place

It does when YOU to reference it to support your own claims, yet it is unacceptable for anyone else to reference it. Your a fraud Reverend.

#185

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 12,078

zedvictor4

01.13.2022 06:42AM

-->

@Tradesecret

Evidence for GOD.

Is as loose a concept as is the concept of GOD.

Primary sources do not exist.

Other than a fairly firm assumption that something happened quite a long time ago, that can variously be labelled as GOD or BOOM or KPOW or WHOOSH.....Or anything one chooses.

222 days later

#186

Shila

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,006

Shila

08.23.2022 06:38PM

-->

@rbelivb

Evidence for God

Every theistic religion provides the evidence for God and the various ways man has tried to Worship God.

But the personification of God is the individual struggle. Trying to create an image of God that each can personify.

Even Jesus lamented about God on the cross.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?”

#187

Stephen

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,616

Stephen

08.24.2022 06:52AM

-->

@Shila

Even Jesus lamented about God on the cross.
Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?”

Yes indeed, Shila. The son of god losing his faith in god.

#188

Polytheist-Witch