larry wrote:
Within all of us is the knowledge of God, it is part of our creation. If you were able to explain yourself and this creation without the supernatural, you would have a point, but the evidence of design and order are prevalent, indicating a designer. That designer we register as God.
So a magician waving a magic wand explains how we came into being? Thats what the supernatural is my friend. Myself, Ill take nature, chemistry, and time...
Quote:
When seeking a first cause for everything, as soon as we come across unexplainable and inexplicable events, we by our created nature acknowledge the source. Fortunately, we have historical human encounters that have been recorded as the demonstrated power of that source.
Huh? If you were a liberal you would be accused of being on drugs now. What source? What makes you think that simply encountering the unexplainable that we have to acknowledge some unknown source?
Quote:
Now you can believe the records of honest humans or you can deny them.
Honest humans? How do you know they are honest? Was Pope Urban VIII more honest than Galileo? When you have only faith to rely on how do you know who is being honest and who isn''t?
Quote:
Denial however requires at least as much evidence against the event as there is for it. Since there are no evidentiary denials of them we have to use them as t***h. If you have proof of unt***h, of course trot it out and we will take a look at it.
The prosecution of Copernicus, Newton, Galileo for starters. Anytime reason has challenged dogma, dogma has clung to unt***h until there was no other possibility but to believe the t***h. And I love how you use psychological Projection to point the finger else where. You might try a little intellectual honesty instead of all this denial...
Quote:
I am a seeker of t***h. There is more evidence for God than against God. At this point, no one has shown any evidence that God does not exist.
Only in your imagination. The only supposed evidence for god is complexity and the argument of design. However, absence of proof is not a proof but an augment from ignorance which is a logical fallacy. You CANNOT use a logical fallacy to prove a logical argument and without a logical argument you have proved nothing. You cannot be a seeker of t***h when the t***h you find is based on a fallacy.