Will someone tell Phil Parr ( I blocked him because hes a troll) to remove this off topic crud or Ill have to remove him? Phil Parr said: So next time your lunatic religious right- wing wack-a-loon relative ask you to prove that god does not exist, I ask them to prove to you that pink unicorns do not exist. Then use their same logic to prove their god does not exist! ----I conclude First of all this has absolutely NOTHING that I can see that relates to Creationist vs. evolutionary thought again. Obviously someone had bad experiences with religious people and they are really needing to vent. But cmon. You can be an agnostic (meaning you dont have knowledge in this case regarding existence/non-existence of God. And if he hasnt really revealed himself to you or tried to then you have valid excuse to initially assume that position at least. SOME on the other hand must assume an atheist position because they feel its a better word to describe their knowledge that God doesnt exist. As Mr. Parr the troll exhibits above. Use their same logic to prove their God does not exist! LOL. Is this guy mental or what? What logic can you use to PROVE (prove he said) that a creator doesnt exist? Or Pink Unicorns for that matter? Its impossible to prove things dont exist. It is on the other hand irrelevant to assert that things exist unless there is SOME shred of credible evidence. With regard to pink unicorns there is none Im aware of. The fsm... we know who invented him. Hes on my pending friend requests in fact..we went to the same university. lol But a creator? IN COURT OF LAW we call testimonies evidence. Each testimony must be evaluated as to whether it passes credibility standards if there is a single witness. Motivational analysis etc. However when there is a complex story and MULTIPLE witnesses, now we have a much easier task. Because liars always foul up somewhere badly. People have their own agendas. It colors the way they tell a lie often and if there are enough variables then the odds are astronomical that two liars would tell the exact same story. So yes the gospel accounts for instance have a great deal of credibility because 1) there are differences that a person/group trying to correlate fake multiple testimonies would have removed. Because the dumb masses they are trying to fool would think that these are actual errors because they dont think it through. For example the 2 vs. 1 angel reports of Peter and Johns stories. Anyway these artifacts and the history of the sourcing of the books virtually removes any thought that they were simply edited to align. 2) All other things align. And there are a lot of details covered. Obviously Mark wasnt there and he gave some of the same witnesses. But again thats just more confirmation that the stories were consistent . Anyway in a court of law most certainly these testimonies would be considered valid. That many witnesses with that many details aligning would be considered FACT. So there is a lot of evidence that there is a God. History backed by archeology interwoven with accounts of God interacting in a perceivable way. To compare this to pink unicorns is utterly ridiculous and purely a troll move. BUT..its also off topic. This is a group debating creationist vs. evolutionary thought. Mr. Parr isnt trying to debate obviously. He made a pronouncement that he has PROOF there is no God. lol. If he thinks he has PROOF then there is no debate. Does anyone see a reason to leave this guy? I mean like I say I dont really see how this is on topic. Tim Skippy Miller ... glancing at your vid below... youre holding a piece of dark rock of typical stream pebble shape... broken in half.. saying maybe its a turtle egg. What the hell does any of that have to do with the topic either? lol. Maybe I should start posting my stupid atheist tricks series. More on topic than that. Could we clean that stuff up?
Posted on: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:56:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015