Just for the record...
Immanuel Can wrote:
You have, at the minimum, the very "evidence" you demanded -- that you know as certainly as you "know" the Pope is in Rome, that you know God exists.
You say that the way you "know" that the Pope is in Rome is by the testimony of others -- for you say you have not been there yourself.
Yet others also declare their knowledge of God, and tell you that He exists. I would be one of those, but so would all the writers of the Bible, and millions of other Christians and Jews.
So the standard you said you wanted has been fully met. What do you want now?
iambiguous wrote:
Note to others:
The only way most of us might argue that there is not sufficient evidence that the Pope, really, really, really does reside in the Vatican is to suggest something akin to solipsism or sim worlds or dream worlds or something out of the Matrix.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 6:34 pm I don't know if he even looked at it. If he did, he seemed to learn nothing at all from looking.
Blinded by the light, as it were. Instead, the only way others will be applauded for looking at the evidence is if they agree that, in fact, it
is enough evidence to convince them that the Christian God does reside in Heaven. That's the beauty of religion for a lot of us. One simply has to believe that a God, the God is their own God. That's what makes it true...believing it.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 6:34 pm After that, he became determined to try to get me to do for him what he could do for himself...namely, chew down the data from the site for him, and regurgitate it to him. I declined, and have declined since.
I was reluctant at first because it would involve a huge commitment to view and react to all 17 videos.
As for IC "declining" to go here --
viewtopic.php?t=40750 -- all I can note is that even if his assessment of me was correct, what about all the other non-Christians here who might be entirely more receptive to the videos.
But he can't even bring himself to note the evidence that
most convinced him that, scientifically and historically, virtually all of these folks --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- are going to Hell if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior.
While, of course, any number of them will insist that, on the contrary, it is IC who will be damned if he doesn't come around to their own One True Path.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 6:34 pm Now, if you look, you'll see that this thread started with a different topic: namely, what Biggie's test for the existence/non-existence of God might be. He said that stopping all suffering of children would do it, and I was curious as to why he thinks that ought to work for him. But no sooner was he asked, when he reverted to a sort of "regurgitate Reasonable Faith to me" position, and I again brushed that off. All that, you can see from looking at page 1, if you're in doubt.
I'll stick with this:
My guess: if we were to actually wake up to a world in which the truly innocent children no longer suffered and natural disasters were a thing of the past, IC would be among the very first to insist it was all the Christian God's doing.
Come on, can anyone here think of something other than a God, the God who could actually accomplish this?
Perhaps the Pantheists should weigh in here.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 6:34 pm So if you want to know, I can only recommend that you do what Biggie apparently wasn't able to do (or wasn't able to understand, if he did bother even to look); just take a peek for yourself. The site's got short videos, and they're very entertaining to watch, and short. But they give a person a good idea of how the arguments for God go.
This is just confusing. Is he actually saying that I did
not create the thread above --
viewtopic.php?t=40750 -- in order to explore the evidence? Or is he talking about some other evidence.