I Know That God Does Not Exist

I looked at your link. I used to enjoy reading about archaeological finds before I became a Christian. My eyes are too bad to read the whole thing. What is your point?ABE: If it's about dating, surely you know I don't accept dating that contradicts the Bible. It's the product of fallen intellect, while the Bible was given to us by God to avoid the problems of fallen intellect.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No. I use the objective scientific evidence you religionists provide.That is this: That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Use caution here, Faith. There are well established requirements for "evidence". And "evidence" is not the plural of "anecdote". Yes. The scientific method. Objective evidence being right at the top of the list.

So much for witness evidence. Might as well just assume nobody ever tells the truth about anything they experience that you can't prove yourself. But of course you only disbelieve the things that oppose your bias. There's an example of irrationality for you. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Doesn't matter what you accept or reject. Facts don't care. Neither do I.Fact: Gbekli Tepe was being built well before your genesis story took place ... by thousands of years.

Your "facts" are just fallen human cogitations and they violate God's revelation so they aren't facts at all. I do care though, too bad humanity keeps getting things wrong. It's very sad.

That's why the courts don't even accept eyewitness testimony anymore without objective evidence. And that witness evidence is only there to corroborate the other more primary evidence.All on its own it means nothing. You got that right. My bias is actual evidence. Not the fake stuff you try to peddle. Yes, I understand you think actual physical objective evidence is irrational. I watch you shuckin' and jivin' in the Flud threads.

Your god's revelation is a bronze age fairy tale. It means nothing to anything in this universe.And the facts we use are only accepted when they can be independently verified as viable, unlike your religionist assertions that cannot, and can never, be validated.No matter how many voices you hear or how many visions you see or how many feels you ... feel, they mean nothing without independent objective corroboration.You have nothing.

Well, I'm sure that eventually, when you get around to it, you'll start to try to pretend to prove your case.

Indeed, we all do make mistakes from time to time.

Cherry-picking? You seem confused as to what you mean by a deity. Is it possible that you have some strange idea of "the idea of god" that somehow can be construed to be rational?I doubt it.But go ahead, tell me what's special about your "idea of god".

When you say "I have never said otherwise" you agree that "you can demonstrate that something isn't there by looking for it and not finding it." Then you say "I have said that not finding something is no guarantee that it doesn't exist" which means you can't demonstrate that something's not there by looking for it and not finding it.

How much you think you know with your fallen mind.I've got a ton of independent corroboration. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

if all you've got is eyewitness testimony that's what even the courts have to go by. You do your best to discover which is the most trustworthy. Throwing it all out would be truly irrational.

Just look at the (Hindu and Buddhist) Tamil suicide bombers who started blowing themselves up way way back in the 1980s.

Looked it up. No Buddhists did that, only Hindus and they attacked Buddhist shrines. Hindus today are continuing to attack those they object to, particularly Christians in India.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.