Isn't Satan the tempter? Oh yeah, me too. I watch that video and a few others by Jimi and then play guitar. He's inspiration.
Congrats, you just damned every single scientist that uses carbon-14 dating in their research and every paleontologist to hell. The use of evidence also isn't falling to temptation. Abusing evidence can be tempting. Hiding evidence can be tempting. Manipulating evidence can be tempting. But presenting factual, unmodified, verifiable evidence isn't a crime in your Bible. Why do you get to claim it as one?
That paragraph is so biased that anything said in it is completely irrelavant. Also, if your are going to complain about arguing, then why are you in a debate forum? There are very signifigant reasons to argue about religion, it makes our species look more primitive, and affects many political aspects of our life such as abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage.
What's the point of this debate? Logical responses are useless on illogical/irational beliefs (religion). If someone was to say something happened but the chances of that were 1/2093654 people would falsly claim its a miracle even when it is just the way the events occured.
Obviously God isn't entirely illogical, look at the size of this thread. Its not like you would know miracles were chance happenings, you weren't there for every miracle ever. Don't just assume things.
The "size of this thread" speaks of how difficult it is to disprove god to theists, or the inverse. It's not like you would know miracles weren't chance happenings. (Though i'm sure given enough evidence any real world "miracle" you provide can be explain by science without "godly intervention") So you were there for every miracle ever? Don't assume things. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
1) The size of this thread shows how difficult it is to prove God's existence, not to disprove it. 2) You don't take a positive sentence and switch it to negative because you can't think of something more arguable. I'd love to hear you explain resurrection from the dead with science, other than saying its propaganda. 3) The problem is, I didn't take that stance. Don't twist my wording unless I contradict myself, and in this case I hadn't.
ScarecrowXavier did say 'Or the inverse'. And have you ever seen someone being resurrected from the dead?
Allah did it. No, wait, I actually believe a thermo-electrical pulse given off by the cave salt caused a neuron firing sequence which resurrected him. Or better yet a "Night Of The Living Dead" event occurred and the meteor bestowed Jesus with resurrective abilities. When I ask for an explanation for a miracle and you say, "Goddidit" it means nothing. It's like saying, "How does ice form?" and you reply, "nature did it." Does that solve anything? Can that be considered an explanation? And while we're on the subject how can the inexplainable be used to explain anything? Is that not an oxy moron? Now what is "goddidit" and how can you properly use it? Well, one, it's not an explanation and two, even if it was, it doesn't explain anything. The only proper way to use goddidit is in jest...
My apologies. And no, but its a question to ponder. I'm not talking about Jesus' resurrection, just resurrection in general. I haven't witnessed every instance in the world where a miracle might have happened. Well, nature DID in fact form ice, how it did it is down to specifics, that's just the broad idea. Its like teaching a kindergartener how lightning happens. You can't get down into detail, you just say "clouds do it" and it gives a broad and vague idea. Its not an oxy moron. We can't explain some things on this planet - for example let's say the origination of all matter/energy/space/whatever, but we know that from those things that we could not explain, we still have what is now. There's plenty of paradox's with the English language. For example, "everybody's unique."