The Ultimate Proof of Creation - Dr. Jason Lisle - Page 13

Now you've hit bottom my friend, know it or not.

The answer that eludes you so defines you.

When your ready to answer the question, you will find the answer to everything else.




 

What I asked you was, could you be wrong about everything you claim to know, and you admit yes, so there for you cannot make claims about me. But there are some things that I can't be wrong about.

First off,
I did not admit I was wrong about anything shtal, where did you get that?

Here you have defined yourself, not I.

I'm sure there are things you are right about shtal, but so far that has not been a part of this discussion.

It is not what you know that is wrong, it is what you do that is wrong.

And your refusal to answer what is a god is a truth in and of itself.

You should know the answer.

 

You see, you give up knowledge when you don't know exactly everything, and that is not what I said, now if you are possible that you don't know everything?

The discussion was going so well.........
Thanks for that part, i enjoyed it, but now it's over, your spent.


I will go back to creation, yes life was created, but how it was created on this planet we disagree on.

Maybe that will break your gaze long enough to recover and get off the merry go round.

No one can know everything, because everything is in motion, a living thing, fluid, constantly changing.
Yet some things never change, that to is a constant.


 

Shtal, perhaps you should stop trying to be Jason Lisle,
he at least SOUNDS as though he makes sense ... even
when he's talking nonsense.

If you don't wish to explain how to define what a 'god' is, then
just
say so.

Too much to expect that you might also tell us why that is.


BTW, how about them Green Tares / Winter Tares  ?

Moons,

You try to tell me that you know things for certain, I said you giving up knowledge, you said you haven't, I ask you for one thing you know for certain and possibility?
I will show you the logical fallacy of yours. There is actually atheistic philosopher burken russel, who exposed this fallacy, and I will explain that to you, look at the first premise, the first premise is "I think", the second premise in order think I must exist and the conclusion is there for I exist, the problem is conclusion that I exist the assume is first premise "I think", in order not to beg the question, the first premise should be the thinking going on, and you cannot get there thinking going on that "I exist", atheist philosopher that refuted this.



 

Now I am completely disappointed in you shtal, once more.

You don't even know what a god is, how can you go on to discuss creation.

This last post is pathetic, you've gone back to old habits, using the words of others.

If you can't get past this we have nothing else to discuss.





 

I just showed you that atheistic philosopher that refuted this syllogism that you used to prove your existence. You don't have to accept what he says, but I am just telling you that it was been refuted, and it's not a Christian that refuted but athiest that refuted.

 

What I say that proof that God exist, is without him you cannot know anything and you display that you cannot know anything. Every knowledge you claim he has revealed himself to you because you can't make sense of knowledge without him.
And I don't say God is knowledge but God is necessary for knowledge because without him you cannot know anything.