cuchulain

You repeat often that you've provided plausible proof, but thats dishonest. You've repeatedly deflected when pressed for that proof and give nothing but personal attacks. A great candidate for ignore, as this useless exchange proves.

It was deleted after i reported the comment about my mental health. Is it a lie, then, that you never considered it? And still got the deflectors going strong about showing where you posted plausible evidence that god spoke through a bush...because you didn't. Which is initially why i said you weren't being honest in your argument. At least i attack the position instead of the person, as per forum guidelines.

There is a large problem in a forum where one member can repeatedly call the other mentally ill, ignorant, arrogant, and ill mannered...yet the moderator takes a stance against the offended member by stating "you didn't define true." True...as defined by the dictionary, for those who know me and my posts often see that I quote that book...True: in accordance with fact and reality.

You believe that making the statement, "God spoke through the bush" is a plausible explanation of the event, or in any way proof that the event occurred? I disagree. You believe I am ill mannered and ignorant? Well...good for you. I am glad to see you aren't in any way rude, or demeaning with your posts.

Reread, please. My initial claim was that I had never seen a burning bush. Do I need to really prove that I didn't see something?

That you believe God spoke through a burning bush does not make such a statement plausible. That is the only point I have found where you might have made a point about a burning bush speaking, or God speaking through said bush anyway...it is a statement. It is not evidence. Do you really have evidence that God spoke through a burning bush? If so...please share. For clarification, I will define evidence. The available body of facts indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Now I will define fact. A thing that is proven to be true. So...I would appreciate seeing evidence that God spoke through a burning bush. First, you will have to prove that the event actually happened. Second you will have to prove that it was God and not some other entity. Good luck!

No plausible explanation I know, but my knowledge limits do not automatically confirm it must be god, merely that I don't know.

Yyou offered a plausible explanation for talking plants? I think you have an issue with dishonesty...

Show evidence of a speaking burning bush.

so the bible wasnt referencing a miracle with the burning bush story? really? or are you beinng dishonest with that piece? i dont believe that plant talks...and isnt it consumed? clearly you try to obfuscate the truth, that there is no evidence of a burning bush SPEAKING....didnt think i'd have to specify the important part of that story, but some simply cant grasp context i suppose.

I don't believe in things until I have a decent reason to do so. I don't have to have perfect evidence, I don't have to have evidence that is iron clad. I don't believe in Unicorns because I haven't seen good evidence that they exist. I don't believe in Zeus, contrary to the fact that I have seen lightning and that it has been in the past ascribed to the actions of said being. I don't believe in Apollo, I see the sun though. No...I don't believe in the biblical version of God, either. I have similar reasoning for not believing in the biblical God as I do in Zeus, or Apollo. I believe science. I can point to Greek and Roman mythology and say...most everything in those books has turned out not to be true. I can point to Christian mythology and say, while there are some historical accuracies in terms of cities that existed, and perhaps some of the people were around, I have never seen a burning bush nor had a divine voice descend from the heavens and tell me anything. I have never seen prayer heal a severed arm or leg. I have never seen a demon or anything remotely resembling this evil that Christians insist is so prevalent. I can point to science and say there are many flaws and errors created in scientific investigation, but at the least the scientists are open to the possibility that they are wrong. I can point to the process in many things that I encounter on a daily basis, things that I use that are based on scientific principles, that without science couldn't exist. This computer is a prime example, as is the internet. As is the fact that I can see, because I wear contacts. As is the fact that my daughter is alive today. Science is inherently bound within so much of everything we do, and we see it work on a daily, even hourly basis. Some insist on calling this faith. Firm belief in something for which there is no proof. That is the very definition of faith. Is there proof that Zeus produces lightning because he is angry? No. There are written testimonies from superstitious ancient people. Is there proof that there was ever a burning bush? No. There are written testimonies from superstitious ancient people. Is there proof that levetiracetam helps prevent seizures? Yes. It has been studied extensively, tested, gone through the scientific process...and it actually produces results that are reproducible. So no...I don't have faith in science.

should have specified the uniited states. my error of omission. appologies. i'm having a debate with someone in ga about how they havent had any such experience recently as they are playing the victim card. thought i would see about others, it got me wondering how much of the claims are true in the u.s.

i get this argument a lot on forums, and the killer of the conversation is usually christian claims persecution. i ask for an example and its crickets. favor...if you can, produce an example of how you as a christian have been persecuted.

i can appreciate that stance, but i still dont believe the christian mythos or in any divinity.

if god exists and wants me to know it, i am sure he can figure out how to convince me before eternal hellfire...if he cares to.