Quote:

theory9 said:
If one claims that the physical world is God, where does this evidence come from?



Inconsistency. The standards by which people use to figure out the interior components of reality keep to specific characteristics in scientific theory (i.e. it's uniformitarian). The whole of what is popularly considered "logic" (by secularism) is based upon the idea that there was no God to create the universe we inhabit. Thus it couldn't have been a designer who made us--However, there are things that are veritably unexplainable through scientific analysis and serve as a juxtapostion to other theories supposedly proven by the science in question.

Quote:

The Bible? Epiphanies?



If one were to govern his life and conclusions by "logic" this day and age, a person would conclude that more than one massly practiced philosophy can co-exist within society and still allow the well-being of all the people within it. In other words: You can live your life properly with not just one, but multiple philosphies. However, "properly" would imply a perfect philosophy, one without flaw. In which case, at some point, the way you live your life will come up short and you lose balance. More than that, the fact that there can be only one true and perfect philosophy means that more than one can't co-exist.

The Biblical scripture is the first philosophy ever created and I think I've pretty well established that its the founder of morals--And ethics are the logical extension of said morals. Not only has it been the most successful at maintaining peace in its established society and practitioner (tills its teachings are deviated from), but the wisest individuals of the past, most of whom hadn't anything to do with religion, came to the same conclusions that Judaism and Christianity had (that's as far as epiphanies go). This text was supposedly, as purported from decidedly credible sources, to be God's teachings. His philosophy.

Quote:

Any argument that proves God's existence assumes his existence, and the philosopher closest to marrying logic and faith (Aquinas) gave up this enterprise.



Firstly: Thomas Aquinas was not the only logical Christian. There were many and there are many.

Secondly: He didn't give up any such thing.

Quote:

2. The Bible is not proof of God's existence.



I never tried to say it was. My purpose in arguing about the Bible was to show to r3x, you, and Magicjay that there's more credibility within its pages than you'd care to admit.

You look at a modern history book and see something printed on the page, you'll automatically assume that's the facts of the past event. Why do you trust that book and not the Bible--Even when the Bible is secularly admited as historically valuable? Answer: Because it involves religion. Period. Their apparently best argument against the book's credibility is 'that it happened a long time ago, so no one's sure'. With that kind of reasoning, I could de-stablize the credibility of just about any history book that breaks the 300 year mark--And this would be including the historical artifacts that speak for it (considering that the Bible's evidence is constantly ignored). More to point: My sources for concluding that there is a God aren't logical or credible simply because modern times doesn't want to acknowledge them. So I hope you realize how much I can't appreciate your lip-service for you being the only one here who knows what's logical and what's not.

Quote:

I never said the sites were faked, only that the threshold for legitimate evidence is higher when you consider conventional possibilities.



"Threshold for legitimate evidence"? "Conventional possibilities"?

This is rationalization at its worst. This is the kinda stuff that people say when they don't want to acknowledge historical events in conjunction with the Bible, which are more than merely coincidental. Whatever the scenario is, there is absolutely no God, and therefore any explanation involving his intervention would be scrapped. Nothing that mentions God is "conventional".

This isn't Occam's Razor Theo. This a conversation regarding whether or not God does exist. Meaning we're trying to decide if God should be included in Occam's Razor.

Quote:

4. I have already provided extensive proof of the Catholic Church's "oversights" during WWII; scholars have exhaustively verifed that that Catholic Church committed aforementioned oversights.



Well, I'm sorry you've fallen victim to your own pride (secularist media majority), but your sources are all propogandists who draw to conclusions too quickly because all of their end scenarios involve defaming the Church. None of who you quoted has indisputable evidence of the Church collaborating with the Nazi's. All they have is guilt by association.

Quote:

5. Just like morality/ethics, being respectful and level-headed contains objective standards. Most of the things you say here ("jackass", "dumbass" and others) are things that simply wouldn't say during the course of a legitimate argument, because it weakens your position. You've found a lot of things that simply don't stand up in the face of real debate skills. Good luck, kid.



Whilst I think it hardly matters, I've localized those isults to the certain posters here, including you, who felt like belittling and lying about what I believe in and am arguing in defense of.

r3x is a liar and antagonizer who's arguing simply for the sake of winning an argument. And he hates me.

Magicjay is also an antagonizer who decides to argue against things he knows nothing about smply because they notably speak against whatever he believes in some way. And when he fails to do anything in the way of effectively making a point or at all contradicting me, he tries to be as offensive as possible. And he hates me.

You, whilst not as bad, have shown yourself to be under the same category, within this thread, as those very antagonizers.