A theory about God everyone can agree on

[Willum]

Here is a theory about God everyone can agree on and prove.

God died sometime after 1480, he was slain by the combined forces of Death and Satan, whom he threatened to overcome.

These two powerful and subtle forces ensured God was the cause of his own destruction. He never even saw it coming.

Now, why we can all agree on this is:
1. There have been no miracles since Joan of Arc.
2. We can now all agree God does not exist.
3. Death still persists, unvanquished.
4. Evil still exists.
5. This fits all available data.

Am I wrong?

[We_Are_VENOM]

No verification of something that did not happen, is perfect evidence.

It is perfect evidence that according to you, there is no verifiable evidence that it happened.

It does not follow that, therefore, it did not happen.

Simply show the last miracle, if Joan is wrong.
Now also show why death and evil still exists if Jesus and God defeated them.

It would be your refutation that has issues, not the OP, which, if you read other responses, you would see, has been shown to have further more profound impacts than it set out to establish.

Sorry, maybe your god did exist, but doesn't now.
It was prophesied that your god would be the first and last.
He died last.

[Willum]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #51]

It is perfect evidence that according to you, there is no verifiable evidence that it happened.

It does not follow that, therefore, it did not happen.

Well according to that reasoning, you could believe anything. No matter how preposterous, erroneous or ridiculous.
You could believe in talking snakes, magic sin-giving fruit, drowning a planet being a good act, or resurrection.

Only a fool would believe something profound happened because there was no evidence.
Such a person's opinion should be laughably dismissed, out of hand.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Well according to that reasoning, you could believe anything.

Not necessarily.

But more like perhaps maybe you should be more agnostic in your approach here.

No matter how preposterous, erroneous or ridiculous.
You could believe in talking snakes, magic sin-giving fruit, drowning a planet being a good act, or resurrection.

Those acts are childs play to an omnipotent being.

Only a fool would believe something profound happened because there was no evidence.
Such a person's opinion should be laughably dismissed, out of hand.

We get it. You don't find the evidence to be convincing.

Anything else?

[Willum]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #53]

So you claim your imaginary friend is omnipotent?

I bet your dad can beat up my dad too.
That is the reasoning of a child. Dismissed similarly.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well according to that reasoning, you could believe anything.

Not necessarily.

But more like perhaps maybe you should be more agnostic in your approach here.

Rather, it's you who should be more 'agnostic'. Because really not knowing means that you should not believe any one (let alone any particular one) of the various hypotheses without good reason. And good reason is what you have not demonstrated.

No matter how preposterous, erroneous or ridiculous.
You could believe in talking snakes, magic sin-giving fruit, drowning a planet being a good act, or resurrection.

Those acts are childs play to an omnipotent being.

If there is one, for which you have not made a credible hypothesis.

Only a fool would believe something profound happened because there was no evidence.
Such a person's opinion should be laughably dismissed, out of hand.

We get it. You don't find the evidence to be convincing.

Anything else?

Yes, Who is 'We?' Whom do you get to speak for other than yourself? And I can say that 'We' (anyone open to doubt and question rather than closing their mind on a wodge of Faith) won't see the evidence (as presented by you) amounting to squat, let alone being convincing. You may think the name of the game is denial, but that does not make your case look convincing to anyone else.

The more you wriggle and evade and think you are scoring points, the more you re losing points.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Rather, it's you who should be more 'agnostic'. Because really not knowing means that you should not believe any one (let alone any particular one) of the various hypotheses without good reason. And good reason is what you have not demonstrated.

There are never any good reasons to those who are lost.

If there is one, for which you have not made a credible hypothesis.

.......

]
Yes, Who is 'We?' Whom do you get to speak for other than yourself? And I can say that 'We' (anyone open to doubt and question rather than closing their mind on a wodge of Faith) won't see the evidence (as presented by you) amounting to squat, let alone being convincing. You may think the name of the game is denial, but that does not make your case look convincing to anyone else.

The more you wriggle and evade and think you are scoring points, the more you re losing points.

I am just on here doing the work of the Lord...in a way that matches my personality.

If I fail, it isn't because the effort isn't there.

[TRANSPONDER]

Rather, it's you who should be more 'agnostic'. Because really not knowing means that you should not believe any one (let alone any particular one) of the various hypotheses without good reason. And good reason is what you have not demonstrated.

There are never any good reasons to those who are lost.

If I am wrong I don't mind, because i cannot believe that any god worth a damn' would condemn me for an honest desire to know what stacks up. You no doubt think that I was determined to confirm my disbelief. But in the past I have credited a lot until fresh information undermined it. At first (for example) I discovered that the 'babes and sucklings' quote in Matthew was based on the Greek Septuagint, proving that Jesus could not have misquoted it, in reality. But on my former board it was shown to me that the dead sea scrolls agreed with Septuagint and the OT must be mistranslated. I admitted the point right away after I checked. I followed the evidence, not my own preferences. It so happened that I checked again on this forum and found that the OT was right and Matthew mistranslated (matching the Septuagint) and the translation of the dead sea scroll I'd looked at isn't supported by the several i saw while here. So my point is substantiated again, but I followed the best evidence each time. I want to know, not just Believe.

If there is one, for which you have not made a credible hypothesis.

.......

]
Yes, Who is 'We?' Whom do you get to speak for other than yourself? And I can say that 'We' (anyone open to doubt and question rather than closing their mind on a wodge of Faith) won't see the evidence (as presented by you) amounting to squat, let alone being convincing. You may think the name of the game is denial, but that does not make your case look convincing to anyone else.

The more you wriggle and evade and think you are scoring points, the more you re losing points.

I am just on here doing the work of the Lord...in a way that matches my personality.

If I fail, it isn't because the effort isn't there.

Nobody doubts your dedication and effort (not even me, really ) it just so happens that evidence is really not on your side.

[We_Are_VENOM]

If I am wrong I don't mind, because i cannot believe that any god worth a damn' would condemn me for an honest desire to know what stacks up. You no doubt think that I was determined to confirm my disbelief. But in the past I have credited a lot until fresh information undermined it. At first (for example) I discovered that the 'babes and sucklings' quote in Matthew was based on the Greek Septuagint, proving that Jesus could not have misquoted it, in reality. But on my former board it was shown to me that the dead sea scrolls agreed with Septuagint and the OT must be mistranslated. I admitted the point right away after I checked. I followed the evidence, not my own preferences. It so happened that I checked again on this forum and found that the OT was right and Matthew mistranslated (matching the Septuagint) and the translation of the dead sea scroll I'd looked at isn't supported by the several i saw while here. So my point is substantiated again, but I followed the best evidence each time. I want to know, not just Believe.

I already congratulated you on cracking the 2,000+ year case. Don't know what more you want.

]
Nobody doubts your dedication and effort (not even me, really ) it just so happens that evidence is really not on your side.

Right, as it has been established. So, lets all go home and be happy.

[TRANSPONDER]

You are free to go home, if you wish, but I (and my Ilk) aren't going anywhere. We shall stay here and keep arguing our corner.