WolfpackN64 said:
I feel like this thread is just going in circles. Anyway: the ontological, teleological and cosmological arguments (as also outlined in the thread). The Cosmological argument being the most logically sound. Couple that with the vast amount of revelations (both biblical and historial) and you have a quite solid foundation. The skeptics and empiricists discard revelation very easily, but if they then claim that God does not exist, the burden of proof is on them. |
Yes, this is going in circles, because I already told you what I think of those. So I take it, that you got none. I don't know why I should bother with revelation. I don't consider the Bible to be a word of God simply because of the contradiction to historical evidence. I.e. Exodus, Massacre of the Innocents... or even the Epic of Gilgamesh. For the latter, I know what the position of apologists is, so we don't have to argue about that.
"The skeptics and empiricists discard revelation very easily, but if they then claim that God does not exist, the burden of proof is on them."
I already said that you are correct regarding this. Yet, from the information I can collect is that you accept claims without evidence simply because you like the sound of it. At least, that is what I see from you reasoning.
Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3







