Search results

No goo lead to me or anyone else. The term "goo" implies a random collection of lifeless chemicals not intricately designed sperm cells, ovum and countless other things with millions of WILDLY complex biochemical machines working in concert to produce a new human life. Clete

I can understand the sentiment but sound reason is not a matter of opinion. The only thing anyone must prove is the veracity of their own arguments, which includes the veracity of the premises upon which those arguments are built. The only way it would their burden to prove the non-existence of...

You are the problem because I repeatedly invited you to make an argument and what you showed up with is mindless bigotry. You could just as easily posted what you just said and then I would have asked you to establish how that has anything to do with whether any particular Catholic denies one...

Two wrongs do not make a right. Right? If an atheist is being irrational and tries to make a faith based scientific argument, that doesn't give us the right to make the same error. On the contrary, the way to win such a debate would be to point out the atheist's error, not endorse it by copying...

Just as I thought. You've got exactly NOTHING! You show up here, making patently idiot and insulting claims with absolutely no basis whatsoever other than some indefensible anti-Catholic bigotry. Clete

Two things here... First, "God exists" is not a negative so I'm still confused as to your point. Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult here. We just aren't in sync here yet. Second, it is not impossible to prove a negative. That's sort of a common misconception because there are so many...

I agree but simply making that claim isn't an argument, right? And, if you're debating an atheist who doesn't care about Genesis chapter 1 then it would be you who had the burden to prove the veracity of that claim, not the atheist's burden to disprove it because you're the one making the...

No, that isn't how science (or sound reason) works. Theories are perfectly valid aspects of science and of clear thinking in general. You're effectively back to asking them to disprove God's existence again. Evolution is, by its very nature, a naturalistic theory. In other words, the...

Yeah, well there are people here who claim to not ever sin anymore, too! So... Would believe what; that there's no need to reconcile the two? Well, there's confusion on that point anyway, right?

I don't understand the point of the question here. So what if it was written in the present tense?

I don't think that this much is in dispute, is it? Isn't it a main feature of the argument presented in favor of Paul's authorship the idea that since it was written to the Hebrews, that there's no need to reconcile what it teaches to the Hebrews with that which Paul taught to the Gentiles? In...

I'm not so sure that "strong reasons" is accurate but they are reasons and what I love about this post is that it makes an actual argument! I don't have to persuaded to appreciate when people actually engage with something intelligent and substantive. I'd have to say that this is the first time...

So what? That's no surprise, right? You can't prove the false to be true. Did you mean to say, "...any more than they can prove God IS NOT real."? If not then, why would they be concerned about not being able to prove that God IS real? I guess I just don't get the point you're making here.

It might be good for our morale but then again, they can't prove that striped flamingos don't exist, either. Precisely! And so where is the profit in telling them to prove that God doesn't exist? How is not the same? If failing to disprove that the resurrection happened isn't proof that it did...

That's utter stupidity, bordering on outright insanity. Establish that idiotic claim! You won't even try, you idiotic fool! What the Hell am I doing here! This website is 1000% a waste of time!

Welcome to my ever growing ignore list.

Well, then you've got to read it! In fact, I'm going to read it again myself. God bless you, JR! Clete

I agree! That, however, is a different question! The only point with which I disagree is when you tell them that they have to prove that God doesn't exist. They do not have to prove that.

It is not relevant whether they are Catholic! So far as I understand the gospel, there is no requirement to reject Catholic errors, or any other errors for that matter, so long as those errors do not have as a consequence the denial of any of those six points. On what basis do you suggest that...

When did Satan ever confess with his mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge his need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in his heart that God raised Him from the dead? When did he ever do such a thing, Hoping? NEVER! That's when! He not only didn't, but hasn't...