Eternity is a Paradox

If God either did exist or did not exist, then why are people arguing about it?

He does either exist or not exist. It can't be proven either way, and that is why people continue to argue about it.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

If God either did exist or did not exist, then why are people arguing about it?

He does either exist or not exist. It can't be proven either way, and that is why people continue to argue about it.

You didn't understand; if he fully existed or fully did not, why are there descrepancies between opinions?

You didn't understand; if he fully existed or fully did not, why are there descrepancies between opinions?

Because like I said, there is no proof either way.

if u didn't exist you wouldn't be reading this message.

Guys, you aren't going to win (at least, not in my eyes), because I always have this to fall back on

No BOG, that's where you're wrong.  We won the moment you committed yourself to irrationality.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Guys, you aren't going to win (at least, not in my eyes), because I always have this to fall back on

No BOG, that's where you're wrong.  We won the moment you committed yourself to irrationality.

No, you're wrong, because you'll never convince me that I'm wrong.  Understand?

No, you're wrong, because you'll never convince me that I'm wrong.  Understand?

Thats not the way it works. Being stubborn doesn't make you right. :roll:

The point of a debate is not to convince the other side that you are right. That would be impossible in most cases. The point of a debate is to convince the spectators that you are right. So we win. :wink:

Plus, the very premise of this debate that we're arguing is silly.  All you did was say "I believe this based on no evidence" (i.e. based on faith), "prove me wrong."

Even Kent Hovind can see through this ridiculous argument, as I specifically recall him making fun of your type of argument by saying something like: "I believe a watermelon is blue on the inside until you cut it open, prove me wrong."

Plus, the very premise of this debate that we're arguing is silly.  All you did was say "I believe this based on no evidence" (i.e. based on faith), "prove me wrong."

Even Kent Hovind can see through this ridiculous argument, as I specifically recall him making fun of your type of argument by saying something like: "I believe a watermelon is blue on the inside until you cut it open, prove me wrong."

I have evidence, but it's difficult for me to explain.

I have evidence, but it's difficult for me to explain.

And I have evidence that God doesn't exist, but I won't share it with you. :roll: