Is God constantly trying to convince us of His Existence? (Jesus Christ, testimony)

[Magic Man]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

If that's the case, I'd be hard-pressed to see the point of trying to engage in rational discussion with you.

You haven't seen that already? I know I'm wasting my breath, but it's fun for now.

[Magic Man]

Originally Posted by Michel07

Where in the Bible. I'd be interested to see if the context was wise " in the ways of the world."

Does it matter which "kind" of wise it was? Wise is wise.

[Michel07]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Does it matter which "kind" of wise it was? Wise is wise.

Where though in the Bible?

[Magic Man]

Originally Posted by Michel07

Where though in the Bible?

Can't find it right now. I'll get back to you, probably in a couple of hours, but not sure.

[Michel07]

Originally Posted by mball1297

That is the worst logic I've ever seen on here. That is absolutely a ludicrous conclusion to come to from that premise. Just because something can't be proven true by any methods we know of does not mean it isn't true. For many centuries people believed that the world was flat. They had no reason to believe otherwise, and no hope of ever proving one way or the other. Before it was proven, people who thought the world was round had no proof, and no hope of ever discovering any proof that they were right. As it turns out, the world is indeed round. There were plenty of people proven right about that, but not in their lifetimes. We might be proven right at some later point, too.

Again you interpret my words. I never said " by any methods we know." because God is in my equation. Also you are wrong in suggesting that there was " no hope of ever proving one way or the other" regarding the earth. That's obvious. This is starting to look over your head.

[Michel07]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Hang on... is your response really that God could tell you the answer if He chose to, therefore they're not disprovable?

If that's the case, I'd be hard-pressed to see the point of trying to engage in rational discussion with you.

If God exists and is all knowing don't you think He could? You throw out silly things to make my point look silly but it's not.

[tomspug]

Originally Posted by mball1297

I don't know what that all meant, but... The Bible describes Pilate as wise, but that is irrelevant. My evidence of Pilate being wise is the same source for your evidence that Jesus existed and was who he said he was.

The point was that, just because Pilate didn't know what truth was, let's say, that doesn't mean that Jesus was necessarily the truth.

The point was that Jesus claimed that he was "The Truth". Pilate's response to that was to deny the concept of truth. They are two characters that are incompatible with each other. There is a reason Jesus spoke so few words to him.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Michel07

If God exists and is all knowing don't you think He could? You throw out silly things to make my point look silly but it's not.

It's not so much that it's silly, it's that you're using bad premises and faulty logic to reach it.

For one thing, it's a bit narrow: without any support, you assume that the Christian God could never, under any circumstances, be disproven in any way whatsoever. Do you have any particular reason to make this assumption?

For another, you make an argument that implies that every claim that is unfalsifiable must be false. Aside from the fact that this is oxymoronic in and of itself (since after all, anything that must be false is, by definition, falsifiable), it's a logical leap that you haven't given us any reason to follow you over.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by tomspug

There is a reason Jesus spoke so few words to him.

My interpretation was that this was because Jesus declined to participate in his trial by kangaroo court, not that he and Pilate were incapable of relating to each other.

[Magic Man]

Originally Posted by tomspug

The point was that Jesus claimed that he was "The Truth". Pilate's response to that was to deny the concept of truth. They are two characters that are incompatible with each other. There is a reason Jesus spoke so few words to him.

Thank you for clearing that up. That does make things different. Now, thoug, I really don't know what his original post about that topic means. Would you possibly be able to clarify at all?