Demonic Possession!!!

[Baphomet]

Recently, some christians have tried to use cases of "demonic possession" for proof that god exists...

Despite the seeming lack of evidence, and the fact that many times the "possessed" person is just one seeking attention, I have something I'd like to bring up to theist.

You propose that "Satan" or all demonic entities for that matter, are bent on a quest to get as many people into hell as they can...

Now, I ask you this: Why would Satan, or any other demon, possess someone in an attempt to get them to joing their side?

Think about it? Would YOU join Satan if he took over your body and made you convulse and scream and do whatever is possessed people are supposed to do? NO! In fact, what does "possession" do except make a person more fearful of Satan and thus turn more and more to god! In fact, if you think about it, possession only benefits god!

Satan gains nothing. The possessed person, when free, will have a stronger conviction in god. As will the family of the victim and everyone else who saw the person "possessed".

To state simply, if demonic possession is real, Satan gains nothing. I know if he did exists as christians think of him, he would probably be a lot smarter than to hurt those he's trying to get to join him.

If you ask me, because it is god who benefits, I'm guessing if he did exists, these "demonic" possessions would probably be his own doings...

Comments?

[xerxes]

These possesions as you call them are merly a tool of gods love for them he seeking radical methods to prov his existance you afr sinner siiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnneeerrrrrrrrr sinner to the extrerme we are baptist abd we loovers you to death heathens and we only want you to be happy in the love of jesus as we aer we pray for you in all life and love for you for you are the embodiement of us as the week men we are. I will pray for god to love yuo as he is loving me and all christians. IN HIS NAMEE WE PRAY FOR YOU TO COME TO HIM.

[GodlessHeathen]

These possesions as you call them are merly a tool of gods love for them he seeking radical methods to prov his existance you afr sinner siiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnneeerrrrrrrrr sinner to the extrerme we are baptist abd we loovers you to death heathens and we only want you to be happy in the love of jesus as we aer we pray for you in all life and love for you for you are the embodiement of us as the week men we are. I will pray for god to love yuo as he is loving me and all christians. IN HIS NAMEE WE PRAY FOR YOU TO COME TO HIM.
Soooooo. . .punctuation is a sin, then?

Seriously, dude - leave the communion wine alone, and sleep it off.

Quite frankly, I think possession is a bunch of crap. It's a bronze age explanation for various psychoses that we have medical treatment for today.

[Baphomet]

I honestly do believe most possessions are cases in which the person has a mental disorder, or is trying to get attention... "Exorcisms" only work in the cases of the people trying to get attention...

I have to still ask christians, though, where are all the demons today?
And why would Satan possess people if only god benefits?

[Ickybod]

Did you see the exorcism of emily rose? I haven't but I read a little bit about the true story it's based on and the facts behind it prove even more that it wasn't possession. Out of all the millions of souls in hell, what are the chances that the ones doing the possessing are going to be hitler and satan? Come on! Why is it that only the most popular evil forces are always the ones jumping into bodies and wigging out?

And another thing. If someone did escape hell, don't you think they would behave normally so nobody would suspect anything - therefor they could stay on earth a little while longer? Hell, there's a better chance that Bush is possessed than anyone else!

[ShadowWolf1]

Sir I do not mean to offend but I see a distinct lack of knowledge of demon possessions on Baphomet's part. First of all demonically possessed people do not convulse and foam at the mouth all the time, normally only when confronted by God's Word of a faithful devout man of God. Demonic states of mind exist that might appear as rational as any other stae of mind but when the above confrontation happens the demon "vexes" the person as the Bible states because they apparently can't stand God's Word or His faithful people. There are still reports of demonic possessions today but you don't hear about all of them. I suppose you don't because psychology think they have all the answers to mental anomalies. But the point is that Satan manipulates and tries to control everyone but in a very subtle way. He is the father of lies after all. If I were Satan I would want to manipulate people into a state of mind so that they cannot come to the saving knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Recently someone possessed by a demon was being exorcised by some Catholic priest and the demon said through the person, and I paraphrase, "the head of your church couldn't cast me out". So yes when demonic possessed people are exorcised they do have strong faith in God afterward but it was not the intention of Satan for that to happen. I appreciate your thoughts but do you have any evidence to support this? To counter your obvious question of "do you?", yes there are non Christian accounts of demonic possession. So do some studying up of it and learn for yourself and don't take popular notions and movies as truth. On a side note I notice you capitilize Satan and not God, why is that? Thank you for the stimulating post sir, goodnight.

[GodlessHeathen]

OK. . .I'll start here:

On a side note I notice you capitilize Satan and not God, why is that? Thank you for the stimulating post sir, goodnight.
"Satan" is a proper name. "God" is not. There are thousands of gods, of which the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god is only one.

There are still reports of demonic possessions today but you don't hear about all of them. I suppose you don't because psychology think they have all the answers to mental anomalies.
There is another explanation: That these aren't cases of demonic possession at all, but physio-psychological issues, such as imbalances of brain chemicals. Perhaps demon possession was Christianity's way of explaining these issues before science was able to.

I appreciate your thoughts but do you have any evidence to support this? To counter your obvious question of "do you?", yes there are non Christian accounts of demonic possession. So do some studying up of it and learn for yourself and don't take popular notions and movies as truth.
Well, do you have any evidence? Most of the so-called "evidence" presented for demonic possession can be easily refuted, or explained more logically another way. Think about it: If there were clear-cut, irrefutable evidence of demonic possession, wouldn't that constitute proof of god? If that were the case, don't you think there would be fewer atheists and non-Christians?

[ShadowWolf1]

Bornok I welcome your thoughtful insight. Your case is logical against the proposed "demonic possessions". But I ask you, can psycology explain all the aspects of the human mind? Is it anymore acceptable than the Biblical accounts of demonic possession? Science still can't tell us everything about the human mind so it is itself incapable of showing sufficient proof against demonic possession. Where is my evidence? Sir I have none. Neither do I have sufficient evidence to prove Hannibal crossed the Alps but I have heard reports that he did and now should I disregard them because I have no evidence? Should you then disregard demonic possession however many reports there are of it? Also where may I find this clear-cut irrefutable evidence of Hannibal going over the Alps? In fact all of history is false if by this reasoning no matter how many accounts there are of a matter. I shall leave you with that sir.

[ghoulslime]

But I ask you, can psycology explain all the aspects of the human mind? Is it anymore acceptable than the Biblical accounts of demonic possession?
Well, duh! :o Psychology is science. It is predicated on FACT. Can it explain all of the idiosyncrasies of the human mind? No. However, it is based on objective observation. Biblical accounts of demonic possession are most likely the supposition of ignorant people trying to explain occurrences such as epileptic seizures.

Science still can't tell us everything about the human mind so it is itself incapable of showing sufficient proof against demonic possession. Where is my evidence?
One does not prove a negative, you simple-minded fool! :lol: You posited the claim. The burden of proof lies with you. And allow me to interject one more time: you simple-minded fool!

Neither do I have sufficient evidence to prove Hannibal crossed the Alps but I have heard reports that he did and now should I disregard them because I have no evidence? Should you then disregard demonic possession however many reports there are of it? Also where may I find this clear-cut irrefutable evidence of Hannibal going over the Alps? In fact all of history is false if by this reasoning no matter how many accounts there are of a matter. I shall leave you with that sir.
Dogma is dogma regardless of the age. You understand what dogma is?

Let me simplify it for you. (Let me know if it is too hard for you and I will try to use hand puppets to play it out for you.)

“Unicorns live on starlight.” This is a dogma. “Leprechauns make us sleepy by sprinkling our eyes with fairy dust.” This is a dogma too. “There are demons in my head.” This is also a dogma.

“There is an elephant in my living room.” This is a provable claim. “There is dust on the moon.” This is a provable claim too. “Hannibal crossed the alps with elephants.” This is also a provable claim. The amount of time which has transpired since this event occurred makes it more difficult to prove than an elephant in my living room, but it doesn’t make it impossible to prove the validity of this event.

Now, is there anyone here who doesn’t think ShadowWolf1 is a complete retard? :/

[GodlessHeathen]

Bornok I welcome your thoughtful insight. Your case is logical against the proposed "demonic possessions". But I ask you, can psycology explain all the aspects of the human mind?
Not yet.

Is it anymore acceptable than the Biblical accounts of demonic possession?
Yes. What science can explain are things that can be observed and proven. Demonic possession looks to the supernatural for an explanation, which by definition cannot be observed or proven.

Science still can't tell us everything about the human mind so it is itself incapable of showing sufficient proof against demonic possession.
You're invoking a "god of the gaps" argument. "If science can't explain it, it must be god." That's called a false dichotomy.

Where is my evidence? Sir I have none. Neither do I have sufficient evidence to prove Hannibal crossed the Alps but I have heard reports that he did and now should I disregard them because I have no evidence? Should you then disregard demonic possession however many reports there are of it? Also where may I find this clear-cut irrefutable evidence of Hannibal going over the Alps? In fact all of history is false if by this reasoning no matter how many accounts there are of a matter. I shall leave you with that sir.
This is also a specious argument. There is a similar argument going on here (http://www.ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2108).

[Baphomet]

Sir I do not mean to offend but I see a distinct lack of knowledge of demon possessions on Baphomet's part.
Really? According you I don't know about "demonic possession" Because I think it's a psychological problem, or teenagers that want attention?

First of all demonically possessed people do not convulse and foam at the mouth all the time, normally only when confronted by God's Word of a faithful devout man of God.
Why not a devout woman of god? And have you ever seen a demonic posssession?
Demonic states of mind exist that might appear as rational as any other stae of mind but when the above confrontation happens the demon "vexes" the person as the Bible states because they apparently can't stand God's Word or His faithful people.
Again, have you ever seen a demonic possession or are you just saying "My church told me this, so I know it and you don't?" I used to be a christian. I have studied almost every freakin religion on this planet, and have even studied the occult more than most wiccans or kabbalist. And I have yet to believe that christians are anywhere near correct on this issue.
There are still reports of demonic possessions today but you don't hear about all of them.
Really, just like we don't hear about the demon-lizard-aliens in the center of the earth (Icke)? Is the government afraid we'll all realize Satan is real and convert to christianity?

I suppose you don't because psychology think they have all the answers to mental anomalies.
Psychology doesn't have all the answers. But it can be tested and verified. Also it adheres to what we know of science.
But the point is that Satan manipulates and tries to control everyone but in a very subtle way. He is the father of lies after all.
But god manipulates people all the time as well, according to most christians. Satan is the father of all lies? Really? What if he had won the battle in heaven? Maybe then Satan would tell everyone god was the father of all lies... why trust the victors? Victors write the history, remember? How do you know god isn't lying to you?

If I were Satan I would want to manipulate people into a state of mind so that they cannot come to the saving knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
And how would you do that if you were Satan? There are already people on small islands that will never hear of god and burn in hell. They never had a chance, and look, Satan didn't have to do anything.


Recently someone possessed by a demon was being exorcised by some Catholic priest and the demon said through the person, and I paraphrase, "the head of your church couldn't cast me out". So yes when demonic possessed people are exorcised they do have strong faith in God afterward but it was not the intention of Satan for that to happen
Again, I'm pretty sure Satan and his demons are smart enough to know not to keep making the same mistake of "possess and lose" so to speak.

I appreciate your thoughts but do you have any evidence to support this? To counter your obvious question of "do you?", yes there are non Christian accounts of demonic possession.
Yes, I have evidence that they are psychological. Just look up most cases where they actually had a psychologist or a neurologist. Most christian accounts are completely unscientific and no scientists is present. They don't know what to look for, so they will say it's a demon.

So do some studying up of it and learn for yourself and don't take popular notions and movies as truth.
I could rant about Alister Crowley for quite a bit if you would like. I don't mean to be arrogant, but I'm pretty sure I'm more versed in the "occult" than most people.
On a side note I notice you capitilize Satan and not God, why is that? Thank you for the stimulating post sir, goodnight.
"god" is just that... a god. his name is YHVH, but his real name is hidden and known only to himself and Lilith.

[ShadowWolf1]

You all have presented good arguments and therefore I withdraw my arguments for demonic possession. It is only a point of conjecture between Atheist and Theist because Atheist can't believe it. No one can either prove or disprove demonic possession so let's put this argument to rest and move on to other things. One comment from Baphomet I would like to comment on doesn't have to do with demonic possession, "And how would you do that if you were Satan? There are already people on small islands that will never hear of god and burn in hell. They never had a chance, and look, Satan didn't have to do anything.". General Revelation is what everyone has. "What is that? More Christian Dogma?". Perhaps to you but it is the answer to your question. General Revelation is the way the Lord my God shows Himself to everyone. The Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument can be considered General Revelations. Sirs thank you for your comments but this argument is going nowhere for either side so I withdraw from it. Thank you.

[ryansawall]

Here is my little thing.
I am here because I was born into my mother's womb.
I am here because I had to battle Hitler.
Conservation of matter and energy.
Just chance.
Right?
Whatever.
So - get me. I don't care about theism, monotheism, plurality of Gods, whatever.
All I want is for the walls between you and I to come down.

Last night:
Strangest places where potentialities went. All realized.
Tonight. More darkness. I will wait. For what?
Companionships.
Lots of fucking. I love sex. Good sex. Private sex.
Lots of boogying. I am listening to the Eagles, the Long Run right now.

[ghoulslime]

You all have presented good arguments and therefore I withdraw my arguments for demonic possession. It is only a point of conjecture between Atheist and Theist because Atheist can't believe it. No one can either prove or disprove demonic possession so let's put this argument to rest and move on to other things.
I guess that's your face-saving way of saying, "Oops! I can't prove my claim because it is a dogma! And I now realize that these intelligent individuals to whom I posited the claim have no logical imperative to prove a negative!”

No proof of demonic possession!


http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/crazydog.jpg

One comment from Baphomet I would like to comment on doesn't have to do with demonic possession, "And how would you do that if you were Satan? There are already people on small islands that will never hear of god and burn in hell. They never had a chance, and look, Satan didn't have to do anything.". General Revelation is what everyone has. "What is that? More Christian Dogma?". Perhaps to you but it is the answer to your question. General Revelation is the way the Lord my God shows Himself to everyone. .
That must be the way Apollo showed Himself to the believers in His dogma. This is how Allah reveals Himself. This is how Buddhism is revealed to Buddhists.

Why does the god of Abraham reveal himself to Protestants in one way, and to Catholics another way, and to Jews another, and to Muslims another? According to all groups, the others are going to burn in hell.

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/halava-demon_1.jpg

General Revelation is nothing more than self-delusion. Dogmatists need something to fill the huge gap between logic and the tenets of their religions. General Revelation is just another delusion to help bridge the distorted leaps of reason Theists must make to force reality to fit their sick version of it.

The Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument can be considered General Revelations. Sirs thank you for your comments but this argument is going nowhere for either side so I withdraw from it. Thank you.
This argument has been crushed like a worm under my boot.

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/crash.jpg


Boom! Boom! Bang! Another Christian argument falls to pieces.

[Rat Bastard]

You all have presented good arguments and therefore I withdraw my arguments for demonic possession. It is only a point of conjecture between Atheist and Theist because Atheist can't believe it. No one can either prove or disprove demonic possession so let's put this argument to rest and move on to other things.
I guess that's your face-saving way of saying, "Oops! I can't prove my claim because it is a dogma! And I now realize that these intelligent individuals to whom I posited the claim have no logical imperative to prove a negative!”

No proof of demonic possession!


http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/crazydog.jpg

One comment from Baphomet I would like to comment on doesn't have to do with demonic possession, "And how would you do that if you were Satan? There are already people on small islands that will never hear of god and burn in hell. They never had a chance, and look, Satan didn't have to do anything.". General Revelation is what everyone has. "What is that? More Christian Dogma?". Perhaps to you but it is the answer to your question. General Revelation is the way the Lord my God shows Himself to everyone. .
That must be the way Apollo showed Himself to the believers in His dogma. This is how Allah reveals Himself. This is how Buddhism is revealed to Buddhists.

Why does the god of Abraham reveal himself to Protestants in one way, and to Catholics another way, and to Jews another, and to Muslims another? According to all groups, the others are going to burn in hell.

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/halava-demon_1.jpg

General Revelation is nothing more than self-delusion. Dogmatists need something to fill the huge gap between logic and the tenets of their religions. General Revelation is just another delusion to help bridge the distorted leaps of reason Theists must make to force reality to fit their sick version of it.

The Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument can be considered General Revelations. Sirs thank you for your comments but this argument is going nowhere for either side so I withdraw from it. Thank you.
This argument has been crushed like a worm under my boot.

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/crash.jpg


Boom! Boom! Bang! Another Christian argument falls to pieces.
:lol::cool:

Hey, that dog reminds me of my first wife! Just kidding, dear....ouch! Is that cat "praying" to "dog"?

[Ickybod]

ShadowWolf1 wrote:

But I ask you, can psycology explain all the aspects of the human mind? Is it anymore acceptable than the Biblical accounts of demonic possession?
This is what annoys me. As soon as science doesn't have an answer for something, christians claim god is behind it. This is the stupidest argument they can make. Many years ago, sickness was attributed to demons and curses. Is that to say that science would never heal them because they couldn't back then? No! Science is a progressive understanding. We don't accumulate everything through one look at the situation. There's no cure for AIDS yet. Is that to say AIDS is a form of demonic possession that is transmitted through sex and blood? Or is it just that science has yet to find a cure? People who have the kind of reasoning skills that you possess are the reason this country is still fighting to seperate church and state. Perhaps you're possessed...

[Baphomet]

I believe demonic possession is a clinical condition, because it has been treated and healed with psychotherapy and in some cases, medication.
Exorcisms are sometimes just a form of psychotherapy.

[ShadowWolf1]

Ghoulslime I would like to direct my reply to you sir. I seen that this argument was going nowhere so I withdrew from it. I abandoned a sinking ship so to say. But if "Dogmatists need something to fill the huge gap between logic and the tenets of their religions" then Evolutionist need miracles to fill their gaps. Present your evidence for your "crushing" of the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments. I would very much like a proper debate where evidence is presented. Good day sir.

[ghoulslime]

Ghoulslime I would like to direct my reply to you sir. I seen that this argument was going nowhere so I withdrew from it. I abandoned a sinking ship so to say. But if "Dogmatists need something to fill the huge gap between logic and the tenets of their religions" then Evolutionist need miracles to fill their gaps. Present your evidence for your "crushing" of the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments. I would very much like a proper debate where evidence is presented. Good day sir.
“I seen that this argument was going nowhere…”:lol:

I would very much like a proper debate where everybody knows how to conjugate their verbs.

I’m still waiting for YOU to provide evidence for demonic possession, but I have a quick three minutes to expose a Christian fallacy.

Let’s start with the Cosmological Argument.

To refresh the memories of those who don’t read up on Christian stupidity:

The cosmological argument is the argument that the existence of the world or universe is strong evidence for the existence of a God who created it.

The existence of the universe, the argument claims, stands in need of explanation, and the only adequate explanation of its existence is that it was created by God.

The Simple Cosmological Argument

(1)Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists. Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God. Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Ghoulslime’s 10 second refutation: If god exists, and everything that exists has a cause of its existence, what is the cause of God’s existence?

Whatever your answer is to this question is the answer to the question of where the universe originates.

It never ceases to amaze me how stupid theists are! :lol:

(Let me in know when you are ready to take it in the ass with the teleological argument.)

[ShadowWolf1]

God is outside of the universe therefore the natural laws of this universe don't apply to Him. Besides all your refutation does is state the Cosmological Argument is true therefore making yourself a Theist and just presenting another question. Good night to you sir.

[GodlessHeathen]

The Simple Cosmological Argument

(1)Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists. Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God. Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Ghoulslime’s 10 second refutation: If god exists, and everything that exists has a cause of its existence, what is the cause of God’s existence?
In my opinion, the greater problem with that argument is the gigantic leap of faith in #4 - if the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God. That's a pretty long leap.

God is outside of the universe therefore the natural laws of this universe don't apply to Him.
And you know this how? If god created the universe, that means he created the natural laws of the universe. Therefore, how could they not apply to him?

Besides all your refutation does is state the Cosmological Argument is true therefore making yourself a Theist and just presenting another question.
He didn't prove it true. Just what are you getting at here?

[Kamikaze189]

God is outside of the universe therefore the natural laws of this universe don't apply to Him.
That's such a cop out.

Real answer please. :)

[Tenspace]

Did you see the exorcism of emily rose? I haven't but I read a little bit about the true story it's based on and the facts behind it prove even more that it wasn't possession. Out of all the millions of souls in hell, what are the chances that the ones doing the possessing are going to be hitler and satan? Come on! Why is it that only the most popular evil forces are always the ones jumping into bodies and wigging out?

And another thing. If someone did escape hell, don't you think they would behave normally so nobody would suspect anything - therefor they could stay on earth a little while longer? Hell, there's a better chance that Bush is possessed than anyone else!
Anyone here familiar with SF writing Peter Hamilton? His "Night's Dawn" trilogy weaves science and the afterlife together. Basically, everybody goes to hell, where your thoughts are raped by all the other "souls" looking for new experiences. A tear in the fabric of spacetime allows souls to possess living humans. It's all written in the Space Opera format (think Star Wars), but the characters, technology, and associations with supernatural are leagues above any Star Wars screenplay.

It's really good stuff.

[Tenspace]

God is outside of the universe therefore the natural laws of this universe don't apply to Him.
Then how can God interact with this universe. The laws may not apply to God, but they apply to our reality, our existence, and in order for him to interfere, interact, or just observe, then our laws would have to apply to Him.

[nakedatheist]

Ghoulslime I would like to direct my reply to you sir. I seen that this argument was going nowhere so I withdrew from it. I abandoned a sinking ship so to say. But if "Dogmatists need something to fill the huge gap between logic and the tenets of their religions" then Evolutionist need miracles to fill their gaps. Present your evidence for your "crushing" of the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments. I would very much like a proper debate where evidence is presented. Good day sir.
I think we found the missing link...he's posting here! Quick! Let's freeze dry him and preserve him for all future generations...

ShadowWolf1, you would very much like a proper debate where evidence is presented...and we would very much like the same. The problem is that I can walk outside and point to evidence in the observable world around us and you have to invent it and couch it in capitalized buzz words that don't add up to diddly squat.

Hmm...the evidence for the crushing of your arguments comes from reading the previous posts you silly, silly man. I like you - so I lift my glass again and toast to you and the obvious benefits of self-imposed delusion.

[ghoulslime]

God is outside of the universe therefore the natural laws of this universe don't apply to Him. Besides all your refutation does is state the Cosmological Argument is true therefore making yourself a Theist and just presenting another question. Good night to you sir.
By answering me directly, sincerely, and politely, you’ve earned my limited respect. I will try to respond as delicately as possible so as not to denigrate you further.

What I have done, to the delight of those who have a fundamental grasp of logic, was to take CHRISTIAN logic and show the great big gaping hole in it.

YOU believe the Cosmological Argument is true. Let’s follow YOUR logic.

Christian side-shuffle won’t work. The question is very clear. The rules are Christian rules. And the answer comes from you.

Let’s review one more time so we don’t lose focus.

The Simple Cosmological Argument

(1)Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists. Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God. Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Ghoulslime’s 10 second refutation: If god exists, and everything that exists has a cause of its existence, what is the cause of God’s existence?

Your answer: God is outside of the universe therefore the natural laws of this universe don't apply to Him.

And the answer to my question: The foundation of the universe is outside of the universe therefore the natural laws of this universe don't apply to it.

So we have our answer to my question and we have also proved the fallacy of the Cosmological Argument! :)

Thank YOU for proving the Cosmological Argument incorrect!


Explanation for the logically-challenged readers: The first premise of this argument states that: (1)Everything that exists has a cause of its existence. However, Shadowwolf has provided an example of something that exists without a cause of existence. Therefore, the first premise of this argument is flawed. Therefore, the entire argument is flawed.


Would you like to try again with a different answer? Ghoulslime is always happy to share logic where he can! :D



THE GHOULSLIME ARGUMENT

If god exists, and everything that exists has a cause of its existence, what is the cause of God’s existence?

Whatever your answer is to this question is the answer to the question of where the universe originates. :lol:




And as a final note: I can provide measurable proof of the existence of a universe. Can you provide the same degree of proof for the existence of ANY god?

And good day to you, sir! It is refreshing to find a Theist who is honest enough to stand and debate. ;)

[nakedatheist]

God is outside of the universe therefore the natural laws of this universe don't apply to Him. Besides all your refutation does is state the Cosmological Argument is true therefore making yourself a Theist and just presenting another question. Good night to you sir.
I am outside of this post, therefore the natural laws of posting don't apply to Me. Besides all you refutation does is state the Retardological Argument is true therefore making yourself a Moron and just presenting another facet of your delusion. Goodmornin' to ya, laddy.

[Choobus]

what is the point arguing about the logical properties of God when by definition they need not apply to God since she created everything, including logic and can thus just as reasonably be postulated to have the ability to violate them as she can be to follow them? In short, the theists have the upper hand because they cannot be proved wrong, but in reality they have no argument because all things are equally possible and so to hold any specific belief is meaningless and arbitrary.

What say you shadowwolf?

[Rat Bastard]

Man, if this life is a freakin' video game. I WANT MY QUARTER BACK! :lol:
(edited to add the word "life", and:
If you want to see something complicated made from something simple, take a look at Steven Wolfram's new book, "A New Kind of Science". But get it from the library, I am sure the church elders don't want you to spend 1.5 hard on a book that they would like to ban if they new about it. But I will make it easy on you: his whole premise is that simple starts can make complicated results. Sperm and egg would be a classic example of this: "Little tiny instruction set makes complicated human." Acorns make oak trees. Get it? It does not take a great, big, thundering god creature to make beings less complex that him.

[GodlessHeathen]

GodlessHeathen I would like to reply to your two refutations of what I said. First you say "And you know this how? If god created the universe, that means he created the natural laws of the universe. Therefore, how could they not apply to him?" but think about it this way. If you made a computer game would you be inside it and under it's laws? No that makes no sense. So if God made the universe then He is outside of it and is not under it's laws. Secondly I never said he proved it was true. I said he stated it was true and just presented another question. Ghoulslime now I would like to direct my comments to you sir. The answer to your question can only be a theory because I have no proof of what caused God. If you continue the same thought from my computer game metaphor then think about this. If the universe is the "computer game" that God has made then how can we know what is outside of it? Does Counter Strike know what is outside of it? Can it know? No it can't because it is to limited. Are we not limited too? Can we know what is outside of the universe? No but we can know that it was caused by something outside of it. But we can't know what caused the "Causer" outside of the universe. In other words we will never know what caused God just like we will never know what is outside of the universe while we are in this life. Tenspace now I would like to address your exellent observation sir. Back to the computer game metaphor. A gamer (us) in Counter Strike (universe) is restricted to the laws of that game. But the administrator (God) of the Counter Strike game have access to commands the gamers don't such as: kicking of players, banning of players, punishing of players, moving of players, changing the physics of the game, and many many other things the gamers can't do. In other words God can do things we can't and the natural laws don't apply to Him. I welcome your intelligent arguments. Good day to you sirs.
Hmm. . .for a Christian, you seem to know an awful lot about Counter Strike. . . .:)

Humans are not a computer program. Humans are capable of learning and applying knowledge. Computer programs cannot really do this - they can only do this to the extent that the programmer has anticipated.

[ghoulslime]

GodlessHeathen I would like to reply to your two refutations of what I said. First you say "And you know this how? If god created the universe, that means he created the natural laws of the universe. Therefore, how could they not apply to him?" but think about it this way. If you made a computer game would you be inside it and under it's laws? No that makes no sense. So if God made the universe then He is outside of it and is not under it's laws. Secondly I never said he proved it was true. I said he stated it was true and just presented another question. Ghoulslime now I would like to direct my comments to you sir. The answer to your question can only be a theory because I have no proof of what caused God. If you continue the same thought from my computer game metaphor then think about this. If the universe is the "computer game" that God has made then how can we know what is outside of it? Does Counter Strike know what is outside of it? Can it know? No it can't because it is to limited. Are we not limited too? Can we know what is outside of the universe? No but we can know that it was caused by something outside of it. But we can't know what caused the "Causer" outside of the universe. In other words we will never know what caused God just like we will never know what is outside of the universe while we are in this life. Tenspace now I would like to address your exellent observation sir. Back to the computer game metaphor. A gamer (us) in Counter Strike (universe) is restricted to the laws of that game. But the administrator (God) of the Counter Strike game have access to commands the gamers don't such as: kicking of players, banning of players, punishing of players, moving of players, changing the physics of the game, and many many other things the gamers can't do. In other words God can do things we can't and the natural laws don't apply to Him. I welcome your intelligent arguments. Good day to you sirs.
It is refreshing, sir, to see that you acknowledge any attempt to prove the existence of a creator of the universe by logic is indeed futile. Logic is the bane of theism. Logic is only as valid as the facts upon which it is predicated. I think I have demonstrated this sufficiently with the Cosmological Argument. Since you are consistently sincere and polite in your response, let’s put this game of logic behind us and continue with this new angle of reasoning which you posture.

On to existential meandering then…

As Atheists, we do not claim to understand all there is to know of this truly strange universe we find ourselves in. Could there be a god? Sure. Could there be an eternal life force from which all living things spring? Sure. Could this universe simply be a single cell in a vast living entity? Sure. Can we know any of this from our present place in time and space? As you have so sagely pointed out: no!

We can only know for certain what we can observe and measure. To fill in the gaps in our knowledge, we theorize and try to prove or disprove our theories. There is no proof that we have a sentient creator. We can pretend there is. But it doesn’t change the fact that we have NO proof. We are in the “computer game”. We can only observe the functionality of the game and attempt to understand the process which brought it into being. We do this best by being honest and objective. What do you call an honest theist? An atheist!

The main difference between theists and freethinkers is that freethinkers accept the fact that we have finite knowledge of our universe. We do not subscribe to superstition and dogmas. If you can provide me with any substantial proof of the god you believe in, then I would be a Christian tomorrow!

Aside from ancient folklore, pseudo-science, idle threats of punishment, false promises of reward, and a happy feeling in your tummy, what proof do you have of a god, any god?

You said:

“Can we know what is outside of the universe? No. but we can know that it was caused by something outside of it.”

How do you know there is an outside of the known universe?
And how do you know what, if anything, caused it?

And the circle returns to logic…

[miata]

These possesions as you call them are merly a tool of gods love for them he seeking radical methods to prov his existance you afr sinner siiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnneeerrrrrrrrr sinner to the extrerme we are baptist abd we loovers you to death heathens and we only want you to be happy in the love of jesus as we aer we pray for you in all life and love for you for you are the embodiement of us as the week men we are. I will pray for god to love yuo as he is loving me and all christians. IN HIS NAMEE WE PRAY FOR YOU TO COME TO HIM.
Welcome and thanks for your love. I will sleep better knowing you are looking out for me. lol

[Ickybod]

ghoulslime wrote:

What do you call an honest theist? An atheist!
This is my new favorite quote! Hysterically true! :lol:

[ShadowWolf1]

Choobus I welcome you to this discussion. Sir permit me to comment on your claims. Why would God violate logic? What reason would there be in it? God has the ability to do all things except lie and fail. If He violated His own logic then He would fail to be God. So how could God even violate His own logic? Thank you sir for your comments. Ghoulslime permit me to comment on your statements. From your second paragraph you seem to be an Agnostic and not an Atheist since you admit you don't know if there is a God out there. Your third paragraph shows why Atheist and Theist are at odds with each other. I disagree however that we can only know something by observation and measurement because you can't observe or measure wind can you? Now your fourth paragraph is disagreeble becaue you are stereotyping. Even though I am a Theist I know I have finite knowledge of the universe and even the Bible doesn't reveal all knowledge because all knowledge cannot be contained in one book. There are things I do not know about God and never will till go to be with Him. I have no proof that God exist anymore than I have proof there is wind but I see it's effect on the world so I take wind to be a fact. By simply looking at the effect God has on the world everyone should know He exist but it is only counted as a "belief" instead of a fact like wind. This post has taken me a long time to type and it is becoming more apprent to me that there needs to be a debate set up between me and one Atheist off of these forums. Would any of you like this? Good day to you sirs.

[Choobus]

your logic is faulty shadowboy. I said that god is not a priori bound by the rules of logic since she created them and therefore any description of god based on logic oculd be circumvented by god if she chose, and that no description is therefore valid since we are contrrained by these rules of logic. Thus, any description of god limited by these rules (that is, created by humans) is bogus.

Good day to you sir.

[Baphomet]

Actually, ShadowWolf1, I would like to propose something:

As you talk about god being outside of logic, I would like to bring up a point:
You are on to something:

According to ancient Egyptian lore, the one true God (not the god of the christians, as they have been led astray by the evil Set) created himself.

Now, this may not make any sense at first, but when you look closely, you come to understand how this is possible.

Logic did not exist yet. Nothing did. Thus, the One true God (Who later gave birth to Osiris, Isis, Set and Nepthys) was able to create himself because he is also outside of logic.

Not only were the Egyptians able to explain everything, but their truths are still valid today. Unfortunately, the evil Set possed as the deity "yahweh" and led the Israelites astray when he created a religion to lead everyone away from the true Gods.

Now can you refute that? Of course you can't! And don't try to use the bible. Set inspired that book as well, and he is a god, so thus he is clever enough to make sure it is believeable.

[ShadowWolf1]

I am sorry for misunderstanding sir. By your reasoning I gather that no human can describe God because of our rules of logic. That means the only way to know God is if He describes Himself to us. Only in the Theistic religions' holy books does God describe Himself so therefore the only way to know the details of God is to read the Qua'ran, the Jewish Bible, or the Christian Bible (which includes the Jewis Bible). Good night to you gentlemen.

[GodlessHeathen]

I disagree however that we can only know something by observation and measurement because you can't observe or measure wind can you?
You bet you can. Wind speed, wind direction, any particles carried by the wind, any damage the wind does or effects of the wind on objects, and with an electron microscope, you can actually see the molecules that make up the air.

[snap crafter]

I disagree however that we can only know something by observation and measurement because you can't observe or measure wind can you?
You bet you can. Wind speed, wind direction, any particles carried by the wind, any damage the wind does or effects of the wind on objects, and with an electron microscope, you can actually see the molecules that make up the air.
Oh snap, someone just got burned.

[Tenspace]

God is outside of the universe therefore the natural laws of this universe don't apply to Him. Besides all your refutation does is state the Cosmological Argument is true therefore making yourself a Theist and just presenting another question. Good night to you sir.
I have a hard time believing that you really think anyone who subscribes to BBT is a de facto theist. Think about it for a sec.

If there is an origin to our universe, as many of us believe, then why doesn't science address it?

Because our universe is not observable prior to a few milliseconds after its creation. We are not looking at the why... we are concerned with the how. Why? Because understanding how leads to understanding why. (Writing that paragraph gave me a headache. :))

[Tenspace]

Tenspace now I would like to address your exellent observation sir. Back to the computer game metaphor. A gamer (us) in Counter Strike (universe) is restricted to the laws of that game. But the administrator (God) of the Counter Strike game have access to commands the gamers don't such as: kicking of players, banning of players, punishing of players, moving of players, changing the physics of the game, and many many other things the gamers can't do. In other words God can do things we can't and the natural laws don't apply to Him. I welcome your intelligent arguments. Good day to you sirs.
You know, at first I was hesitant to continue with the video game analogy because there are many dissimilarities with reality, however, you do bring up a very valid point - let's see if I can elucidate.

I, too, have considered the video game analogy. But my search for the truth behind reality, the man behind the curtain, is on a completely different level as yours. Let me explain: when I think of the reality/video game analogy, my search for understanding comes not at a cultural or social level, but at a physical level. Your descriptive actions show interaction between the admin (God), and the players (us).

Now, this is a crucial point, and IMHO, truly reflects the difference in worldviews between atheist and theist: I compare Planck-scale physics to pixels, free will & the arrow of time to the logical potential branches from a code segment in a specfic configuration. In other words, we both compare life to video games; your analogy focuses on the inside/outside relationship in human terms, whereas I'm looking, so to speak, for a seam, a dog-eared corner to reality, that I can peel back and get a peek at Nature's pixels.

To bring this 'round to my original point, the game's admin, or the lonely guy sitting in front of The Sims, must interact with the game. What we view as pixels, to the players or in-game characters in this analogy, would be their reality (in the EM spectrum, anyway). So, there is a common interface, involving a screen, mouse, and keyboard. The "God" of Counterstrike must communicate with the internal characters using these interface tools.

What is God's interface with Man? Apparently, he forgot the password, since He hasn't used it in a couple of thousand years. :)

[Ickybod]

When a theist debates properly, these forums can actually be quite fun to read! :)

[Baphomet]

ShadowWolf1 Wrote:

I am sorry for misunderstanding sir. By your reasoning I gather that no human can describe God because of our rules of logic. That means the only way to know God is if He describes Himself to us. Only in the Theistic religions' holy books does God describe Himself so therefore the only way to know the details of God is to read the Qua'ran, the Jewish Bible, or the Christian Bible (which includes the Jewis Bible). Good night to you gentlemen.
Well, yes, you could say that we cannot understand god because he is beyond logic, and thus does not apply to our logic, but likewise, we could say that the Egyptian deities are beyond logic, thus, we may think of them as being impossible, but they are actually true.

You bring up a very good point when you say "...the only way to know God is if He describes Himself to us. Only in the Theistic religions' holy books does God describe Himself so therefore the only way to know the details of God is to read the Qua'ran, the Jewish Bible, or the Christian Bible (which includes the Jewis Bible)"
The reason I adress this comment is, like I said, you make a good point. The only way we can know god according to most, are holy texts. This presents a problem. How do we know he is not lying? How do we know these aren't the trick of the evil god Set in disguise, leading us away from Osiris?
In fact, because we can only derive our views on the nature of god from texts, this is why I believe one true god does not exist. Namely, because according to the bible and other holy texts, he is all knowing, all good, and all loving. Now, there is evil in the world according to the holy texts. That is impossible with a god of all three "omni" qualities. You can try and use the "freewill" argument, but that has been disproved so many times in so many ways, you should probably look up the refutations before you consider posting it.
Think of it this way: Suppose there was a textbook that said "All red objects are round" but then suppose later it says "there are round balls that are red". You would then realize this theory is untrue. Likewise, when we are told "god is all powerful, all good, and all knowing" but then hear that there is sin and opposition to him, it is obvious that there is something wrong. Either sin doesn't really exists in which case god is lying, or god is not all poweful or all knowing.

Another thing.
None of the Egyptian Gods were all-powerful. To me, that seems to make more sense than the Christian relgion in explaining why there is evil. Even the Gods still fight. Also, if they are beyond logic, they cannot be disproved, and are only revealed to us through the sacred writings of the ancient Egyptians.
Of course, I don't worship the Egyptian Gods, but following your train of thought, why is it you don't follow the Egyptian Gods?
After all, they can't be disproven (as they are beyond logic) and the problem of evil is explained (something the christian religion has never been able to adequately explain)

[Ickybod]

In short. God is beyond logic so any logic for believing in him is useless. You say the only way we can understand god is through holy books but how would you know that what your studying is what god wants you to believe? He's beyond logic so those holy books might actually be a test created by god to see who is foolish enough to believe in them and when people do, an eternity of hell awaits. You never know...

[RenaissanceMan]

Shadowwolf1 wrote:
Tenspace now I would like to address your exellent observation sir. Back to the computer game metaphor. A gamer (us) in Counter Strike (universe) is restricted to the laws of that game. But the administrator (God) of the Counter Strike game have access to commands the gamers don't such as: kicking of players, banning of players, punishing of players, moving of players, changing the physics of the game, and many many other things the gamers can't do. In other words God can do things we can't and the natural laws don't apply to Him. I welcome your intelligent arguments. Good day to you sirs.

Ok, in that example, even the non-believers could readily see the result of the action, which would bring the action into the laws of the game. In our case... the action would be via natural law that could be observed and studied. Just because you don't understand all the rules, doesn't mean you can't observe the actions and form hypothesis. Oh wait! That's now science works!

[Baphomet]

ShadowWolf, back to the computer analogy.

That was actually a very good analogy, and I compliment you for making it. Seriously, it's something most of can understand at some level, but I would like to bring up a point.

If a being (admin/god) is beyond the system (game/universe), then that would explain how s/he/it could be beyond logic. However, back to the analogy.

If people are being bad in a game, such as doing lots of stuff they are not supposed to (whatever that may be) the admin will ban them. Likewise if there is an all powerful and all knowning being that is also all good, nothing bad will ever happen. Don't use the "but we have freewill argument" because that has been refuted. If you really want to use it, though, use it, and I will explain why it fails.

In other words, if you are playing a game, and people are doing all sorts of things they shouldn't, you can be sure that either the admin is not there (god not real), they don't know about it (god not being all knowning), they can't do anything about it (god not being all powerful), or that the admin doesn't care (god not being all good.)
Likewise, the problem of sin. If there is a god with all three "omni" qualities, sin cannot exists. According to christians, sin does exists, so god isn't there (or doesn't care, or doesn't know, or can't do anything)

[ghoulslime]

Choobus I welcome you to this discussion. Sir permit me to comment on your claims. Why would God violate logic? What reason would there be in it? God has the ability to do all things except lie and fail. If He violated His own logic then He would fail to be God. So how could God even violate His own logic? Thank you sir for your comments. Ghoulslime permit me to comment on your statements. From your second paragraph you seem to be an Agnostic and not an Atheist since you admit you don't know if there is a God out there. Your third paragraph shows why Atheist and Theist are at odds with each other. I disagree however that we can only know something by observation and measurement because you can't observe or measure wind can you? Now your fourth paragraph is disagreeble becaue you are stereotyping. Even though I am a Theist I know I have finite knowledge of the universe and even the Bible doesn't reveal all knowledge because all knowledge cannot be contained in one book. There are things I do not know about God and never will till go to be with Him. I have no proof that God exist anymore than I have proof there is wind but I see it's effect on the world so I take wind to be a fact. By simply looking at the effect God has on the world everyone should know He exist but it is only counted as a "belief" instead of a fact like wind. This post has taken me a long time to type and it is becoming more apprent to me that there needs to be a debate set up between me and one Atheist off of these forums. Would any of you like this? Good day to you sirs.
Shadowwolf, please read this very slowly and carefully, and do your very best not to misconstrue the meaning too much.

I do not believe there is a supreme being. I allow for the possibility, because I am intellectually honest. I also allow for the possibility of the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, goblins, and talking trees. However, I believe the probability for these creatures existing is next to nil. I am certain that humans presently possess no evidence for the existence of unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, goblins, talking trees, or gods.

Alright, enough of this amusing digression! Let’s step back on to the straight and narrow path that I have been guiding you along.

I asked you: “Aside from ancient folklore, pseudo-science, idle threats of punishment, false promises of reward, and a happy feeling in your tummy, what proof do you have of a god, any god?”

You answered: “I have no proof that God exist anymore than I have proof there is wind but I see it's effect on the world so I take wind to be a fact. By simply looking at the effect God has on the world everyone should know He exist but it is only counted as a "belief" instead of a fact like wind.”

Translation from Christian-speak to English: I have no proof. I only believe.

And this, kind sir, illustrates the fundamental difference between theists and freethinkers. For the most part, freethinkers try to base their beliefs on fact, and express those ideas in a manner which conforms as much as possible to logic. Theists seem to lack the intellectual ability or honesty to distinguish between facts and beliefs, and purposefully convolute their ideas so as to mask their general lack of logic.

If you cannot tell the difference between something measurable such as wind, and something theoretical such as god, it is my assertion that you lack the basic level of cognitive efficacy to engage me in any serious debate. Indeed, you seem oblivious to the fact that my primary purpose in this exchange was not to prove anything to you, but rather to dissect your twisted thought process to the delight and edification of my fellow Atheists.

Before I continue with any further dialog, I must insist, sir, that you demonstrate a primary grasp of higher reasoning. Towards this end, I have prepared this examination for you:

GEBRSPDG Test

General Examination of Basic Reasoning Skills in Preparation for Debating Ghoulslime

Please circle the best answer.

1. Unicorns Real Imaginary
2. Wind Real Imaginary
3. Pinecones Real Imaginary
4. Leprechauns Real Imaginary
5. God of Abraham Real Imaginary
6. Vishnu Real Imaginary
7. Oxygen Real Imaginary
8. Tooth Fairies Real Imaginary
9. Abraham Lincoln Real Imaginary
10. Apollo Real Imaginary

[Baphomet]

Actually, they really do have unicorns.

No joke, they were made from a goat. When it was young, they surgically removed one horn, and then transplanted the other into it's forhead.

Strangely enough, it actually grew larger because the horn hit some part of it's brain that stimulated a growth hormone...

not really a unicorn, then. More like a large goat with one horn in the center of it's forhead... But created by science.

[Tenspace]

In other words, if you are playing a game, and people are doing all sorts of things they shouldn't, you can be sure that either the admin is not there (god not real), they don't know about it (god not being all knowning), they can't do anything about it (god not being all powerful), or that the admin doesn't care (god not being all good.)
I love critical thinking. Excellent post, Bap. :D

[ghoulslime]

Actually, they really do have unicorns.

No joke, they were made from a goat. When it was young, they surgically removed one horn, and then transplanted the other into it's forhead.

Strangely enough, it actually grew larger because the horn hit some part of it's brain that stimulated a growth hormone...

not really a unicorn, then. More like a large goat with one horn in the center of it's forhead... But created by science.
Dude, once for Halloween, I made a paper horn for my rabbit’s head and tied it on with yarn. Then gave him a magic cape, which wasn’t really magic. This didn’t make him a unicorn. He was still just a rabbit with a paper horn and a magic cape. Now stop this! You are going to confuse Shadowwolf! Come on! He is in the middle of an exam! Shhhh!

Are we going to have to administer this test to you too?

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/lib.jpg

[GodlessHeathen]

Shadowwolf1 wrote:
Tenspace now I would like to address your exellent observation sir. Back to the computer game metaphor. A gamer (us) in Counter Strike (universe) is restricted to the laws of that game. But the administrator (God) of the Counter Strike game have access to commands the gamers don't such as: kicking of players, banning of players, punishing of players, moving of players, changing the physics of the game, and many many other things the gamers can't do. In other words God can do things we can't and the natural laws don't apply to Him. I welcome your intelligent arguments. Good day to you sirs.

Ok, in that example, even the non-believers could readily see the result of the action, which would bring the action into the laws of the game. In our case... the action would be via natural law that could be observed and studied. Just because you don't understand all the rules, doesn't mean you can't observe the actions and form hypothesis. Oh wait! That's now science works!
This is an excellent point that I had not considered - when I slap a player, or set him on fire because he is annoying me, he knows it.

On further thought, however, is the admin/god - players/humanity metaphor correct? I am an admin on a Counter Strike server, but I had no part in the creation of the game.

[Eva]

gs, you did this to your bunny???

now, we ARE going to need photographic evidence of that!!!!!!

[ghoulslime]

gs, you did this to your bunny???

now, we ARE going to need photographic evidence of that!!!!!!
I wish I still had the pictures. Unfortunately, I took them with a digital camera and lost them all when my server died.

My daughter and her friends made the costumes for him. They made one with a unicorn horn, and one with a magic hat and cape. (Pointed black hat with yellow moons and stars on it)

:D

[ShadowWolf1]

1. Unicorns Imaginary
2. Wind Real
3. Pinecones Real
4. Leprechauns Imaginary
5. God of Abraham Real
6. Vishnu Imaginary
7. Oxygen Real
8. Tooth Fairies Imaginary
9. Abraham Lincoln Real
10. Apollo Imaginary

[ghoulslime]

1. Unicorns Imaginary
2. Wind Real
3. Pinecones Real
4. Leprechauns Imaginary
5. God of Abraham Real
6. Vishnu Imaginary
7. Oxygen Real
8. Tooth Fairies Imaginary
9. Abraham Lincoln Real
10. Apollo Imaginary
ShadowWolf1! Dude, you took the test! :lol:

I’m so proud of you! Unfortunately, you need to score 100% in order to pass. You only missed one. If you do some cramming, you might have a shot at passing a retest. :/

Do you know which one you missed? :|

Pinecones? :|

Nope! Pinecones ARE real. It was the God of Abraham that is not! :/

Now, why would you think the God of Abraham is real and Vishnu and Apollo are imaginary?

[Eva]

well, gs, if you ever do anything like that again, take pics.

in this forums, other members would ask for evidence of extraordinary claims like that....you know....

[ghoulslime]

well, gs, if you ever do anything like that again, take pics.

in this forums, other members would ask for evidence of extraordinary claims like that....you know....
I testify that it is true! Pray about it! God will give you the answer!

[There Is]

I'll take the TEST!:D

1. Unicorns -------------------------------------- As real as #4, #5, #6, and #8
2. Wind ------------------------------------- Sure, though I'm still skeptical of the Weatherman
3. Pinecones -------------------------------------- True
4. Leprechauns -------------------------------------- As real as #1, #5, #6, and #8
5. God of Abraham -------------------------------------- As real as #1, #4, #6, and #8
6. Vishnu -------------------------------------- As real as #1, #4, #5, and #8
7. Oxygen -------------------------------------- Inhaling with smog as I type.
8. Tooth Fairies -------------------------------------- As real as #1, #4, #5, and #6, though I've dreamt many a time of some pretty girls visiting me at night.
9. Abraham Lincoln -------------------------------------- Real, though I'm pretty sure only on the penny.
10. Apollo -------------------------------------- The best was mission 11. The moon baby! Not the god.

[ghoulslime]

I'll take the TEST!:D

1. Unicorns -------------------------------------- As real as #4, #5, #6, and #8
2. Wind ------------------------------------- Sure, though I'm still skeptical of the Weatherman
3. Pinecones -------------------------------------- True
4. Leprechauns -------------------------------------- As real as #1, #5, #6, and #8
5. God of Abraham -------------------------------------- As real as #1, #4, #6, and #8
6. Vishnu -------------------------------------- As real as #1, #4, #5, and #8
7. Oxygen -------------------------------------- Inhaling with smog as I type.
8. Tooth Fairies -------------------------------------- As real as #1, #4, #5, and #6, though I've dreamt many a time of some pretty girls visiting me at night.
9. Abraham Lincoln -------------------------------------- Real, though I'm pretty sure only on the penny.
10. Apollo -------------------------------------- The best was mission 11. The moon baby! Not the god.
Excellent student! You get to sit on teacher's lap after class. :D

[There Is]

Excellent student! You get to sit on teacher's lap after class. :D
Only if you're a voluptuous female brunette. None of that transexual stuff either. :P

[Baphomet]

Didn't you see the teacher... she was OLD!

But maybe her granddaughter...

And brunnettes are a plus. So are blondes. yeah.