I will reconsider this after god posts. Furthermore don't you dare post about the wind, those are atoms and molecules in the air. There is no wind in a vacuum. As a matter of fact your line of reasoning is going to be ONE of the most direct lines of reason to atheism. This one is booby trapped, backup now.Clevis Hitch wrote:do you believe in me. Do you believe I exist? I'm not in front of you. Is it possible that a being (I'm a being,to) can exist and not be seen?
Jesus H
Re: Jesus H
Re: Jesus H
I don't believe in you. You are clearly an automated trollbot.Clevis Hitch wrote:do you believe in me. Do you believe I exist? I'm not in front of you. Is it possible that a being (I'm a being,to) can exist and not be seen?
-
climb2core
- Posts: 2224
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:04 pm
Re: Jesus H
I have entered text and posted. I have seen people enter text and post. I believe that a person entered the quoted text above and posted. I believe that you CAN be seen.Clevis Hitch wrote:do you believe in me. Do you believe I exist? I'm not in front of you. Is it possible that a being (I'm a being,to) can exist and not be seen?
When I get a post from God and he agrees to meet me at Drive by crag to catch a sack of sand for a $1000 bet (and shows up to give me his $$$) I will believe in him too.
Silly Clevis.
Re: Jesus H
If you atiests put as much thought and conviction into your climbing you could climb two numbers harder. I'm just sayin..
"Everyone should have a plan for the zombie apocolipse" Courtney
-
mike_a_lafontaine
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:44 pm
Re: Jesus H
That still wouldn't convince me. I've seen too many Star Trek episodes where "God" just turned out to be an alien with superior technology...technology that wasn't made to recon with the moxy and bravado of one James T. Kirk...caribe wrote:I will reconsider this after god posts.
Re: Jesus H
agreed.mike_a_lafontaine wrote:That still wouldn't convince me. I've seen too many Star Trek episodes where "God" just turned out to be an alien with superior technology...technology that wasn't made to recon with the moxy and bravado of one James T. Kirk...caribe wrote:I will reconsider this after god posts.
Re: Jesus H
Jesse I do put more " " and still end up hitting the wall.ynot wrote:If you atiests put as much thought and conviction into your climbing you could climb two numbers harder. I'm just sayin..
-
climb2core
- Posts: 2224
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:04 pm
Re: Jesus H
If I put as much effort into the God thing as climbing, I am pretty sure I could mathematically either prove or disprove his/her existence.ynot wrote:If you atiests put as much thought and conviction into your climbing you could climb two numbers harder. I'm just sayin..
Re: Jesus H
where'd dhuff go?
what if god is like the visualizing and sharma 'believing' he can climb parts of climbing. maybe god only immanentizes if you acknowledge limits to your reason.
what created the vacuum? if matter is not god, is a vacuum? failing to define god is not an argument against it's phenomenology.
what if god is like the visualizing and sharma 'believing' he can climb parts of climbing. maybe god only immanentizes if you acknowledge limits to your reason.
what created the vacuum? if matter is not god, is a vacuum? failing to define god is not an argument against it's phenomenology.
training is for people who care, i have a job.
-
Climbingrocks
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:29 pm
Re: Jesus H
This makes no sense.clif wrote:where'd dhuff go?
what if god is like the visualizing and sharma 'believing' he can climb parts of climbing. maybe god only immanentizes if you acknowledge limits to your reason.
what created the vacuum? if matter is not god, is a vacuum? failing to define god is not an argument against it's phenomenology.