If I have to explain how it's possible, you shouldn't be on here even attempting to debate.

I've asked repeatedly how it is possible to form a belief without anything indicating it is true, and so far no one has been able to give an example. The fact of the matter is that all beliefs have causes and whatever that cause is qualifies as evidence.

This has been explained to you multiple times. One more time won't get this through your head.

Hello? The Bible indicates or makes clear to people that he was real, so by definition it evidence for that. There's stronger evidence that Jesus existed than any other figure in antiquity. I can respect someone who thinks there is insufficient evidence to justify to them the belief that Jesus did miracles, but it is to take your skepticism to the absurd level you think Jesus didn't exist also calls into question most of history. It's absurd to say that the belief that Jesus was real is uncased.
Humor me then, I'd like to see you say it.

I'm Getting a Fleshlight For that Reason I think I'll Get the "Pink Lady" says it feels the same as a REAL ONE!

All hail the great and powerful Cthulhu!!!

The one and only.

May he plunge our world into eternal darkness!

Into the abyss!!

You don't have to "trust" any scientist, you can verify what they say, and if that is not possible nobody will believe them. That is the whole point of science.
No, he could be lying.

Totally agree.
Good! But try what again? Sounds like I succeeded.

No, you are willfully refusing to explain.

So what? How does that relate to my question of why some theories are cool with them and some aren;t.
What is there to understand? Gods laws and punishments are made pretty clear.

What was that about circular reasoning again?
So I need to proof that someone elses baseless assumption is false, otherwise I am making my own baseless assumption? Seriously, how do you come up with this stuff?

No, I have a lot more to say to you, please come back. I had alot planned on what is theoretically possible and what is not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwdZ62YUWRo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqYAyBNk16A&list=PLhXCQoQh8mh3_OrsC0e9um2jxqJLEj0h8

this two cracked me up, lol

What other evidence do you have other than the "evidence" in the bible? How come, Jesus didn't write anything in the bible, himself? How come, the Roman writers of that time, didn't write about Jesus but wrote about everything else?

Nah, I'll pass. You have heard me respond to several of your hypotheticals, and I answered essentially the same way each time. I presume you can guess what my response would probably be at this point. If you can't... well... *shrug*

You're being "smart" in selecting what to answer, but ultimately you keep conflating knowledge with belief. A very Garden of Eden situation...

When you ask How can belief exist without a cause? You are basically rephrasing the eternal question of How can anything exist without a cause. You should be able to - theoretically at least, even if you don't believe it - understand that an atheist arguing with you rejects that there is a cause to the universe itself. Compared to that, stating that beliefs can kind of pop up from environmental accidents of chance is peanuts.

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit is a very old argument, it's even scientific (conservation of energy, etc...) but it hides the real metaphysical dilemma.


I assume you won't mind a different target :)

I note you were the one bringing an obligation - "need to proof" - into the above. It's a strawman...
You don't need to prove the falsehood, unless you want to prove the falsehood (and you do, clearly). As agnostic you might find a less "demanding" position. ;)

As you use rethoric well, thought you'd enjoy the above. But let's get down to business?
People like (ab)using Occam's razor, and forget it is not a proof of anything. Some would say it's an aesthetic principle. Just because you see no need for theism, does not prove it false.

To rehash the classic argument, ultimately either the universe merely exists, or it was caused. There is no ultimate proof either way. Affirming one of these over the other is therefore an assumption, and likely a belief. Both are baseless, and both are based, at least on the existance of the universe itself.

Now, since you are so willing to share your thoughts. Which one of the two options (unconditional existence vs external cause) do you pick? Or are you agnostic? :)