What if I said I could fly, but only when no one was looking, and couldn’t record it?
You’re so full of shit, I can’t tell whether you’re genuinely ignorant or on a wind up?
I’d say, not very original…
Origen writes in Homily 12, “To every [one] there are two attending angels, the one of justice and the other of wickedness. If there be good thoughts in our heart, and if righteousness be welling up in our soul, it can scarcely be doubted that an angel of the Lord is speaking to us. If, however, the thoughts of our heart be turned to evil, an angel of the devil is speaking to us.”
He’s not an agnostic, that is axiomatic.
1 Like
“he knows what he knows”
…just a theist.
1 Like
I would state that you are inserting a theistic concept (evil) into human behavior. As human beings we apply our genetic programming and conditioning implanted via our upbringing.
We are human, we all make mistakes, most of us are capable of “good” deeds. Some make very poor decisions, some make immoral decisions.
We are not in conflict with god’s will or the works of the devil, we are are controlled by our instincts and ability to decide on a course of action, either preferable for the benefit of others, or against others.
If I steal, I am harming another for my benefit. No supernatural entity is influencing my decisions and actions.
3 Likes
But all of this is moot, you first need to prove a god, you need to prove a devil.
Poor or immoral decisions are not proof of a god.
1 Like
I don’t. My view is that the existence of so many variants destroys the credibility of the god concept.
But my original point was that in order to verify the existence or non-existence of X, you first need to define what X is.
Tell me what your god is and I’ll tell you what evidence I need to believe in it.
I don’t know why people keep giving him that. It’s his deity, he can accurately define it, then offer the best evidence he claims to have.
Until he does that I’m just going to point and laugh at his sophistry, in trying to reverse the burden of proof so blatantly.
3 Likes
non sequitur? 
1 Like
…but known to you obviously, as you’re making claims to know things about it…
Dear oh dear…
1 Like
1 Like
By YHWH of the Torah? I’d say more terrified that impressed. Would I worship him? Of course, I’d be so terrified of being smote, I’d do whatever he wanted.
It’s the Christians who have made Satan so terrifying and god’s adversary. In Judaism Satan is god’s servant. The Jews ask what l what I think is the most obvious question; How could he not? I add the implicit question ; why has an omnipotent god allowed a declared enemy to exist?
They’d probably give you some silly nonsense about God will destroy Satan eventually, yadda yadda yadda. Empty words to explain what I agree with you is a contradiction or serious problem with Christian theology.
As a little boy, I was told Satan knew the time was short, but wanted to take as many of us with him to hell as he could. Supposedly, God would never allow us to be tempted more than we could bear. The fat fuck preacher meant or acted like he meant this as encouragement, but I always felt guilty. It meant that when I gave in to “sin” (usually porn or swearing) I could have resisted if I wanted to.
1 Like
For me it was wanking. At 14 I wore a hole in my dick. Pity there was no Olympic event. 
1 Like
But part of sufficient is also to let people know that the God appearing will maybe much different than the God they think to be. So they need to be ready to meet such God. I very well know that for many theists this would be very undesirable and mentally torturous if God appeared do not fulfill the qualities of God they believe in, or one who will say some of your belief is actually wrong. So the readiness of everyone for this is necessary.
Secondly, most (99%) people don’t desire God to come and prove his existence. Not even their own God. Then how can anybody like such God to come who doesn’t fit the God of their own religions.
No, I mean it will be detectable but not with 100% certainty. It will be like 70%. And when you understand something of nature, you will certainly get benefited and can change the world with that knowledge.
God is neither he or she, or both he and she. God can be they, because when there’s two, there’s “they”. God can be “it”.
When I said God and Satan is within you, I mean them to be “it”. The God and Satan within you is only a necessary design, like 0 and 1 in computers. They aren’t really a God or Satan. Satan don’t exists, Satan is only within you, and it’s a like a design. This might look like sophistry to you, but you asked and I answered. I can say this because I think, observe, and try to understand, and can tell others to observe it this and that way, but it will take time.
This attitude of yours is not conducive to knowing and can make you closed minded. Changing it is better policy.
It’s not the matter whether it’s original or not. Matter is whether it is true and observable. Isn’t it?
Yes, but that is not the only thing which controls our behaviour. And this actually is general outlook. But when you try to understand human behaviour objectively like a science does things you need to formulate two things which influence and take decisions on behalf of you, in moral matters especially. One of it is purely good, and the other is purely evil. So, there’s a difference between general outlook and objective outlook.
The problem is when we make wrong or poor decisions thinking it to be good, and oppose right thing considering it to be bad. Means wrong look good and right look bad to most of us because of baseless and poor rules and regulations or beliefs of society or culture.
You accept instinct control us, but the word “instinct” is general term. This term might not be accepted in objective understanding of how mind control us. There could be two types of controls from mind, in moral matters especially, depending on which individuals behave, and it is always mind guiding and never an individual deciding by himself. It is a scientifically proven fact that mind decide few seconds prior to our decision. It is true that there’s little genetics and social/religious conditioning behind moral behaviour but there’s one more factors which tries to force what exactly is right. This factor or part is kind of sleeping or very weak in most people. It is actually complicated and need a complete explanation at once, which I will do later with your questioning.
You can be sure that any statement following that introduction will be false.
delivery as promised!
Not one word of evidence of any kind, and the show rolls on.
Yet another laughable unevidenced claim, and of course the irony you started here claiming to be an agnostic.
No it doesn’t, closed minded is donated by a bias, and only you have advocated a belief based on subjective bias.
58 posts in, and many more in multiple threads from @Phoenix101, and despite his sophistry he’s not even tried to demonstrate any evidence of any kind.
Risible stuff…