*Alert* New Christian Member detected - depose now:

unixrab
Theist
unixrab's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
*Alert* New Christian Member detected - depose now:

OK... I'm here now. I can reasonably and rationally answer your questions about God & the Bible - in that the Holy Spirit of God lives within me - and He's pretty smart.

Go!

(dibs! Burden of Proof)

/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智


bzeurunkl
Theist
bzeurunkl's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: No here's

todangst wrote:

No here's where you go astray: Just because you don't assume the bible to be false from the get go, doesn't mean that you get to assume it true.

What if I do not particularly care what you think I'm entitled to assume?

So, you prefer to assume it is unproven.  That's your perogative.  But it is only yours.

Let's leave off making other people's assumptions for them, shall we?


thraxas
thraxas's picture
Posts: 89
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
To original poster.

To original poster. Somewhere at page 1 or 2 you mention something to the effect that the Bible has been accepted for much longer than it hasn't and that this goes back to 1700 BCE etc. How about this:

 

Minoan culture dates back to as early as 7000 BCE. Minoan culture was very advanced for its time and had a host of mostly females goddesses and its only rites, rituals and beliefs. These ideas stayed with the Minoans for millenia through the Myceneans, through Greek conquerors and through the Romans. These deities were expanded, altered and adopted in various ways over thousands of years. People of the day believed in these deities and took them as "truth". This is a far greater and richer history than Judeo-Christian theism and the Bible. If I were to argue that because people believed in the "pagan" gods of yore and related beliefs for much longer than they were disproved or disbelieved, would that AT ALL lend credence to my argument that those beliefs or gods are true? No, absolutely not. People also believed for a long time that the world was flat, that lends the credence no idea whatsoever.

 

 

Moreover, you try to offer some sort of evidence or proof. Unfortunately the Bible does not fit into this category - quoting verses does nothing to prove any sort of real idea. Once again I could quote the Gospel of Baal and therefore attempt to prove a point about the truth of Baal. But would you believe me any more or consider it scientific proof?  No, it is not testable, provable and above all not Judeo-Christian. The problem is that Judeo-Christian theists automatically assign authority to their holy book over every other religion's- there is NOTHING special about the Bible. It is jsut another work of fiction.

 

 

All of your evidence is anecdotal and therefore is not evidence at all. Sorry 

Biochemist & Law Student

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson


bzeurunkl
Theist
bzeurunkl's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
kdfjlaks

Illinois is overdue...


bzeurunkl
Theist
bzeurunkl's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Illinois is overdue...

Then again....


Dr. X
Dr. X's picture
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
What sacrifice?

So much is made of the sacrifice made to humanity by God to ‘allow’ the crucifixion of Jesus. But I wonder, when we read "For God so loved the world...” just what was God giving up? If he (they?) knew of his (their?) imminent return, how by any definition of the word can this be considered a sacrifice? Is this not what a magician does when he disappears in a box, only to reappear in the stage rigging?

I’m not making light of the crucifixion itself; that was a bad way to go for anybody. But if God knew his ‘son’ was going to return, Jesus certainly could not be considered the ‘lamb’ that he is made out to be.

BTW, did anybody bother to tell the sheep that they wouldn’t be needed anymore?! (paid for by the Sheep Anti-Defamation League)

Brian: I am NOT the Messiah!
Arthur: I say you are Lord, and I should know. I've followed a few.


ShadowOfMan
atheist
ShadowOfMan's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Everytime someone reminds me

Everytime someone reminds me of the whole blood, sacrifice thing, I'm just as astonished as the first time I heard it.  Monkies are such silly animals. 

A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce


tracifish
Theist
tracifish's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: OK... I'm

unixrab wrote:
OK... I'm here now. I can reasonably and rationally answer your questions about God & the Bible - in that the Holy Spirit of God lives within me - and He's pretty smart. Go! (dibs! Burden of Proof)

Hello, unixrab...and welcome. I'm a new Christian member too, and thought your thread was an atheist warning other members about me...okay...I haven't had much sleep... Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed Laughing

 

 

 

 


tracifish
Theist
tracifish's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Maragon wrote: Can you

Maragon wrote:
Can you prove the existance of your god without using the bible or personal experience?

 

I'll try:

Creation = Creator

Your concience = God's laws written in your heart (metaphorically)

Well, it's not proof of a specific god...but...

 


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
tracifish wrote: Maragon

tracifish wrote:

Maragon wrote:
Can you prove the existance of your god without using the bible or personal experience?

 

I'll try:

Creation = Creator

Your concience = God's laws written in your heart (metaphorically)

Well, it's not proof of a specific god...but...

 

Nice try Smiling

Can you point to the creation factory?

Metaphorical responses don't fly here.

You're right, this is no proof of Yahweh, Allah, Zues, etc. 


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote:   The Bible

unixrab wrote:
 

The Bible is a textual photograph...a historical record. It's record stands as a witness in a trial. It's logically biased to discount the Bible's testimony. There is no proof that the Bible is wrong in it's account of Mary. The burden to disprove the historical record is on those who dispute it. We can't both have the burden of proof. The Bible is not an assertion: it is true.

 

 Is it more or less true than a fictional novel where we no longer know the author, know that it is not the original writings but translated versions, and where certain chapters have been removed because they didn't appeal to a specific translators interpretation of how the story should be told?

(The last part talking about the gospels that were buried becuase of their controversial statements such as the gospel of mary magdalene and more recently the recovered and restored gospel of judas) 

 And on that note, what do we make of the gospel of Judas which tells a very different story of Jesus' life.  And, do we take the gospel of Judas as eye witness testamony since it's likely that he did not write it since he was most likely dead at the time it was written and we don't know who exactly wrote it?


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: OK... I'm

unixrab wrote:
OK... I'm here now. I can reasonably and rationally answer your questions about God & the Bible - in that the Holy Spirit of God lives within me - and He's pretty smart. Go! (dibs! Burden of Proof)
This is fundamentally flawed.  The burden of proof CAN NOT be on non-believers.  The default condition is that we are all born unaware of the concept of "god/God."  Therefore, asserting to us that God exists gives you the burden of proof; non-believers are merely the listeners whom you need to convince of your beliefs.  This whole thing is backwards from the beginning.

 Appeal to ignorance.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
MarthaSplatterhead

MarthaSplatterhead wrote:

Then how did he rape Mary?

Such a statement is not worth a response.

MarthaSplatterhead wrote:
"In the beginning there was nothing. And God said."
Quote:

Why do you have that in quotation marks? That's not in the Bible.

 

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Maragon wrote: Can you

Maragon wrote:
Can you prove the existance of your god without using the bible or personal experience?
Who are you to set the rules and parameters for proof? Your personal experience tells you God does not exist. Can you give me proof atheism is true without personal experience? The proof for God's existence is that without His existence, it is impossible to prove anything.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote:

AL500 wrote:
Maragon wrote:
Can you prove the existance of your god without using the bible or personal experience?
Who are you to set the rules and parameters for proof?

He didn't set the rules. He's following the rules of logic. And especially avoiding the rules of circular logic.

AL500 wrote:
Can you give me proof atheism is true without personal experience?

1. This is exactly the same as asking, "Can you give me proof that God doesn't exist without personal experience?"

2. As I said in my last post, the burden of proof is on you, the positive, NOT on us, the negative.

3. You're asking to prove a negative that is impossible to do so.

Your exact same question is thoroughly investigated here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/7381

AL500 wrote:
The proof for God's existence is that without His existence, it is impossible to prove anything.

That's not a proof. That's an assertion. Where is your proof for this assertion? LOL

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Ghost Rider
Ghost Rider's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: I don't

unixrab wrote:
I don't think that's how it works if (*IF*) it's common knowledge that you have brown hair - the naysayer has the burden of proof - why should you have to prove you have brown hair if everyone has accepted for thousands of years that you do indeed have brown hair? It's on the challenger.

Making a claim about the color of someone's hair isn't exactly the same as saying that there is an imaginary friend who hears al of your thoughts and all of your desires and answers prayers when he's not busy building new solor systems or galaxies or any of that universe stuff.

Making a claim requires evidence.  As an atheist, I don't make a claim other than that man made gods don't exist.  I can point to countless pieces of evidence the pretty much show us that man creates gods and not the other way around.

If you claim that your god is real and al other gods are false, then you have to bring something to the table other than personal experience and circular reasoning. 

 

Quote:
The Bible (starting in 1700 B.C or so with the Law) has been commonly accepted as true by mankind for MUCH longer than people have been saying it now *isn't* true.

That's just false. 

While "the law" may well have been excepted as true by JEWS going back to 1700 b.c.e., there were countless other gods that pre-dated or co-existed at the time.  Making the claim that "mankind" holds the bible to be true is an idiotic statement.

Not only that, but every religionous person, tribe, group, faith, etc. that pre-dated or co-existed with the jewish god holds "the law" to be UNTRUE by default.

Who needs God when you have Chopin?


Ghost Rider
Ghost Rider's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
unixrab wrote: It's not

unixrab wrote:

It's not **unreasonable** to take the eye-witness accounts of Matthew and John and Mark at face value being examined so many times through the years and not having found DEFINITIVE proof of forgery.  This is what I'm talking about with the burden of proof.  There's no reason to disbelieve Matthew -- as of now.  

No, but it is circular reasoning.

Matthew wrote his gospel.

What proof do you have?

It has his name on it.

Anyone who's actually investigated the history of the christian church and the history of the bible itself KNOWS that the earliest scaps of the bible we've found date to about 125 or 150 c.e.  The general consensus on the original writtings usually falls between 70 c.e. and 90 c.e. or later depending on the scholorship you're reading.

The bible you read and quote from today didn't exist until after 325 c.e. when Constantine basically told a bunch of bishops to finally make up thier minds on a) was the character of Jesus devine or not and b) what books can we read to establish the previous choice.

Thus, using what is in the bible to justify the bible to to put your faith in the hands of Emperor Constantine and his hand-picked bishops.

The bible disproves itself in the first book and chapter because what is written there flies in the face of everything we KNOW to be true today.

Who needs God when you have Chopin?


Edger
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-01-14
User is offlineOffline
unixrab

unixrab wrote:

MarthaSplatterhead wrote:
New question. (I'll let the last one go for now). Did Eve have sex with Cain in order to multiply? And if not, how did the population grow?

Most likely not with Cain - as he was banished after murdering his brother, but more likely one of her other sons (Seth) or grandsons that followed. (All of this being before the genetic code was corrupted by disease and sin prompting God to tell Moses to include the prohibitions regarding procreation with near relatives )

So if we weren't corrupted by sin it would be okay for me to get it on w/my cousin? She's a fox! Damn this thing called sin!

Is this why God doesn't approve of contraceptives...so we can't shag our relatives?

Thanks unixrab! It's all starting to make sense now.


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
AL500

AL500 wrote:
MarthaSplatterhead wrote:

Then how did he rape Mary?

Such a statement is not worth a response.

 

Um then why did you respond?

 

MarthaSplatterhead wrote:
"In the beginning there was nothing. And God said."
Quote:

Why do you have that in quotation marks? That's not in the Bible.

 

 

It's in quotes bc I'm quoting LV, another poster on this forum. Sticking out tongue


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
tracifish wrote: Maragon

tracifish wrote:

Maragon wrote:
Can you prove the existance of your god without using the bible or personal experience?

 

I'll try:

Creation = Creator

Your concience = God's laws written in your heart (metaphorically)

Well, it's not proof of a specific god...but...

 

OHOHOH! I got it!

 Creation = My Creator = Not your creator

Therefore your god is false. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Ok, I'll try to make this

Ok, I'll try to make this as simple as I can. When a person demands proof established by their own criteria such as "without personal experience or the Bible," they are already rigging the game before it starts. This is typical of atheists. They contrive their own set of rules for proof.  All evidence/proof is based on "personal experience." It is the atheist' "personal" opinion/experience of no belief. So, logically such an absurd criteria would of necessity nullify atheism if it's going to nullify theism. The criteria/argument is self-defeating. Second, all arguments are circular. Atheists have a preconceived commitment that God does not exist. That is their starting point and assumption. Theists begin with the premise that God does exist. If atheism is true, then both premises are valid. And the atheist has no logical ground to reject the theistic premise. Third, atheists have no right even appealing to the universal laws of logic untill they are able to provide a rational foundation that would make all reasoning and logic intelligible. For more on this, study the works of Greg Bahnsen and Cornelius Van Til. Fourth, if God does not exist, it is impossible to prove anything, even the laws of logic. So when an atheist demands proof, they are stepping out of their own worldview and into the theistic worldview by assuming that such a thing as proof even exists. Proof cannot exist if God does not exist. So the atheist assumes God exists in that they even require and believ in such a thing as proof. Bottom line, the atheist must secretly rely upon the Christian theistic worldview in order to make sense of his own worldview of atheism. Atheism cannot stand on its own merrits. It is a philosophical absurdity.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
The tone in this thread is

The tone in this thread is getting heavy and the sarcasm is rampant.

Please refer to the link to this forum's rules on the left of this page. 

Please be on your best behavior in this forum.

Please remain civil.

Please do without the sarcasm. 

If you prefer a no-holds-barred discussion, please take yourselves to the Atheist vs Theist forum. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
tracifish wrote:

tracifish wrote:
Creation = Creator

FALSE. Okay, I know this is "Kill 'Em With Kindness," but PLEASE, PLEASE try to think on your own rather than just regurgitate whatever hokey propaganda you see.

This one is real easy:

1. (Creation = Creator) begs the question, "Is that a creation?"

2. What kind of creator? I'm a creator too. I create internet posts and rebuttals to illogical claims.

3. Let's apply this logic to other things:

Rock = Rocker? (NO)

Air = Air maker? (NO)

Outer space = Outer spacer? (NO)

Paint = Panter (Yes)

Building = Builder (Yes)

YouTube - Good point...too bad it's not logical in any way

This logic ONLY works on things that we all agree were designed/created. If you want to use this logic to prove that God exists, you have to answer and PROVE #1 and #2 above.

tracifish wrote:
Your concience = God's laws written in your heart (metaphorically)

This is an assertion. Where is the proof?

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 I SAID: If atheism is

 I SAID: If atheism is true, then both premises are valid. And the atheist has no logical ground to reject the theistic premise.

MY RESPONSE: That might be confusing. I mean that if God did not exist, then logically atheism has no foundation for rejecting the theistic premise because nothing can be proven if God does not exist and all premises would be equally valid. And it cannot be proven that the theistic premise is false if there is no God. If God does not exist, than nothing is provable. You can't even prove the validity of your senses and your mind. The atheist assumes the validity and truthfulness of their senses and mind. The atheist cannot prove that they are not suffering from some severe delusional episode. You can't even prove you exist without first assuming the existence of truth. Namely, the truthfulness of your mind and senses. Since we live in an imperfect universe (the belief in imperfection assumes the existence of perfection), and the theory of evolution asserts the human brain to be evolving, then the brain is not in a perfect state. If it is not in a perfect state, then the logic and reasoning it produces is imperfect. So on what basis does the atheist even assume the laws of logic to be perfect? They are not opperating within the confines of their own worldview. All proof requires certain metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality. The theist, however, can claim truth and proof because God exists. God is the foundation for truth and proof. He is objective and the highest reality. 

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Atheists are not capable

 Atheists are not capable of being civil. Their behavior is the logical conclusion of their worldview of no hope, meaning, purpose or absolute moral standard. If there had never been any conception of God in history, the human race would have self-destructed thousands of years ago. Theism is what has kept us going.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


thraxas
thraxas's picture
Posts: 89
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: theists are not

Quote:
theists are not capable of being civil. Their behavior is the logical conclusion of their worldview of no hope, meaning, purpose or absolute moral standard. If there had never been any conception of God in history, the human race would have self-destructed thousands of years ago. Theism is what has kept us going.

 

Atheism is not a philosophy or worldview, I'd think you would have figured that out by now. If there never had been theism we wouldnt have had millions die in his or her name across the world over the years. Theism is what holds us back. 

Biochemist & Law Student

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: Atheists are

AL500 wrote:
Atheists are not capable of being civil. Their behavior is the logical conclusion of their worldview of no hope, meaning, purpose or absolute moral standard.

AL500, this post is rude, arrogant and very much against this forum's rules.

This is a formal warning to refrain from comments like this and to adhere to the Kill 'Em With Kindness Forum rules. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
bzeurunkl wrote: todangst

bzeurunkl wrote:

todangst wrote:

No here's where you go astray: Just because you don't assume the bible to be false from the get go, doesn't mean that you get to assume it true.

What if I do not particularly care what you think I'm entitled to assume?

Your feelings on the matter are moot, seeing as the point is a point of logic.

 

Quote:

So, you prefer to assume it is unproven.

No, it's not a preference. It's how all logical claims work. An assertion is assumed unproven until proved or demonstrated.

Quote:
 

That's your perogative. But it is only yours.

No, it's now logic works. Deny it, and you overturn all of logic.

 

Quote:

Let's leave off making other people's assumptions for them, shall we?

I think you need to read that back to yourself. You haven't a clue as to what I'm actually referencing... Basic logic tells us that an assertion is held to be not proven until demonstrated.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
lol

lol


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: AL500, this

Susan wrote:

AL500, this post is rude, arrogant and very much against this forum's rules.

This is a formal warning to refrain from comments like this and to adhere to the Kill 'Em With Kindness Forum rules. 

Yes mam. But is killing ever kind? By the way, I think you are a great moderator. Cute toWink

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Thraxis, actually if God

 Thraxis, actually if God didn't exist none of us would be here. Religion has its faults, I freely admit that, as does atheism. But we can't blame religious founders because of the actions of sinful men who twist their messages. Religion also has very strong points. It makes people good and decent citizens. It gives hope. It tells us we are not alone. There is a purpose to history. More hospitals, universities, colleges and orphanages have been founded by Christian's then any other category of people. Stalin and Lenin both believed in evolution and atheism, and they are responsible for the greatest mass murder, then all religious wars combined in all of history.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


bzeurunkl
Theist
bzeurunkl's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
bz:What if I do not

bz:
What if I do not particularly care what you think I'm entitled to assume?

ta:
Your feelings on the matter are moot, seeing as the point is a point of logic.


This is what happens when people go to the college book store and buy copies of "Introduction to Inductive Reasoning" and start using phrases they find in it.  Did you get to that part about circular reasoning yet? 

The fact is, neither of what either of us said has anything to do with logic.

Your assumptions on any topic that you'd care to pick have absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not the thing itself is correct or incorrect - factual or unfactual, true or false.  Assumptions have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of "logic" at all.  Assumptions, by their very nature and by definition are non-logical constructs.  If you take an assumption, and thoroughly check it out, it ceases to be an assumption and becomes an emphatic statement.  That's not what you offered.

In it's essence, here's all you said: "you assume B, therefore you cannot assume C."  But there's no reason at all why not.  If you are talking about assumptions, then assume whatever the hell you like and damn the torpedos!  And I could not care less what you think I'm entitled to assume.

BTW - just as a side note; I think the word you are looking for is "presumed", not "assumed".  Unfortunately, presumptions don't help you much either.

 


bz:
So, you prefer to assume it is unproven.

ta:
No, it's not a preference. It's how all logical claims work. An assertion is assumed unproven until proved or demonstrated.

 

The way you are using this particular construct is not helping you either.  Again, it will help if you distill it to it's most simplistic form.  An "assertion" is, by definition, something not proven. The word, strictly interpreted means little more than "to state".  It says nothing of it's actual factual content.  It is something introduced for the very purpose of examination.  But to state, and then not say anything in the way of support is rather like talking to yourself.  Like the old Bill Cosby joke about Englishmen.  "I was at this party, and some English dude kept saying 'I say!  I say!' and then he didn't say anything..."

So simplify what you said (just like an algebra formula) and you have, basically, this: "an unproven thing is unproven until proven."

Golly!

The best that you could torture out of your argument is that a claim that is unproven is neither true nor false - it is indeterminate.  Basically, that would be the venue of agnostics - not atheists.

 


bz:
That's your perogative. But it is only yours.

ta:
No, it's now logic works. Deny it, and you overturn all of logic.


Like I said.  Neither of us are engaging in logical reasoning at the moment.  If you have some logical construct that proves God doesn't exist, just let me know.  In fact, if you have one that proves he DOES exist, well, hell, I'd pay good MONEY for that one.

 

 

I have a box.  The walls are quite opaque to anything inside the box.  Inside the box, I have put little metal objects that can be felt: squares, cubes, triangles, cones, tetrahedrons, and a few pins and needles just for fun, (oh, and some sandpaper, a bit of some foul smelling viscous substance, a sparkly thing, and several small animals) and YOU.  Using just what you have available in the box, (because you insist on believing that nothing exists outside the box) prove that either I do exist, or do not exist.  Pick either outcome you want to prove and have at it.  And don't spend all your time just trying to convince yourself that the small animals in the box with you used to be something else.


Basically, atheists need to, literally, think outside the box.

What tools do you think you can find solely inside the box that prove or disprove anythng at all about what lies outside the box?

Some like to glibly ask us to "point to the creation factory", as though the creator existed inside his creation, and not outside (completely outside) of it.  You cannot point to God because God does not exist inside any of the three dimensions in which you could point your arrogant little finger.