Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Yes you are correct. All power came from God initially, but satan and demons no longer serve God even though they retain their supernatural power [B]from God. [/B]
But then God should be able to condemn Satan! Or he is just not as almighty as you tend to believe. Or he just wants to fool fools (like you).
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Their power is never used to glorify God, but initially to enchant and astonish, then ultimately to steal, kill, and destroy people's lives insidiously.
How do you know? Have you ever met a witch?
(reading about witches from the bible doesnt equal knowing everything about witches)
Originally posted by eezy45
But then God should be able to condemn Satan! Or he is just not as almighty as you tend to believe. Or he just wants to fool fools (like you).
You speak from a lack of insight about how God operates. God has appointed a day when He will remove satan from the scene permanently. He has a purpose for permitting satan to operate at the present time. Read Revelation 20:2 and then 20:10 of the same chapter and you will see what I mean.
Originally posted by Caps Conscience
I always chuckle when nonbelievers use this arguement. They counter someone elses opinion, want them to prove something but don't provide any evidence what so ever for their claims. Whats good for the pot is good for the kettle. I am not on either side prove to me that you are right and he is wrong.
I don't need too. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Also, I cannot prove that something does not exist, because lack of evidence is not proof. Therefore, I have to really on reason.
If a cup is sitting on a table; Person one, says that there is really two cups. One is visible and the other is invisible. The other person says there is only one cup on the table. Who’s position is more reasonable?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't need too. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Also, I cannot prove that something does not exist, because lack of evidence is not proof. Therefore, I have to really on reason.If a cup is sitting on a table; Person one, says that there is really two cups. One is visible and the other is invisible. The other person says there is only one cup on the table. Who’s position is more reasonable?
I see the fallacy in your logic: you have a problem (i.e. a giant, Grand Canyon-size problem) with believing things that you cannot see exist. You fit the typical atheist mold.
This has always been your hang up. You believe that just because you cannot see a thing that it must not exist. Question: can you see wind? Can you see gravity? Can you see radio waves? You can measure these things or see their effects but you cannot see them--yet they exist.
😄
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I see the fallacy in your logic: you have a problem (i.e. a giant, Grand Canyon-size problem) with believing things that you cannot see exist. You fit the typical atheist mold.This has always been your hang up. You believe that just because [B]you
cannot see a thing that it must not exist. Question: can you see wind? Can you see gravity? Can you see radio waves? You can measure these things or see their effects but you cannot see them--yet they exist.😄 [/B]
That is not true. I use reason, not vision. Anything that is not reasonable is to be viewed sceptically until proof has been provided.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I see the fallacy in your logic: you have a problem (i.e. a giant, Grand Canyon-size problem) with believing things that you cannot see exist. You fit the typical atheist mold.This has always been your hang up. You believe that just because [B]you
cannot see a thing that it must not exist. Question: can you see wind? Can you see gravity? Can you see radio waves? You can measure these things or see their effects but you cannot see them--yet they exist.😄 [/B]
But we believe in radio waves, because we can prove that they exist.
Or ar you telling us we don't believe in radio waves?
Oh, and I do not believe that there is something like the "ether", although some Christians argue with that. That is because I understood (parts of) quantum mechanics.
That is the handy detail about science. We can prove what we believe in.
You have got a book. And your feelings. Right, if I take some LSD, I see lots of funny things, and your body is full of funny stuff that is able to make you see funny things, e.g. when you are in ecstasy and stuff.
You can not trust your personal feeling on this. It also might tell you there is a man in the dark (sorry, you might actually believe that). And the book.. Yeah, There are lots of books and I can write you one, too.
That's why atheists make more sense, at least when they argue.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What does their niceness or lack thereof have to do with the price of tea in China? We are talking about supernatural power.😕
So you're not denying they were nice. Well thats good. You wouldnt want to steryotype would you.
I'm guessing the price of tea in china would be a bargain! 😛
Originally posted by Crimson Phoenix
So you're not denying they were nice. Well thats good. You wouldnt want to steryotype would you.I'm guessing the price of tea in china would be a bargain! 😛
I am not saying anything about their behavior (why do you think that I said niceness or lack thereof, I was being neutral)
I don't know, I wouldn't travel that far for green tea, I don't care how salubrious it is.
😄
Originally posted by eezy45
But we believe in radio waves, because we can prove that they exist.
Or ar you telling us we don't believe in radio waves?
Oh, and I do not believe that there is something like the "ether", although some Christians argue with that. That is because I understood (parts of) quantum mechanics.That is the handy detail about science. We can prove what we believe in.
You have got a book. And your feelings. Right, if I take some LSD, I see lots of funny things, and your body is full of funny stuff that is able to make you see funny things, e.g. when you are in ecstasy and stuff.
You can not trust your personal feeling on this. It also might tell you there is a man in the dark (sorry, you might actually believe that). And the book.. Yeah, There are lots of books and I can write you one, too.That's why atheists make more sense, at least when they argue.
Yeah, but what if I got real philosophical on you like many atheists do and ask you to define proof or existence? What is existence? How do you know that you exist? How do you know that proof is proof?
😄