Link post # where you provided this proof? Because all you have been doing is trying to talk around it by going off into tangents into some meta conversation about ontological rocks.

The meme is a non sequitur because it does not follow the statement I've made. You are using it incorrectly to pathologize me instead of engaging with what I said and what the verse actually says.
Christians themselves do not agree on the interpretations and even the number of books in their own bible. Yet you accuse me of "aggressively misunderstanding"
Good one



I'll reframe my response to TiStuff for your argument from ignorance. How does "Israel" prove god or creation narrative?
Will I find jesus sitting in a cave by Red Sea somewhere?

This post was edited by addone on Apr 20 2026 01:08am

in order to prove anything you must admit logic is objective and not a social construct otherwise it is impossible to prove anything, how do you not understand this?

are you admitting logic itself is objective yet?

the Greek grammar of John 10:30 ἕν = neuter/essence. You ignored it and repeated the same error based off your complete lack of understanding of Christianity. That is aggressively misunderstanding. The Greek is literally "ἐγώ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν", and you are arguing vs a strawman nobody holds at all especially not me so the meme I posted is very much accurate. It is therefore not a non sequitur and you have continued to prove yourself unable to understand even the most basic of logic.

So when you say you provided proof you actually haven't provided anything.

Back into talking around proof with meta conversations.

Let me ask you something. Why are you this afraid to provide proof? If you ask me to provide proof of a dog ill send you a picture of a dog, I can bring a dog to your house and have you pet him. I can send you dna samples, video of a dog, newspaper articles, millions of books with independent people talking about the dog. You can go to a pet store or animal shelter and experience having a dog, take the dog to the park with other dogs. I will not throw bad faith logical fallacies in your face like well you cant prove dogs don't exist or just believe in dogs or this book told me dogs are real and therefore you should also believe they are real.
No I will not waste your time with ontological truths or philosophical meta conversations.

I will be direct here is the proof and then I will present the said proof.

Why can't out be honest with me and provide the proof I ask?

before you can justify empirical observation you have to justify induction, which you have to justify logic. are you literally incapable of higher level thinking? is this an iq thing?

you’re making a massive category error with this man, God is not a thing inside the universe that you can put in a cage or run a DNA test on. God is the source of being itself.

if I asked you to prove that the laws of logic exist, could you bring the law of identity to my house? could I pet the law of identity? can you send me dna samples of the law of identity? you would have to engage in a meta conversation to prove they are the necessary foundation for everything else. by your own logic, if you can't put the law of non-contradiction in a pet store, it must not be real.

the proof of God is that without Him, you cannot account for reason, logic, or truth or the logical argument in its simplest form:

x is the necessary precondition for y

y, therefore x

you claimed 2+2=5 is possible and that truth is just a social vote for survival, this means you have surrendered the argument completely. instead of even attempting to understand the most basic foundations of logic you pretend logic doesn't matter while also demanding proof at the same time... do you not understand how this is incoherent?

if logic is just a vote or a social construct, then your demand for proof is most people are religious therefore God is real. if it’s objective, then you have to deal with the Greek grammar of John 10:30 that I gave you, which you are still aggressively dodging.

so is truth just a social vote people make, or is it actually objective and universal no matter what someone subjectively thinks. If it's objective and universal, justify it, because I can and in a debate whoever can justify their position wins. You are bad at debate.

This post was edited by majorblood on Apr 20 2026 02:18am

You are dodging his question once again. You have to proof or bring at least slight evidence for your claim that you cannot account for reason without god. You cant just say it and think thats the proof. Thats not how that works, bro.

This post was edited by Kaltrato on Apr 20 2026 02:51am

how am I dodging his question? I directly addressed it.

what is your justification for logic or truth as universal and invariant? you are falling for something here called the myth of the given, you must justify the precondition for logic itself within your worldview. I can do that, can you?

This post was edited by majorblood on Apr 20 2026 03:03am

I dont have to do anything, I didnt present a claim. But you have if you want your claim to be taken seriously.

This post was edited by Kaltrato on Apr 20 2026 03:07am

what is your worldview? this is a comparison of worldviews, everything is theory-laden as I said there is no neutral position or in other words the myth of the given.

the only way we can make a coherent argument at a paradigm level is by comparison of worldviews and since there is a limited number of possible worldviews we can prove mine correct by the impossibility of the contrary.

My worldview? My worldview is that I dont take anything seriously that has no plausible foundation. All religious claims are foundationless gap fillers. You stutter arrogantly around about what cannot be without god, without a clue what can or cannot be. You cant imagine something can be without god? Well then it must be god, right? Well no. As long as nothing speaks for god except for knowledge gaps you wanna fill with him, its not valid.

what is the foundation for logic within your worldview? you claim you don't take anything seriously unless you can ground it, go ahead then. You made a universal claim about religions being "gap fillers" this must surely mean you have access to logic and it is universal, justify this and ground the precondition for logic itself or are things like logic and other transcendental categories your gods and you are a polytheist?

also your reply is more of a psychological report than a worldview

This post was edited by majorblood on Apr 20 2026 03:21am