Author Topic: Evidence for God  (Read 51258 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TheFifthColumn

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Rep: -113
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #390 on: November 17, 2017, 11:51:14 AM »
I'm surprised that my evidence's came across that way. My intention was to show the possibility of the intelligent design of man because of his distinct difference of all other creatures to create, therefore being created. oh, and yes the ability to misuse this gift form God to harm others for our own petty selfishness. Its funny how we humans get angry at the possibility of a God who expects good to come from us because it infringes on our freedom in someway, but the minute some wacko does something evil to others we feel God's to blame and should have had that wacko in check. As far as faith is concerned, I see it differently. I believe that faith is trust in God, a total surrender to his guidance. Evidence is a different matter all together. I can't see my lungs since their in my chest and I can't see the oxygen around me, yet I have substantial personal evidence that both exist, as my chest rises and my brain doesn't go dead. So I have personal evidence they both exist, yet I must trust both to do their part. I know that may be a weak example from your perspective, but it makes sense to me. That being said, I see evidence for God all around us, I also see Him at work in peoples lives. Just my 2 cents. Thanks for listening.


Simon Woodstock

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
  • Rep: -35
    • Nowhere avatar image
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #391 on: November 18, 2017, 05:36:18 AM »
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
  I wonder if this is the real simon woodstock.  Hey I remember you're 1st interview?   you were skating a curb or flatbar doing a combo wearing a denim vest and you skated for dogtown?  Lets get some stories on the go here. JJ rodgers?  did brian fernandad skate for dog town ?  You grinded that out house roof before jeremy klien grinded those fake rooves.
[close]

Thanks man: Yeah, the good old days. I got boards for a minute from Dogtowm through Stacy Gibo but wound up as AM on Black Label. I lived with JJ Rogers for a while in downtown SJ. I would come home and say "Hey JJ, what are you up to?" and I would see a dead squirrel on the porch in front of him and he would respond "Trying to learn how to taxidermy this dead squirrel" etc.. etc.. etc.. I remember him shredding that San Jose mini ramp pro contest in the 90s. Omar Hassan won it (I think) but JJ placed top 10.

I think Ferdinand rode for Circle A back in its heyday (I could be wrong on that). Brian is a sick skater, he would trow down at every spot.

The outhouse grind went down at a Tracker party in SD. Felt good to do it.
[close]
  Tight!

I talked old times on the Shetler Show the other day as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ08IbfrCh0&t=4613s

Simon Woodstock

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
  • Rep: -35
    • Nowhere avatar image
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #392 on: November 18, 2017, 05:47:19 AM »
Expand Quote
Expand Quote

My answer to your question [Is there absolute truth? yes or no?] is "No." 

[close]

Just one more follow up question:

Are you, then, absolutely sure that there is no absolute truth? yes or no?
[close]

Ah - I see you're attempting to shift the burden of proof to me.  If I say 'yes, I'm absolutely sure there is no absolute truth" you'll ask me why i believe that, ask for evidence of its non-existence, say I can't give that so it's philosophically unsound to believe that, etc. So I'll say I'm absolutely sure that no absolute truth exists in the same way that I'm absolutely sure that unicorns aren't real.  For all intents and purposes, yes.

Thanks for responding, oyolar. This isn't trickery. It's just use of Aristotle's logic. For one to say that there is no such thing as absolute truth, they would have to be absolutely sure of the truth of the statement in order to hold it as true which is thus self refuting and therefore shows the logical impossibility of relativism.

The same goes for relative ethics/morals. To say 'there is no universally true absolute moral standard' is an absolute/universal statement about moral standards. Thus, moral relativism suffers the same self refuting fate.

Nevertheless, if there are truly passages in the Bible that are perplexing to you (especially after you have read them in their context and honestly tried to figure them out for yourself, etc.) I would be glad to try to offer up reasonable responses. I am just making sure that you didn't just copy and paste those verse references off of an atheist website and are thus simply trying to get me running through the gambit there.

Simon Woodstock

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
  • Rep: -35
    • Nowhere avatar image
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #393 on: November 18, 2017, 05:55:26 AM »
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote

My answer to your question [Is there absolute truth? yes or no?] is "No." 

[close]

Just one more follow up question:

Are you, then, absolutely sure that there is no absolute truth? yes or no?
[close]

Ah - I see you're attempting to shift the burden of proof to me.  If i say 'yes, I'm absolutely sure there is no absolute truth" you'll ask me why i believe that, ask for evidence of its non-existence, say I can't give that so it's philosophically unsound to believe that, etc. So I'll say I'm absolutely sure that no absolute truth exists in the same way that I'm absolutely sure that unicorns aren't real.  For for all intents and purposes, yes.
[close]



Check mate atheist

This is not checkmate at all. If relativism were true, one could hold that Unicorns were, in fact, real. And that would have to be considered as equally valid to saying that they are not real. Oyolar is actually further proving that relativism is wrong in his response. All the while arguing that my views are wrong and that his are right. According to relativism, we would both be equally right and there would be no need for argument, etc.

Relativism seems like it is putting forth tolerance, when it is really propagating insanity. This video shows that what I am saying is actually the case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfO1veFs6Ho

Simon Woodstock

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
  • Rep: -35
    • Nowhere avatar image
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #394 on: November 18, 2017, 05:57:20 AM »
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Hey Simon - have you ever heard of secular humanism?  That's an entire branch of moral structures not based on religion so please stop using that as an argument for God.  Instead, please explain Psalm 137:7-9, Deuteronomy 13 & 17, Numbers 31, Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 20,  Chronicles 15:12-13, and Romans 1:24-32 and why those are acceptable deaths?  Is it because God said they are?

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/ethics-without-gods/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality#Morality_does_not_rely_on_religion
[close]

I am not saying that secular humanists don't have moral systems and/or cannot be moral. What I am saying is that there is no true philosophical foundation for the secular humanists' moral claims. If they are all relative to the individual, or society, etc, then they are all just opinions and thus cannot be consistently applied globally (or supported meta-ethically). Rather, what we see is actually evidence for God; the Golden Rule has been referenced several times on this thread. How or why is the Golden Rule so universally accepted? Because moral standards are universal (i.e., not relativistic to the individual) and thus are set in place by a Standard (God) that exists outside of time and space as arbiter. So, I won't stop using this argument because skeptics actually have to rely on a universal moral standard outside of themselves to say there is no universal moral standard. All arguments against the Moral Argument for God are self-refuting.

What is more, if you believe that the Bible passages that you referenced are morally wrong, by what standard are you saying that they are morally wrong? By your own standard or opinion? Or are you referencing a standard that exists outside of yourself that should apply to other people as well? The latter has to be the case, and, again, this self refuting on behalf of the secular humanist approach.

Further, if I were to take each of the Bible passages you referenced and give you clear philosophical/theological explanations for each of them, would you then consider becoming a Christian in light of the facts presented?
[close]

Thanks for avoiding my request to explain these passages which seemingly contradict the commandment "thou shalt not murder/kill/destroy" for no other reason than they detail something God doesn't like and basically saying "I could totally explain these but I need you to say you'll believe me when I explain them" makes it pretty clear that you're not that confident in your explanation.  Furthermore, I think then that a consistent moral code such as "don't kill/harm people whose actions are not killing/harming others (such as witches or homosexuals)" is much more consistent and easy to apply than God's rules as outlined in the Bible.  And i'm basing that off my interactions with others and society and that seems valid.  Basically, you haven't convincingly argued that an outside arbiter/God is absolutely necessary for a moral framework nor have you convincingly argued that a "consistent" morality (at least as you define it which to non-believers is based on the whims of a outside force insistent on controlling every aspect of your life) is better than one that is relativistic and can change and adapt to different situations and eras.

The Golden Rule as a consistent moral framework can prove merely that different human societies have learned that cooperation is more likely to lead to continued existence that disagreement and strife.  It doesn't have to mean that some external arbiter handed it down despite your insistence that that's the only philosophical way for it to make sense.  You're not actually doing philosophy when you claim that because you're begging the question and arguing from the starting point that "God exists" versus arguing towards it.

Please explain more your claim that all arguments against a universal moral standard need to rely on the existence of a universal moral standard because that doesn't make sense to me.

And further, even if you were doing philosophy correctly, that does not necessarily mean that God must exist outside of your thought experiment because we have no concrete evidence for it.  Plato could logically and philosophical make a case for the existence of perfect forms, but until we can prove their existence in other ways, believing in them requires faith.

Also, due to various considerations I am tapping out on this thread. But, feel free to follow up via email: [email protected]

If you or anyone else email me I will follow up on the debate issues. Take care, man.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2017, 06:30:53 AM by Simon Woodstock »

Simon Woodstock

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
  • Rep: -35
    • Nowhere avatar image
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #395 on: November 18, 2017, 06:01:30 AM »
Pretty good evidence for God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ff1jiRpjko

Are you a good person?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCSUKIhjevo

Time for me to peace out. Thanks for the challenging discussion points and be sure to have a great Thanksgiving and Christmas.

In parting, you can view the (relatively recent) last skate part that I ever did here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgP_U5dHyAU&t=8s

And, if anyone on here ever wants to get serious about God, Jesus, and the Church, don't hesitate to email me [email protected]

Audi 10K
Over.

Simon Woodstock

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
  • Rep: -35
    • Nowhere avatar image
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #396 on: November 18, 2017, 06:22:34 AM »
"Please explain more your claim that all arguments against a universal moral standard need to rely on the existence of a universal moral standard because that doesn't make sense to me."

I did.

Moreover, generally speaking . . .





http://babylonbee.com/news/local-atheist-demands-evidence-god-besides-entire-universe/

« Last Edit: November 18, 2017, 06:24:15 AM by Simon Woodstock »

Simon Woodstock

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
  • Rep: -35
    • Nowhere avatar image
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #397 on: November 18, 2017, 06:30:16 AM »
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Hey Simon - have you ever heard of secular humanism?  That's an entire branch of moral structures not based on religion so please stop using that as an argument for God.  Instead, please explain Psalm 137:7-9, Deuteronomy 13 & 17, Numbers 31, Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 20,  Chronicles 15:12-13, and Romans 1:24-32 and why those are acceptable deaths?  Is it because God said they are?

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/ethics-without-gods/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality#Morality_does_not_rely_on_religion
[close]

I am not saying that secular humanists don't have moral systems and/or cannot be moral. What I am saying is that there is no true philosophical foundation for the secular humanists' moral claims. If they are all relative to the individual, or society, etc, then they are all just opinions and thus cannot be consistently applied globally (or supported meta-ethically). Rather, what we see is actually evidence for God; the Golden Rule has been referenced several times on this thread. How or why is the Golden Rule so universally accepted? Because moral standards are universal (i.e., not relativistic to the individual) and thus are set in place by a Standard (God) that exists outside of time and space as arbiter. So, I won't stop using this argument because skeptics actually have to rely on a universal moral standard outside of themselves to say there is no universal moral standard. All arguments against the Moral Argument for God are self-refuting.

What is more, if you believe that the Bible passages that you referenced are morally wrong, by what standard are you saying that they are morally wrong? By your own standard or opinion? Or are you referencing a standard that exists outside of yourself that should apply to other people as well? The latter has to be the case, and, again, this self refuting on behalf of the secular humanist approach.

Further, if I were to take each of the Bible passages you referenced and give you clear philosophical/theological explanations for each of them, would you then consider becoming a Christian in light of the facts presented?
[close]

Thanks for avoiding my request to explain these passages which seemingly contradict the commandment "thou shalt not murder/kill/destroy" for no other reason than they detail something God doesn't like and basically saying "I could totally explain these but I need you to say you'll believe me when I explain them" makes it pretty clear that you're not that confident in your explanation.  Furthermore, I think then that a consistent moral code such as "don't kill/harm people whose actions are not killing/harming others (such as witches or homosexuals)" is much more consistent and easy to apply than God's rules as outlined in the Bible.  And i'm basing that off my interactions with others and society and that seems valid.  Basically, you haven't convincingly argued that an outside arbiter/God is absolutely necessary for a moral framework nor have you convincingly argued that a "consistent" morality (at least as you define it which to non-believers is based on the whims of a outside force insistent on controlling every aspect of your life) is better than one that is relativistic and can change and adapt to different situations and eras.

The Golden Rule as a consistent moral framework can prove merely that different human societies have learned that cooperation is more likely to lead to continued existence that disagreement and strife.  It doesn't have to mean that some external arbiter handed it down despite your insistence that that's the only philosophical way for it to make sense.  You're not actually doing philosophy when you claim that because you're begging the question and arguing from the starting point that "God exists" versus arguing towards it.

Please explain more your claim that all arguments against a universal moral standard need to rely on the existence of a universal moral standard because that doesn't make sense to me.

And further, even if you were doing philosophy correctly, that does not necessarily mean that God must exist outside of your thought experiment because we have no concrete evidence for it.  Plato could logically and philosophical make a case for the existence of perfect forms, but until we can prove their existence in other ways, believing in them requires faith.

Oh, and the difficult to explain Bible verses have good explanations:

http://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-difficulties/

https://carm.org/bible-difficulties

Okay, bye now for real (didn't want to leave that last challenge hanging. You can use those 2 links for finding answers Bible difficulties if you are inclined to do so).

givecigstosurfgroms

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 7013
  • Rep: -958
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #398 on: November 18, 2017, 06:32:35 AM »
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
  I wonder if this is the real simon woodstock.  Hey I remember you're 1st interview?   you were skating a curb or flatbar doing a combo wearing a denim vest and you skated for dogtown?  Lets get some stories on the go here. JJ rodgers?  did brian fernandad skate for dog town ?  You grinded that out house roof before jeremy klien grinded those fake rooves.
[close]

Thanks man: Yeah, the good old days. I got boards for a minute from Dogtowm through Stacy Gibo but wound up as AM on Black Label. I lived with JJ Rogers for a while in downtown SJ. I would come home and say "Hey JJ, what are you up to?" and I would see a dead squirrel on the porch in front of him and he would respond "Trying to learn how to taxidermy this dead squirrel" etc.. etc.. etc.. I remember him shredding that San Jose mini ramp pro contest in the 90s. Omar Hassan won it (I think) but JJ placed top 10.

I think Ferdinand rode for Circle A back in its heyday (I could be wrong on that). Brian is a sick skater, he would trow down at every spot.

The outhouse grind went down at a Tracker party in SD. Felt good to do it.
[close]
  Tight!
[close]

I talked old times on the Shetler Show the other day as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ08IbfrCh0&t=4613s
   Will watch.  The Shelter show is the shit!!  Very entertaining.   The 9 clubs existence bums me out.
"I just care about the river, I dont care about your back"

oyolar

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 11060
  • Rep: 379
  • SLAP OG SLAP OG : Been around since SLAP was a mag.
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #399 on: November 18, 2017, 10:40:49 PM »
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote

My answer to your question [Is there absolute truth? yes or no?] is "No." 

[close]

Just one more follow up question:

Are you, then, absolutely sure that there is no absolute truth? yes or no?
[close]

Ah - I see you're attempting to shift the burden of proof to me.  If I say 'yes, I'm absolutely sure there is no absolute truth" you'll ask me why i believe that, ask for evidence of its non-existence, say I can't give that so it's philosophically unsound to believe that, etc. So I'll say I'm absolutely sure that no absolute truth exists in the same way that I'm absolutely sure that unicorns aren't real.  For all intents and purposes, yes.
[close]

Thanks for responding, oyolar. This isn't trickery. It's just use of Aristotle's logic. For one to say that there is no such thing as absolute truth, they would have to be absolutely sure of the truth of the statement in order to hold it as true which is thus self refuting and therefore shows the logical impossibility of relativism.

The same goes for relative ethics/morals. To say 'there is no universally true absolute moral standard' is an absolute/universal statement about moral standards. Thus, moral relativism suffers the same self refuting fate.

Nevertheless, if there are truly passages in the Bible that are perplexing to you (especially after you have read them in their context and honestly tried to figure them out for yourself, etc.) I would be glad to try to offer up reasonable responses. I am just making sure that you didn't just copy and paste those verse references off of an atheist website and are thus simply trying to get me running through the gambit there.

I'm glad you're tapping out of this conversation (and hopefully this forum) but I feel like it's important to point out that you basically said "haha - I'm totally not going to do what you said I was going to do!" only to do exactly what I said you were going to do, but using slightly different words.

Also glad you're tapping out against my arguments and saying "Your posts prove my point!" without elucidating how (because I don't) or dismissing them based on one section that does not actually refute what I'm saying in totality.  Glad to know your totally scientific reasons for believing in God clearly and unequivocally stand up to the scrutiny of a dude bored writing up refutations/questions whenever he's had a few beers and a little free time.

(P.S. Philosophy has evolved beyond Aristotle so to continue to use Ancient Greek and early Christian philosophers as your measuring rod and philosophical barometers shows an unwillingness to wrest with several hundred years of non-Christian and anti-religious philosophies.)

No need to respond.  Please stay away.

ImportantGuy

  • Guest
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #400 on: November 18, 2017, 11:28:07 PM »
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote

My answer to your question [Is there absolute truth? yes or no?] is "No." 

[close]

Just one more follow up question:

Are you, then, absolutely sure that there is no absolute truth? yes or no?
[close]

Ah - I see you're attempting to shift the burden of proof to me.  If I say 'yes, I'm absolutely sure there is no absolute truth" you'll ask me why i believe that, ask for evidence of its non-existence, say I can't give that so it's philosophically unsound to believe that, etc. So I'll say I'm absolutely sure that no absolute truth exists in the same way that I'm absolutely sure that unicorns aren't real.  For all intents and purposes, yes.
[close]

Thanks for responding, oyolar. This isn't trickery. It's just use of Aristotle's logic. For one to say that there is no such thing as absolute truth, they would have to be absolutely sure of the truth of the statement in order to hold it as true which is thus self refuting and therefore shows the logical impossibility of relativism.

The same goes for relative ethics/morals. To say 'there is no universally true absolute moral standard' is an absolute/universal statement about moral standards. Thus, moral relativism suffers the same self refuting fate.

Nevertheless, if there are truly passages in the Bible that are perplexing to you (especially after you have read them in their context and honestly tried to figure them out for yourself, etc.) I would be glad to try to offer up reasonable responses. I am just making sure that you didn't just copy and paste those verse references off of an atheist website and are thus simply trying to get me running through the gambit there.
[close]

I'm glad you're tapping out of this conversation (and hopefully this forum) but I feel like it's important to point out that you basically said "haha - I'm totally not going to do what you said I was going to do!" only to do exactly what I said you were going to do, but using slightly different words.

Also glad you're tapping out against my arguments and saying "Your posts prove my point!" without elucidating how (because I don't) or dismissing them based on one section that does not actually refute what I'm saying in totality.  Glad to know your totally scientific reasons for believing in God clearly and unequivocally stand up to the scrutiny of a dude bored writing up refutations/questions whenever he's had a few beers and a little free time.

(P.S. Philosophy has evolved beyond Aristotle so to continue to use Ancient Greek and early Christian philosophers as your measuring rod and philosophical barometers shows an unwillingness to wrest with several hundred years of non-Christian and anti-religious philosophies.)

No need to respond.  Please stay away.
Jocks

Gray Imp Sausage Metal

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 14894
  • Rep: 75
  • We're just 2 lo(b)s(t)ers sitting behind a screen
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #401 on: November 19, 2017, 04:35:42 PM »
wait, so Simon focused without actually giving us any evidence then?

Impish sausage is definitely gonna blow up as a euphemism this year

givecigstosurfgroms

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 7013
  • Rep: -958
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #402 on: November 19, 2017, 04:46:12 PM »
wait, so Simon focused without actually giving us any evidence then?
  It would be hard to give evidence for god.  Simons own sect professes the concept of faith.  Why would 'faith' be needed if there existed evidence?  It's a sell plain and simple.  You sell to the average person by showing them 'evidence'. They feel that any way to get people into church is a good way.  Ends justifying means.  But there's money, politics and influence at play as well. Simon I think has good intentions tho.
"I just care about the river, I dont care about your back"

tobey

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 5414
  • Rep: 5
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #403 on: November 19, 2017, 05:18:40 PM »
Thats it, this thread needs to die. So I'm changing this thread to the dicks thread for the women and gay men who proudly post on these forums. Googling huge dicks and posting whatever pictures I like from that search





















Now small dicks because theres no shame in having a small pecker









What about our fellas who aren't circumcised? We got love for you too






ImportantGuy

  • Guest
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #404 on: November 19, 2017, 06:23:06 PM »
Can you do the same in the Satan thread with vaginas? Thanks in advance.

Francis Xavier

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 6729
  • Rep: 2137
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #405 on: November 20, 2017, 12:05:05 AM »
Thats it, this thread needs to die. So I'm changing this thread to the dicks thread for the women and gay men who proudly post on these forums. Googling huge dicks and posting whatever pictures I like from that search





















Now small dicks because theres no shame in having a small pecker









What about our fellas who aren't circumcised? We got love for you too






These are basically all the dicks I've drawn at the shop I work at,amazing.

wait, so Simon focused without actually giving us any evidence then?
Simon focusing is evidence

Damn I left my bubbler at my parents house

Gray Imp Sausage Metal

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 14894
  • Rep: 75
  • We're just 2 lo(b)s(t)ers sitting behind a screen
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #406 on: November 20, 2017, 01:04:38 AM »
Expand Quote
wait, so Simon focused without actually giving us any evidence then?
[close]
Simon focusing is evidence
ha! touche my fellow slap brethren, touché
a-fucking-men to that!

Impish sausage is definitely gonna blow up as a euphemism this year

JB

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 8337
  • Rep: 858
  • Rusty Berrings Roll Forever
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #407 on: November 20, 2017, 10:04:09 AM »
those are some great dicks, tobey. thanks!

tobey

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 5414
  • Rep: 5
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #408 on: November 20, 2017, 12:09:26 PM »
Can you do the same in the Satan thread with vaginas? Thanks in advance.

No because that would be gay as fuck

GAY

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 15952
  • Rep: 3289
  • Those that SLAP, can't.
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #409 on: November 20, 2017, 12:30:11 PM »
If I'm understanding this thread correctly, twinks with a slicked-up bikini wax are evidence for God? What a let down!

tobey

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 5414
  • Rep: 5
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #410 on: November 20, 2017, 12:34:05 PM »
If I'm understanding this thread correctly, twinks with a slicked-up bikini wax are evidence for God? What a let down!

Can a twink have a big dick or are they mainly called twinks because they aren't packing heat?

shark tits

  • Guest
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #411 on: November 20, 2017, 01:42:03 PM »
if man is 5 and man is 5
and my boner is 6 and my boner is 6
then god is 7 then god is 7!!!

ImportantGuy

  • Guest
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #412 on: November 20, 2017, 02:23:47 PM »
^POTY
Edit : we haven't seen Tiago's though!
« Last Edit: November 20, 2017, 02:42:52 PM by ImportantGuy »

GAY

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 15952
  • Rep: 3289
  • Those that SLAP, can't.
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #413 on: November 20, 2017, 02:32:32 PM »
Twinks' penises come in all shapes and sizes.

SOTY

  • Guest
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #414 on: January 05, 2018, 05:16:16 PM »
This thread needs love.

tobey

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 5414
  • Rep: 5
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #415 on: January 05, 2018, 05:28:41 PM »
No..... No it definitely didn't

phalanx

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Rep: -2
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #416 on: February 26, 2018, 06:40:27 PM »
I've thought a lot about this evidence for God question. I realized the biggest evidence I see for an active involved God are changed lives. It blows me away how many of my skate hero's became legit believer's. They had no advantage career wise for this change. People tried to say that about Hosoi right after he got out of jail, but its been, what, a decade or more. When I found out Jay Adams got saved I about fell over. I had to see the interviews to believe it. Think about it, Hosoi, Lance Mountain, Jay Adams, Steve Caballero, Judd Heald, Uriel Luebke, Brian Sumner, Simon Woodstock, Ray Barbee, Beaver Flemming, etc. The list goes on. These guys had no advantage to playing the religion card, as a matter of fact I know it hurt some of them sponsor wise. Just my 2 cents, try not to hate, unless of course you only allow people the freedom of your opinion.

https://youtu.be/Yv5ZaADxdns

phalanx

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Rep: -2
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #417 on: February 26, 2018, 06:41:26 PM »

phalanx

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Rep: -2
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #418 on: February 26, 2018, 06:42:16 PM »

phalanx

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Rep: -2
Re: Evidence for God
« Reply #419 on: February 26, 2018, 06:43:15 PM »