So you're the only one who knows what the thread is really, really, really about.A lot of people there were whining in the same manner as you are now.
Or you're just evading because you don't have any evidence.
So you're the only one who knows what the thread is really, really, really about.A lot of people there were whining in the same manner as you are now.
I would say about maybe 75% of participants so far have a pretty reasonable idea what the thread is about. So far, you are in the 25%So you're the only one who knows what the thread is really, really, really about.
Or you're just evading because you don't have any evidence.
So you still got nothing.I would say about maybe 75% of participants so far have a pretty reasonable idea what the thread is about. So far, you are in the 25%
If you are amongst those 25% who can't understand the OP, you can't understand who is obliged to bring something here.So you still got nothing.
If you're claiming that God is "obvious", like an elephant, there shouldn't be any need to explain to you what part of an elephant we want to see. Any part will do. Show one.If you are amongst those 25% who can't understand the OP, you can't understand who is obliged to bring something here.
Grow up you ding bats...t
Please keep your delusional bullshit to yourselves or share it with a child molesting priest if you must but really put up or shut up
Take your God nonsense and stick it in your nose.
Put up or shut up put up to grow up all your God stories are lies which no one with an once of sense believes in the slightest.
Theists please go back to the bronze age and never come back
Once again, Bowser tried the "obvious" approach in the other thread. On account of the resultant whining, he started this thread. We get it that you are whining, but you are whining in the wrong thread. Seriously, if you took this whining to the other thread, nothing would be out of place.If you're claiming that God is "obvious", like an elephant, there shouldn't be any need to explain to you what part of an elephant we want to see. Any part will do. Show one.
Please keep your delusional bullshit to yourselves
And the answer is still that if something is "obvious", you shouldn't need a road map. Show us the elephant's leg. Show us his trunk. Show us his tusk. (Those are examples: a leg, a tusk, an ear.) If you can't do that, you have no basis to call the elephant "obvious".Bowser tried the "obvious" approach in the other thread. On account of the resultant whining, he started this thread.
Once again.And the answer is still that if something is "obvious", you shouldn't need a road map. Show us the elephant's leg. Show us his trunk. Show us his tusk. (Those are examples: a leg, a tusk, an ear.) If you can't do that, you have no basis to call the elephant "obvious".
I'm not making an argument about whether or not God esists. I'm asking you for evidence. I asked specifically for a leg, a trunk, a tusk.We get it that you have this wonderful, original argument about how God doesn't exist.
So the next series of questions might be....
The OP asks, "What is it that you need to prove God's existence? Would it be something physical, solid--something you can hold in your hand?" I'm answering, "Yes. That would do it."
.
He offered "everything" physical. That isn't very helpful. Saying that everything is evidence of God is the same as saying that everything is evidence of unicorns or leprechauns.Did Bowser offer something physical in the previous thread?
I think you have to decide whether you actually want to engage in discussion or just enthusiastically fist pump for team atheism.He offered "everything" physical. That isn't very helpful. Saying that everything is evidence of God is the same as saying that everything is evidence of unicorns or leprechauns.
.
This is not about atheism. It's about evidence.I think you have to decide whether you actually want to engage in discussion or just enthusiastically fist pump for team atheism.
How is Bowser's outcome more valid than any other outcome? To anyone except Bowser?Not a dodge at all.
Far from being but one of uncountable solutions, the moment you are referring to an omnimax personality is the moment you are being necessarily singular.
If you want to discuss identities outside of the omnimax, then feel free to dodge away .... but preferably in a separate thread.
That applies to you too.I think you have to decide whether you actually want to engage in discussion or just enthusiastically fist pump for [X]
He offered "everything" physical. That isn't very helpful.
Saying that everything is evidence of God is the same as saying that everything is evidence of unicorns or leprechauns.
We need something that specifically ties something to this "God" concept
So show us something that specifically indicates "God" and not unicorn or leprechaun.