Jan Ardena:You're great at guessing at my psychology, Jan, but really lousy at sticking to the topic.
Another assumption James.
I know if I’m sticking to the topic or not.
Just because you cannot currently foresee how it relates, does not mean it is off-topic.
You've spent most of this thread trying to disparage atheists.
You’re just being paranoid.
But nobody is fooled by this attempt to distract from the topic.
Where have I distracted from the topic James.
And everybody can see that you have failed continuously to answer the question of the thread.
How so? The thread ask theists to put forward evidence of God, and that’s what I’ve done.
Just google William Lane Craig evidence for God. It’s all there.
I am also interested in exploring the reasons why you ask for evidence of God.
It is clear that you’re not interested in evidence for God, because you would be pouring into Bill’s work, instead whining. You’re interested in justifying, and preserving your world view.
Maybe if you could see that, you could realise that you have looking at this whole thing in the wrong way. Maybe you could at least understand how to perceive evidence of God.
Because right now you are doing nothing but denying and rejecting God, which is of no real use to anyone.
You have provided not a single quote or link to anything, let alone a summary of your own thinking about this ephemeral evidence that you assert exists.
That’s no reason for complaint. I have provided a source, which is something.
Outside of that, what would you like to discuss?
You're fooling nobody, Jan.
You’re paranoid James.
[qoute]It is quite apparent that you have nothing but excuses.[/quote]
So you regard accepting Bill Craig’s evidence of God, as decent evidence of, and naming it as a source, an excuse?
An excuse for what, exactly?
I quite clearly invited all readers of the thread to judge for themselves, whether or not they share my mindset.
Of course you did James!
More about me and my assumptions?
Who cares? This thread is not about me and my assumptions, no matter how often you try to make it about that.
You're not fooling anybody, Jan.
I have given my source for evidence of God, for what it’s worth. Now I’m interested in why you ask for evidence. So yes it is about you, because I’m making it about you.
There's no reason for me to believe that you've gone looking for evidence from Bill Craig, or anybody else.
I’m afraid that is a lie James. You have every to believe that I have, because I have stated that I have, and you know that Bill Craig has what he regards as evidence for God.
Nothing you have written here suggests that you've read anything about evidence for God from Bill Craig.
That is your problem James. I have told you what my evidence is, as requested.
There's not a single quote or link from you, and not a bit of summary information or a single thought about any point that Craig might have expressed somewhere.
Doesn’t matter. You know where the source is.
That’s the evidence I put forward.
But, I'll tell you that, out of curiosity, I spent a little time looking to see if Bill Craig has supplied some evidence of the reality of God somewhere.
I couldn't find any.
Well there’s a surprise... not.
Job done. You don’t accept my evidence of God.
End of.
It’s a good thing I didn’t lay it all out, as it saved a lot of time.
Based on our (yours and my) combined inability to find any evidence of relevance from Craig, I invite readers of this thread to draw the provisional conclusion that Craig has provided no evidence that God is real.
It’s obvious that you or any of your atheist chums are not going to accept ANY evidence of God.
That’s because you’re atheists. That’s the problem.
Don’t you get it yet?
Of course, something from him might turn up. You never know. If it does, I'll be interested to take a look at it.
Course you will. So that you can deny and reject it, thereby not only justifying your position, but keep your atheism in tact. Because you’re an atheist. You are in a loop.
I did. I couldn't find any evidence for God from him. I therefore draw the provisional conclusion that he doesn't have any.
Of course you do James.
Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, about me. But I'm not asking you for a dialogue. You said you had some evidence for God. All I have asked is that you present it.
I’ve given you my evidence, you come back and said you don’t accept it as evidence. Job done.
As long as your atheist you’re never going to accept anything as evidence. Even if it is evidence.
As an atheist, how could you?
You need to identify your problem.
The real sham in this thread is your bluff that you have evidence. That has been well and truly exposed.
You still don’t get it do you?
It's okay. Some other theists have made attempts in good faith to answer the question here. You're not needed in this thread. I'd say you're a liability to the theist position, actually. You make it look like there is no evidence - at least none you're aware of.
You mean other theists don’t mind going through the usual atheist runaround. That’s great. Most times I go along with the atheist runaround. It’s good because it can keep us sharpe, and focused on God. Also it helps the atheist because he or she becomes more focused on God.
I don’t think you’re in a position to judge if I am a liability to the theist position, as you can only see it from an atheist POV. To make that call you really have to be theist, as theists can comprehend both positions.
Reading it again doesn't turn a non-answer into an answer. Your claim was that human beings can't invent scripture (or gods). I asked how the truth of that claim is established. Your reply was the deepity "Man is man, God is God", which is a non-answer. It does not address the question I asked, but merely substitutes some mumbo-jumbo for an answer. Probably you were hoping your response would be considered profound or something. I just called it out for what it is.
From your perspective, there is no God. So I can understand why you regard it as a non answer. But nevertheless, the answer is correct from a theist perspective. I choose to look at it from that perspective. Maybe you should try and comprehend how it could possibly be correct, despite your lack of agreement.
You really think my answer is “mumbo-jumbo?
What makes it mumbo-jumbo?
I've already discussed this.
So?
Let’s discuss it again.
The more relevant question is: why assume that God can exist outside of things?
How is this question MORE relevant?
Do you mean it’s MORE relevant for YOU?
I don’t mind discussing this MORE relevant question after you respond to the LESS relevant one.
If you think God is synonymous with nature, you need only say so.
I will bear that in mind should I feel the need.
I have already discussed that position in this thread. If, on the other hand, you think God is more than that, I want to see your evidence.
So what? We can discuss it again.
Why do you assume anything exists outside of God?
Yes. You make many claims to special knowledge, the most recent being that you know that babies are aware of God.
How could they not be aware of God (if God exists)?
Unless you are asserting “God does NOT exist”.
When pressed on how you come by this special knowledge, you can never explain it.
I’ve never said, or implied I have special knowledge. That is just your diversion.
We all have the same capacity for knowledge, but some have chosen to subconsciously reject it.
The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.
All you say is that your special knowledge is innate, God-given. I call this magical knowledge, since it has no evidenced source.
Just because you currently lack the ability to access that knowledge, by your own choice, does not make those that do not deny and reject it, have special knowledge.
By the way, in case you're considering it, the following argument is circular: "The evidence that God exists is the innate knowledge that I have that God exists, which comes from God." Or, in other words: God exists because you know he exists, and you know he exists because he exists. You see? Circular.
I’ve already given you my evidence for God (via Bill Craig). I don’t recall claiming that not denying and rejecting God, is evidence for God.
Jan.