I've already explained this.
I have seen you stating it, but have yet to see you explain it. Please can you highlight where? A post number will suffice.
In this thread it doesn't matter what regard as evidence for God, because that is not the topic.
The topic is in regards to atheism. As explained, one can not separate atheism from the issue of evidence for God, and why some people see things as evidence and some do not. To establish such differences, it helps that those that see things as evidence put forth examples of what they consider to be evidence, and in examining why they think it is evidence and why the atheist does not one will start to comprehend atheism.
So it is the topic, Jan. Indirectly, perhaps, but it is very much an issue. I'm sorry that you feel it isn't. If you don't want to address the issue then feel free not to post. But please don't try to derail the thread with your antics.
[qupte]Right now you are irrational, and desperate. [/quote]I am quite rational, Jan, and my only desperation is in trying to get you to behave in a cordial manner conducive to actual discussion. At every turn you block off that possibility.
You need to establish yourself, and/or get me banned.
I have no such desire, but if you do end up banned then be assured that it will be your own actions that bring it about, not mine.
I expect you to be irrational, belligerent, and, desperate. You're proving me right.
Grow up, Jan. You're simply being pathetic. If you claim there is evidence on the internet it is for you to provide examples when asked, not for others to have to find them. This is especially true when those you would require look for them have, in your view, no comprehension of what they are looking for.
This thread is in regard to atheism.
I'm not bothered about arguing for God's existence, in it. Because we all know that the default position for each and every atheist, anywhere, in any time, and any space, is that God does NOT exist.
This is the position of your strawman, Jan. Try listening and actually discussing things with atheists in this thread rather than asserting your blinkered view of them from the get go.
I asked him 2 questions. When you quoted one, you missed out the question mark, so it would seem that I made a claim. IOW you tried to fix it. Then you based your conclusion on the strawman you built.
Good grief, Jan. Does it come to this, to you trying to excuse yourself by claiming a question mark was indicating anything more than a rhetorical question? Or that you weren't offering it as an example, possible or otherwise?
But this is what you do, isn't it... you get called out for something you said, and instead of being civil and discussing it, clarifying your position, you simply obfuscate until the issue is lost in the detritus you throw up.
I asked two questions. They are there for the whole world to see.
Did or did you not offer up "ability to understand" as an example, possible or otherwise, even if couched as a question, of an effect that needed the hypothesis of God?
As an example, and given your understanding of God as "cause of all" it clearly (as demonstrated) begged the question. Do you have any other possible examples you would like to now put forth that do not beg the question?
What's funny about this, is that nobody has answered them.
I did. I said that your examples, even if they were couched as questions, begged the question that was asked of you. I also asked if you had any examples that did not beg the question. Do you?
If you had respect for this website we may well be discussing them right now, instead of trying to get me banned.
They were discussed, hence me asking if you have any examples that do not beg the question. And no, I am not trying to get you banned, although your concern for it does suggest that you feel you must be sailing quite close to the edge. Any such result will be of your own making, Jan.
You know what Sarkus?
I think you need to calm yourself down.
Oh, that really did make me smile.
It has become impossible to communicate with you.
You have never really tried communicating, Jan, so how would you know? You simply repeat your strawman arguments over and over again.
If you want to communicate, Jan, and actually hold a discussion, then drop your antics, listen to what is said rather than to your strawman, stop evading questions, stop obfuscating, take ownership for the implications of what you say, at least try to be consistent in your arguments, and above all stop treating every thread as a war between theists and atheists.
I'll reply again: have you stopped beating your wife yet?
So you're continuing with this evasion, and additionally you're not even going to explain why you think using such a leading question is relevant here? What point are you trying to make?
I have explained why I think the question I asked is not a leading question, and why my question to you was entirely reasonable. You think the question a trick? I assure you it is not, I am merely asking if you have any examples that do not beg the question. Do you?