What's the bet he goofs?What do you mean by evidence?
What do you think God is?
Jan.
What's the bet he goofs?What do you mean by evidence?
What do you think God is?
Jan.
If you expect me to accept that God exists, then evidence of God is what is required. The same applies to UFOs, Bigfeet, etc. There is certainly nothing non sequitur about it. It is the one and only sequitur.Evidence of what specifically?
(If you say "God", again, at this stage, you are just spesking in non-sequitors)
Sure, so whenever you're ready to spit out what that evidence is, the discussion can proceed.If you expect me to accept that God exists, then evidence of God is what is required. The same applies to UFOs, Bigfeet, etc. There is certainly nothing non sequitur about it. It is the one and only sequitur.
That which is evident.What do you mean by evidence?
What do you think pixies are?What do you think God is?
Photo ID would work. Any photo would be a start, though not a definitive one. Or footprints. Or fingerprints. Really ANYTHING that suggests a god would be evidence.Sure, so whenever you're ready to spit out what that evidence is, the discussion can proceed.
Now that's just a silly response to a progressive question.What do you think pixies are?
We have a preconceived idea of everything in this scenario, so we can all come to an agreement on the evidence.A hole in a dead body with a bullet in it is evidence. It may not be conclusive but it leads to a logical conclusion.
Why isn't it?Looking out the window and seeing a tree does not lead logically to the conclusion that God exists. Hence, a tree is not evidence of God.
You have a high opinion of yourself.Now that's just a silly response to a progressive question.
God is to me the same as pixies are to you.I'll ask again. What do you think God is?
That's the problem, isn't it? Unless you can show evidence, I have no reason to think God is anything.We have a preconceived idea of everything in this scenario, so we can all come to an agreement on the evidence.
So tell me what you think God is, so we can understand why it is you don't see evidence.
Why isn't a tree evidence of pixies?Why isn't it?
Which is?That which is evident.
And a dead body without a bullet is also evidence, albeit evidence of a death other than a gun.A hole in a dead body with a bullet in it is evidence. It may not be conclusive but it leads to a logical conclusion.
Much like looking at a dead body, sans a bullet hole, is not evidence of a death by a gunshot.Looking out the window and seeing a tree does not lead logically to the conclusion that God exists. Hence, a tree is not evidence of God.
Would you like me to provide you with a multiple choice of pictures to see if you can answer that one yourself?What do you think pixies are?
So, as I said, whenever your ready to offer a notion of what that might be, the discussion can progress.Photo ID would work. Any photo would be a start, though not a definitive one. Or footprints. Or fingerprints. Really ANYTHING that suggests a god would be evidence.
Who said it bothered me?
I'd come forward to point out the stupidity of any stupid remark. You can say I have a grudge against stupidity if you like.
If you expect me to accept that God exists, then evidence of God is what is required.
Can be seen, heard, touched, etc. Can be measured, photographed, etc. Can be detected in ANY way that is "evident" to everybody. A woo image in your mind is not evident.Which is?
I didn't say anything about death by gunshot. I said that the body was dead, which should be evident to most people. I said there was a hole with a bullet in it but I did not say that that evidence pointed inexorably to a conclusion of death by gunshot. That would be a premature conclusion.And a dead body without a bullet is also evidence, albeit evidence of a death other than a gun.
"True absence" of death by a gunshot does not work
That would be the sensible approach. Isn't that the approach you would take if somebody claimed to be God?I mean what if one of them pipes up, "Hey, I'm God!", what are you going to say?
"No, you are not"?
Or maybe, just as equally reliant on presence, "Prove it"?
You don't seem to understand the meanings of the words "literally" or "eternity".I did warn you, we can play this game for literally an eternity.
Unless you have photographs of your thoughts, that doesn't answer the question.Would you like me to provide you with a multiple choice of pictures to see if you can answer that one yourself?
I did. You quoted it.So, as I said, whenever your ready to offer a notion of what that might be, the discussion can progress.
Because you deny and reject God.
It's not about priveludge, it is about choice. You choose to reject and deny.
Also it's not about information. It is about acceptance.
Know what?
Jan.
The "woo image in one's mind", as you so tactfully put it, is the standard one measures a claim of evidence against.Can be seen, heard, touched, etc. Can be measured, photographed, etc. Can be detected in ANY way that is "evident" to everybody. A woo image in your mind is not evident.
Huh? That's the antithesis of evidence, not the standard.The "woo image in one's mind", as you so tactfully put it, is the standard one measures a claim of evidence against.
I know. You tend to substitute blather for substance.BTW, this list has the potential to get bigger
Then explain why you don't believe in God, if you think non of that is true.Sorry, but none of that is true, you are making conclusions where no evidence exists to make such conclusions.
That would depend on what you think God is.I cannot deny or reject anything that hasn't been shown to exist.
What else can I conclude?If that is your honest answer to my inquiry, can I therefore conclude you have no legitimate answers to offer?
If you answered the question properly, we could take the discussion further. But that's not going to happen. Is it? That way you can, you can falsely maintain your worldview.You have a high opinion of yourself.
So God is a supernatural being in folklore and children's stories, typically portrayed as small and human-like in form, with pointed ears and a pointed hat?God is to me the same as pixies are to you.
That's not how it works. Why would you think it does.That's the problem, isn't it? Unless you can show evidence, I have no reason to think God is anything.
There is no claim that pixies are the origin of everything (including trees).Why isn't a tree evidence of pixies?
"Supernatural" is a mythical concept, so just mythical will do.So I understand you think God is a supernatural, mythical creature. Is that all you think God is?
That most assuredly is how it works. Without evidence, there's no reason to think that a myth is real or that one myth is significantly different from another. Gods = pixies.That's not how it works. Why would you think it does.
Partiality is the problem, not the solution. Without evidence that can be recognized and accepted by everybody, including atheists and different varieties of theists, you have nothing but a vague idea.If you reject and deny God (which you do), you are not going to be partial to any evidence presented. If you cannot even bring yourself to discuss God, as understood by people who believe in God, you'rehardly likely to be partial to any evidence presented.
That claim is irrelevant. As I've pointed out before, even if there was any evidence that some "god" existed, there would be no reason to extrapolate that evidence to conclude that it had created anything, much less everything.There is no claim that pixies are the origin of everything (including trees).
It's imaginative, I can stipulate to that.....Partiality is the problem, not the solution. Without evidence that can be recognized and accepted by everybody, including atheists and different varieties of theists, you have nothing but a vague idea.