Well, I am still waiting for Seattle to reply to my last post here prior to the present one.
Dear readers, he said he wanted out, that is very dismaying to me, for I thought that he was keen on us two having a dialog on the issue God exists or not, now he wants out.
You see, readers here, that is the way with atheists like Seattle, they make a lot of gratuitous statements peppered with words like magic, invisible unicorn, superman, etc., but just ask them to present information on concepts like God, cause, evidence. logic, etc., and they will like Seattle resort to harsh words like stupid.
At this point of our dialog, if and when he returns, I will just repeat my requests to him, that now he has the information from the Finnish atheists' Dictionary of Atheism, he can just choose one of the concepts there, and we can already take off in our exchange for his contention that God does not exist, and for my contention that God does exist.
And also I want him to tell me as he is a master of nature, to tell me what he knows of the relation of nature to the universe.
There. Now I will wait for Seattle to return. If he does not return, then I will see if any atheist will engage in a one on one dialog with me, including Sarkus.
In the case of Sarkus, I decided for the time being not to continue my dialog with him, because he does not care to produce a statement similar to mine, Everything with a beginning has need of a cause; which statement from me he insists that it is not any kind of logic, but he refuses to produce a statement similar to mine and we will both discuss how my statement and his example are or are not examples of logic.