Counterfeits.

[37818]

What is you evidence that God exists and that he's omnipresent?

What evidence do you have that existence exists? And what is there that is omnipresent?

[Tassman]

What evidence do you have that existence exists? And what is there that is omnipresent?

There is verifiable empirical evidence of the existence of the natural universe and our place in it. There is none supporting the existence of deities.

[37818]

There is verifiable empirical evidence of the existence of the natural universe and our place in it. There is none supporting the existence of deities.

So you are arguing the existence of things - in this case the natural universe as perceived is evidence of existence. Things in space (existence) is not the space (existence) it is in. We see space (existence) by the things in it. Are you arguing "space" is uncaused existence? Or that "space" is an evidence that existence exists? I, for one, do not believe in deities[plural], BTW.

what is there that is omnipresent?

[Tassman]

So you are arguing the existence of things - in this case the natural universe as perceived is evidence of existence. Things in space (existence) is not the space (existence) it is in. We see space (existence) by the things in it. Are you arguing "space" is uncaused existence? Or that "space" is an evidence that existence exists? I, for one, do not believe in deities[plural], BTW.

what is there that is omnipresent?

I'm arguing the existence of the natural universe, which is all we have evidence of, which may or may not be infinite

[Sparko]

Prove that he exists.

what would you accept as proof?
that is what I have been asking you.

[Sea of red]

what would you accept as proof?
that is what I have been asking you.

If it could be demonstrated that sincere prayer was reliable then that would be a start.

[Tassman]

what would you accept as proof?

It's a meaningless question. There's no substantive evidence available for examination other than your personal testimony of Jesus as your personal friend and saviour, but and why would I believe you?

[JonathanL]

It's a meaningless question.

Your logic on this issue is so circular I'm amazed your head isn't in a perpetual state of being stuck inside your butt.

[Tassman]

Your logic on this issue is so circular I'm amazed your head isn't in a perpetual state of being stuck inside your butt.

Ah the smugness of the 'saved!'

God's existence is an unsubstantiated assumption and I’m supposed to give reasons why I might accept such an assumption. Come now! It’s a meaningless exercise. If you have evidence, present it. Personal testimony is NOT credible evidence.

[JonathanL]

Ah the smugness of the 'saved!'

Glass houses, stones.

God's existence is an unsubstantiated assumption and I’m supposed to give reasons why I might accept such an assumption. Come now! It’s a meaningless exercise. If you have evidence, present it. Personal testimony is NOT credible evidence.

Why should I? I don't believe you're capable of competent and accurate weighing of the evidence in the first place, so it would just be a major waste of time.

[Tassman]

Why should I? I don't believe you're capable of competent and accurate weighing of the evidence in the first place, so it would just be a major waste of time.

Yes, I suspect it would be, although not for the reasons you give.

[Roy]

My saying so has nothing to do with whether God is or not.
...
God just is.

Your posts would be less unconvincing if you could manage to maintain consistency for more than half a paragraph.

What is not consistent in my argument that you refer to?

Are you really so stupid that you can't see the inconsistency in admitting that stating god exists is ineffective, then doing it anyway?

And even if such an argument is concocted that the uncaused existence cannot be God, the premise that the uncaused existence is God cannot go away. Atheists willingly ignorant of this does not make it not true.

But atheists understanding it better than you do to the point that we recognise the fallacies that you have committed does make it not true.

And that fallacy is?

Beyond you.

As apparently is the concept of plurality.

[Sparko]

It's a meaningless question. There's no substantive evidence available for examination other than your personal testimony of Jesus as your personal friend and saviour, but and why would I believe you?

I didn't say what it would take for you to believe ME. I said what proof would it take for you to believe in God? I already suggested if God proved himself to you but that wasn't good enough for you. So what would be?

[Sparko]

If it could be demonstrated that sincere prayer was reliable then that would be a start.

What do you consider "reliable?" That God always has to grant your wish? He is God, not a genie.

[Tassman]

What do you consider "reliable?" That God always has to grant your wish? He is God, not a genie.

Yes, we all know this routine: "God always answers prayer but sometimes he says no".