Counterfeits.

[Tassman]

I didn't say what it would take for you to believe ME.

The point being made is that there is NO "proof" for the existence of god(s). The nearest the faithful can get to proof is their subjective experience, which is not proof at all, and testifying about their experiences.

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?

It's a nonsensical question. One cannot investigate the evidence unless there's evidence there to be investigated. And there isn't.

[JonathanL]

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

The more correct answer would be, "God always hears prayer, but sometimes he doesn't answer".

But in any case, so what? It's not like God is obligated to answer your prayers in the first place, no matter how earnest they might be.

[JonathanL]

It's a nonsensical question. One cannot investigate the evidence unless there's evidence there to be investigated. And there isn't.

Tassman's circular reasoning strikes again.


Person: So, Tassy, you don't believe in God.

Tassman: No, I don't, since there is no evidence that any god(s) exist.

Person: Oh, so you've investigated the matter then?

Tassman: No, I don't need to investigate the matter because there's no evidence to investigate

Person: But how would you know that unless you investigate in the first place?

Tassman: Because there cannot be any evidence since God doesn't exist. Stoopid theists, get on my level.

[Tassman]

The more correct answer would be, "God always hears prayer, but sometimes he doesn't answer".

How do you know God always hears prayer if he doesn't answer?

Tassman's circular reasoning strikes again.


Person: So, Tassy, you don't believe in God.

Tassman: No, I don't, since there is no evidence that any god(s) exist.

Person: Oh, so you've investigated the matter then?

So you have evidence of God 's existence to investigate? OK, what is it?

[JonathanL]

How do you know God always hears prayer if he doesn't answer?

If God exists then he always hears prayers in virtue of being omniscient.

So you have evidence of God 's existence to investigate? OK, what is it?

I don't have anything that isn't already out there on the internet.

[Roy]

I don't have anything that isn't already out there on the internet.

Argument by I'm-not-going-to-provide-a-weblink?

I've read a lot of sites on the internet that claim there is evidence for god's existence, and they invariably reduce to one or more of:
- authority ("The Bible says it")
- equivocation ("This is God")
- incredulity ("Look at all this complexity")
- unsharable personal experience
or your own approach of claiming there is evidence but providing none.

if you don't have anything that isn't already on the internet, then you almost certainly don't have anything at all.

[Tassman]

If God exists then he always hears prayers in virtue of being omniscient.

That's a big "IF".

I don't have anything that isn't already out there on the internet.

^ What Roy says ^

[JonathanL]

Argument by I'm-not-going-to-provide-a-weblink?

My intention wasn't to provide an argument in the first place.

[Sparko]

The point being made is that there is NO "proof" for the existence of god(s). The nearest the faithful can get to proof is their subjective experience, which is not proof at all, and testifying about their experiences.



It's a nonsensical question. One cannot investigate the evidence unless there's evidence there to be investigated. And there isn't.

So I was right, you are close minded and nothing is "good evidence" for God because you automatically reject ANY evidence for God.

So asking for evidence from us is just you trolling. You are not worth debating religion with because you have already made up your mind and nothing will change it. You are not just an atheist, you are an antitheist.

[Sparko]

Argument by I'm-not-going-to-provide-a-weblink?

I've read a lot of sites on the internet that claim there is evidence for god's existence, and they invariably reduce to one or more of:
- authority ("The Bible says it")
- equivocation ("This is God")
- incredulity ("Look at all this complexity")
- unsharable personal experience
or your own approach of claiming there is evidence but providing none.

if you don't have anything that isn't already on the internet, then you almost certainly don't have anything at all.

No it's "not bothering to waste time with a dumbass like Tassman who already said he will automatically reject any evidence provided" and can't even provide one example of evidence he would accept.

[37818]

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

If God's identity is [uncaused] Existence. To say God dos not exist is no different [except in your denial] than saying Existence does not exist.

As apparently is the concept of plurality.

Does the fallacy have a name?

[37818]

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

If you define universe to mean everything that exists. Uncaused existence would have to be part of the universe the universe being made up of everything uncaused and caused.

[Sea of red]

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

If he doesn't grant requests, what's the point in praying? Anytime God fails to come through you simply right it off as "he can do what he wants" and so any result are consistent with his existence.

[Sea of red]

So I was right, you are close minded and nothing is "good evidence" for God because you automatically reject ANY evidence for God.

So asking for evidence from us is just you trolling. You are not worth debating religion with because you have already made up your mind and nothing will change it. You are not just an atheist, you are an antitheist.

I think you're putting words in his mouth.

He was making the distinction between personal experiences (revelations) such as yours, and empirical evidence. The former is subjective testimony that while no doubt sincere, can not be subjected to verification by others to verify what you interpret the experience to be. And he's correct when he stated there is no physical evidence -- there isn't.

FYI: most people here have made up their minds, and are simply exchanging beliefs.

[Tassman]

I think you're putting words in his mouth.

He usually does. It's his MO in lieu of substantive argument.

He was making the distinction between personal experiences (revelations) such as yours, and empirical evidence. The former is subjective testimony that while no doubt sincere, can not be subjected to verification by others to verify what you interpret the experience to be. And he's correct when he stated there is no physical evidence -- there isn't.

Of course I was making the distinction between subjective experiences and empirical evidence, as is obvious to you and everyone else without a religious agenda.

FYI: most people here have made up their minds, and are simply exchanging beliefs.

They need regular validation to reinforce their improbable belief system.