Counterfeits.

[37818]

Oh, so you have verifiable evidence of the supernatural?

Every genuine Christian has this evidence in knowing God (1 John 5:12; Romans 8:16; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Romans 8:9).

[tabibito]

Hume is right of course - if you pay attention to that "almost."

[Tassman]

Every genuine Christian has this evidence in knowing God (1 John 5:12; Romans 8:16; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Romans 8:9).

So you DON'T have verifiable evidence of the supernatural? OK!

[Tassman]

Hume is right of course - if you pay attention to that "almost."

The

[JonathanL]

Oh, so you have verifiable evidence of the supernatural?

Whether or not evidence for a deity exists doesn't really make a difference in the matter.

As I already said, it wouldn't matter, because you wouldn't assess it fairly.

But if we're talking empirically verifiable evidence, then no, I don't. But I don't believe having empirically verifiable evidence for something is a necessity to be justified in having belief in that something.

[tabibito]

[Tassman]

But if we're talking empirically verifiable evidence, then no, I don't.

Thank you. I thought not.

But I don't believe having empirically verifiable evidence for something is a necessity to be justified in having belief in that something.

[tabibito]

My point is demonstrated.

[Tassman]

My point is demonstrated.

No! It's not.

[37818]

So you DON'T have verifiable evidence of the supernatural? OK!

No. It is you who does not have any evidence you will accept.

[Tassman]

No. It is you who does not have any evidence you will accept.

So what is your verifiable evidence of the supernatural?

[Sparko]

Oh, you have verifiable evidence of the supernatural existing. No? OK come back when you have some. I can't be bothered with your hypotheticals.

what if I did have evidence? You would just reject it because you have already decided that there cannot be anything supernatural. You even said that if God himself appeared to you and did anything you asked you would not believe.

That is my point. You don't care about evidence because you are a fundy. You are just like jorge.

False equivalence! Jorge rejects Evolution despite the abundant empirically verifiable evidence supporting it. I reject deities because there is NO empirically verifiable evidence supporting their existence.

You have already said that you would reject any evidence at all. So you are just like Jorge.

[Sparko]

This is Tassman's approach to Trump too. Except in that case he believes Trump is guilty WITHOUT any evidence and just assumes that there is evidence that has not been found yet. The exact opposite way that he treats religion, in which he has decided that there is no God and no evidence is sufficient to prove it.

Basically proof means nothing to Tassman. He just decides what he wants to believe, with no evidence, and then nothing can deter him from that belief. He is a closed-minded fundamentalist. Except in his case, he is an atheist instead of a theist. Exact same personality profile. That is why I said he was the flip side of the same coin as Jorge.

[37818]

So what is your verifiable evidence of the supernatural?

Can anything be verified before nature? There was either something before nature or nothing before nature. We need to start there for your answer.

[Tassman]

what if I did have evidence? You would just reject it because you have already decided that there cannot be anything supernatural. You even said that if God himself appeared to you and did anything you asked you would not believe.