Which Would You Personally Prefer...

[Tassman]

But that does not answer my question. You need to explain what you mean by "substantive evidence." I for one do not believe in "Santa" or in multiple "gods." And explain how one is to recognize substantive evidence which constitutes truth.

[MaxVel]

How about engaging and giving a substantive answer instead of evading?

Which one do you mean?

[Tassman]

How about engaging and giving a substantive answer instead of evading?



Which one do you mean?

[carpedm9587]

The God I know is omnipresent. All caused things are in Him by reason He is the Existance in which even space-time has its existence in. God being infinite and personal being omnipresent.

I have no idea what to do with this, so I will take it as simply a testament of your faith/beliefs.

Let me say it in a more intelligible way. Salvation, that is, God forgiveness of men is by undeserved favor alone, through faith in God's Christ alone. And men who fail to believe it, do so not understanding its truth.

I am familiar with the "by faith alone" credo in Christianity. As for understanding...well, I'm sure someone who believes as you do is going to see someone who believes as I do as "not understanding."

Some truths understood cannot be denied. [Like 1 +1 =2.]

I understand. I feel pretty much the same about atheism.

[37818]

Hmm. There is substantive evidence for God. You simply choose to deny that evidence being evidence for God. So you therefore have no evidence for God. You attribute the identifiable evidence not to God. The primary evidence being being (existence uncaused). The universe (all the caused things). Information (its source of intelligence). There being an ultimate source of causation.

[37818]

Some truths understood cannot be denied. [Like 1 +1 =2.]

I understand. I feel pretty much the same about atheism.

Present it.

[carpedm9587]

Present it.

Present what?

[Roy]

Hmm. There is substantive evidence for God.

There is no substantive evidence for your god.

What you claim is "substantive evidence for God" is actually non-substantive argument for something you claim is God.

[JimL]

Yes I said God made man good. I said it because God, after He made man, He said it was good.

Thats ridiculous. You said that god made man "good" in the sense that man was created inately "good," then you went on to say that a good man then made a bad decision and became evil. That was the argument you were making. Now that argument does agree with the biblical account if by "good" all you mean to say is that Adam was created sinless, the problem with that argument though is that the same applies to everyone and so Adam and Eve wouldn't be responsible for passing on a so called sinful nature to their progeny, their creator would be responsible.
So all of this is to ask the question what it is that you mean by "good" or "evil" when applied to the nature of man, or when applied to god for that matter. In the bible, evil is simply disobedience to authority, so "good" is simply obedience. Is that how you would define good and evil, obedience or disobedience to authority, or do you think they have some intrinsic meaning relative to human beings?

[37818]

There is no substantive evidence for your god.

What you claim is "substantive evidence for God" is actually non-substantive argument for something you claim is God.

So what is your proof and substantive evidence that there can be no God. ]Existence does not exist, we are not here.]

[Tassman]

Thats ridiculous. You said that god made man "good" in the sense that man was created inately "good," then you went on to say that a good man then made a bad decision and became evil. That was the argument you were making. Now that argument does agree with the biblical account if by "good" all you mean to say is that Adam was created sinless, the problem with that argument though is that the same applies to everyone and so Adam and Eve wouldn't be responsible for passing on a so called sinful nature to their progeny, their creator would be responsible.
So all of this is to ask the question what it is that you mean by "good" or "evil" when applied to the nature of man, or when applied to god for that matter. In the bible, evil is simply disobedience to authority, so "good" is simply obedience. Is that how you would define good and evil, obedience or disobedience to authority, or do you think they have some intrinsic meaning relative to human beings?

I read this somewhere:

This is why there was no primeval sin: Adam and Eve were innocent and without sin which means they didn't:

1. know what death was.
2. understand threats (you will surely die)
3. know what lies and deception were (couldn't tell if the snake was telling the truth or not).
4. know what responsibility was.
5. know what punishment was.
6. know or understand the value of power (you will be like god)
7. know what the choice was as, without knowledge, you have no knowledge and can't understand if it's worth having and which is better no knowledge or knowledge.

Man didn't fall; it is without any doubt or contrary possibility that, if a god existed, the test was a prearranged certainty, rigged by god who created sin and sinned by using lies and deception to enforce the inevitable on Adam and Eve. Then he committed the further sin of falsely accusing them of making a free will choice to defy him. If god exists, they didn't fall they were pushed and all sin and evil that followed is god's direct responsibility and creation.

[Tassman]

Hmm. There is substantive evidence for God. You simply choose to deny that evidence being evidence for God. So you therefore have no evidence for God. You attribute the identifiable evidence not to God. The primary evidence being being (existence uncaused). The universe (all the caused things). Information (its source of intelligence). There being an ultimate source of causation.

So you keep saying, but what you have yet to explain is why you would attribute the existence of the universe and us to a creator god? And not any old god, but your god!

[Roy]

There is no substantive evidence for your god.

What you claim is "substantive evidence for God" is actually non-substantive argument for something you claim is God.

So what is your proof and substantive evidence that there can be no God. ]Existence does not exist, we are not here.]

I did not claim to have any such thing.

This blatant combined straw-man and attempt to shift the burden of proof is further evidence that there is no substantive evidence for your god, only non-substantive (and flawed) argument. If there was substantive evidence for your god, you wouldn't need to engage in such shenanigans.

[Roy]

I did not make the claim God made man good.

Yes I said God made man good.

TWeb needs better apologists.

[37818]

Thats ridiculous. You said that god made man "good" in the sense that man was created in[n]ately "good," . . .

No. God made man. What God made was good. Man was made without knowing the difference between good and evil. You can believe what you want. Which is what you are going to do anyway.