agnostic atheism is oxymoronic

[fr0d0]

That makes it pretty simple. If that's all the proof there is, then that means there is no proof at all. Finally, the theist-atheist debate can be laid to rest.

I'm sure the debate will rage on

[MikeTheInfidel]

Unless of course we're talking about the interventionist God of Abrahamic theism and other theisms, in which case proof would absolutely be expected. And any deity which doesn't intervene is irrelevant.

fail

Show me how anyone ever would have transferable proof. It just is never possible. Never was and never will be.

You've got to be joking. The Abrahamic god was a deity who, throughout the Bible, manifested himself physically in several forms, spoke directly to people, acted directly in nature, and so on. If this god exists, the evidence for him will be empirical. In fact, if the Christian part of the Bible is true, then every single human being who ever lived will meet this god in person at the second coming.

And as for other gods? Every time someone claims that a god did something physical in the world, that's an event that would leave evidence. Some gods even supposedly created magical artifacts for humans to use.

[fr0d0]

Yes. So you have evidence of Gods interaction. You're experiencing it now.

Every instance of evidence in the bible is exactly the same. Yet confronted with it, some chose not to believe it.

Now do you believe it or not?

[MikeTheInfidel]

Yes. So you have evidence of Gods interaction. You're experiencing it now.

Every instance of evidence in the bible is exactly the same.

This is complete bullshit and you know it. When Moses and the Israelites walked through a magically parted sea and followed a magical talking pillar of fire, that's not exactly the same as what I'm experiencing now. It's not even remotely similar. Quit acting like we're both idiots.

[Cyberman]

I'm going to run out of thumbs, giving kudos at this rate. I've rarely seen such intense schooling in one thread before.

[Chas]

Unless of course we're talking about the interventionist God of Abrahamic theism and other theisms, in which case proof would absolutely be expected. And any deity which doesn't intervene is irrelevant.

fail

Show me how anyone ever would have transferable proof. It just is never possible. Never was and never will be.

Case in point: this reality is all made by God. Proof.

You do not understand what is meant by evidence. All evidence is, by definition, transferable.

You must be talking about feelings or revelations. Those are not evidence.

[fr0d0]

You're letting your imagination run wild. Even if those stories are true, don't you think that there could be valid scientific explanations? Just last week I was watching some program detailing the circumstances that might make the Sea passable on foot at that point. Tidal flow/ tsunami elsewhere/a shallow pass there anyway.

It's entirely down to interpretation. They said God did it.

God directed me to this forum the exact time you posted. If I'm distracted or my phone crashes and I can't reply, that's what God wanted. That's how I see it. That's how they saw it. Do you see?

---

You do not understand what is meant by evidence. All evidence is, by definition, transferable.

You must be talking about feelings or revelations. Those are not evidence.

So you've never heard scientists use the term empirical in relation to evidence?

[Chas]

You're letting your imagination run wild. Even if those stories are true, don't you think that there could be valid scientific explanations? Just last week I was watching some program detailing the circumstances that might make the Sea passable on foot at that point. Tidal flow/ tsunami elsewhere/a shallow pass there anyway.

It's entirely down to interpretation. They said God did it.

God directed me to this forum the exact time you posted. If I'm distracted or my phone crashes and I can't reply, that's what God wanted. That's how I see it. That's how they saw it. Do you see?

---

You do not understand what is meant by evidence. All evidence is, by definition, transferable.

You must be talking about feelings or revelations. Those are not evidence.

So you've never heard scientists use the term empirical in relation to evidence?

Really? You're really going to go there? You're really going to try to play word games?

Empirical evidence is the result of observation and experiment. Other evidence may consist of concordance with theory that is otherwise supported by empirical evidence.

[MikeTheInfidel]

You're letting your imagination run wild. Even if those stories are true, don't you think that there could be valid scientific explanations? Just last week I was watching some program detailing the circumstances that might make the Sea passable on foot at that point. Tidal flow/ tsunami elsewhere/a shallow pass there anyway.

It's entirely down to interpretation. They said God did it.

So when God rained fire down from the sky on Sodom and Gomorrah and TURNED A HUMAN BEING INTO A PILLAR OF SALT, you think there's a scientific explanation of that? You think that's a matter of INTERPRETATION? And you think that's EXACTLY LIKE WHAT I EXPERIENCE TODAY?

You are so intellectually dishonest, it pains me.

And if you think there's a scientific explanation for those things, then god is an utterly redundant element of the story and serves no purpose whatsoever.

BTW, those 'documentaries' are starting from the assumption that it actually happened. Archaeology shows it didn't.

[Whateverist]

That's a claim - not proof.

It's as much proof as there has ever been. If there is a God, then you and everything you experience are proof of his activity. It's not proof because we have an arbitrary selector: "if".

I don't 'claim' that God exists. I believe that God exists.

@frOdO: And everything else is just messing with our heads? Naughty hobbit.

@his victims/playmates: If you want to play with frOdO, you should avoid going literal. He's going to counter with riddles and puns every time.