He's right. You guys never proven there isn't evidence or that you haven't perceived some evidence, but just don't either grasp them or are not willing to accept them.

I said it before if it's upon Theists to present proofs, than onus on you is to show you listened well to the proofs, understood them, and then refute them and do so with proper reasoning.

To claim you would believe if proofs are present can be a honest stance you have or it could be a dishonest stance just as you think Theists are dishonest or misguided regarding their belief of God or proofs for God.

People looking for bible passage explanation are in the wrong thread.

Anyone just claiming an assertion is relevant logical etc doesn't make it so, unless it is a necessary conclusion following true premises.

(May 28, 2018 at 6:00 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: He's right. You guys never proven there isn't evidence or that you haven't perceived some evidence, but just don't either grasp them or are not willing to accept them.

I said it before if it's upon Theists to present proofs, than onus on you is to show you listened well to the proofs, understood them, and then refute them and do so with proper reasoning.

To claim you would believe if proofs are present can be a honest stance you have or it could be a dishonest stance just as you think Theists are dishonest or misguided regarding their belief of God or proofs for God.

The argument is invalid.

To be valid the theists would also have to prove that they have perceived clearly the evidence for every other god they don't believe in.

Remember, also, that many atheists were once theists, and evaluated the arguments in their own minds for ages before taking the first step.

(May 28, 2018 at 5:11 pm)Ybe Wrote: YB: Problem - you would need to show  (see clarification criteria) that  you can  know that:
 1. Sufficient reason or E  for G hasn't been supplied (thus the 1st post)

Well, give me just one or two examples of what you consider sufficient reason or evidence to believe in a god, and I'll let you know if they have ever been supplied to me.

If an A can show it has logical valid etc reason to know it should be an A, then PLEASE present the argument.

Saying theists also have to prove that they have perceived evidence clearly is like saying;
Baby did ate Johnie's candy? Well. what about Suzie? She ate Johnie's candy.

My argument is that I have not seen sufficient evidence to believe in a god.

What evidence or reason have you seen that you considered sufficient reason for you to believe in a god?

(May 28, 2018 at 6:15 pm)Ybe Wrote: People looking for bible passage explanation are in the wrong thread.

Anyone just claiming an assertion is  relevant logical etc doesn't make it so, unless it is a necessary conclusion following  true premises.

In the OP you used biblical versus as your rational justification for belief in your god. Therefore, biblical passages are open to discussion. 

Why are you refusing to address my rational logical and valid reason for not believing in your god who directs the killing of children?

Define "necessary conclusion". 

It is a true premise that the bible/your god indicates that children can be killed. 

Is this you dodging again? 

Plus, you stated that there are "multiple gods", an assertion of your own (Edit:post #258). This is not a bible passage so you should be able to address it in this thread. Please tell us about your multiple gods.

(May 28, 2018 at 7:00 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(May 28, 2018 at 6:15 pm)Ybe Wrote: People looking for bible passage explanation are in the wrong thread.

Anyone just claiming an assertion is  relevant logical etc doesn't make it so, unless it is a necessary conclusion following  true premises.

In the OP you used biblical versus as your rational justification for belief in your god. Therefore, biblical passages are open to discussion. 

Why are you refusing to address my rational logical and valid reason for not believing in your god who directs the killing of children?

Define "necessary conclusion". 

It is a true premise that the bible/your god indicates that children can be killed. 

Is this you dodging again? 

Plus, you stated that there are "multiple gods", an assertion of your own. This is not a bible passage so you should be able to address it in this thread. Please tell us about your multiple gods.

Hmmm... you do have a point.

(May 28, 2018 at 6:35 pm)LostLocke Wrote:

(May 28, 2018 at 5:11 pm)Ybe Wrote: YB: Problem - you would need to show  (see clarification criteria) that  you can  know that:
 1. Sufficient reason or E  for G hasn't been supplied (thus the 1st post)

Well, give me just one or two examples of what you consider sufficient reason or evidence to believe in a god, and I'll let you know if they have ever been supplied to me.

A sufficient reason for believing in G is for another thread. I am trying to keep on track with this one.

Are you saying you might not or don't have a sufficient logical reason for being an A?

By the way,  if one "doesn't" have a logical reason for not believing in X-rays that doesn't mean they do or don't exist.

All my reason(s) for not believing in X-rays are illogical they still could or could not exist.
Also, if all my reason(s) for believing in X-rays are illogical they still could or could not exist.

Not having logical reasons only means you should stop thinking  you are more rational than -As.

---

(May 28, 2018 at 6:51 pm)LostLocke Wrote: My argument is that I have not seen sufficient evidence to believe in a god.

What evidence or reason have you seen that you considered sufficient reason for you to believe in a god?

That's not an argument, just your opinion.
Why should I believe or trust your opinion?

(May 28, 2018 at 7:31 pm)Ybe Wrote:

(May 28, 2018 at 6:51 pm)LostLocke Wrote: My argument is that I have not seen sufficient evidence to believe in a god.

What evidence or reason have you seen that you considered sufficient reason for you to believe in a god?

That's not an argument, just your opinion.

So I have seen sufficient evidence to believe in a god?
Which evidence is that?