Evidence that God exists

[Demonaura]

I'm thinking you guys need a mediator lol. Someone you both trust to look at the situation and say "From what I see it is this person that needs to respond to this statement, person x please respond to X post in your next post" Then even if you think you have responded to that, that person trusts the mediator and does so again, trying to be as clear as possible. They have em in debates sometimes, helps situations like this.

[fr0d0]

Thanks Demonaura.. I was thinking the same thing yesterday. I'd certainly be willing to give it a try.

[Tiberius]

I think the problem is that you bring up multiple points at once and the other person feels that not all of them have been answered. Or that each of you doesn't consider the response an adequate "reply".

[Giff]

I wonder where the "Evidence that God exists" are? I haven't seen it. Probably because there are no evidence.

[fr0d0]

I wonder where the "Evidence that God exists" are? I haven't seen it. Probably because there are no evidence.

Damn straight Giff. Me neither.

(To be precise: empirical evidence)

[Kyuuketsuki]

Seriously Kyu.. I don't believe you said that. Really. Did you miss it? Did you miss my response? I replied to you on that thread at 1.09pm today. You posted this today at 5.02pm ...it's you that hasn't responded.

Um you posted, "Yesterday 12:14 PM", I posted my follow up, "Yesterday 11:41 AM" ... that clearly means I posted my response BEFORE you posted the link to your answer. I then posted saying I was awaiting an answer, "Yesterday 05:02 PM" and you say that that was AFTER your posted at 1:09PM today?

This may not be clear to you but I do tend to check the posts I make and for relevant follow-ups.

You lack of comment on my response on flame baiting vs hounding leads me to assume you have retracted your assertion on that? You see that's what gets me about people like you ... you rarely, if ever, admit you are wrong even when presented with the facts making it as clear as day, you slimly slink away and pretend you never said it or similar (and before you say it yes, when I realise I am wrong I apologise, I make it personal policy to do so or to similarly admit to my error, I've even done so to you).

Well that's a large leap of logic you're making. I was leaving it alone as I think there's nothing to be gained from pursuing it.

Well actually I think there is the small matter of you apologising to me or withdrawing the assertion because I have demonstrated fairly clearly that I am NOT flame-baiting ... not, of course, that I expect you to do so (though my saying this may make you) but that would be pretty much par for the course for a theist.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

Seriously Kyu.. I don't believe you said that. Really. Did you miss it? Did you miss my response? I replied to you on that thread at 1.09pm today. You posted this today at 5.02pm ...it's you that hasn't responded.

Um you posted, "Yesterday 12:14 PM", I posted my follow up, "Yesterday 11:41 AM" ... that clearly means I posted my response BEFORE you posted the link to your answer. I then posted saying I was awaiting an answer, "Yesterday 05:02 PM" and you say that that was AFTER your posted at 1:09PM today?

My answer to you on that thread is AFTER your last post. You posted at 12.45pm Yesterday, and I replied at 1.09pm Yesterday. You posted here that I hadn't responded at 5.02pm Yesterday ...nearly 4 hours AFTER I'd replied. You still haven't responded.

This may not be clear to you but I do tend to check the posts I make and for relevant follow-ups.

Well you missed this one. And this is the big one. The question you keep on saying that I avoid:

Now are you going to answer (properly) the points I have made (and I'll summarise)?

1. So it is valid to assume there is no god (in exactly the same way as we assume that the moon is not made of green cheese and that little green men in flying saucers are not constantly "buzzing " our Earth) until actual evidence is supplied yes?
   
2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you haven't provided any therefore it is safe to assume that what you claim has no (ZERO, NADA, ZIP) basis in truth and the claimant is either a fraud or deluded.
   

I await your response.

Well that's a large leap of logic you're making. I was leaving it alone as I think there's nothing to be gained from pursuing it.

Well actually I think there is the small matter of you apologising to me or withdrawing the assertion because I have demonstrated fairly clearly that I am NOT flame-baiting ... not, of course, that I expect you to do so (though my saying this may make you) but that would be pretty much par for the course for a theist.

I'd be proud of that trap. Nice one I can't win either way. So there's no point trying perhaps.

You seem to be demanding that I think what you want me to think.

I don't think that you have clearly demonstrated that you are not flame baiting, so at this time, my opinion remains that you are. When that changes, I'll let you know.

[Kyuuketsuki]

My answer to you on that thread is AFTER your last post. You posted at 12.45pm Yesterday, and I replied at 1.09pm Yesterday. You posted here that I hadn't responded at 5.02pm Yesterday ...nearly 4 hours AFTER I'd replied. You still haven't responded.

Well someone is confused here and I don't believe it is me.

I await your response.

And I do ... why don't YOU summarise the conversation much as I have done and then we can see who has answered what?

Well that's a large leap of logic you're making. I was leaving it alone as I think there's nothing to be gained from pursuing it.

Well actually I think there is the small matter of you apologising to me or withdrawing the assertion because I have demonstrated fairly clearly that I am NOT flame-baiting ... not, of course, that I expect you to do so (though my saying this may make you) but that would be pretty much par for the course for a theist.

I'd be proud of that trap. Nice one I can't win either way. So there's no point trying perhaps.[/quote]

Win? What about just being plain honourable? Being willing to own up to a mistake YOU made? I would but as I expected it appears you are not capable ... says an awful lot about you and what it says is really not impressive.

You seem to be demanding that I think what you want me to think. I don't think that you have clearly demonstrated that you are not flame baiting, so at this time, my opinion remains that you are. When that changes, I'll let you know.

No... I am demanding you withdraw an assertion you made, which I have raised an excellent argument against and to which your ONLY defence is, "well I still think you are lah lah lah ... "

So it's disingenuous and dishonourable eh?

I'm impressed!

Kyu

[fr0d0]

My answer to you on that thread is AFTER your last post. You posted at 12.45pm Yesterday, and I replied at 1.09pm Yesterday. You posted here that I hadn't responded at 5.02pm Yesterday ...nearly 4 hours AFTER I'd replied. You still haven't responded.

Well someone is confused here and I don't believe it is me.

I believe it is. What thread are you referring to exactly? It doesn't seem to be the thread you linked and the subject of this disagreement.

As you don't seem to know, here are the two key questions of yours you say I haven't answered on this forum: http://atheistforums.org/thread-904-post...l#pid13232 that I've responded to and await your reply. Still.

Well that's a large leap of logic you're making. I was leaving it alone as I think there's nothing to be gained from pursuing it.

Well actually I think there is the small matter of you apologising to me or withdrawing the assertion because I have demonstrated fairly clearly that I am NOT flame-baiting ... not, of course, that I expect you to do so (though my saying this may make you) but that would be pretty much par for the course for a theist.

I'd be proud of that trap. Nice one I can't win either way. So there's no point trying perhaps.

Win? What about just being plain honourable? Being willing to own up to a mistake YOU made? I would but as I expected it appears you are not capable ... says an awful lot about you and what it says is really not impressive.

As you don't seem to understand, what I meant was, If I apologise you already have that marked as dishonourable, and If I don't, then I'm bad as well. It's a bit like a Witch trial. Whatever I do I've lost, regardless of the truth.

You seem to be demanding that I think what you want me to think. I don't think that you have clearly demonstrated that you are not flame baiting, so at this time, my opinion remains that you are. When that changes, I'll let you know.

No... I am demanding you withdraw an assertion you made, which I have raised an excellent argument against and to which your ONLY defence is, "well I still think you are lah lah lah ... "

So it's disingenuous and dishonourable eh?

I'm impressed!

Kyu

What can I say. I refuse to rise to your bait. You refuse to take my answer. Stalemate.

[Kyuuketsuki]

As you don't seem to know, here are the two key questions of yours you say I haven't answered on this forum: http://atheistforums.org/thread-904-post...l#pid13232 that I've responded to and await your reply. Still.

I wish you'd actually point to the right part of the thread because if we assume that the post referenced by your link is the one you are referring to then I DID answer (the very last reply on that page).

I have no idea what to do with the reply you make on the following page ... it simply goes over ground we've covered many times before and in phraseology that means very little.

Win? What about just being plain honourable? Being willing to own up to a mistake YOU made? I would but as I expected it appears you are not capable ... says an awful lot about you and what it says is really not impressive.

As you don't seem to understand, what I meant was, If I apologise you already have that marked as dishonourable, and If I don't, then I'm bad as well. It's a bit like a Witch trial. Whatever I do I've lost, regardless of the truth.

No it's not ... do you not realise that if you admit you were wrong (if you apologise) you actually gain credibility in my eyes (and I'm guessing that of others)?

No... I am demanding you withdraw an assertion you made, which I have raised an excellent argument against and to which your ONLY defence is, "well I still think you are lah lah lah ... "

So it's disingenuous and dishonourable eh?

I'm impressed!

What can I say. I refuse to rise to your bait. You refuse to take my answer. Stalemate.

Unfortunately yes but one to which you alone hold the key.

Kyu