Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Interesting topic and question.  Atheists are proof that "God" or "gods" exist.  

That's easily the silliest thing I've heard all week.  Gratz.

Subjective.  Just like most of your other statements.  It applies to you and anybody else you can convince to follow your said belief.  Aside from that, there's really no value.

---

At work.

While I get the whole 'No black swan' thing (Yay Australian wildlife! )

The whole 'My word use is litteral' is going to take some sentence restructuring.

Since, in general parlance, your image is of a Rhinoceros and not the afore mentioned horned equine.

Right, but both are "unicorns."  One is conceptual (presumably) and one is not.  If you originally state equine, then we can assume it is the former.  If you don't specify, then it's open to interpretation.

---

I don't believe they do, but I don't make assertions about their existence either.  The day I do I'll probably find a herd of them flying over my backyard.

So, once again, you can distinguish the difference between the existence of a concept and the existence of the object of that concept. Having the concept of a flying horse doens't imply the existence of such. Same goes for deities.

It implies the existence of it conceptually.  I thought we already went through this.   If you suggest it exists naturally, then that's a whole different category.  If you say it exists supernaturally, that's  also another category.  More than likely, we would use different means for identifying and assessing each based on the category it falls under.   If you don't think that's fair, then feel free to disagree.  If not, then how would you suggest we assess evidence for anything categorized as being supernatural?

[Amarok]

Subjective.  Just like most of your other statements.  It applies to you and anybody else you can convince to follow your said belief.  Aside from that, there's really no value.

Nope he's right your statement was legit silly

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Subjective.  Just like most of your other statements.  It applies to you and anybody else you can convince to follow your said belief.  Aside from that, there's really no value.

Nope he's right your statement was legit silly

Nope. 

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

What I'm trying to convey T0 th3 M4X is that your sentence structure is going to have to adjust so as to allow we readers to better understand you.

You'll have to expand your word usage to better describe your concepts.

Since when you posted the word 'Unicorn'. Your use did not match general or 'Average' use.

[Amarok]

Nope he's right your statement was legit silly

Nope. 

Yup

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Nope. 

Yup

Next up:

Duck Season vs Rabbit Season

---

Atheist argument 3.1 - The Daffy Duck Logical Fallacy

[The Grand Nudger]

That's easily the silliest thing I've heard all week.  Gratz.

Subjective.  Just like most of your other statements.  It applies to you and anybody else you can convince to follow your said belief.  Aside from that, there's really no value.

Learn a new trick, you're boring.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Subjective.  Just like most of your other statements.  It applies to you and anybody else you can convince to follow your said belief.  Aside from that, there's really no value.

Learn a new trick, you're boring.

And you don't make any sense.  But it's okay for yourself and anybody you can convince that your nonsense is a piece of gold.  Aside from that, everybody else should bring a shovel.

[Amarok]

Yup

Next up:

Duck Season vs Rabbit Season

---

Atheist argument 3.1 - The Daffy Duck Logical Fallacy

Nope more your is silly and makes zero sense and no amount of saying "that's your opinion" changes that.

And it's not a fallacy to state a fact when it is a fact that it's a silly statement to say atheists prove god

---

And you don't make any sense.  But it's okay for yourself and anybody you can convince that your nonsense is a piece of gold.  Aside from that, everybody else should bring a shovel.

Nope the opposite your statement was what was nonsense and he doesn't need to convince anyone of this as it's clear that it was a nonsense statement and it is gold while your statement retains it's status as nonsense .

---

t implies the existence of it conceptually.  I thought we already went through this.   If you suggest it exists naturally, then that's a whole different category.  If you say it exists supernaturally, that's  also another category.  More than likely, we would use different means for identifying and assessing each based on the category it falls under.   If you don't think that's fair, then feel free to disagree.  If not, then how would you suggest we assess evidence for anything categorized as being supernatural?

This presumes concepts have any external reality and this assumes that ant such category exists and that it requires a whole new standard. not to mention this seems like a get out of evidence free card.

---

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Next up:

Duck Season vs Rabbit Season

---

Atheist argument 3.1 - The Daffy Duck Logical Fallacy

Nope more your is silly and makes zero sense and no amount of saying "that's your opinion" changes that.

And it's not a fallacy to state a fact when it is a fact that it's a silly statement to say atheists prove god

---

And you don't make any sense.  But it's okay for yourself and anybody you can convince that your nonsense is a piece of gold.  Aside from that, everybody else should bring a shovel.

Nope the opposite your statement was what was nonsense and he doesn't need to convince anyone of this as it's clear that it was a nonsense statement and it is gold while your statement retains it's status as nonsense .

---

t implies the existence of it conceptually.  I thought we already went through this.   If you suggest it exists naturally, then that's a whole different category.  If you say it exists supernaturally, that's  also another category.  More than likely, we would use different means for identifying and assessing each based on the category it falls under.   If you don't think that's fair, then feel free to disagree.  If not, then how would you suggest we assess evidence for anything categorized as being supernatural?

This presumes concepts have any external reality and this assumes that ant such category exists and that it requires a whole new standard. not to mention this seems like a get out of evidence free card.

---

Nope.  There are clearly three separate categories.  Conceptualized existence (Regarded in thought as existing), natural existence (Something observable in the natural world), and supernatural existence (supersedes natural existence).   No card here, but there's no purpose of providing evidence on something if there's no explanation of what would be considered evidence.