I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Edwardo Piet]

I agree with Chatpilot and Kyu...to start from a premise when that's the whole fucking thing he's supposed to have to prove...is pointless.

So the argument is supposed to prove God but then you start with baseless Christian premises in favour of the God hypothesis in the first place?? Right....

What a load of shite.

EvF

[Darwinian]

Why in the name of <insert deity name, vulgar expression, or least favorite/favorite place here> does this thread have 59 pages?!

Because it's the linguistic version of an auction were at least two people simply refuse to be outdone!

Second question: Is there anything worth reading in those 59 pages?

You'll have to read them to find that out.

Third question: Is there anything new (as in: that i haven't heard a million times before) in your answers?

No.

Final question: Why in the name of <insert deity name, vulgar expression, or least favorite/favorite place here> am i asking an Orthodox Christian these questions?!

Because you're an atheist with a highly developed sense of curiosity and you couldn't resist.

[fr0d0]

This isn't science, and there is no verifiable evidence to go on. You seem unable to climb out of that play pen. Jon Paul has presented unrefuted logic and reasoning. No matter what you say your criticisms are entirely ineffective against it until you succeed otherwise.

[Kyuuketsuki]

This isn't science, and there is no verifiable evidence to go on. You seem unable to climb out of that play pen. Jon Paul has presented unrefuted logic and reasoning. No matter what you say your criticisms are entirely ineffective against it until you succeed otherwise.

And YOU seem to be unable to climb out of the playpen that can't distinguish between a god that requires no evidence from a nothing that requires an equal amount of evidence. Simples!

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

This isn't science, and there is no verifiable evidence to go on. You seem unable to climb out of that play pen. Jon Paul has presented unrefuted logic and reasoning. No matter what you say your criticisms are entirely ineffective against it until you succeed otherwise.

If there's no verifiable evidence of any form, then it's not only not science, it's not rational.

If the reasoning is so solid it would add credence to the notion, it would be evidence....

It's not evidence, so whatever you call 'reasoning' is actually completely unreasonable - if you want to be rational that is

EvF

[fr0d0]

What an absurd statement EV. The evidence question has already been royally trashed. You do nothing to change that.

[Edwardo Piet]

And you still continue to simply dodge it.

Do you understand the definition of evidence? Evidence=something that gives credence to a belief.

If this 'logic', this 'reasoning' that you speak of gives credence then it's evidence. But you claim there can be no evidence...so that's a contradiciton there.

This 'reasoning' is not evidence, so it's not a reasonable reason to believe...if it gave credence then it would be reasonable and would be evidence.

How many times have I said that it's irrational by definiton if it's without evidence? And how many times have you went back and forth from saying there can be no evidence at all, to saying there can me non-empirical evidence...or even logical proof for God - which as I have said....proof is as fucking strong evidence as you can get, so that's a massive contradiction to your whole 'no evidence' thing. You contradict yourself.

EvF

[fr0d0]

No matter how many times you chase this around the tree EV you still have to refute the very clear logic of JP and Arcanus against you.

YOU ARE SAYING NOTHING NEW

When you've got something new to say, let me know. Otherwise, I'm not interested - it's all been said before.

YOU ARE SPAMMING

[Edwardo Piet]

Nothing new? Why I wonder?

Because once again you ignore my point

And you have once again repeated that I have to refute JP and Arcanus' 'clear logic'...and what I'm repeating is what you have repeatedly ignored/dodged...and that's the matter that you're saying on the one hand there can be no evidence, and on the other saying there can be/there's proof...you contradict yourself....

Ooh dear, I repeated a small fraction of my last post...perhaps it's because you ignored me again and yet you repeated that JP/Arcanus' logic is sound, once more. Another baseless assertion from yourself. You don't expect me to request for evidence? Sorry but if you spout an assertion I'm going to.

If you're going to say there logic is sound I'll ask "where?", and "how?", and "what logic are you talking about exactly?"... and I'll ask for evidence...so evidence please

EvF

[fr0d0]

EV

YOU ARE SAYING NOTHING NEW

YOU ARE SPAMMING