The Rules

[fr0d0]

You can call fail all you like but the simple fact is that your non-evidence requiring god requires exactly the same amount of evidence as nothign and offers precisely the same value in any objective terms so FAIL YOURSELF!

"you are because you said it" you mean? I take it this is your version of a noble contraction?

Yet you don't because the god you believe in is inherently inexplicable and therefore shows you're just as disingenuous as always.

Who says so? Oh... you - well that must be right then...

[Kyuuketsuki]

Yet you still avoid the fact that your god requires precisely the same evidence and is indistinguishable from nothing ... your call!

Kyu

[fr0d0]

Thankyou for your contraction.

Yet you still avoid the fact that your god requires precisely the same evidence and is indistinguishable from nothing ... your call!

No I don't. From post #19:
"And finally, it can very easily be distinguished from everything else."

Lookup 'Christian God' in a dictionary.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Yet you still avoid the fact that your god requires precisely the same evidence and is indistinguishable from nothing ... your call!

No I don't. From post #19:
"And finally, it can very easily be distinguished from everything else."

In other words, "Oh Yes It Can! "



Colour me impressed ... er NOT!!!!

Kyu

p.s. here's a novel idea, how about telling us exactly HOW the objective observer can distinguish your non-evidence requiring god from a non-evidence requiring nothing?

[fr0d0]

This has been covered to death on these forum recently Kyu.

Describing something that is identical to (the Christian) God is just another way of labeling something we already have a label for.

Describing something dissimilar to (the Christian) God is not (the Christian) God.

[Kyuuketsuki]

This has been covered to death on these forum recently Kyu.

Describing something that is identical to (the Christian) God is just another way of labeling something we already have a label for.

Describing something dissimilar to (the Christian) God is not (the Christian) God.

And yet another dodge from the master?

You know I don't believe that you have actually answered this particular question anywhere on this forum and that VOID (the first that I saw to come up with it) continues to hammer at you with variants of it strongly suggests I am right.

So let me ask you it again further boosting VOID’s efforts … if you have two ideas (a god and a nothing) both claimed to require the same level of evidence how do you tell them apart?

I mean this is a simple enough question and it seems to me you have four choices:
1. You can answer it and kudos to you if you do if you actually answer it and persuade us that it is possible to tell the difference.
2. You can link to wherever it is you claim/imply you answered it before (again kudos as before if it actually answers the question).
3. You can admit you don’t have a method at all (yet again kudos for honesty) or …
4. You can dodge again (because that’s what I think and VOID appears to think you are doing with respect to this question).

Not trying to be funny but that IS what you appear to be doing so please answer the question.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

That isn't a dodge but a precise answer. My job is done.

[Kyuuketsuki]

That isn't a dodge but a precise answer. My job is done.

Yes it was ... and I note YET AGAIN that you did not answer, provide a link or an admission but chose option 4 ...

YOU CONTINUED TO DODGE LIKE THE DISINGENUOUS LITTLE FUCK I SUSPECT MOST HERE THINK YOU ARE!

Kyu