The Stage is Yours.

[Reforged]

An ad hominem post. That's nice.

If I agree with you that there cannot be proof of God's existence, then how and why am I supposed to provide proof?

Ad hominem? You did block me twice and you haven't come up with the goods for any of your claims. Which of these is an irrelevant fact or an insult?

[fr0d0]

You and your selective blindness Raph

And yet again you completely dodge a direct question.

I don't answer and you don't dodge... hmm... I guess readers can make their minds up. Sounds like something from the Beano.

[Epimethean]

You guys are just deliberately stupid.

You trump any purported ad hominem with your ad homines, Fr0d. What's the next point in your system of knowledge and use of rhetoric?

[Reforged]

You and your selective blindness Raph

And yet again you completely dodge a direct question.

I don't answer and you don't dodge... hmm... I guess readers can make their minds up. Sounds like something from the Beano.

"If I agree with you that there cannot be proof of God's existence, then how and why am I supposed to provide proof?"

Oh wait, this was a serious question?
I had no idea, I thought it was a bad joke.

The answer is you don't because you can't.
You can't prove God exists, theres no reason to believe he exists and thats a good enough reason to continue under the conclusion he doesn't exist until evidence is discovered he does.
Just like the fact we can't prove Santa exists is a good enough reason to conclude that he infact does not exist.

If one winter an incredibly fat man in a red pimp outfit jumped out of a sledge led by flying rain-deer and managed to re-arrange the laws of physics to allow himself to slip down an incredibly small chimney and many bared witness and it was proven not to be a hallucination then this phenomenon would be studied further and once it was successfully concluded he was Santa we would re-evaluate our position on reality, in that Santa would now be part of our understanding of it.

Does this help? I think you'll find thats a fairly conclusive answer which on a side note is the polar opposite of dodging a direct question.
Perhaps you could learn from this example... though I doubt you will.

[fr0d0]

You missed the point that I agree with you Raph. Well you didn't miss it. You just didn't address it. You think that it is somehow important to me when I'm telling you that it isn't. Well reality is important obviously. You can't prove god's existence. I'm with you on that. I also have that position on reality. What's the missing piece here? How come you and I agree yet you're saying we don't? where is the disagreement? Can you put your finger on it?

[The Grand Nudger]

Why not Frodo, why can't god's existence be proven?
(and shouldn't you pass this along to those engaged in the business? or yourself, since you continue to invoke logic as your reasons for belief, statements such as "all conclusions lead back to god"? Frodo, if they did -in actuality, and not just your estimation-...that would be proof, wouldn't it?)

[Reforged]

You missed the point that I agree with you Raph. Well you didn't miss it. You just didn't address it. You think that it is somehow important to me when I'm telling you that it isn't. Well reality is important obviously. You can't prove god's existence. I'm with you on that. I also have that position on reality. What's the missing piece here? How come you and I agree yet you're saying we don't? where is the disagreement? Can you put your finger on it?

You ask a question, complain when I don't answer it, I answer it, then you complain I answered it.
Our disagreement is that you claim your belief to be absolutely correct without evidence.
That you claim it is impossible to find evidence as a get out clause despite the fact you cannot possibly know that.
I demand proof be provided to back up claims. If claims are unbacked then I have no reason to think them true. I must see them as false until proven true.
You think your belief deserves special treatment, that it requires no proof.
You are gravely mistaken.

[fr0d0]

You ask a question, complain when I don't answer it, I answer it, then you complain I answered it.

I complained? A simple question is a complaint? Methinks that you pre judge.

Our disagreement is that you claim your belief to be absolutely correct without evidence.

No. You think it is.

That you claim it is impossible to find evidence as a get out clause despite the fact you cannot possibly know that.

How can I not possibly know?

I demand proof be provided to back up claims. If claims are unbacked then I have no reason to think them true. I must see them as false until proven true.

Proof of what exactly? Please ne very accurate and concise about what you require proof of. Sincere question.

You think your belief deserves special treatment, that it requires no proof.

No I don't. I hold it up to the very same standard as every other belief of the same kind. Please show me another belief of the same kind that I treat differently.

[Rayaan]

If I agree with you that there cannot be proof of God's existence, then how and why am I supposed to provide proof?

You should be able to do that when you say this:

The Christian God neccessarily exists as the only reasonable conclusion (world view). All other conclusions fail.

[Reforged]

If I agree with you that there cannot be proof of God's existence, then how and why am I supposed to provide proof?

You should be able to do that when you say this:

The Christian God neccessarily exists as the only reasonable conclusion (world view). All other conclusions fail.

OH SHI-