"God doesn't Exist"- Claim or Conclusion

[Asmodee]

Yeah, proving something's non-existence is a difficult, ill-defined, and often impossible process.

That's why I wouldn't defend the assertion "God does not exist."  That was my whole point.  It's an assertion in support of which no evidence can be adduced - I might personally lean towards that being true, but in any real discussion I wouldn't use that as my starting point because I know I wouldn't be able to justify it in any satisfactory manner.

Fair enough.

At the risk of bickering over semantics, all I see in my signature line is a list of common observations. I do not see how these are any different from more specific observations like:

I have a fever.
I’m vomiting.
And I have a sore throat.

That’s the evidence. Of what is it evidence? I apply inductive reasoning to what is evident and conclude that most likely I have the flu. Similarly, the theologian sees some very general observations about the world and by applying reason reaches the conclusion that something remarkably similar to what one would expect of a Supreme Being exists. These are as follows:

1) Some things change.
2) Only things that actually exist can cause change.
3) Some things that do not exist now could potentially exist later.
4) Some things that do exist now could potentially cease to exist later.
5) The actions of unconscious things produce regular results.

So rather than simply argue over the meaning of words perhaps it would be more fruitful for you to state you objections with the above. Do you disagree with any of those observations?

I assumed your signature is what you meant when you spoke of your "signature line" as the "evidence" in support of the existence of God. Was that incorrect?

---

Please continue...

You must first explicitly affirm that these are empirically obvious facts.

I would also ask you to confirm that you believe in the efficacy of human reason and that reality is intelligible. Why? Because it would be pointless to present a logical demonstration only to find that the audience denies that human reason cannot lead to knowledge or that knowledge about the world cannot be actually be attained.

I disagree.  I submit that you must first clarify what it is you are saying as your signature clearly states that the things you list are "evidence for God", yet you refer to them as nothing more than simple observations.

What I can reasonably conclude from this is that your signature is not, itself, evidence for the existence of God, but a lead-in that you felt the need to point out because we all "missed it" to some convoluted argument which only works if you make us agree to some set of explicit rules without any context, which you alone get to dictate and word.  You may not know this, but atheists are really, REALLY skeptical about accepting or agreeing with any statement without context because it is a common, cheap, underhanded, shady, slimy trick of theists, especially prevalent from Jehovah's Witnesses, in my experience, to try to get you to agree to some seemingly innocuous statements without any context to where it is leading to later twist and warp what was said, changing the context entirely from what it at first appeared to be to something completely unrelated.

I'm sorry, but if you can't tell me what it's about before I agree to it, I'm not going to agree to it.  Fool me once and all.