(July 28, 2017 at 11:59 am)SteveII Wrote:(July 28, 2017 at 11:38 am)Harry Nevis Wrote: I have no house of cards. My position depends on nothing but the lack of any evidence other than hearsay. If you can't think of any other explanations for these points, you have no critical thinking skills.
Wow, I answered! Did you "know" that I wouldn't answer in the same way you "know" your god is real?
LOL, you didn't provide an answer. You just restated your claim. I will break it down.
1. There is a body of information we have (see list) that clearly claims something and provides reasons to believe that something.
2. If you want to claim that this is not evidence, then you must demonstrate WHY this is not evidence. See, the burden of proof shifted to you once you denied there was evidence (which is a claim). You now have to explain the bits of information we have (again, see the list).
3. If you were smart, you would take the more modest position of "the evidence is not compelling".
1. You have an old book and hearsay testimony.
2. It's not evidence that god exists, it's evidence that people believe god exists.
3. If you were smart, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
"The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing." - Samuel Porter Putnam
