Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Angrboda]

At work.


I stand by my comments regarding your posting history, to which I am sure others will attest.

As for time consraintscin posting? This is why I add my current status as a heading or footnote.

As for dictionaries? As has been explained to you before they are only descriptive of the language in common parlance. Hence the yearly revisions, additions and reletions.

While, yet again, we see your behaviour on display with yet again the selective obfuscational reply given to myself.

Ahhh, okay.  Again, I don't care about the opinion of you and your clan.  If it has some special meaning to you, then congrats.

Got it.  Now the atheists don't believe in dictionaries.  *rolls eyes*

As I said, it was an offer.  If you have nothing, then expect nothing.  In light of that, can you stop with the pandering?

You keep making this claim in response to criticisms that you don't like, and since I was unsure of the definition, I looked it up just to see what it was you were complaining about. Apparently you feel that criticisms of you are appealing to other people's inappropriate desires, if I understand you correctly. I know you have me on ignore, but perhaps another can determine how you're using this word. People have a legitimate interest in knowing whether a person is being dishonest, disingenuous, or arguing in bad faith. So it would seem that your description of the criticisms of others for your behavior is not pandering, and that this is yet another excuse that you use to avoid answering legitimate questions. If you won't answer my questions, despite your dishonest claim that you make a good faith effort to answer anybody's questions, then perhaps you will answer this question if posed to you by someone else.

pandering, v.

2. intransitive. To act as a pander; to minister to the immoral urges or distasteful desires of another, or to gratify a person with such desires. Also in weakened use: to indulge the tastes, whims, or weaknesses of another. Now usually with to.

---

Isn't everything that exists really evidence for God? Do you think the necessary chemicals and other building blocks of the universe could have just materialized out of thin air on their own? If so, how do you justify this belief?

You might prefer to discuss such questions in the following thread, as that discussion is a more tightly focused discussion. I will remark in general, though, that the usual response is that the arguments based upon observations of the fine tuning of the universe or the complexity of life do not succeed as they all possess logical flaws which render the conclusion of the existence of God an unreliable one. The cosmological argument, first cause argument, and ontological arguments are all likewise, and I can probably point you to relevant threads on those, though I don't know that there are any current discussions here. There is a discussion over at a sister forum, however, if you are interested, namely: AtheistDiscussion.Org || Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0.

But you can find more at the thread below if you are interested.

DNA Proves Existence of a Designer