Dualism

[Purple Rabbit]

1. This is not a scientific claim. Your understanding is again found seriously wanting.
"no one can see him" = proof is not possible
"only where he has been" = conclusively establish without proof

Your inaccurate phrasing and use of rhetoric here won’t hide the fact that you claimed unprovability of the existence of god and that you now claim that invisibility equals unprovability of existence. It is possible to proof existence of something without it being visible to the most strict standard of proving anything known to man: science. Forensic research is based on it and is accepted in court. Science makes use of it leading to fantastic results. Saying that the claim is unscientific has nothing to do with this. Scientific proof is proof according to a specific verifiable standard. If you want to conform to some higher standard that besides existence also includes visibility, you are really talking a different language and adding new conditions to your claim.

This is a very clear case for anyone reading this thread of diversion from your original claim. And that while I have asked you over and over to be accurate in your phrasing. A good debater knows when he is wrong. Deal with it.

2. You asked for biblical affirmation and now you're criticising me for my limited sources!!! The statement holds true outside the bible like I said. This is one wildly fallacious statement. Please reign it in a bit.

I merely followed the leads you gave me. You claimed that god’s existence is unprovable by definition. So I asked for your definition. You answered that the bible contains your definition. So I asked where the bible says that god’s existence is unknowable and you answered that in Exodus 33 such is the case, not even being relevant if that really is what Exodus 33 says. Now you want to escape to definitions outside the bible. The problem is you don’t see that the illogic starts with your assertion that god in unprovable by definition. No matter what definition you seek inside or outside the bible, if it states that god is unprovable or you assert that such is the case your reasoning becomes circular: god’s existence is unprovable because the definition of god says so. So, don’t throw any claims of being “wildly fallacious” at me. Again a good debater should know when he is wrong. This is in no way an invalidation of you as a person or of your right to believe what you believe. It is end of story this time for your line of reasoning pursued in this thread. Clean up your logic and start over again.

I therefore strongly urge you to reconsider your attitude in this debate. When you show no clear signs of adhering to basic debating hygiene as suggested in the above then there is no reason for us to continue this debate any longer.