When I said wasting your time I did not mean it as an attack, not sure if you took at as one but I detected possible sarcasm in your post.
The point is you do NOT prove something by proving that something else does not answer the question. That is what I meant by saying debating evolution is a waste of time because even IF you disprove evolution you still have to PROVE God.
You jumped from my statement of that to asking me to explain laws of logic etc. Again you are performing the triangle/square scenario. Let's say that I could not answer any of your questions about logic, blood, etc. Let's say I had ABSOLUTELY no explanation for these things. How does that automatically make God the cause?
Saying that God is the only explanation requires proof of such an entity even existing. I could say that Minimalist has always existed in some form and created the laws of logic etc. You say that God did all of this but do you have any more proof that God did it vs. an eternal form of Minimalist? You believing God did it doesn't really prove anything other than that you believe God did it.
Again, you do not increase the likelihood or validity of God by simply asking other people for their alternative explanation. Let me give another example:
Let's say that we didn't understand how light worked. You flip on a light switch and I tell you "What happens is when you flip that switch magical fairies from the land of Gobulon come and feed their energy into the light bulb causing it to shine".
Now let's say you tell me "How do you know the fairies did it?" And I ask you what alternative explanation you have. If you do not have an alternative explanation does that mean that it is automatically the fairies from Globulon?
::
That example may have seemed ridiculous but that is exactly what is going on when you move from trying to provide evidence for your claims to simply trying to make others explain it. It is not the job of the atheist to explain every single facet of reality just because they don't believe in a God.
Again the point is not about what can others prove about alternative explanations the point is what can you PROVE about God? If you cannot prove anything about God then moving to simply try and discredit other people's position STILL DOESN'T MAKE GOD MORE LIKELY. If you want to prove GOD you need to stick with what you see as evidence for GOD. Do not jump to trying to just attack other people's position when you have not provided ample support for your own. Here are some steps I would recommend in proving it:
1) Establish what you mean when you say "God" that word can mean different things to different people
2) Establish what you believe is proof for this beings existence
3) Explain how this proof actually proves God and is not simply you imposing your own views on it. As in does the evidence some how prove God or is it just that it is POSSIBLY God?
4) If you manage to get here then you would talk about your proof for what you believe the will of this said God is which in your case would be the Bible
::
Now I can already tell you that you will not satisfy people's requirements for those above steps here. I could be wrong but you would be the first person to come here to do that so I would be surprised. Not trying to be insulting just stating how I see things.
However if you do follow that format above or something similar this discussion will turn into a discussion instead of chasing a million rabbits down a million different rabbit holes and getting absolutely nowhere.
The point is you do NOT prove something by proving that something else does not answer the question. That is what I meant by saying debating evolution is a waste of time because even IF you disprove evolution you still have to PROVE God.
You jumped from my statement of that to asking me to explain laws of logic etc. Again you are performing the triangle/square scenario. Let's say that I could not answer any of your questions about logic, blood, etc. Let's say I had ABSOLUTELY no explanation for these things. How does that automatically make God the cause?
Saying that God is the only explanation requires proof of such an entity even existing. I could say that Minimalist has always existed in some form and created the laws of logic etc. You say that God did all of this but do you have any more proof that God did it vs. an eternal form of Minimalist? You believing God did it doesn't really prove anything other than that you believe God did it.
Again, you do not increase the likelihood or validity of God by simply asking other people for their alternative explanation. Let me give another example:
Let's say that we didn't understand how light worked. You flip on a light switch and I tell you "What happens is when you flip that switch magical fairies from the land of Gobulon come and feed their energy into the light bulb causing it to shine".
Now let's say you tell me "How do you know the fairies did it?" And I ask you what alternative explanation you have. If you do not have an alternative explanation does that mean that it is automatically the fairies from Globulon?
::
That example may have seemed ridiculous but that is exactly what is going on when you move from trying to provide evidence for your claims to simply trying to make others explain it. It is not the job of the atheist to explain every single facet of reality just because they don't believe in a God.
Again the point is not about what can others prove about alternative explanations the point is what can you PROVE about God? If you cannot prove anything about God then moving to simply try and discredit other people's position STILL DOESN'T MAKE GOD MORE LIKELY. If you want to prove GOD you need to stick with what you see as evidence for GOD. Do not jump to trying to just attack other people's position when you have not provided ample support for your own. Here are some steps I would recommend in proving it:
1) Establish what you mean when you say "God" that word can mean different things to different people
2) Establish what you believe is proof for this beings existence
3) Explain how this proof actually proves God and is not simply you imposing your own views on it. As in does the evidence some how prove God or is it just that it is POSSIBLY God?
4) If you manage to get here then you would talk about your proof for what you believe the will of this said God is which in your case would be the Bible
::
Now I can already tell you that you will not satisfy people's requirements for those above steps here. I could be wrong but you would be the first person to come here to do that so I would be surprised. Not trying to be insulting just stating how I see things.
However if you do follow that format above or something similar this discussion will turn into a discussion instead of chasing a million rabbits down a million different rabbit holes and getting absolutely nowhere.
