The debate is over

[Skepsis]

Skepsis, tell me that you are kidding. You cannot be serious. I do not understand how you think that I believe that Mark is reliable. I said "If mark is reliable..." or "I have been operating under the assumption that Mark is reliable..." If I thought Mark was reliable, I would have said, "Mark is reliable," or "because Mark is reliable," but I did not say that because I do not believe that. And this is all apparent in what I wrote. Any argument I made was based on "ifs" because I was only trying to show possibilities. How can you not see this? I would suggest that you go back and re-read this thread.

Norfolk and Chance,

Just because you think that you don't have a need to prove that there are not any gods does not mean that there are not gods. That is all that I am trying to say.

I read and then re-read the thread. To look for your musings on possibility, remember?
Don't blame me for your downright terrible rhetoric and phrasing. What else am I going to get out of "I am working under the assumption that Mark is reliable, which can be backed up by evidence"?

Whatever, it looks to me that everything you have said is merely a pretense to your huge bid on what is and isn't possible. Your "ifs" signify little more than your fascination with the possible and show no evidence that you give a hoot on what actaully needs to be considered.

I think everyone acknowledges that Gods are possible, but I also think people with a brain take that statement with a grain of salt. God is possible, sure- just as possible as any unfalsifiable thing you can think up.
Then, you tell me my analogy is false because it is "possible" that Mark was right? Either you are being disingenuous, or you don't even know what you are saying.