Atheists... why do you believe that God doesn't exist?

[fr0d0]

This is simply false. A supernatural entity may leave natural evidence. It's being supernatural only means that some aspects of it cannot be explained naturally. A rock that supernaturally produces gold when you rub it would leave plenty of natural evidence in the form of gold. It sounds like you're making up your own definition of the word supernatural. Even God could leave behind natural evidence in the form of healed amputees. I think you're confused.

You're splitting hairs. That evidence left would have to be natural. Could the supernatural cause leave any natural evidence that it was the creator: no. You could never know.

Where is the confusion?

---

---

Actually, of all the threads I've read in this forum where you participated, I fail to remember a single one where you have "supported that in depth".

At best, what I remember is you claiming you have perfectly logical reasons to believe in the metaphysical "thing" that you believe in.
What those reasons are and what the logic involved is... I'm afraid I've missed them.

Mind you, I may have missed the threads where you think you actually did that... as such, would you be a dear and provide links to the particular posts where you have already explained yourself "in depth"?

---

Thing is pokie, you don't know what it is your looking for. Do you see me enter serious conversations with people discussing religion/faith/belief ever? No? Those are where those points are examined. We go into detail and see if we can each find flaw in each others position. I'm confident in my rational stance and am as open as I can be to truth. If you think that you can challenge anything I say then you're very welcome to do so. I'm very grateful for challenges, as I believe I should always try to be skeptical.

In this instance, for example, on the nature of God being supernatural.... I'm addressing the challenge that people here are arguing that God should be evident from his actions in our reality. I've stated my case that that idea is illogical.

This question arose from rumpy stating that I should have more 'evidence' for my supernatural being than any other supernatural being.

The error he committed, and then compounded, is that I never said that there could be the evidence he demands of any supernatural entity : that beings without the ability to detect the supernatural could ever detect it.

My point is won. This aspect of God is proven to be true using logic.

Do you see?