(May 6, 2014 at 8:15 pm)Godslayer Wrote: Yeah, I got you mixed up with Godschild on who proposed God D when they shouldn't have. I still see no problem with my example of God B or how you think there is some problem, everyone else except the theists seem to be getting it here. Adding a God D violates the challenge by the way, bit obfuscating too.I don't see a problem with God B. I'm noting that your choices are incomplete. When you have a scenario with two variables, and each can be either true or false, then there are four possible combinations:
TT
TF
FT
FF
I was just pointing out that you skipped FT. If there's a dodge attempt going on, it's by you, although I rather think you were just sloppy.
(May 6, 2014 at 11:28 am)alpha male Wrote: Wouldn't verifying god to any demonstrable degree be Nobel Prize worthy?Apparently not.
Quote:Who got the Nobel Prize for discovering god again?...Obviously you have terrible criteria for verification or detection if you think any god has been verified let alone your particular one (and which sect is the right one anyway). But seriously, what do you have? personal experience? because you sure as hell don't have scientific verification.Yes, we have different ideas as to what constitutes evidence. you think mine are too broad, and I think yours are too narrow. I think yours are special pleading in that you likely accept some historical documents but reject religious ones. You likely think mine are special pleading because I accept some religious documents, but reject other ones (although I've gone into differences of evidence for various religions and beliefs in the past.
