(May 7, 2014 at 9:21 am)Godslayer Wrote: If you had no problem then there shouldn't be an addition of God D when there was no confusion in the first place with asking you to differentiate between two gods in an example where you can't add variables to help you avoid the challenge, derp. I didn't skip anything. You ducked the challenge like every other theist in here. Tell us what is FT anyway. Be more vague next time.FT is the god itself does not manifest in reality, but it's actions do. I noted this earlier. It's pretty simple and shouldn't be controversial. You're making knee-jerk defenses to a benign point.
Quote:And for good reason, because it's bunk.Actually it's because the Nobel prizes have specific categories and theology isn't one of them.
Quote:Your standard of evidence is gullible at best. Especially since you think a god has been proven to some demonstrable degree. Absurd.Your opinion is noted.
Quote:Other way around, champ.No, I accept more types of evidence than you do.
Quote:Plus, you dishonestly tried to claim my challenge is flawed because you can't answer it.I claim your scenario is incomplete because it is, as I've demonstrated. Your "challenge" is rather ambiguous.
Quote:You accept some religious documents. Key word is some. And that opens up another can of worms. Why would someone accept one religions documents over any another religions documents. Don't try and pretend your religion has more of that or has more credibility.I don't pretend. I examine criteria such as motivations which we alsu use to assess mundane claims.
