Evidence God Exists: Part II

[Thor]

Interesting. You seem to have redefined the word "plausible" to something different than standard dictionary meanings for the word.

You asked for my standard in determining what is plausible and what is not. You didn't ask for a dictionary definition. Also, I was responding within the context of this discussion, not necessarily what I would consider "plausible" in general.

None of the definitions I saw on dictionary.com said anything about the natural world.

Nor would I expect them to.

Can you provide any other support for reasonably taking this as your definition other than that is how you define things?

Like I said, I was responding within the context of this discussion.

Without such support, it appears to me you are just redefining the word so that it makes your position sound good (which, of course, is your right to do but why should anyone take you seriously if that is what your are doing?)

Not redefining the word. If you want to provide the dictionary definition of "plausible" and ask how my views relate to it, I can do so.

You seem to be loose with your words. Example, you say "there is no evidence to support the existence of" God. I would love to see you try to support that position at least as it is to be taken at face value.

I stand behind that statement. There is no evidence that supports the existence of a deity. None. Zilch. Nada.

Have you seen all the evidence that exists?

Can you show me any?

How can you be sure there is no evidence that you have not seen that supports the existence of God?

The same way I can be sure that there is no evidence that I haven't seen that supports the existence of elves that come in the night and repair shoes.

So if you really meant to say this, I would love to hear the answer to these questions. Otherwise, I will assume you meant something more along the lines of "I have not seen any evidence that convinces me that God exists."

---

I said what I meant and I meant what I said.