Evidence God Exists: Part II

[rjh4 is back]

As one that has only read this exchange and not taken part, I must say that I have seen this happen so many times it's just silly. rjh4 is not actually addressing anything that is said to him. He is evading the points by harping on the semantics of words and phrases, as opposed to responding to the points that (which he knows full well) were meant by those words and phrases. It is a tactic theists often used to change the focus away from the things they cannot answer coherently.

Oh, puh-lease!! You know how many times I've had to point out to atheists that they're focusing on semantics? You're out of your mind, Paul, if you make this claim.

The semantics thing is really more of a kiddie thing, anyway. Teens and such seem to focus on that.

Firstly, I did not say that atheists never use this tactic. I said that theists often use this tactic. Specifically, I accused rjh4 of using this tactic. You I accuse of outright idiocy.

Actually, to address a point, one needs to understand how the words are being used by the person using them. I have found in these types of conversations there is a lot of back and forth only because two parties are using different definitions/meanings of the words. So, yes I was questioning the semantics but no I was not trying to evade anything. And I do not see how trying to get at how one is using a word (semantics) as a kiddie thing (obviously addressed to AngelThMan). To me it seems like a reasonable thing to do when the words can be taken to mean different things which would change the meaning of statements.

Void, thanks for your answer.

Thor, it seems to me that the truth claim "There is no evidence that supports the existence of a deity" can only be accurately/believably said by one who is omniscient as only one who is omniscient knows all the evidence to determine whether or not the statement is accurate. Since you are standing on that statement and I am quite sure you are not omniscient, I cannot take this statement of yours at face value or seriously. I will continue to take it that you are really saying "I have not seen any evidence that convinces me that God exists" and that you do not yet understand the diffference in meaning between:

"There is no evidence that supports the existence of a deity"
and
"I have not seen any evidence that convinces me that God (or a deity) exists"

---

Min, clever how you turned agreeing with me on the word use to agreeing with Thor overall.

Of course, I do not agree with your conclusion (no shocker there), but it was clever nonetheless.