Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Chas]

And the many, many non-Catholics you simply ignore? 

So that is pretty much non-responsive as it is selective sampling.

I believe your quote was against theist which I am defending.  As such I am not obligated to provide proof in defense of your position.  That is your job to support your claim not mine

Cherry-picking is dishonest; that is what you are doing.

Which, had you read my response with understanding, was not what I said.

Aristotle's (or Aquinas's or Darwin's or anyone's) ideas do not take into account later ideas.  They must always be evaluated in light of newer knowledge.

They have been so evaluated and not have been considered utterly refuted.

Their views on the metaphysical largely have been.

Because he's a pompous weasel who won't admit that he used the wrong word? 

Considering that I looked the word up before I used it to verify it is the one I wanted I think it is the word I meant to use.  I have used it incorrectly before which is why I know that it did not mean magnitude.  As my pomp admitted then and admitted in this thread.  

The word makes no sense in the context.

No.  You keep making this error.  It is not lack of proof, it is lack of evidence.  

There is no evidence of any gods.

I am not the one who said there was lack of proof. Do you really think you are going to be better served by the term evidence?  I have no problem supplanting the word as the argument does not change.  All information considered knowledge is supported by implicit circumstantial empirical evidence.  If held to this standard than sufficient evidence does exist to support the existence of deity or deities.  Appeal to a standard of evidence that is explicit direct impirical evidence would render all information considered knowledge as insufficiently evidenced.

Yes, you are. You keep talking about proof. And, yes, we are better served by talking about evidence rather than proof.

They claimed it is not.  Their statement is that they do not believe because they do not believe.

By suppressing knowledge and education.

As illustrated by defending my position with various sources from educated people granting knowledge on the subject.

Is that an intentional misquote?

That was once true of the Catholic Church when it had political power.   It no longer does and is no longer a major factor in science or education.

Islam was an educational power until it turned inward and fundamentalist.  It no longer educates, it only suppresses.

It is still true of the Catholic church world wide and even in the European and western world.

What is true of the Catholic Church is that it suppresses science that it doesn't like, e.g. condom use to prevent AIDS.

The Catholic Church had the power, the wealth, and the purpose to educate priests and princes.  It did not extend this to everyone.

They were pretty much the only game in town, so your argument lacks any persuasiveness.

Limited resource means nothing could be extended to everyone.  However, the church did extended it to all members of the clergy regardless of social status upon entering the institution.  Princes and paupers were educated by the church in the same way.

Proving my point. Paupers who became priests were educated.

You keep making this mistake.  I only ask for evidence.  I am not a rigid thinker like you who demands 'proof'.

I am surprised your cohorts are not criticizing you for abiding by a less rigid standard of evidence
(Though what is implied is what is evidenced is proved and what is proved has evidence)

How do you so consistently misunderstand this? My standards of evidence are not the question, it is your demand for proof.
And, no. What is implied by evidence is not necessarily proved.

It was not I who demand "proof".  That was your cohorts.  But let us play the word game and supplant proof with evidence (which really does not change the argument one iota).  Will implicit circumstantial empirical evidence do?  That is the only evidence that we have of anything that we state is a fact.  And if this will do then as stated before there is sufficient implicit circumstantial empirical evidence to support the theist position.

---

Your standards are so low because you do not understand what constitutes evidence.

Perhaps you are right.  Being that I have been formally educated in multiple areas of engineering and mathematics I may have missed that understanding somehow.

Please, help me to understand by telling me what constitutes evidence.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that you are "formally educated in multiple areas of engineering and mathematics" since you seemingly do not understand the difference between proof and evidence, nor what constitutes evidence.

Evidence must be objective, able to be viewed in principle by anyone.
You internal feels are not evidence.
Philosophical arguments are not evidence.