Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?

[Autumnlicious]

You're an AI bot and this is your program:-

"I won't think about it because there is no evidence, and if there's no evidence, how can I think about it [loop to 1st word in sentence ad infinitum]"

Let me know if you manage to break the loop.

Last part has no bearing on this discussion. Statement you made is like "Well your a poopy poop stupid head!"

Useless.

[fr0d0]

It's a looped question that was answered in the beginning. It'd be moronic to post the answer to it every time it was said.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes you bloody well did!

Please show me where, I thought I had already explained - at least twice - why I hadn't.

You said "No, that would be evidence based. Based on the fact that most people don't lie habitually (like when you ask for directions and it's actually worthwhile doing because the majority of people don't lie in order to get you lost)."

Yes I did say that... and your problem?

Which I take to mean you would believe people because most don't lie habitually? I certainly wouldn't be lying to you, not that it matters. You consider that to be evidence based in your own words.

Yes. What's the problem?

If we're talking about things we can evidence, yes. talking about God, no.

Why should God be an exception?

If something can't be evidenced that doesn't make it rational to just go ahead and believe anyway. On the contrary - if there can be no (valid) evidence then it's rational to not believe in it. That's what evidence is for - right?

You're an AI bot and this is your program:-

Oh, let me see...

"I won't think about it because there is no evidence, and if there's no evidence, how can I think about it [loop to 1st word in sentence ad infinitum]"

Actually that's not what I said now is it?

I'm saying I'll consider anything, with evidence or without, but I choose evidence because evidence is how rational choices are to be made - and I choose rationality. Evidence infers what is most likely to be true - and I am interested in the truth - this is rational, right?

Let me know if you manage to break the loop.

What loop?

EvF

[fr0d0]

You said "No, that would be evidence based. Based on the fact that most people don't lie habitually (like when you ask for directions and it's actually worthwhile doing because the majority of people don't lie in order to get you lost)."

Yes I did say that... and your problem?

Which I take to mean you would believe people because most don't lie habitually? I certainly wouldn't be lying to you, not that it matters. You consider that to be evidence based in your own words.

Yes. What's the problem?

The problem is that should I tell you what God is like you're now saying that you would take that as evidence.

If we're talking about things we can evidence, yes. talking about God, no.

Why should God be an exception?

Why shouldn't he be an exception?

[insert Evie loop #1 here]

If something can't be evidenced that doesn't make it rational to just go ahead and believe anyway. On the contrary - if there can be no (valid) evidence then it's rational to not believe in it. That's what evidence is for - right?

If you're not talking about God, yes.

You're an AI bot and this is your program:-

Oh, let me see...

"I won't think about it because there is no evidence, and if there's no evidence, how can I think about it [loop to 1st word in sentence ad infinitum]"

Actually that's not what I said now is it?

In essence it's what you always say.

I'm saying I'll consider anything, with evidence or without, but I choose evidence because evidence is how rational choices are to be made - and I choose rationality. Evidence infers what is most likely to be true - and I am interested in the truth - this is rational, right?

Wrong. This is selective reasoning.

Let me know if you manage to break the loop.

What loop?

"I won't think about it because there is no evidence, and if there's no evidence, how can I think about it [loop to 1st word in sentence ad infinitum]"

[Edwardo Piet]

The problem is that should I tell you what God is like you're now saying that you would take that as evidence.

Well what is your reasoning to believe he exists? Why do you think - think, that's right "think" - he exists? That is what you believe is indication, that is your evidence right?

Why shouldn't he be an exception?

Why shouldn't the Flying Spaghetti Monster be an exception?

[insert Evie loop #1 here]

What?

If you're not talking about God, yes.

Why God? What about the FSM?

In essence it's what you always say.

Why do you think that? I'm asking for your reasoning to believe God exists. Asking for that and asking for your evidence is exactly the same thing - you just seem to hate the word "evidence".

Wrong. This is selective reasoning.

Evidence is considered rational in any normal belief, but when it comes to religion or pseudo-science it is suspended - why? On what logic - on what reasoning?

Why not have faith in the FSM instead? Do you have your reasons? What are they? Do they relate to God's actual existence at all and the likelihood of it? If not.... - why do you believe in something you have no reason to believe is actually more probable to exist or not? If that's not irrational - then what is?

"I won't think about it because there is no evidence, and if there's no evidence, how can I think about it [loop to 1st word in sentence ad infinitum]"

I am not looping that. What are you talking about?

EvF

[fr0d0]

The problem is that should I tell you what God is like you're now saying that you would take that as evidence.

Well what is your reasoning to believe he exists? Why do you think - think, that's right "think" - he exists? That is what you believe is indication, that is your evidence right?

My reasoning is immaterial. You said you'd take my advice as evidence because you'd believe people don't usually lie. And I wouldn't be lying to you describing what God is like.

Why shouldn't he be an exception?

Why shouldn't the Flying Spaghetti Monster be an exception?

Because that's not a serious proposition of a non evidenced entity. But you're avoiding the question.

If you're not talking about God, yes.

Why God? What about the FSM?

Why not dodge again?

In essence it's what you always say.

Why do you think that? I'm asking for your reasoning to believe God exists. Asking for that and asking for your evidence is exactly the same thing - you just seem to hate the word "evidence".

When pointed out at the beginning of the conversation how it has no place in this discussion, and for you to auto fire it at me ad infinitum... is a little wearing yes. YOU think that evidence is the only way to rationalise anything - end of conversation.

Wrong. This is selective reasoning.

Evidence is considered rational in any normal belief, but when it comes to religion or pseudo-science it is suspended - why? On what logic - on what reasoning?

We're covering old ground here (as well as spanning every active topic with the same conversation as usual). Belief in what smacks you in the face is unnecessary. Reasoning is only required for the unknown.

Why not have faith in the FSM instead? Do you have your reasons? What are they? Do they relate to God's actual existence at all and the likelihood of it? If not.... - why do you believe in something you have no reason to believe is actually more probable to exist or not? If that's not irrational - then what is?

Verbal vomit. You're trying to chase down your evidence ghost again. Please don't involve me... I don't think he exists/ I am agnostic on EvieGod.

[Edwardo Piet]

My reasoning is immaterial.

So long as it's reasoning, so long as it's your reasoning for your believing - the reasons why you believe, then it's evidence. Whether valid or invalid.

You said you'd take my advice as evidence because you'd believe people don't usually lie.

I was using an analogy to explain that what you said wouldn't be evidence, according to me - would be. Whether valid or invalid. But I would think it would be valid most likely due to most people not being habitual liars.

And I wouldn't be lying to you describing what God is like.

Whether you are lying or not that doesn't mean it's true in and of itself. Those who tell the truth about directions can still be wrong. And then of course I consider that a much more down to earth matter than the God belief which is Supernatural.

Because that's not a serious proposition of a non evidenced entity. But you're avoiding the question.

No I'm not avoiding the question at all. "Why make God an exception?" is what I asked, you then asked "Why NOT make God an exception?" - but that's just a dodge because then I can equally ask the same of the Flying Spaghetti Monster... until you explain why God is any more reasonable whatsoever. You say that the FSM is not a serious proposition - I don't see how "God" is an any more serious proposition at all though so I feel that you are side stepping (whether intentionally or unintentionally).

Seriously though.... why make an exception in the first place? "Why not make an exception?" - is kind of a silly thing to ask if you expect it to stand alone. Because I can ask that question for anything no matter how absurd. Surely there needs to be a rational reason to make an exception - otherwise how are you being at all rational or reasonable at all?

Why not dodge again?

I'm not dodging... I'm making an analogy. Believing in God without evidence is like believing in the FSM without evidence.... absurd.

When pointed out at the beginning of the conversation how it has no place in this discussion, and for you to auto fire it at me ad infinitum... is a little wearing yes. YOU think that evidence is the only way to rationalise anything - end of conversation.

Because it seems to me that you have failed to explain how not believing in valid evidence can be at all rational. And not only that, you have switched between saying there can be evidence and there can't. You have sometimes stated there can be evidence, it is just "non-empircal" but when I ask for it you just go back to the "no evidence" again.... this is ridiculous deception to a ridiculous extent. You have claimed evidence, just not empirical... so I will ask you for your evidence OR perhaps you will decide that you have absolutely no valid evidence whatsoever - but then stay with that and not keep pretending to hold some evidence of some form again? Because if you do, I will, naturally, ask you to provide it.

Also, furthermore... whenever you talk about your own rationalizations/reasons/"reasoning" for God's existence then if this is any indication that he is more likely to exist than not (or that likely at all) - then it is by definition, evidence. That is what evidence is and what it does. So you can't claim sane rational valid reasoning that there actually IS a God and the same time say you have no evidence because that is a contradiction.

Finally - when you claim things such as how you don't care about God's existence and "God doesn't actually exist.... he just IS" - that is a contradiction and a nonsensical statement... surely you know what it means to say that something "is" or "is not"?

We're covering old ground here (as well as spanning every active topic with the same conversation as usual). Belief in what smacks you in the face is unnecessary. Reasoning is only required for the unknown.

If it's probabilistic reasoning, reasoning that God is at all likely, then it's still a form of evidencing - whether the evidence is valid or not. What's the problem with the word "evidence"? Do you have it or not? Whether empiracl or non-empircal - make your mind up for once please. I have consistently made it clear that I know of no evidence for God's existence - you, however, have went from "there can be no evidence" to "there can be no empirical evidence"/"reasoning" for God's existence', repeatedly. You then attempt to clarify to me, it seems, that you indeed do have evidence it's just you thought I was speaking of empirical evidence specifically, and there can't be any of that. And yet - when I ask you then for evidence of ANY form whatsoever... you once again revert back to something like "Silly Evie, how many times have I told you there can't be evidence" - so make your mind up!! Stop playing games - it looks like deception to me when you refuse to provide the evidence you have claimed by reverting from "no empirical evidence" to "no evidence" whenever I question after you have claimed that there can be evidence of at least some form!

Verbal vomit.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Please do actually clarify.

You're trying to chase down your evidence ghost again.

What are you talking about?

Please don't involve me... I don't think he exists/ I am agnostic on EvieGod.

Maybe you'll read my post and admit the fact, for once, that you - at least ostensibly by your postings - kept changing your mind. Do you have evidence of ANY form or not, if so - please give... and if not - then don't expect me to not ask for you some again if you come out claiming "non-empirical" / "reasons/reasoning" again.

EvF

[fr0d0]

I'm not replying to that bullshit again today Evie. I've answered all of these points already today and you come back with the exact same questions again. I'm wasting my time. you obviously don't have the capacity to retain information.

[chatpilot]

Oh come on fr0d0!! Reply to the bullshit lol just kidding buddy.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Oh come on fr0d0!! Reply to the bullshit lol just kidding buddy.

Kidding?

Shame on you! Didn't your mother ever tell you it's wicked to mock the afflicted?

Would you go to nut house and poke the inmates with a sharp stick? If not,don't tease poor Frodo.