An unorthodox belief in God.

[Cato]

Its being rejected. I give my reason, my evidence, its just not evidence accepted; quit saying I am giving no evidence, rather say the evidence is not accepted!

You are indeed giving your reasons for believing, but they only serve as evidence for your belief and say absolutely nothing about the validity of your beliefs. Your unwillingness to accept the distinction, despite several attempts to explain the difference to you, comes across as pure evasion. You are being ridiculous.

[mickiel]

Its being rejected. I give my reason, my evidence, its just not evidence accepted; quit saying I am giving no evidence, rather say the evidence is not accepted!

The defining characteristic of evidence is that examining it leads to a particular conclusion and if the evidence were different, it would lead to a different conclusion. By claiming absolutely everything as evidence, you rob it all of the property of being evidence: that a different conclusion could be reached if the evidence were different.

PLUS:

If God, then everything->Everything, therefore God

has the same problem as

If Bill Gates, then rich->Rich, therefore Bill Gates.

I wish I felt like posting all the evidence; its just too much; maybe I can use some pages I wrote else where; Let me see if this works.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/genera...l-113.html

Okay it worked; not that I am lazy, but consider this page of reasoned evidence; and we can go through each one individually as you wish.
And this is my work. Not someonelse.

[Mister Agenda]

How about you post just one thing that actually counts as evidence? You would have to be able to explain WHY it favors theism over nontheism, that is, back it up rather than just claiming it's evidence. Just one thing. What you consider your very strongest bit of evidence, just back up that one little bit. Can you do that? Can you even try?

[Napoléon]

http://www.reasonsforgod.org/the-best-reasons/
http://www.toptenproofs.com/article_godsexistence.php

Is this a joke?

[mickiel]

The defining characteristic of evidence is that examining it leads to a particular conclusion and if the evidence were different, it would lead to a different conclusion. By claiming absolutely everything as evidence, you rob it all of the property of being evidence: that a different conclusion could be reached if the evidence were different.

PLUS:

If God, then everything->Everything, therefore God

has the same problem as

If Bill Gates, then rich->Rich, therefore Bill Gates.

I wish I felt like posting all the evidence; its just too much; maybe I can use some pages I wrote else where; Let me see if this works.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/genera...l-113.html

Okay it worked; not that I am lazy, but consider this page of reasoned evidence; and we can go through each one individually as you wish.
And this is my work. Not someonelse.

How about you post just one thing that actually counts as evidence? You would have to be able to explain WHY it favors theism over nontheism, that is, back it up rather than just claiming it's evidence. Just one thing. What you consider your very strongest bit of evidence, just back up that one little bit. Can you do that? Can you even try?

I did already, I started with consciousness and tried to stay on it individually, but the tide here swept that attempt away, just as you just swept away a whole page of evidence I listed on another site. I mean its a good thing I can copy it and post it here, just saves the time of me re-writing it all over again.

---

http://www.reasonsforgod.org/the-best-reasons/
http://www.toptenproofs.com/article_godsexistence.php

Is this a joke?

Is this a joke?
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/genera...l-113.html

This is some serious research I did.

[Nine]

http://www.reasonsforgod.org/the-best-reasons/
http://www.toptenproofs.com/article_godsexistence.php

Is this a joke?

I thick he's just googling 'pr00fs God R3alz' and linking the first thing that shows up.

[mickiel]

Is this a joke?

I thick he's just googling 'pr00fs God R3alz' and linking the first thing that shows up.

This is my research, not a google;

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/genera...l-113.html

[Fidel_Castronaut]

The defining characteristic of evidence is that examining it leads to a particular conclusion and if the evidence were different, it would lead to a different conclusion. By claiming absolutely everything as evidence, you rob it all of the property of being evidence: that a different conclusion could be reached if the evidence were different.

PLUS:

If God, then everything->Everything, therefore God

has the same problem as

If Bill Gates, then rich->Rich, therefore Bill Gates.

I wish I felt like posting all the evidence; its just too much; maybe I can use some pages I wrote else where; Let me see if this works.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/genera...l-113.html

Okay it worked; not that I am lazy, but consider this page of reasoned evidence; and we can go through each one individually as you wish.
And this is my work. Not someonelse.

You're just saying things and then invoking 'god' in that thread. If I submitted such sloppy 'research' for my phd thesis I'd be laughed out of the building.

My iPad = god

My fiancé = god

My car = god

The Higgs boson = god

These are not evidence of anything aside your own willingness to accept an argument from ignorance and to make bare assertions to that end with confirmation bias.

I mean, it's just utter, utter nonsense, and I'm at a loss as to how anyone can't see that.

I'll give you one thing, though, and that's that you refuse to admit when you're using fallacious reasoning even though every single post you've made on here uses it.

Have you seen this article? I beseech you to read it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

And this is without going into the fact that there were no contemporary accounts of Jesus' life whatsoever. Indeed, there wasn't anything written about Jesus until all after his supposed death.

[Nine]

This is my research, not a google;

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/genera...l-113.html

Great research Doc, looks like the same drivel we see here everyday. Most of its just a list of things with no reasoning behind it. I'm not wasting my time reading pages of your rambling when in reality you have nothing of value to contribute.

[mickiel]

This is my research, not a google;

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/genera...l-113.html

Great research Doc, looks like the same drivel we see here everyday. Most of its just a list of things with no reasoning behind it. I'm not wasting my time reading pages of your rambling when in reality you have nothing of value to contribute.

Translation: " I am not even considering your evidence as evidence, but I am going to keep " ASKING for it!"

In example; I provided a list of 30 historical references to jesus, all but one historians, the one a document. How could one claim jesus did not exist, and 29 historians wrote about him, plus the Toledot Yeshu.