Evidence God Exists

[AngelThMan]

And with all that he has yet to present any "evidence" at all.


Curious.

I have. You just refuse to consider it.

[Paul the Human]

And with all that he has yet to present any "evidence" at all.


Curious.

I have. You just refuse to consider it.

Because it is not evidence. Your superstitious beliefs are interfering with your ability to understand what the word means, I think.

[Minimalist]

And with all that he has yet to present any "evidence" at all.


Curious.

I have. You just refuse to consider it.

I told you before. You have no evidence. You have "argument." You need to learn the difference.

[Paul the Human]

I think what we have here is a serious case of begging the question. We are talking about scientific evidence to support the claim that god(s) exist, where Angel is talking about his own, faith-based definition of 'evidence': That which can be interpreted in such a way as to support what he already believes.

1. Humans rule the world and can imagine there is a god is seen as "evidence" that god is real.

2. Science can't explain everything, so god must have done those things.

That is not how "evidence" works, Angel. Using that word is what has turned this into a game of semantics. It all boils down to this: You presented your brand of "evidence" and we will not consider it evidence, because we do not have a prior belief in god. Do you have anything demonstrable? No... if there were any demonstrable evidence to support the claim, it would have come to light by now, I would think. Therefore, belief in god is only possible through faith... and that is a whole other matter.

[Thor]

And with all that he has yet to present any "evidence" at all.


Curious.

I have. You just refuse to consider it.

I think we have "considered" it. And we rejected it because it is extremely weak evidence (if it really even qualifies as "evidence" at all - as Min pointed out, you have an argument, not "evidence").

[AngelThMan]

And with all that he has yet to present any "evidence" at all.


Curious.

I have. You just refuse to consider it.

I think we have "considered" it. And we rejected it because it is extremely weak evidence...

I disagree. I don't think anyone has really considered it. Everyone here is so in love with being an atheist that all they've set out to do from the get go is figure out how to debunk my theory. Let's at least be honest here.

[tavarish]

I disagree. I don't think anyone has really considered it. Everyone here is so in love with being an atheist that all they've set out to do from the get go is figure out how to debunk my theory. Let's at least be honest here.

You want honesty? You can't form a coherent argument for the existence of God if your life depended on it. You spout nonsense, chastise those who actually have the intellectual honesty to call you out on your bullshit, hit on forum members, and then have the audacity to tell people that they're full of themselves because they took apart your shitstain argument 50 pages ago?

Get a fucking clue.

[Paul the Human]

If anyone is guilty of dishonesty here, it is you, Angel. Intellectual dishonesty. The things you have presented as 'evidence' are not truly evidence and we have all tried to explain that to you, but you are so in love with your belief in god that you've set out from the get go to not admit to the lack of evidence. Let's be honest here.

[AngelThMan]

...hit on forum members...

I wasn't hitting on anyone. Just admiring someone's beauty, is all.

[Thor]

I disagree. I don't think anyone has really considered it.

Yes, we have. And we gave it as much consideration as "we are intelligent, therefore, 'God' exists!" merits.

Everyone here is so in love with being an atheist that all they've set out to do from the get go is figure out how to debunk my theory.

What "theory"? A sound theory is supported by all available evidence and contradicted by none. Your "theory" has no evidence to support it! Your "theory" is not evidence in and of itself!

Let's at least be honest here.

We are.