How Much Evidence Will It Take You To Believe In God???

[brewer]

I'm with ya but you're making it difficult for the presbyopic.

Sorry, just trying to show Edward John how annoying it is to change fonts.

Yeah, and I'm just teasing.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Sorry, just trying to show Edward John how annoying it is to change fonts.

Yeah, and I'm just teasing.

No worries, it allowed me to explicitly mention how Edward John's large fonts are really annoying.

[Joods]

Lmao...he said several pages back that he's trying to convert us.

I called that.

Be gone with you Troll!

[brewer]

Lmao...he said several pages back that he's trying to convert us.

I called that.

Be gone with you Troll!

Maybe he thinks were rice. His avatar remind you of any advert rice logo?

[Athene]

@ OP:

Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo cares?

Not me.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah, and I'm just teasing.

No worries, it allowed me to explicitly mention how Edward John's large fonts are really annoying.

I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT YOU MEAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!








NONSENSE!!!! YOU'RE ALL SATANIC ATHEISTS.... FOR ALL I HAVE DONE IS STATE STATISTICS. ARE YOU A SILLY THEIST?












Sorry about that, I didn't mean to do an impression of a full-on Edward John and ProgrammingGodJordan spawn O_o

Let's hope to fuck they never breed.

[Minimalist]

God hardened Pharaohs heart

But viagra could harden his dick.  Yay, science!

[Angrboda]

Edward John: Your arguments are terrible. That you think you have provided enough evidence to persuade an open minded person is likely the result of you not being very smart. It takes brains and a willingness to consider alternatives to mount a convincing case. You have neither of these. You provide poorly framed arguments for your God and have the cheek to format it in large colorful fonts as if we were children that you had to speak down to. If you want to know why you've failed to convince, then I suggest you look in the mirror.

point 1: God isn't "the best explanation" for anything. God is an explanation, but not a very good one. God as an explanation has great explanatory scope, meaning that it can account for a wide variety of facts. But that is the only virtue that God as an explanation has. There are other virtues we look for in an explanation which are lacking in your God explanation. One of these is explanatory power, which is the quality of increasing our understanding of the phenomenon on account of the explanation. This is usually done by providing a mechanism of action by which to understand the phenomenon. Your God explanation is notably deficient in this area in that the only mechanism postulated is, "it's magic." Saying that it "just happened" does as much to illuminate the underlying mechanism as your God explanation does. There are other qualities that we look for in a good explanation that are not found in your God explanation. One of these is the ability to make predictions based on the explanation. "Goddidit" provides no useful predictions. In summation, far from being the "best" explanation for these things, it's hardly an explanation at all. At best it's a very poor one.

[Simon Moon]

Edward John:  Your arguments are terrible.  That you think you have provided enough evidence to persuade an open minded person is likely the result of you not being very smart.  It takes brains and a willingness to consider alternatives to mount a convincing case.  You have neither of these.  You provide poorly framed arguments for your God and have the cheek to format it in large colorful fonts as if we were children that you had to speak down to.  If you want to know why you've failed to convince, then I suggest you look in the mirror.

point 1:  God isn't "the best explanation" for anything.  God is an explanation, but not a very good one.  God as an explanation has great explanatory scope, meaning that it can account for a wide variety of facts.  But that is the only virtue that God as an explanation has.  There are other virtues we look for in an explanation which are lacking in your God explanation.  One of these is explanatory power, which is the quality of increasing our understanding of the phenomenon on account of the explanation.  This is usually done by providing a mechanism of action by which to understand the phenomenon.  Your God explanation is notably deficient in this area in that the only mechanism postulated is, "it's magic."  Saying that it "just happened" does as much to illuminate the underlying mechanism as your God explanation does.  There are other qualities that we look for in a good explanation that are not found in your God explanation.  One of these is the ability to make predictions based on the explanation.  "Goddidit" provides no useful predictions.  In summation, far from being the "best" explanation for these things, it's hardly an explanation at all.  At best it's a very poor one.

Well said.

'God' as an explanation is not an explanation at all. It is nothing more that sweeping the questions under the rug.

[Minimalist]

'God' as an explanation is not an explanation at all.

'God' is merely a skidmark on the underwear of humanity.