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

[Joods]

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?

Uncle Ben lmao.

[Edward John]

Yeah, and I'm just teasing.

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

Mathilda, will you stop nagging me with that.

[I_am_not_mafia]

God hardened Pharaohs heart

But viagra could harden his dick.  Yay, science!

Whereas God hardened Pharoah's heart with artery clogging fry-ups.

[Edward John]

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.

So you deny god.  You don't lack belief, or have a non position. You openly deny. Since you cannot demonstrate that there is no God, all you have is your opinion.  Why are you in here arguing about your opinion?  I think it is arrogant for you to want others to believe in your opinion.

[I_am_not_mafia]

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

Mathilda, will you stop nagging me with that.

Sure, all the time you're not using extra large bold fonts.

[I_am_not_mafia]

So you deny god.  You don't lack belief, or have a non position. You openly deny. Since you cannot demonstrate that there is no God, all you have is your opinion.  Why are you in here arguing about your opinion?  I think it is arrogant for you to want others to believe in your opinion.

What does it mean to deny god?

1) Deny the existence of god because evidence suggests that there are better explanations?
2) Deny claims for the existence of god that are unsubstantiated because there is no evidence for it?
3) Deny a real god despite knowing that it exists?

Only gnostic atheists like myself do 1) and 2). Most atheists do 2). Only theists think that atheists do 3)

[Edward John]

So you deny god.  You don't lack belief, or have a non position. You openly deny. Since you cannot demonstrate that there is no God, all you have is your opinion.  Why are you in here arguing about your opinion?  I think it is arrogant for you to want others to believe in your opinion.

What does it mean to deny god?

1) Deny the existence of god because evidence suggests that there are better explanations?
2) Deny claims for the existence of god that are unsubstantiated because there is no evidence for it?
3) Deny a real god despite knowing that it exists?

Only gnostic atheists like myself do 1) and 2). Most atheists do 2). Only theists think that atheists do 3)

1)Opinion Then, it would seem, that without God you would have to explain how the universe came into existence.  Can you please do that?  Tell us how the universe came into existence from your atheistic perspective?

2)There is no evidence for God, You can't say that because you have not looked at all evidence in the world. That isn't possible.

3)True and already proved on page 1.

[pocaracas]

Since you cannot demonstrate that there is no God, all you have is your opinion.  Why are you in here arguing about your opinion?  I think it is arrogant for you to want others to believe in your opinion.

Oh, the Irony!

[Expired]

It doesn't take belief to have a lack of belief xx

[Edward John]

Since you cannot demonstrate that there is no God, all you have is your opinion.  Why are you in here arguing about your opinion?  I think it is arrogant for you to want others to believe in your opinion.

Oh, the Irony!

 Perhaps you could tell me how that is not arrogant.