Evidence that God exists

[fr0d0]

@ Thoughtful: please tell me the point I'm missing. Kyu seems to be avoiding the question.

@ Demonaura: Thanks for stating that. Could you tell me what Kyu's point is please?

Kyu calling me a liar is a personal attack and not a comment on my statements. He flame baits and then cries foul if I don't bite. Balanced debate encourages opendiscussion. Ridicule doesn't. Kyu in his insistence on non tolerance and absolutist refusal to even consider anything outside his constructed argument does not present a willing opponent, but an immovable and dead idea. There's no point arguing with a rock, and that's how Kyu is presenting himself.

[Kyuuketsuki]

@ Thoughtful: please tell me the point I'm missing. Kyu seems to be avoiding the question.

No I'm not and in fact your very next point ...

@ Demonaura: Thanks for stating that. Could you tell me what Kyu's point is please?

... to Demonaura confirms that (assuming you are being genuine & TBH I have my doubts) you don't even understand what my point was.

Kyu calling me a liar is a personal attack and not a comment on my statements.

And as I have admitted if it is untrue then yes it would be but the fact is that it is not and here's why:

I don't think you're engaging me at all Kyu. It seems entirely pointless to carry on with this yes you did, no you didn't interchange.

So your final stance is to lie about your opponent then chicken out of the "debate"? Wow! I'd expect no less!

Where did I lie about you Kyu?

QUOTE: I don't think you're engaging me at all Kyu. It seems entirely pointless to carry on with this yes you did, no you didn't interchange. Happy?

No. I shan't bother asking the question again.

So you accept that you're a liar then?

I have no idea what you're talking about Kyu. 'whoosh' as you'd say.

No. I answer your questions, you say I am not engaging your questions, I say you're lying, you ask me where I think you lied, I quote the relevant thing you said, you dodge the point, I ask if you accept you are a liar and you go whoosh! And you wonder why I say you're disingenuous? You know I'm beginning to think you're engaged on some kind of mission to get me to call you a moron just so you can point out that there's some kind on inequality because I don't get punished. If you want me to call you an idiot, I'll call you an idiot ... is that what you want?

I think it's quite obvious Kyu that I'm saying that the points you have made, in my opinion, don't address my points. You refuse to accept this and call me a liar?? I have no doubt that you could say what you like and flaunt the rules. This is pointless. Please lets leave this alone and move on.

And I think it self-evident that you are being disingenuous in claiming that I was not dealing with the points you made and the fact is that you did fail to answer points that I made. I very much doubt Adrian would keep me on as a moderator were I to behave in such a fashion (or indeed in the fashion that you do) ... at the very least I would be apologising to you. No. Please point out to me the points you claim I have not answered and I will review them and reply. As I said earlier, you wonder why I say you're disingenuous? I think I have justified that POV. TBBH if I was really that far off the mark on what is, let's face it, not very nice if the assertion is untrue I would have shot down in flames by other forum members AND would have been hauled across the coals by Adrian with predictable results. That that hasn't happened suggests a lot more about you than it does about me and ultimately, you can resolve this fairly easily by simply dealing with the points made.

Clearly from the above you claim that I was not engaging you, the previous and quoted conversation demonstrate that I was in fact engaging you whether you liked those answers or not, therefore despite all your ducking and diving since it is clear that you were in fact LYING ... and what do we call someone who lies? We call them a LIAR!!!

So, as I say above, if I am wrong to call you a liar then I absolutely deserve to be called out but the fact is that you were LYING. A casual reading of the above directly quoted material confirms that and my previous conversations with you demonstrate I was engaging so please stop playing the f##king martyr.

He flame baits and then cries foul if I don't bite. Balanced debate encourages opendiscussion. Ridicule doesn't. Kyu in his insistence on non tolerance and absolutist refusal to even consider anything outside his constructed argument does not present a willing opponent, but an immovable and dead idea. There's no point arguing with a rock, and that's how Kyu is presenting himself.

No, I don't flame bait ... I hound, it's part of my essential debate tactics. You say something I query it, you dodge, I bring you back to the point you didn't answer, you dive, I bring you back again ... I carry on those same tactics UNTIL SUCH POINT AS YOU ANSWER, YOU ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG OR ONE OF US GIVES UP.

Ultimately the truth is that the ONLY REASON I can do this is because my opponent provides me the opportunity to do so, in other words it is YOU that creates the situation, I simply respond. It really is that simple.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

Kyu, you only want to talk about your own agenda, and that agenda is to spout well worn rhetoric. You don't address points, you derail conversations to suit your own end, and then bully and cajole then plead foul if your target doesn't roll over and submit to your tactics.

You have to limit your argument to demonstrable proof because you know if you stray at all from that line you will lose. This proves you have no real point because you can't face up to fair debate.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Kyu, you only want to talk about your own agenda, and that agenda is to spout well worn rhetoric. You don't address points, you derail conversations to suit your own end, and then bully and cajole then plead foul if your target doesn't roll over and submit to your tactics.

No I don't, you just don't like my answers!

You have to limit your argument to demonstrable proof because you know if you stray at all from that line you will lose.

I know no such thing ... I'm entirely willing to believe in this god of your s or indeed anything else given adequate reason to do so, the standard supporting reason is evidence so, if you don't have any, it is UP TO YOU to justify why that lack is valid and to date you have abysmally failed to do so. IN deed, with logic I can't even begin to fathom, you somehow manage to argue that the lack of evidence is actually evidence for your go ... I mean WTF?

This proves you have no real point because you can't face up to fair debate.

I can face you toe to toe in almost any debate you care to name, just because I don't debate in the facile & disingenuous manner you do doesn't mean I am unable to debate, indeed it so far it has shown you up as the liar you actually are.

It comes down to this simple concept ... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/justification ... to date you have FAILED to supply any and like Edward you are ducking, diving and being forced increasing towards tactics of personal attack to try and save face. You debate very little differently from the fundamentalists I used to debate.

I find it sad to have to say this about someone who is evidently quite intelligent ... IMO you are an absolute waste of space, you are not worth the time and effort of replying and the only reasons I continue to do so is out of sheer bloody mindedness and that I am a forum moderator and see myself as having a responsibility to do so.

Kyu

[athoughtfulman]

Frodo, the point you're missing is that you are not answering questions. You've already demonstrated your inability to answer questions in other threads, and this is no exception. So far, you've given us no reason to think otherwise.

But this debate about who's right is pointless. If we can get back to the topic (which I seriously doubt), we might have more success.

Frodo, you said: "I think there can be no empirical proof that the Christian God exists, and that this is a logical assertion given the above."

And Kyuu said: "you have to have a seriously warped sense of logic to interpret the complete absence of evidence as some kind of logical proof that there is a god."

So what the discussion was about is whether one needs evidence to believe in god or not, however correct me if I'm wrong. The point you are avoiding Frodo is answering the call to demonstrate why it is reasonable to have faith in a god for which there is no testable evidence of. If there were only one religion it would be easy, but you must also account for why your religion is worth believing in over any other claims which have not been backed with evidence, such as Islam, Hinduism and Judaism.

[fr0d0]

@ thoughtful: I have answered that question until I'm blue in the face. I don't know how I can say it any more clearly, I really don't. Are you unsure on my stance on that? Kyu want's evidence from me and I've said there can be no evidence. It can't exist, and that follows the logic.

Now if we were to explore the reasonoing then maybe we could get somewhere. But as Kyu refuses to start to go down that road, then my hands are tied and I'm unable to make a start with logical reasoning. Kyu simply refuses to consider anything outside his own personal safety net, I believe, because he knows he wouldn't last a second in the debate.

Thanks for your help. Please let me know if I answered correctly here.

@ Kyu.. again you insult me personally, and fail to address the points. I don't care how you choose to label it. 'Hounding' to me is the same as flame baiting. Your reasoning re the liar thing is totally off the wall. It makes no sense at all. Stop engaging me because you think you have to. Just engage me if you have a point to make. Otherwise, for the sake of our sanity, please don't.

[athoughtfulman]

So far so good

Ok, you and me both agree that there is no evidence for the existence of god, however you choose to believe regardless and I don't. My question to you now is what reasoning do you use to believe that Christianity is any different from other claims unable to be backed by evidence? For example, supposing there is a god, why is it the god of Christianity rather than the god of Islam, Judaism or Hinduism?

I think Kyuu's point is that due to the lack of evidence for god, there is no reason to believe in his existence, much less to believe that the god is a specific god.

However, I'm interested as to your reasoning on what sets Christianity apart from other unsubstantiated claims.

[fr0d0]

Christianity isn't anything to do with claims, substantiated or not. It just doesn't concern itself with discernible proof. It doesn't talk about it. It never addresses it. Science is, and that's great. I love science. Science is awesome. I need no superstitious overtone to that.. science stands alone unsupported. I love that.

You are saying that you won't consider belief in God because there is no discernible proof. I find that an impossible statement. I could say that I can't accept cheese exists because the word sky has 3 letters. To me that would be equally nonsensical.

You see where I'm going I hope. Does science ever address this logic? I'm not articulate enough to name what religious belief encapsulates in human experience completely. To what extent are science and religion non overlapping magesteria?

[athoughtfulman]

I'm not decided as to how far science can go into religious issues.

As for my saying that I will not except belief in god because there is no discernible proof, it is hardly an impossible statement. You are attacking a strawman. My request for evidence of god is purely that - a request of evidence for god. And as for your cheese analogy, that is the nonsensical thing here. My line my reasoning would say that I can't accept cheese because there is no evidence of it, not because of some other random fact.

So, my lack of belief in god is due to a lack of evidence of god. Someone's lack of belief in cheese would be due to a lack of evidence of cheese. Someone's lack of belief in the sky would be due to a lack of evidence of the sky. Someone's lack of belief in santa claus would be due to a lack of evidence of santa claus.

Stop mixing things together. Stick to the point.

Do you believe in god simply because you feel/think he is real? And if there is anything which has helped you make up your mind, please tell me.

Forget about all the rules, tell me exactly what makes you believe in the existence of god, and the Christian god at that.

[Giff]

"We are both atheist, I just believe in one God less then you. When you realise why you have chosen to not believe in other religions, then you may understand why I don't believe in yours"

A quote from an unkown person (which I translated from swedish to english). I thought this suited this thread, you should think about this Fr0d0.

The original quote (in swedish)

"Jag vill hävda att vi båda är ateister, jag tror bara på en Gud mindre än dig.
När du inser varför du väljer att inte tro på andra religioner kommer du att inse
varför jag väljer att inte tro på din"