There is no evidence for God

I don't normally get defended by atheists on TSR. Thanks.



But the assumption isn't wrong, or at least, you haven't explained to me how it is so. Let us discuss just the assumptions I made then, huh? That would help me. I'd be very happy to simply discuss the assumptions, not even the conclusions.

Let me jog your memory. I said to someone else, "You are implying that science can be used to demonstrate the existence of God if God exists, and therefore because it hasn't, it's unreasonable to believe he exists. "
You said "No. That is not what he is implying at all. He is just saying "magic is not a rational explanation""

But let's actually unpack that response. What is a rational explanation? What is your basis for rationality? And why is explaining things with the supernatural not rational?

I don't normally get defended by atheists on TSR. Thanks.



But the assumption isn't wrong, or at least, you haven't explained to me how it is so. Let us discuss just the assumptions I made then, huh? That would help me. I'd be very happy to simply discuss the assumptions, not even the conclusions.

Let me jog your memory. I said to someone else, "You are implying that science can be used to demonstrate the existence of God if God exists, and therefore because it hasn't, it's unreasonable to believe he exists. "
You said "No. That is not what he is implying at all. He is just saying "magic is not a rational explanation""

But let's actually unpack that response. What is a rational explanation? What is your basis for rationality? And why is explaining things with the supernatural not rational?

Funny post, but in the end no better than that what is made fun of in the clip.

I think you're being too generous in your assumption that you're dealing with a rational debater.

- dismisses philosophy
- holds defunct philosophical views like verificationism
- ??
- profit

On a scale of 1 to 10, how euphoric are you feeling right now?

It's an assumption. It's not on me to prove it wrong. It's on you to prove it correct.

And the arrogance, you didn't get defended by an atheist, an atheist asked for more clarification in my argument, since the state it was in, he didn't understand it. If you continue to read our exchange you will see that we came to an agreement.

I think you you're vastly overestimating your own capacities

By any chance, what subject did you study at university?

6. Almost time for the weekend but not quite.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how smug are you feeling right now?

copout.
this is a discussion - a debate. you are in the sub forum "debate and current affairs."

in a debate both sides support their claims and provide evidence or support as to why the other side is incorrect. this also adds support to your claim.

when ever someone makes a claim - positive or negative - they need to support their own claim. otherwise if you try to tell other people you are right and they are wrong, you just give an assumption. we all know what that does - look to Benny Hill if you don't.

Why should I believe or accept your assumption?

We'll let others be the judge of that

The fact that you're asking that question tells me all I need to know about your comprehension skills.



I expected a higher number based on your complete inability to make a point but oh well.

10, thanks to you!

It does tell you a lot about my comprehension skills, doesn't it

You're getting more and more incoherent with every post. It's too early to be drinking, chum.

At the end of the day it's still a philosophical argument. Philosophy is not science or mathematics.

x

That's not really fair. Atheists always use philosophical arguments to counter the idea of God like the evil and suffering thread david pulled out a few days ago.

There is no evidence that there is no God. So there.

Just the desire alone to want is not greed and wanting to hold for ones own consumption something you enjoy is not selfishness.