Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have no basis for asserting that ALL the evidence we have is NOT about God unless you can provide the "measure" you use to determine it is NOT evidence of God.
Where is ‘ALL this evidence’? Hence, it’s logical reasoning; if there were any evidence of a god, there’d be no need for ‘belief’ or ‘faith’ in such.
That said, it’s not on me to prove a god doesn’t exist when I lack belief in the first place; hence, your expectation is nonsensical. Why would you ask someone to prove something doesn’t exist that you already ‘believe’ does? The prosecution has to make their own evidential case; they don’t ask the defense to provide such first. In other words, the onus is on you, per the thread.
Where is ‘ALL this evidence’? Hence, it’s logical reasoning; if there were any evidence of a god, there’d be no need for ‘belief’ or ‘faith’ in such.
That said, it’s not on me to prove a god doesn’t exist when I lack belief in the first place; hence, your expectation is nonsensical. Why would you ask someone to prove something doesn’t exist that you already ‘believe’ does? The prosecution has to make their own evidential case; they don’t ask the defense to provide such first. In other words, the onus is on you, per the thread.
You are NOT paying close attention. The issue is the existing evidence. HOW the hell do you decide that it is NOT evidence of God???? That is pure assumption, NOT science, or any other reasonable method.
You are NOT paying close attention. The issue is the existing evidence. HOW the hell do you decide that it is NOT evidence of God???? That is pure assumption, NOT science, or any other reasonable method.
You are NOT paying close attention. The issue is the existing evidence. HOW the hell do you decide that it is NOT evidence of God???? That is pure assumption, NOT science, or any other reasonable method.
As soon as you can provide a definition that demonstrates the difference between what everyone calls the universe and what you do, the conversation can start, until then, how the hell does your argument hold the slightest merit? How the hell do you get to call the universe god?
HOW the hell do you decide that it is NOT evidence of God???? That is pure assumption, NOT science, or any other reasonable method.
Even those who ‘believe’ in a god know there isn’t evidence of such; hence the reason they have their belief/faith - yes? However, you aren’t understanding what qualifies as ‘circumstantial evidence’, per the thread; in order for it to be such, one must first have demonstrable, measurable fact(s) from which one can then logically infer the existence of a god (sans a biased source).
That said, you avoided my question. Why would you ask someone to prove something doesn’t exist that you already ‘believe’ does? The prosecution has to make their own evidential case; they don’t ask the defense to provide such first. In other words, the onus is on you (and you certainly haven’t proved anything).
Even those who ‘believe’ in a god know there isn’t evidence of such; hence the reason they have their belief/faith - yes? However, you aren’t understanding what qualifies as ‘circumstantial evidence’, per the thread; in order for it to be such, one must first have demonstrable, measurable fact(s) from which one can then logically infer the existence of a god (sans a biased source).
That said, you avoided my question. Why would you ask someone to prove something doesn’t exist that you already ‘believe’ does? The prosecution has to make their own evidential case; they don’t ask the defense to provide such first. In other words, the onus is on you (and you certainly haven’t proved anything).
Apparently if you have a vision you get to be the great soothsayer.
As soon as you can provide a definition that demonstrates the difference between what everyone calls the universe and what you do, the conversation can start, until then, how the hell does your argument hold the slightest merit? How the hell do you get to call the universe god?
How the hell do you get to call the universe the universe and NOT God??? It is why we exist. It is why ANYTHING exists. It is why we LIVE. It is why we are conscious and intelligent and can know we live and how we and everything around us function. It is why our entire reality and physical environment are the way they are. It is why the processes and ways things function are discoverable, intelligible, and knowable and NOT chaotic. How is that NOT God????
How the hell do you get to call the universe the universe and NOT God??? It is why we exist. It is why ANYTHING exists. It is why we LIVE. It is why we are conscious and intelligent and can know we live and how we and everything around us function. It is why our entire reality and physical environment are the way they are. It is why the processes and ways things function are discoverable, intelligible, and knowable and NOT chaotic. How is that NOT God????
Pantheism is a religious ‘belief’ as well (particularly if you believe the universe is ‘conscious’); obviously, there is no (circumstantial) evidence of such. That said, what (logical) purpose does it serve i.e. you’re essentially just using the word ‘universe’ to describe ‘god’ (while telling others we can’t use the word universe).
You are NOT paying close attention. The issue is the existing evidence. HOW the hell do you decide that it is NOT evidence of God???? That is pure assumption, NOT science, or any other reasonable method.
OK Mystic. This is how you can convince me. Is what you are saying is that intelligence generates physical reality? That's what I hear. If so, then demonstrate there is no physical reality. I think saying something like: "what if qualia or just sentience belongs to a different dimension?" is more likely.
You are NOT paying close attention. The issue is the existing evidence. HOW the hell do you decide that it is NOT evidence of God???? That is pure assumption, NOT science, or any other reasonable method.
Because you have yet to provide that extra evidence that it IS evidence for a god.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
