Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I have never met such an individual. A rational analysis should not require assumptions and special pleading.
What is it made of?
Where is it?
Speculation.
Or, it is an assumption made so the KCA does not fall apart before you get through it.
Net numbers, please.
The problem is, this is all speculation.
And I'm sure I've responded to those comments.
If you are interested in my thoughts on this, then you can start here.
Hello???? The argument you made was that the Christian god was just as reasaonble to believe in as Melisandre! So my response is that your claim is totally unfounded in grouping hem together. We're going in circles here...and you are leading the way!
That's your choice. Remember, you wanted to know my thoughts on the Problem of Evil.
Considering the number of my comments in this thread directed at you that you haven't responded to, I don't think you're in a position to demand I respond to you in another thread.
The first premise is that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
No, I am not interested in your thoughts on the problem of evil. I'm interested in you answering my OP in the other thread which does not solicit your thoughts on the subject at all, but rather simply asks whether you believe that the argument as I present it is 1. unsound or 2. sound and you know or believe it. After you , I'll be glad to get back into the KCA with you again. I'm already all over this thread answering KCA objections.
I already told you that I am not interested in your question from that thread. I also made clear that you are in no position to negotiate a response with me given that you haven't responded to my comments here. So it's "after you..."
I'm not sure where you got the idea that responding to posts was a bargaining chip. In case you haven't noticed, I don't particularly care whether you respond or not. I'm not anguished by your lack of response, as it doesn't reflect poorly on me in any way. You, on the other hand, seem desperate for me to validate your question with a response. So desperate in fact that, in return for my opinion, you promise to respond to comments that you should have responded to weeks ago.
Indeed. I do not see either as rising over the threshold of "actually true".
No, your response was that one was "more true" that the other. Crop circles, as patterns left in fields of wheat etc as being made by extraterrestrial aliens are "more true" than that of being made by fairies (we know biological life and space travel are possible for the former, where all we have are some faked photographs for the latter) but this does not establish the existence of those hypothetical aliens.
The circles are of your own making.
Right, it is more probable that the Christian god is true than your god Melisandre. So it is not just as reasonable to believe in Melisandre as it is to believe in the Christian god. In fact the evidence supporting the truth of Christianity is so much more than the evidence supporting the existence of Melisandre that it is pretty much ridiculous to even make the comparison...and that was my point from the beginning.
"...more probable..."
Post #509 where you said:
No that's fine. If you still refuse to answer, that' okay. But I have bent over backwards trying to answer your objections in the original thread where I first asked about the problem of evil argument, but you would not listen there so when the thread closed you continued to ask your questions in private message. All throughout I kept telling you that you were not understanding the question correctly so I created a thread dedicated to the question I posed and worded it specifically to address your concerns. You still kept bugging me in pm and I kept advising you to look at the new thread I created just for you and you refused to do so. Instead you kept on making the same confused objection in pm. While doing so, you accused me of changing my question, which I did not, you accused me of pretending to be someone who I'm not, and then you also flatly accused me of lying. So we get in this thread and you say I haven't addressed all the objections here. Then I ask which ones and you point me to your post which does include material that I addressed in other's posts. Note that I did look at it, but like I said, I know I've answered similar objections from others in this thread. So I tell you that and you reply "I don't think you have answered them. You have dismissed them." That's simply not true, but I've accommodated you a lot and you have not responded in a profitable manner. I'm actually known to be quite patient and I'm willing to go and retread old ground again, but after all I've done to accommodate you, I would like to see some progress on your part, so I offered the deal after you gave me the idea. So, even though I spent a lot of time on this thread already answering similar objections, I would be willing to retread old ground again, but first you have to show me an act of good faith by answering my OP that I created almost solely for you. If you don't feel like it, then ok. But don't expect me to retread old ground just for you then because I feel that my time would be better used answering other member's posts.
Yes, and I believe that the existence of God is more probable than not, which means a greater than 50 percent chance of being true. If you want to compare the evidences, please start a new thread and I would be happy to participate, but going through the list here would be off-topic.
I am not concerned about what you believe, but what you can demonstrate as an accurate description of reality.
Indeed. The best argument for the existence of your god has no place in a thread titled "Best Argument For or Against God's Existence".
