Dear readers here, this morning I will again talk about evidence, because I find it namely evidence to be a valid explanation from atheists, on why they insist that God does not exist, scil. because there is no evidence for Him existing.
Not a single atheist in this thread has made the claim that god doesn't exist.
In fact, we've been going out of our way to explain to you that atheism doesn't include that claim - or any other claim for that matter.
Atheism is a
responsive position on a single issue.
It is not a claim. If anything, it is a response to a specific claim.
It doesn't tell you what a person believes. It tells you what a person does NOT believe.
Let us sit back and see if atheists will join us but without any nonsense of their horror chamber of unreason and unintelligence, in our consideration of what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.
Now, dear readers here, track carefully and continuously how atheists will now as usual go into irrelevancies and nonsense talk, as I will and we will engage them in tackling the matter of evidence, which lack of they explain why they choose to not at least use their God-endowed reason and IQ intelligence to study the evidence which for them does not exist.
Atheists will and must study the evidence which for them does not exist?
Yes, because they claim there is no evidence for God existing, that means definitively that they do have some ideas of evidence at all, the absence of which in reality gives them the ground to explain why they choose to not at all use their God-endowed reason and their IQ intelligence to examine the issue of God existing or not.
Do you dear readers get what I am trying to tell you, namely, as atheists have only one ground why they do not accept the existence of God, namely, that there is no evidence for God existing, that requires that they do have some pieces of evidence in concepts inside their brain or mind, i.e. in their conceptual realm, which are crucially the presence of which that is, namely, presence of in the objectival realm of existence outside their brain or mind, determinative of their choice for no God existing.
Let us then ask them atheists who allege that there is no evidence for God existing:
Here's a hint for making your posts a little more attractive an interesting: stop with all the irrelevant and condescending paragraphes, and just get to your point.
Atheists, tell us what are some concrete pieces of evidence which are not present, by which lack of their presence, you ground yourselves on, as to choose to deny God existing.
You are making the claim that a god exists. Meet your own burden of proof.
Give us whatever you have that you consider supportive evidence. Just cut right to the chase and just give us what you consider to be the BEST piece of evidence.
I can't tell you what evidence would convince me. Especially not in this case, since your god seems to be carefully defined in such a way that no rational verifiable evidence could even exist.
As it stands, your claims lacks the required specifics in order for us to tell you what we would consider rational evidence.
Consider the flood story. There's a tale with enough specifics so that we could tell you what would convince us. For example, if the tale is true, I'ld expect to find a global flood layer in the geological column as well as a universal genetic bottleneck in all extant life, both dating to roughly the same period which can be corrolated with the tale. Off course, such data does not exist, so we can safely discard this tale.
It's just an illustration of how evidence works.
You need to make a testable claim, before we can tell you what would convince us.
But all this is rather irrelevant if you are of the opinion that you already have the required evidence, which you seem to be thinking. So in that case, just cut to the chase and share this evidence already, and explain how it supports your beliefs.
Is that a reasonable and intelligent request on them atheists, that they state what pieces of evidence are not available, by which absence of, they atheists feel so smug that they have arrived at emotional conviction, there is no God?
No, it's not reasonable.
Let me illustrate further.
Let's say that I claim that "Gobblydock" exists. Gobblydock is an
undetectable pink dragon that will consume your sould if you don't worship it.
Please tell me what evidence would convince you that Gobblydock exists.
See? When I make that claim, it's not upto you to detail it and explain how it could be tested. That would be MY job. And if I fail to do so, then you have exactly zero reason to believe my claim about Gobblydock.
So.... to concluse....
If you claim to have evidence,
then just share it.
And then we can discuss it.
