Objective evidence of God

[Oncedeceived]

You really think this is what the OP was looking for? It's UTTERLY meaningless, because the universe's existence, in your rationale, supports any and all claims of creation, even clearly fictitious ones like Bob created the universe.

Your evidence is completely inert.

I see you neatly and very discretely implied the strawman again. I didn't claim the universe was the evidence. The beginning of the universe was the claim.

 

[HitchSlap]

Conversely if you don't know something is true it must be false. In other words your lack of knowledge does not invalidate my argument.

Not sure what you're going on about, but my understanding of reality trumps your metaphysical woo-woo.

 

[46AND2]

I see you neatly and very discretely implied the strawman again. I didn't claim the universe was the evidence. The beginning of the universe was the claim.

Fine, put beginning of the universe in; it wasn't intentional. Doesn't matter. My point remains.

 

[HitchSlap]

I see you neatly and very discretely implied the strawman again. I didn't claim the universe was the evidence. The beginning of the universe was the claim.

Ok. Fine. Whatever. The universe, the beginning... doesn't matter. We're just trying to get you to see you don't have one objective shred of evidence to support your claim Christian god did it.

 

[bhsmte]

I see you neatly and very discretely implied the strawman again. I didn't claim the universe was the evidence. The beginning of the universe was the claim.

Doesn't change a thing Once, you still have to show the objective evidence pointing to God and ruling out any other cause.

 

[MarkT]

You just don't want to be responsible to Leprechauns, so you ignore the objective evidence for their existence.

You're making a categorical mistake.

Put it this way. The existence of a house points to a builder.

 

[HitchSlap]

You're making a categorical mistake.

Put it this way. The existence of a house points to a builder.

Speaking of categorical errors...

And the existence of a snowflake points to a snowflake maker?

 

[Loudmouth]

You're making a categorical mistake.

Put it this way. The existence of a house points to a builder.

Yes, so why do you reject Leprechauns when there is obvious objective evidence in the form of rainbows? Houses point to a builder, and rainbows point to a rainbow maker.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I hope you realize all of you that there are others that are looking on in the wings and while you are all giving each other high fives in cyberspace your intellectual dishonesty is showing. You might be getting confirmation from your fellow atheists but it is glaringly obvious to others that it is due to your bias against the conclusion that is at fault here.

 

[bhsmte]

I hope you realize all of you that there are others that are looking on in the wings and while you are all giving each other high fives in cyberspace your intellectual dishonesty is showing. You might be getting confirmation from your fellow atheists but it is glaringly obvious to others that it is due to your bias against the conclusion that is at fault here.

Once, you never cease to amaze me.

Bias on who's part again?

Psychology Today could do a 4 part series on the content of this thread alone.

 

[Loudmouth]

I hope you realize all of you that there are others that are looking on in the wings and while you are all giving each other high fives in cyberspace your intellectual dishonesty is showing. You might be getting confirmation from your fellow atheists but it is glaringly obvious to others that it is due to your bias against the conclusion that is at fault here.

The guilt strategy? Really?

Can't produce the evidence, so just guilt them into believing. Nice one.

 

[46AND2]

I hope you realize all of you that there are others that are looking on in the wings and while you are all giving each other high fives in cyberspace your intellectual dishonesty is showing. You might be getting confirmation from your fellow atheists but it is glaringly obvious to others that it is due to your bias against the conclusion that is at fault here.

Really? Can you honestly not see how your "evidence" carries no weight, when it can ALSO be used to support clearly fictional claims?

 

[Loudmouth]

Really? Can you honestly not see how your "evidence" carries no weight, when it can ALSO be used to support clearly fictional claims?

It is even stranger to accuse us of bias. We are applying the same logic to all claimed deities and supernatural beings without bias. We are then told that we should only apply this logic to the Judeo-Christian God and not to anything else, otherwise we are biased.

I think we have landed in Bizzaro world.

 

[biggles53]

Yes, so why do you reject Leprechauns when there is obvious objective evidence in the form of rainbows? Houses point to a builder, and rainbows point to a rainbow maker.

And let's not forget to give Cloudmakers their due......!

 

[HitchSlap]

I hope you realize all of you that there are others that are looking on in the wings and while you are all giving each other high fives in cyberspace your intellectual dishonesty is showing. You might be getting confirmation from your fellow atheists but it is glaringly obvious to others that it is due to your bias against the conclusion that is at fault here.

You know what's also glaringly obvious, your refusal to provide one shred of objective evidence for your claim. Your refusal is noted as conceding your point. As they say in chess, "check mate," that's game over for you.

As an aside, I'm really having trouble believing that you are actually this daft, you have to be putting us on.

 

[HitchSlap]

And let's not forget to give Cloudmakers their due......!

Bob would be offended!

 

[46AND2]

I hope you realize all of you that there are others that are looking on in the wings and while you are all giving each other high fives in cyberspace your intellectual dishonesty is showing. You might be getting confirmation from your fellow atheists but it is glaringly obvious to others that it is due to your bias against the conclusion that is at fault here.

Let me put it another way...

Instead of assuming that the Bible is true, let's hypothetically assume that it is fiction.

Would not your "evidence" still support it?

So then how can it be used as evidence for the veracity of your claim when it works just as well if it is assumed to be fiction?

 

[biggles53]

Once, you never cease to amaze me.

Bias on who's part again?

Psychology Today could do a 4 part series on the content of this thread alone.

The same bias that all you liars exhibit when you refuse to acknowledge the existence of Santa, unicorns, the Easter Bunny.....and Elvis...!!

 

[bhsmte]

It is even stranger to accuse us of bias. We are applying the same logic to all claimed deities and supernatural beings without bias. We are then told that we should only apply this logic to the Judeo-Christian God and not to anything else, otherwise we are biased.

I think we have landed in Bizzaro world.

Cognitive dissonance can cause one to project.

 

[bhsmte]

The guilt strategy? Really?

Can't produce the evidence, so just guilt them into believing. Nice one.

Guilt plays well in christianity, so I guess, why not try here as well.