What convinced you the universe alone is all that exists?

[Paulomycin]

Is there something you can't do that you also do?

Why are you contradicting yourself?

Do you know if you believe the number is, for instance, 100, or don't you?

The answer ends at, "I don't know." <-- It would be an appeal to ignorance fallacy if I drew any conclusion of belief in either direction, for or against, any particular number.

"Appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -Carl Sagan​

In other words, one cannot make any conclusions either way, regardless.

Period.

 

[Moral Orel]

Why are you contradicting yourself?

Stop dodging questions. Is there something you can't do that you also do? Yes or no.

The answer ends at, "I don't know."

Stop dodging questions. I've given you no evidence or reason to believe the number is any specific number. Do you believe the number is, for instance, 100? Yes or no.

 

[Paulomycin]

Stop dodging questions. Is there something you can't do that you also do? Yes or no.

No one can rationally answer a contradictory question. Stop contradicting yourself first, and I'll consider it.

Stop dodging questions. I've given you no evidence or reason to believe the number is any specific number. Do you believe the number is, for instance, 100? Yes or no.

Stop ignoring context:

The answer ends at, "I don't know." <-- It would be an appeal to ignorance fallacy if I drew any conclusion of belief in either direction, for or against, any particular number.

"Appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -Carl Sagan​

In other words, one cannot make any conclusions either way, regardless.

Period.

 

[Moral Orel]

No one can rationally answer a contradictory question. Stop contradicting yourself first, and I'll consider it.

The question isn't contradictory. The rational answer is, "No. I don't do anything that I can't do."

Stop ignoring context:

The answer ends at, "I don't know." <-- It would be an appeal to ignorance fallacy if I drew any conclusion of belief in either direction, for or against, any particular number.

"Appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -Carl Sagan
In other words, one cannot make any conclusions either way, regardless.

Period.

And I'm not asking about what the number is now. I'm asking about your beliefs. Do you believe the number is 100? Yes or no.

If you haven't drawn a conclusion about the number, do you hold a belief about the number?

 

[Bradskii]

I can't take it any more...please. I just can't...

Unwatching.

 

[Larniavc]

Non sequitur.

Nope.

Okay, I'll explain to you something you already know, since @Yttrium seems to think your position might be reasonable.

I'm thinking of a number. Tell me what you believe it is.

69 dude!

 

[Larniavc]

The statement "I don't know" is not a statement of belief in either direction.

Phew. That’s a relief.

 

[Amoranemix]

It does not. Most atheists do not make the claim "The universe alone is all that exists".

Yes.[28] It's the only way they can possibly justify their atheism.

So you claim, but can you prove that ?

Moral I know that you really, really, really want "I don't believe there is" to be the same thing as "I believe there is no" but you're just going to have to accept that it ain't. And insisting that it is, is nothing but a really weak, overused strawman.

But since you can't actually explain the difference, you'll just insist you did anyway, when you can't even cough up a direct verbatum quote of yours from the past.

I have recently witnessed an atheist try explain it to a Christian, but I can't remember where.

Well, "I do not believe there is a god" is an ambiguous statement, and easily misinterpreted. It's commonly (if incorrectly) interpreted to mean "I believe there is no god". It might be better to say "I lack a belief in a god", or "I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a god".

Even for those who believe there is no God, there is no obligation to justify anything. Believing something does not commit to justifying it.

Your argument appears to be the following :

P1. Amoranemix claims : “Reality does not care about Mark Quayle's aversions”
P2. Amoranemix is unwilling to honestly suspend his atheism for any length of time.
P3. Therefore, Amoranemix claims a secular reality without evidence.
C. Therefore, Amoranemix presupposes a secular reality.

Is that indeed your argument ?
It is invalid, as the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

It's simpler than that. You stated "reality" first. You can't ham-fistedly claim any "reality" that refutes a theistic worldview carte blanche without proving a wholly secular or atheistic reality to begin with.

Is that supposed to demonstrate your claim that I presuppose a secular reality ? (It does not.) Otherwise it is a straw man.

I prefer to call it what it is.
Thank you for sharing your personal opinion with me, but I prefer to believe in reality.

There you go again. You have no evidence to support an atheist reality. And I think you know that, so you dodge, or make up strawman syllogisms.

Your fallacy of choice is : shifting the burden of proof. I have not claimed to have evidence for an atheist reality.
You keep mischaracterizing me and atheists in general, replacing your real debate opponents by the ones from your dreams. Know this : I am actually atheist/agnostic. Being constantly on the lookout for opportinities to accuse atheists of not supporting their claims, you should have noticed that I failed to make the strong atheists claims you would have liked me to.
Rephrasing arguments an opponent makes is not a strawman. It is asking for clarity (the skeptic's friend and the Christian's enemy) in order to address what one's opponent is actually saying in stead of what one think (s)he is saying, or worse, like you often do, what one wants him/her to say.

[18] The people 'from my side' fail to to suggest that in any specified detail for various reasons, but I doubt the one you are claiming is a popular one. Personally, I don't believe matter behaves that way.

All I'm hearing from you people is the desperate need to justify an eternal universe, and repackage it in as many different ways possible (but still with the common element).[29] It's like you can't even believe that Steady State was really falsified to begin with. The real irony is that this position is about as anti-science as it gets. But I proved God with it, so your knee-jerk intolerance kicks in and you throw science right under the bus.[30] It's hilarious.

[29] You are hearing what you want to hear. Some Christians suffer more from that problem than others.
Another problem you have is that there are too few atheists that are as unreasonable and irrational as you would like. So you are reduced to using reasonable atheists as a stubstitute.
Skeptics don't have that problem, for there are billions of people with unreasonable and irrational beliefs to have fun with.
Why don't you debate a brand of people where unreasonableness and irrationality are more prevalent ? Flat-earthism has become quite popular lately.
[30] Are you claiming you have proved God with the Steady State theory ?

[19] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

Personal experience. IIRC, you appealed to your own personal experience at one point and insisted it was worthy of consideration. I'm okay with rejecting personal experience, but please no double-standards. I really hate it when atheists go there. And in my personal experience, they can't help "going there."

I used my personal experience as background knowledge in addition to the evidence provided by the Christian, i.e. the support they gave for the conclusion. You on the other hand generalized your experience without evidence to someone merely because he is atheist. Doing so, you committed a hasty generalization fallacy.

[20] First, that is the original formulation of William of Ockham. You seem to only rely on it because it supports your position.

It didn't "evolve," if that's what you're implying.[31] And Jayem was the one who originally brought it up; not me. If you're going to help out your fellow atheists, you should at least pay attention and read their posts.

[31] Evolving may not the right word, as it can easily misinterpreted. I have explained what I meant.

However, it fails to be good predictor of the real world when applied literally.[*] There are many cases where there is likely more than one of something in absense of necessity that there be more than one.
Second, the principle is a guideline about which hypothesis to favour if competing hypotheses are otherwise equivalent. So it doesn't come close to being strong evidence, let alone proof.

[*] I'm already aware of that. But I'm still willing to play if atheists insist on using it as a rule. As you can see, I'm good either way.

It is good that you realize the principle you rely on to support your position is an unsound one. The next step is to stop relying on it.

[21]No, it is not. It is a hypothesis.

Do you know the difference between a principle, a law, and a hypothesis? I'll give you a chance to correct yourself here. Cause 2/3 ain't bad.

Your list is incomplete. You forgot to add 'complete trainwreck', as according to you that is the best contender for the no boundary proposal.
I suspect you mean that it is a theory rather than a proposal or a train wreck. I used hypothesis to emphasise its uncertainty, as a theory can also be a fact.

[22] You are mistaken. What you have presented is not proof, but a bad argument, as I have explained. However, there might be confusion about the discussed argument. What argument are you claiming is proof ?

Suddenly, you lost track of the thread.[32] I'm not going to hold your hand through the mess you created with your own formatting. We can pick this up later when the topic returns.

[32] I doubt you really believe that, or maybe you really have lost track of the discussion.
I you wanted a constructive discussion, you would have cleared up the confusion if there was any. You preferred to interpret my suggestion that I may have misunderstood you as a sign of weakness to exploit. Constructive discussion tends to lead to conclusions that are embarrassing to Christians.

[23] These seem to be the premises you use to try prove conclusions (a.) and (b.). What is an indirekt contradiction and how is it supposed to demonstrate that infinite causal loops are never a rational proposal ? I don't know what eternal finite materialism is, so I won't bother you with a proof challenge for that.

*whoosh* Right over your head. Wow.

It's like you're not even reading. Really. What can I do?

You can commit fallacies and give degrading comments of your opponents, but anyone can do that.
More interesting is what you can't do : present a pertinent case. For those used to debating Christians, that is however not suprising.
What you can also do is evade to hide what you can't do.

No, that is not the reason. Given how you belittle others for their alleged lack of reasoning abilities, I find it hard to believe that you would doubt what I was trying to convey, so I'll assume you misunderstood.
I'll compare two example claims to illustrate what I meant :

“A small object may be orbiting the moon” is a vague claim of possibility.
“A small, man-made object is orbiting the moon” is a less vague claim of fact.

The second claim requires more support to make a point or be as likely true as the first.
You made unevidenced claims of fact that are more specific than jayem's claim of possibility of post 56 that you criticized in post 57.

Quote me.

You can also behave like a spoiled brat.
As you request, your majesty.

Jayem 56 :
“As I stated, there may be a force which initiates the conversion of energy to matter and acts as a substrate for all further activity,”
Paulomycin 57 :
“Which you have no evidence of. "May be a force" acting as a substrate is, in-fact, so vague that you can't even specify exactly what it is you're even referring to.“

At least you haven't lost track of the thread. Otherwise I might have had to remind you what we were talking about.

[a] Dude. Don't be a grammar nazi. I was not trying to trick you. I agree that is a definition i.s.a. premise.

You were, and you refuse to admit it.All atheists are here in bad faith and play bait & switch manipulation games 24/7 as-if we just fell off the turnip truck, and they've been pulling that crap for the past 10 years or more. Atheists will try any trick in the book; resort to any tiny loophole to get them away from God. They are that desperate.

Which of those claims are facts and which are personal opinions ?
What seems to be eluding you is that some atheists are skeptics.

[b ] I think I quoted everything from post 60 regarding that argument.

I don't see it and I'm tired of plowing through your garbage formatting. I posted a variant to the traditional cosmological argument + a separate modus ponens, and I got a lot of reactions to it. You don't care, so you're trying to stall me out. But surprise! I really don't care that you missed it.

I'll leave the witty comments aside and try one more time keep this discussion constructive. You are accusing me of omitting a causal argument or a modus ponens. However, I didn't see you present any. I have quoted all that I responded to. You seem be referring to those two links to your arguments, but I have quoted those and responded to them in post 60.

You are mistaken. Regardless of whether God is subordinate to some external standard of morality or not, his moral standard can epistemically be any moral standard.

If that is the case, then god would be subordinate to any moral standard. Therefore, god is not omnipotent.[33]
Solution: Morality = God's nature. Not an externalized standard. "God is good" does not mean "God's behavior conforms to a higher moral standard," but rather "God Himself is literally the only moral standard there is."[34]

[33] You are mistaken. God is either subordinate to some external standard or he is not. If that implies that God is not omnipotent, then that refutes your alleged proof that God is omnipotent.
[34] Your solution does not solve the problem that God's moral standard can epistemically be anything.

[24] You are correct. Atheists have so far been unable to demonstrate the assumed religious baggage attached to God.

^ I found that a rather shocking admission. I can't imagine why any atheist would say this ever. Probably a typo.

You must be interpreting that 'admission' in a weird way. As a reminder : atheists don't believe in God, nor the things Christians claim about God.

[25] Stephen Hawking saying something allegedly irrational did not prevent you from using him as an authority.

I only use rational Hawking quotes. Everyone strikes out sometimes. Please don't confuse the person with the quality of the quote.

Your criterion for rationality seems to be whether you agree with it. You used Stephen Hawking as an authority to support your position and then you disparaged him when he said something you disagree with. People who say irrational things on a topic are not authorities on that topic. So your first quote was an appeal to authority fallacy.

[26] You are mistaken. That is not an argument, but a claim. Before criticizing an ambiguous claim, like you are doing, you should disambiguate it. In this case you should use the meaning Hawking intended, so that you would criticize what he said i.s.o. what you would have liked him to say. He was probably referring to the no boundary proposal. So is up to the proponents of that hypothesis to decide what 'creating itself' means.[*]

[26] "create itself" is a self-refuting and irrational statement. And as-such, it can never be used in an argument.
[*] No matter how hard one tries to equivocate, they can't paint themselves out of that absurd corner.

You have yet to prove that “create itself”, whatever is meant with it, is self-refuting. You assume without justification that the proponents of the no boundary proposal are in an absurd corner.

[27] That does not follow. You are using the same fallacious kind of reasoning Mark Quayle denied using in post 61 : You don't understand how something could be, it would suit your faith that it could not be, thus it must be impossible.[*]
You are basically accusing the proponents of the no boundary proposal to commit a basic reasoning error, which is implausible.

[*] Which fallacy? Name it.

Hint: You can't.

Again, in-order for anything to create itself, it must be its own creator, which means that it would have to exist before it was, which means it would have to be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. That violates the most fundamental law of reason—the law of noncontradiction. Therefore, the concept of self-creation is manifestly absurd, contradictory, and irrational. To hold to such a view is bad science and equally bad philosophy and theology, because both philosophy and science rest upon the ironclad laws of reason. Theology should too. Otherwise, I'd still be an atheist myself.[35]

[*] So you want teach me fallacy names.
You seemed to be taking your wishes for reality, so I would probably have guessed the nirvana fallacy.
What is it named then ?
[35] In stead of committing a proof by repeated assertion fallacy, you should demonstrate your premise and explain your deduction. Formally, your argument appears to be the following :

P1. In order for something to create itself, it had to exist before it was.
P2. Therefore, it would have to be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship.
C. [ . . . ]

Is that indeed the first part of your argument ?

You are basically accusing the proponents of the no boundary proposal to commit a basic reasoning error, which is implausible.

Why, because your belief in the infallibility of a scientific papacy?[37] Some of the sneakiest errors are at the most basic level. You know that. They're easily overlooked by people who assume they're too advanced to make basic mistakes. This has been proven over and over again throughout history.

[37] No, that is not the reason. Implausible does not imply infallible.
All we have so far is the claim from a Christian guy on the internet that a group of renowned scientists made a basic reasoning error. Those are very poor credentials. Surely other cosmologists must have noticed that too. So please show us other cosmologists pointing out that basic reasoning error.

[a] No, that is not the reason. I don't buy them because they look fallacious.

You didn't cite any particular fallacy. They all have names, you know. At least try to make your empty accusations stick.

At first sight I noticed indications of non-sequitur and vagueness.

 

[Kylie]

Your feelings?

Dogmatic assumption? <-- Whether yours, or someone else's?

Belief in the myth of Conflict Thesis?

Something else?

Or, is the conclusion part of a larger step-by-step process that you can explain in clear detail without being painfully vague and ambiguous?

I don't claim to know that the universe is all that exists.

I just haven't seen any evidence so far to indicate that something other than the universe exists. And I'm not going to believe something for which there is no evidence.

 

[BigV]

Your feelings?

Dogmatic assumption? <-- Whether yours, or someone else's?

Belief in the myth of Conflict Thesis?

Something else?

Or, is the conclusion part of a larger step-by-step process that you can explain in clear detail without being painfully vague and ambiguous?

My experience, and the experience of those around me has convinced me that Gods are imaginary. So, the universe is likely all that exists.
By experience, I mean that all of us live in a purely natural world. There are no abilities that are available to believers in Christ that are not available to atheists. Christians must go to the hospital when they get sick, they die from terminal diseases just as atheists or get cured from those diseases just as atheists. Amputees are not healed by Gods (i.e God doesn't regrow limbs). And God, if he exists, doesn't seem interested in truth (by their works/fruit you shall know them, right?).

 

[Mark Quayle]

My experience, and the experience of those around me has convinced me that Gods are imaginary. So, the universe is likely all that exists.
By experience, I mean that all of us live in a purely natural world. There are no abilities that are available to believers in Christ that are not available to atheists. Christians must go to the hospital when they get sick, they die from terminal diseases just as atheists or get cured from those diseases just as atheists. Amputees are not healed by Gods (i.e God doesn't regrow limbs). And God, if he exists, doesn't seem interested in truth (by their works/fruit you shall know them, right?).

What has your experience, or how things appear to you, to do with the facts of whether God exists? Why should God bother to do things that appear unnatural to you? Who do you think you are to him?

As for 'by their works you will know them', if you don't see fruit in them, maybe that says something about you, or about them, and doesn't say what you want it to say at all.

 

[BigV]

As for 'by their works you will know them', if you don't see fruit in them, maybe that says something about you, or about them, and doesn't say what you want it to say at all.

Perhaps I should be judged on the same basis then, yes?

What has your experience, or how things appear to you, to do with the facts of whether God exists? Why should God bother to do things that appear unnatural to you? Who do you think you are to him?

Well, supposedly, this God is seeking a relationship with me, yes? And he has all the power, and he is love. He loves me more than the most loving parents love their kids.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Perhaps I should be judged on the same basis then, yes?



Well, supposedly, this God is seeking a relationship with me, yes? And he has all the power, and he is love. He loves me more than the most loving parents love their kids.

I don't know if he loves you at all, the way you seem to have heard from other Christians. If you are of the Elect (those to whom he chose to show mercy for his own sake) he loves you. I don't know if you are or not.

As far as I know, he has no interest in pursuing a relationship with those who are not of the Elect.

Until he gives you new life, consider the fact that you are his enemy. Literally.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Well to the point of the OP, the universe is not all that exists, unless you believe in magical creating of space time from an uncaused cause, and defiance of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Without God, how did the big bang happen, and why when it did and what was space-time before and where is it all headed?

 

[Kylie]

Why should God bother to do things that appear unnatural to you?

He did it all the time in the Bible.

 

[BigV]

I don't know if he loves you at all, the way you seem to have heard from other Christians. If you are of the Elect (those to whom he chose to show mercy for his own sake) he loves you. I don't know if you are or not.

As far as I know, he has no interest in pursuing a relationship with those who are not of the Elect.

Until he gives you new life, consider the fact that you are his enemy. Literally.

What a wonderful creator God we have there. Who would not want to spend time with him? Have you considered that you yourself is a reprobate?

 

[Mark Quayle]

What a wonderful creator God we have there. Who would not want to spend time with him? Have you considered that you yourself is a reprobate?

I have considered that many times. Yet somehow, I find his incomparable magnificence compelling, in the mere intellectual apprehension of it. He IS worthy of worship and praise simply for who he is. Yes, it is a wonderful creator God we have.

Really, it is silly to expect the Omnipotent to resemble in his attributes what you want from a tame God.

For what it is worth, God has not burdened us with the knowledge of just how awful our sin is. That knowledge would stagger us --likely even kill us.

 

[Mark Quayle]

He did it all the time in the Bible.

My point wasn't whether he did (or does) what looks unnatural to one, but why should he bother to do it for any one particular person (or group of people). In this case, I'm thinking, why should he bother to satisfy the requirements of non-superstitious people concerning evidences of his activities?

I don't remember if you are one of those to whom I've said, that IF First Cause exists, then everything is supernatural (or natural, if you prefer to call it that). What people seem to require, is the unusual, the unexplainably odd, not the supernatural. Yet as history shows, usually, those things turn out to be explainable after all. And meanwhile, the things that are not falsifiable stare us in the face daily: math, reason, art and beauty, and we [magically] consider them natural, but have no explanation for them. "Well, they are just, uh, well, 'the way things are'."

 

[Amoranemix]

[b ] 1) You have not presented your alleged proofs, but merely linked to them.
2) You seem to be under the mistaken impression that arguments require refutation to be rendered moot, while challenging them suffices.
3) Even an unchalleged argument may be fallacious and thus not constitute evidence for its conclusion.
4) That your alleged proofs remain unrefuted is merely a bald assertion of yours.
5) Please tune down your goading. It is annoying when threads I am discussing in are closed.

1) That counts as a presentation. I apologize that I didn't deliver it to you personally on bended knee; tucked in a silk pillow for m'lord's consideration.
2) Who taught you that? Oh wait, you're making it up.[38] BTW, it has to be an objective deductive challenge for you to challenge it.[39] But my argument is a deductive argument. Not inductive. So inductive possibilities don't count. You don't get to re-write the rules anytime you feel like it.[40]
3) True, but you still have to demonstrate the fallacy in-question. You can't magically declare, "That's fallacious, I win!"
4) If it were, then atheists would be chasing me from forum to forum with it on the daily until I'd up and quit.[41] I even created a thread literally asking, "Hey, were any of the classical proofs of God ever refuted?" There was a lot of complaining but no objective refutations were presented. At best, I got an author reference with a few book chapters, and I literally had the book on me, but the atheist didn't want to discuss it further.[42]
5) Please specify the statement you're accusing me of. IIRC, mods and admins don't appreciate people filing frivolous lawsuits. What you're reacting to as "goading" might very well be a brute fact you're emotionally unwilling to deal with.

1) You are confusing me with your god.
It is a poor presentation.
2) [38] You are partially correct, for I figured that out for myself.
[39] Who taught you that ? Oh wait, you made that up.
[40] Neither do you.
3) You are mistaken. I or anyone don't have to demonstrate anything. An argument's soundness does not depend on anyone challenging or refuting it. If some lunatic writes a bogus argument 'proving' the earth is flat, then the conclusion is false even before anyone else looked at it.
4) [41] Why would they do that ?
[42] That is your version of the events. Probably atheists who participated in those discussions have a different version.
5) I am not accusing you of any statement. Bad behaviour can be an accumulation of small instances of bad behaviour.

Strange. You are committing an onus probandi fallacy.

Wow, you actually named a specific fallacy for a change. But you didn't argue any further than the mere accusation alone, and what's worse is that you've submitted no objective corrections.[43]
In any case, I haven't violated onus probandi because the main point was taking on burden of proof. The articles you're disparaging are a legit challenge to the "no boundary" proposal. But then with the atheist, "challenging the argument" is just as sufficient as a refutation, but only for you & not me. Double-standards ahoy![44]

[43] Here is the support : You implied that I was supposed to refute the main point of jayem's and your article and that I didn't for some reason. However, it is not my duty to refute main points of articles linked to by others in this thread. It is also not my duty to suggest corrections to such articles.
[44] You are mistaken twice.
First, the article jayem linked to in post 58 did not challenge the no boundary proposal. Second, I did not disparage either of the linked articles. Therefore, your attempt to undermine the accusation of having shifted the burden of proof fails due to being based on false premises.

Maybe he [durangodawood] is just honest.

Really? Do you agree with him? Seriously?

[45]
Twelve years ago, it was a popular accusation for believers to troll with. That's one of the major reasons believers accused atheism itself of being a substitute religion. Which is why no atheist worth their salt would ever admit to non-belief as a "leap of faith." It's totally exposing your weakness. It's quite possibly the worst move to make, and a shameful double-standard to boot. Back when I was an atheist, I would never even consider such a thing, let alone admit to it in public. If you've ever read Kierkegaard, it's completely contradictory for someone who claims to value evidence and reason to value an "irrational leap" of any shape or form.[46]

[45] Yes. Not entirely. Yes.
[46] Why are you raving ? Durangodawood identifies himself as a seeker.

You don't know if there is a number that you believe I am thinking of? You don't know your own beliefs?

My answer is a two-part answer, do not attempt to parse or quotemine it:
1. I don't know what number you are thinking of.
2. "I don't know" ≠ the actual number you were allegedly thinking of.
The statement "I don't know" is not a statement of belief in either direction.

You are dodging. It is a yes or no question. These don't require two part answers. Your two part answer do not even address the questions.

Well if you don't even know what you believe, I don't know what to tell you.

You really are trying to be an impediment, not moving the discussion along. You are being disingenuous.

At least you are not hiding your bias.

I accepted that you don't know what number, that was part of the point. Now I'm asking about what you believe. There is no number you believe I am thinking of because you don't know what number I'm thinking of.

You are being vague. You are putting up a question that he cannot answer either way, without you taking it wrong --and that, on purpose.[47] Answer this. Are you asking, 1. If he believes you are thinking of a number? Or 2. That he doesn't know what number you are thinking of? Or 3. That there is no such number as the one you are thinking of? Or 4. As a result of the fact that he doesn't know what number you are thinking of, one of the 3 above is true?

The way you've been answering him the last few days, I think you are pretty obviously taking everything you can of what he says, and trying to turn it around and confuse, rather than to be trying to clear up anything. Paulo has more patience than I do with people like you.[48]

[47] Of course Paulomycin can answer the question. Christians are not as stupid and ignorant as they pretend. For example, I can answer the question from post 98 “So there is no number that you believe I am thinking of?” as “Indeed, there is no such number.”
[48] Skeptics tend to be more patient with Christian apologists than the other way round.

If you can't believe something, then you don't believe something. You don't do things you can't do. There is no reason or evidence to believe the number is, for instance, 100. So you can't and don't believe the number is 100.

"Don't believe" can be misconstrued as a statement of intent.[49] "Can't" would be either/or and therefore completely different. It could very well be I am looking for justification, but don't know enough information yet.

[49] I have noticed that too. There is a guy on Christiansforums with a lush beard in his avatar who tends to do that.

Well to the point of the OP, the universe is not all that exists, unless you believe in magical creating of space time from an uncaused cause, and defiance of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Without God, how did the big bang happen, and why when it did and what was space-time before and where is it all headed?

Are you an proponent of the appeal to ignorance fallacy ? You seem to be arguing that because we don't understand how some events could have taken place naturally, God must have caused them.
Why would one require to believe 'defiance of the 2nd law of thermodynamics' in order to believe the universe is all that exists ?

He did it all the time in the Bible.

My point wasn't whether he did (or does) what looks unnatural to one, but why should he bother to do it for any one particular person (or group of people). In this case, I'm thinking, why should he bother to satisfy the requirements of non-superstitious people concerning evidences of his activities?[50]

I don't remember if you are one of those to whom I've said, that IF First Cause exists, then everything is supernatural (or natural, if you prefer to call it that). What people seem to require, is the unusual, the unexplainably odd, not the supernatural. Yet as history shows, usually, those things turn out to be explainable after all. And meanwhile, the things that are not falsifiable stare us in the face daily: math, reason, art and beauty, and we [magically] consider them natural, but have no explanation for them. "Well, they are just, uh, well, 'the way things are'."[51]

[50] God allegedly wants people to worship him. Most people only want to worship what they believe exists. Many of those are vulnerable to evidence. So it would be rational for God to present evidence.
[51] We don't expect to have any more explanation for those things than we already have. Nor do they appear to violate the natural laws.
If someone waves a wand, mumbles some incations and then a lush jungle appears in the desert before him, then that appears to violate natural laws and we can ask specific, mechanistic questions about the event.

 

[Mark Quayle]

[50] God allegedly wants people to worship him. Most people only want to worship what they believe exists. Many of those are vulnerable to evidence. So it would be rational for God to present evidence.
[51] We don't expect to have any more explanation for those things than we already have. Nor do they appear to violate the natural laws.
If someone waves a wand, mumbles some incations and then a lush jungle appears in the desert before him, then that appears to violate natural laws and we can ask specific, mechanistic questions about the event.

50. Belief can operate on what convinces, not necessarily on evidence. But don't take that to mean that they have no evidence —I'm not saying they have none. One thing that does both (convince and provide evidence) is the regeneration by the Spirit of God. But that evidence is not acceptable to the majority of the non-believers. It is not universal to the human experience. God also provides the evidence that is universal to the human experience: The fact of existence itself, nature and the universe is evidence of the existence of the creator. But that will be rejected too.

50. Also, God wants certain ones to worship him —not everyone (though yes at the judgement everyone will worship him, some in happiness, some in terror).

51. 'No' indeed! They don't violate the natural laws. In fact, some of them ARE natural laws, and on some of them, the natural laws depend. "An evil and perverse generation seeks a sign."