Now prove to me where i say that you must prove that science is the truth. Another straw-man. How many more have you got to day mr postman.
Well, let’s revisit that aspect of the thread. It started with you saying, “Please don’t respond with the same old rubbish about science being able to verify that other minds exist, because you are just going to make me sick.” I responded that I didn’t care whether the truth makes you sick, to which you replied, “First demonstrate that its the truth.” You are in effect challenging me to prove that that which has been proven scientifically is the truth. Hence my response. No straw men anywhere - I don’t need them!
No you don’t. Or rather, perhaps you don’t want to understand.
Okay, maybe I don’t. That’s fair enough. Can you enlighten me? What, in a nutshell, is your primary reason for believing in God? To say I don’t want to understand is an odd comment - why would I not want to understand your reasons? Why would I bother to debate with you?
It has been demonstrated on many occasions why a necessary cause infers what we understand to be the existence of God. You simply choose to ignore the logical evidence put forward.
Sorry, I have yet to see logical evidence presented on these forums that has not been profoundly influenced by a desire to reach a presupposed conclusion. Again, if you put forward your steps towards a logical conclusion of God, I will appraise them honestly.
Prove it!!! One more assertion, and i will stop talking to you.
Promise?
Okay - reasons based on contingency (which I think is your main approach, correct me if I’m wrong) have been comprehensively debunked due to two main problems: Firstly, there is no firm and fast evidence that an uncaused cause can exist. Secondly, even if there was a first cause, there is nothing to show that it was an intelligent entity called God.
They’re good reasons that follow from logical necessity; so of course they make sense to me.
Hopefully I’ve shown above why the reasons are not objectively good - they make use of supposition that supports your desired conclusion.
Its irrelevant to me what other people think or understand if logical truth is telling me something different.
Even if the majority of independent, objective thinkers disagree with you? Then surely I’ve proved my point?
Its certainly convinces some people. But this is not about other people. This is about you
being honest with yourself and the evidence.I am being completely honest. I do not consider your ‘evidence’ to be evidence, for the reasons I have outlined. You can accuse me of ‘fear of the truth’ (always makes me smile), or of setting up straw men, or anything else to draw attention away from your fallacious logic, but that doesn’t magically make your logic robust I’m afraid.
Prove it. Don’t just assert it.
State your reasons as invited above, and I shall. Let’s start again, without having to reference previous posts and other threads.
All i see here is willful ignorance and pride in the face of logically valid arguments for the existence of God. Thats all i see in your post.
Of course it is. Because your belief is getting in the way of your rationality.
You are dodging the issue as usual. Demonstrate that my arguments and all the arguments made for the existence of God are all logically invalid. Start with mine.
Okay - as I said, let’s start from scratch. Present your argument here and let’s discuss it.
I would just say that all atheists are either in denial, or they are incapable of understanding the evidence.
Of course you would! That doesn’t make it true! It’s an illogical assumption - there are some extremely intelligent atheists - why would they not understand the evidence? Or what would be their motive for denial if the evidence is as strong as you claim?
You are not a true skeptic. If that where true, you would not be so ready to
believe that all things are physical. In any case, the only thing that frustrates me is dishonest people who refuse to face the facts of logic, and pretend as if they are intellectually superior on nothing more then ridicule and assertion. I don’t think that i have seen you make one consistent arguement. Not once.Really? You can’t have been reading them then. I’ve sometimes mis-phrased stuff, sometimes written a comment without thinking it through… but in all such cases (probably only three or four in total) I’ve retracted and clarified. Perhaps you can highlight my inconsistency, in support of your claim? Or would you rather just retract it?
Now you’re just being plain rude. You have made an accusation, you must justify it. It is not my place to attempt to justify your assertion, particularly when I don’t agree with it. If all you can do is resort to snide name-calling then perhaps you’re better off pursuing your religion in private.
Why would they be offended of 