Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[G.T.]

I'm not really interested past that.

I'm interested in people who believe they've proven god to exist, or proven that he doesn't.

Other than that, my journey is my own and salami and bacon.

Well okay, but again... what IS proof? what IS evidence? Can you prove anything to me if I am not willing to accept your evidence? If my mind is thoroughly committed to not accepting what you are attempting to prove, how can you prove it to me?

The answer is, you can't. It's impossible.

So you are interested in people trying to do the impossible, demanding they continue trying to do the impossible, so that you can ridicule them for failing to do the impossible?

My mind isn't committed to not accepting.

That was the first canard that led me to believe you weren't worth conversing with.

I use reason to evaluate what something is evidence for.

Humans being spiritual, to me, is evidence that humans are spiritual.

It is not evidence that spirituality, or a higher anything, ACTUALLY exists. The bar is higher than that.

Setting a higher bar =/= not accepting anything.

 

[Boss]

2 + 2 = 4.

That is universally accepted evidence.

Actually, it's not. (even if you believe it's evidence and not a mathematical fact.)
There is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. There is also the quantum physics consideration of event horizons and what happens inside black holes... 2+2 may not always equal 4 there.

There is not even universally accepted evidence for reality itself.

 

[Derideo_Te]

2 + 2 = 4.

That is universally accepted evidence.

Actually, it's not. (even if you believe it's evidence and not a mathematical fact.)
There is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. There is also the quantum physics consideration of event horizons and what happens inside black holes... 2+2 may not always equal 4 there.

There is not even universally accepted evidence for reality itself.

Drowning in denial again?

You really are a complete and utter failure when it comes to logic and reason.

What is the language of quantum physics? Mathematics, right? So according to you quantum physicists don't agree that 2 + 2 = 4 but somehow they all use the same mathematics to communicate their ideas to one another even across language barriers.

Your desperation is palpable!

 

[Boss]

2 + 2 = 4.

That is universally accepted evidence.

Actually, it's not. (even if you believe it's evidence and not a mathematical fact.)
There is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. There is also the quantum physics consideration of event horizons and what happens inside black holes... 2+2 may not always equal 4 there.

There is not even universally accepted evidence for reality itself.

Drowning in denial again?

You really are a complete and utter failure when it comes to logic and reason.

What is the language of quantum physics? Mathematics, right? So according to you quantum physicists don't agree that 2 + 2 = 4 but somehow they all use the same mathematics to communicate their ideas to one another even across language barriers.

Your desperation is palpable!

First of all, when I said there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, I wasn't talking about mathematics. But even with mathematics, on a subatomic or quantum level, we are uncertain... (see Heisenberg.)

You are the one who is desperate here, Dorito. You want so desperately to jump in here and prove me wrong about something so you can feel good about yourself, but you are just too stupid to pull it off. I kinda feel sorry for you...nahh... I don't.

 

[Boss]

I'm not really interested past that.

I'm interested in people who believe they've proven god to exist, or proven that he doesn't.

Other than that, my journey is my own and salami and bacon.

Well okay, but again... what IS proof? what IS evidence? Can you prove anything to me if I am not willing to accept your evidence? If my mind is thoroughly committed to not accepting what you are attempting to prove, how can you prove it to me?

The answer is, you can't. It's impossible.

So you are interested in people trying to do the impossible, demanding they continue trying to do the impossible, so that you can ridicule them for failing to do the impossible?

My mind isn't committed to not accepting.

That was the first canard that led me to believe you weren't worth conversing with.

I use reason to evaluate what something is evidence for.

Humans being spiritual, to me, is evidence that humans are spiritual.

It is not evidence that spirituality, or a higher anything, ACTUALLY exists. The bar is higher than that.

Setting a higher bar =/= not accepting anything.

It sounds like, reading all your posts, you are pretty committed to not accepting evidence. I've not seen any of this open-mindedness on display, except for when you are crowing and patting yourself on the back for it.

You just don't seem like you are content with leaving the question of God's existence open or objectively evaluating the evidence presented or the opinions of others. Seems you want to debunk everything that everyone is saying so you can insist that God doesn't really exist. Now maybe you see yourself in a different light, that is common among people. But I just felt I needed to point out to you, that's not how you are coming across at all.

 

[G.T.]

I'm not really interested past that.

I'm interested in people who believe they've proven god to exist, or proven that he doesn't.

Other than that, my journey is my own and salami and bacon.

Well okay, but again... what IS proof? what IS evidence? Can you prove anything to me if I am not willing to accept your evidence? If my mind is thoroughly committed to not accepting what you are attempting to prove, how can you prove it to me?

The answer is, you can't. It's impossible.

So you are interested in people trying to do the impossible, demanding they continue trying to do the impossible, so that you can ridicule them for failing to do the impossible?

My mind isn't committed to not accepting.

That was the first canard that led me to believe you weren't worth conversing with.

I use reason to evaluate what something is evidence for.

Humans being spiritual, to me, is evidence that humans are spiritual.

It is not evidence that spirituality, or a higher anything, ACTUALLY exists. The bar is higher than that.

Setting a higher bar =/= not accepting anything.

It sounds like, reading all your posts, you are pretty committed to not accepting evidence. I've not seen any of this open-mindedness on display, except for when you are crowing and patting yourself on the back for it.

You just don't seem like you are content with leaving the question of God's existence open or objectively evaluating the evidence presented or the opinions of others. Seems you want to debunk everything that everyone is saying so you can insist that God doesn't really exist. Now maybe you see yourself in a different light, that is common among people. But I just felt I needed to point out to you, that's not how you are coming across at all.

im not gunna start worrying about what ppl think they know of me, thanks though

 

[Justin Davis]

p.s. It's bugging me to all get out but I googled an article on the internet about a year ago after getting it from a book I was reading on the unifying word of God. That article begins with the comprehensive academic principle of identity for the laws of thought and then goes on to the universality of it in the human mind and the universality of it in how we do science, and then also the universality of it as Jesus being that principle of identity ultimately. It had a bunch of other related links and these guys used the very same term in the very same way as you. This idea is nothing new. Again that's why I had no problem following you and know Q.W. lies about everything and is so ignorant, pretending to know things or understand things he doesn't. I've tried to find it again but can't remember the title of the article. But who but a dull mind would need that except for greater insight. It's self-evident! Q.W. has gotten in the way of understanding on this topic more than any other person. At first I liked the things he said but the more you read his posts you can see that in reality he's a closed minded person who has opinions on everything based on nothing sensible who sometimes gets things right by accident but there's no understanding there. Like you said this is the kind of guy who gets links and quotes from the internet and then implies they mean something they don't. He didn't even really explain anything about his links on constructive logic or this last one about classic logic. He just implies things without understanding.

 

[Justin Davis]

I'm not really interested past that.

I'm interested in people who believe they've proven god to exist, or proven that he doesn't.

Other than that, my journey is my own and salami and bacon.

Well okay, but again... what IS proof? what IS evidence? Can you prove anything to me if I am not willing to accept your evidence? If my mind is thoroughly committed to not accepting what you are attempting to prove, how can you prove it to me?

The answer is, you can't. It's impossible.

So you are interested in people trying to do the impossible, demanding they continue trying to do the impossible, so that you can ridicule them for failing to do the impossible?

My mind isn't committed to not accepting.

That was the first canard that led me to believe you weren't worth conversing with.

I use reason to evaluate what something is evidence for.

Humans being spiritual, to me, is evidence that humans are spiritual.

It is not evidence that spirituality, or a higher anything, ACTUALLY exists. The bar is higher than that.

Setting a higher bar =/= not accepting anything.

It sounds like, reading all your posts, you are pretty committed to not accepting evidence. I've not seen any of this open-mindedness on display, except for when you are crowing and patting yourself on the back for it.

You just don't seem like you are content with leaving the question of God's existence open or objectively evaluating the evidence presented or the opinions of others. Seems you want to debunk everything that everyone is saying so you can insist that God doesn't really exist. Now maybe you see yourself in a different light, that is common among people. But I just felt I needed to point out to you, that's not how you are coming across at all.

It’s the brick wall of the mind that lies to itself. If people like Hollie, Jake, G.T. and even Q.W., which a lot of people still don't get because he only seems to be more sophisticated, were in charge of things we'd still be living in caves.

 

[Derideo_Te]

2 + 2 = 4.

That is universally accepted evidence.

Actually, it's not. (even if you believe it's evidence and not a mathematical fact.)
There is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. There is also the quantum physics consideration of event horizons and what happens inside black holes... 2+2 may not always equal 4 there.

There is not even universally accepted evidence for reality itself.

Drowning in denial again?

You really are a complete and utter failure when it comes to logic and reason.

What is the language of quantum physics? Mathematics, right? So according to you quantum physicists don't agree that 2 + 2 = 4 but somehow they all use the same mathematics to communicate their ideas to one another even across language barriers.

Your desperation is palpable!

First of all, when I said there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, I wasn't talking about mathematics. But even with mathematics, on a subatomic or quantum level, we are uncertain... (see Heisenberg.)

You are the one who is desperate here, Dorito. You want so desperately to jump in here and prove me wrong about something so you can feel good about yourself, but you are just too stupid to pull it off. I kinda feel sorry for you...nahh... I don't.

You get b/slapped by the facts that your allegations are just FOS and so retreat into denial.

What is notable is that you ignored the hard evidence of fingerprints and DNA uniquely identifying an individual because you couldn't refute it.

Your disingenuousness oozes out of your posts!

 

[Boss]

It’s the brick wall of the mind that lies to itself. If people like Hollie, Jake, G.T. and even Q.W., which a lot of people still don't get because he only seems to be more sophisticated, were in charge of things we'd still be living in caves.

Well I don't have any beef with QW, or anyone else for that matter. It's just people expressing their opinions on a forum where opinions are expressed. Some people like to present their opinions as facts and tear down the opinions of others by inferring they are irrelevant. That is a debate tactic around here.

QW and I have not always agreed on things, but that can be said for just about everyone here. It seems to me, he at least makes some attempt to engage in an intellectual conversation, unlike the usual troll brigade. People who just come here to antagonize and insult, offering nothing intellectual to the conversation, are totally not worth my time.

 

[Boss]

2 + 2 = 4.

That is universally accepted evidence.

Actually, it's not. (even if you believe it's evidence and not a mathematical fact.)
There is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. There is also the quantum physics consideration of event horizons and what happens inside black holes... 2+2 may not always equal 4 there.

There is not even universally accepted evidence for reality itself.

Drowning in denial again?

You really are a complete and utter failure when it comes to logic and reason.

What is the language of quantum physics? Mathematics, right? So according to you quantum physicists don't agree that 2 + 2 = 4 but somehow they all use the same mathematics to communicate their ideas to one another even across language barriers.

Your desperation is palpable!

First of all, when I said there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, I wasn't talking about mathematics. But even with mathematics, on a subatomic or quantum level, we are uncertain... (see Heisenberg.)

You are the one who is desperate here, Dorito. You want so desperately to jump in here and prove me wrong about something so you can feel good about yourself, but you are just too stupid to pull it off. I kinda feel sorry for you...nahh... I don't.

You get b/slapped by the facts that your allegations are just FOS and so retreat into denial.

What is notable is that you ignored the hard evidence of fingerprints and DNA uniquely identifying an individual because you couldn't refute it.

Your disingenuousness oozes out of your posts!

Maybe I ignored it because you didn't mention it? Fingerprints and DNA are not universally accepted evidence... ask the OJ Simpson jurors. Yep, it's hard evidence, it's compelling evidence, and perhaps most people would agree with the evidence, that still doesn't mean it's universally accepted.

Evidence can always be refuted by someone because evidence is subjective. That's not being disingenuous and you're not bitch slapping anyone. In fact, I am slapping you around like a little crack whore with my 12-inch e-cock as we speak.

 

[Derideo_Te]

2 + 2 = 4.

That is universally accepted evidence.

Actually, it's not. (even if you believe it's evidence and not a mathematical fact.)
There is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. There is also the quantum physics consideration of event horizons and what happens inside black holes... 2+2 may not always equal 4 there.

There is not even universally accepted evidence for reality itself.

Drowning in denial again?

You really are a complete and utter failure when it comes to logic and reason.

What is the language of quantum physics? Mathematics, right? So according to you quantum physicists don't agree that 2 + 2 = 4 but somehow they all use the same mathematics to communicate their ideas to one another even across language barriers.

Your desperation is palpable!

First of all, when I said there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, I wasn't talking about mathematics. But even with mathematics, on a subatomic or quantum level, we are uncertain... (see Heisenberg.)

You are the one who is desperate here, Dorito. You want so desperately to jump in here and prove me wrong about something so you can feel good about yourself, but you are just too stupid to pull it off. I kinda feel sorry for you...nahh... I don't.

You get b/slapped by the facts that your allegations are just FOS and so retreat into denial.

What is notable is that you ignored the hard evidence of fingerprints and DNA uniquely identifying an individual because you couldn't refute it.

Your disingenuousness oozes out of your posts!

Maybe I ignored it because you didn't mention it? Fingerprints and DNA are not universally accepted evidence... ask the OJ Simpson jurors. Yep, it's hard evidence, it's compelling evidence, and perhaps most people would agree with the evidence, that still doesn't mean it's universally accepted.

Evidence can always be refuted by someone because evidence is subjective. That's not being disingenuous and you're not bitch slapping anyone. In fact, I am slapping you around like a little crack whore with my 12-inch e-cock as we speak.

Just because you edited out what I posted for your own nefarious purposes doesn't alter the FACTUAL record in the USMB posts.

That you have to use BS like the OJ case says volumes. It was the first instance of using DNA and the fact that it was mishandled by the LAPD is irrelevant.

Your DNA and fingerprints are evidence that identify you as an individual. If they are found at a crime scene you would have been there either before, during or after the crime was committed. Your lawyer can argue about the time frame but no one can refute that evidence that you were at the crime scene at some point in time is not subjective.

 

[Justin Davis]

Agnosticism is BASED on NOT KNOWING SOMETHING. So, add daft to your list

Excuse me, but you are not behaving like an agnostic. If you honestly are agnostic, then you'd reserve you commentary and not argue so vehemently against God. When someone makes an argument for God, you'd say... that's interesting, good point, I hadn't thought about that... or... maybe you're right, I don't know. Instead, we see you repeatedly bash and trash God and those who believe in God. We see a litany of insults and denigration towards God and those who believe in God. You aren't acting like a person who honestly doesn't know, you are acting like an Atheist who's mind is made up.

I dont argue against God, I argue against persons with the hubris to believe that they have proof of him/she/it.

That's where simple minds get confused.

Arguing against unsound reasons for god =/= arguing that god doesnt exist. That's easy enough to follow.

Well I've never claimed I could prove God to you. In fact, I have explained specifically why I can never do that. However, "evidence" is not proof. It may be, it depends on how it is valued and what is truth. But evidence is subjective and is evaluated differently by different people. There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.

What's "unsound reason?" Isn't that simply you stating an opinion that you think a reason is not sound? Everything I have ever presented comports with logic and reason, can be supported by science and observation or rational thought. You don't have to agree, but that's your opinion.

There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.

2 + 2 = 4.

That is universally accepted evidence.

The onus is now on Boss to prove that it is "subject to evaluation of the individual". Of course he won't because he can't. He just throws out total BS allegations trying to pretend that "all evidence" is subjective when it isn't. Fingerprints and DNA are evidence that can be used to uniquely identify an individual. There is nothing subjective about that evidence itself.

Since Boss can't refute that his allegation about "evidence" has been proven to be utterly bogus he will throw another hissyfit or just ignore the fact that he has been b/slapped by the facts yet again.

I don't agree with Boss that all evidence is subjective because not all evidence it subjective. Also it's not right to say that evidence may be proof either. That is wrong because evidence is never proof, not even sometimes. Evidence is something that we use to support logical proofs or scientific theories. That's why like he says, "there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual." This is mostly right, but not exactly right. It's the part that he does get right that some of you don't see.

Here's what I've learned on this thread from my greater understanding of logic from my own research, from M.D.R. and from his posts on logic. He's the one who knows logic better than any of us, not Q.W. because he's an idiot. Most of Boss's statements are right, but just a little off sometimes but he mostly gets what few others get on this thread.

We have universally accepted evidence for God's existence everywhere. You just gave an example of another. That's why Boss shouldn’t say that there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence but what a lot of atheists don't get is why that’s true for God even as the meaning of their belief proves that’s true.
Ultimately, what Boss really means though is true. Individuals can choose not to the see the truth of that, which means they're just lying to themselves. This is what I'm trying to get Boss to see. He's so close. What closes people's minds are their lies. Once Boss sees that he'll see where he's just a little off and he can make things right with everything he does get right. Boss is wise but just a little off. His wisdom is that he doesn't lie to himself and has an open mind that can correct where he's off unlike so many others on this thread.

 

[Boss]

p.s. It's bugging me to all get out but I googled an article on the internet about a year ago after getting it from a book I was reading on the unifying word of God. That article begins with the comprehensive academic principle of identity for the laws of thought and then goes on to the universality of it in the human mind and the universality of it in how we do science, and then also the universality of it as Jesus being that principle of identity ultimately. It had a bunch of other related links and these guys used the very same term in the very same way as you. This idea is nothing new. Again that's why I had no problem following you and know Q.W. lies about everything and is so ignorant, pretending to know things or understand things he doesn't. I've tried to find it again but can't remember the title of the article. But who but a dull mind would need that except for greater insight. It's self-evident! Q.W. has gotten in the way of understanding on this topic more than any other person. At first I liked the things he said but the more you read his posts you can see that in reality he's a closed minded person who has opinions on everything based on nothing sensible who sometimes gets things right by accident but there's no understanding there. Like you said this is the kind of guy who gets links and quotes from the internet and then implies they mean something they don't. He didn't even really explain anything about his links on constructive logic or this last one about classic logic. He just implies things without understanding.

Here's the thing about "logic" and what I believe QW was trying to articlute. We can't always say that logic is valid. Most of the time it is, but not always. Logic is often the basis for conventional wisdom, but conventional wisdom has been proven wrong numerous times. The double-slit experiment is a good example of logic failing. Turns out, logical assumptions are sometimes false.

Now that is not to say that logic is invalid when it comes to objective reasoning. I logically assume God is real because I talk to God daily and God blesses me in my everyday life... could I be wrong? Sure! I could be mentally unstable. but I don't think I am. So my objective reasoning is that God is real and God blesses me daily. I don't need to prove that to anyone else, it doesn't matter.

 

[Derideo_Te]

We have universally accepted evidence for God's existence everywhere

In which case you should have no problem providing this "universally accepted evidence for God's existence".

So let's see what you have.

 

[Boss]

Actually, it's not. (even if you believe it's evidence and not a mathematical fact.)
There is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. There is also the quantum physics consideration of event horizons and what happens inside black holes... 2+2 may not always equal 4 there.

There is not even universally accepted evidence for reality itself.

Drowning in denial again?

You really are a complete and utter failure when it comes to logic and reason.

What is the language of quantum physics? Mathematics, right? So according to you quantum physicists don't agree that 2 + 2 = 4 but somehow they all use the same mathematics to communicate their ideas to one another even across language barriers.

Your desperation is palpable!

First of all, when I said there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, I wasn't talking about mathematics. But even with mathematics, on a subatomic or quantum level, we are uncertain... (see Heisenberg.)

You are the one who is desperate here, Dorito. You want so desperately to jump in here and prove me wrong about something so you can feel good about yourself, but you are just too stupid to pull it off. I kinda feel sorry for you...nahh... I don't.

You get b/slapped by the facts that your allegations are just FOS and so retreat into denial.

What is notable is that you ignored the hard evidence of fingerprints and DNA uniquely identifying an individual because you couldn't refute it.

Your disingenuousness oozes out of your posts!

Maybe I ignored it because you didn't mention it? Fingerprints and DNA are not universally accepted evidence... ask the OJ Simpson jurors. Yep, it's hard evidence, it's compelling evidence, and perhaps most people would agree with the evidence, that still doesn't mean it's universally accepted.

Evidence can always be refuted by someone because evidence is subjective. That's not being disingenuous and you're not bitch slapping anyone. In fact, I am slapping you around like a little crack whore with my 12-inch e-cock as we speak.

Just because you edited out what I posted for your own nefarious purposes doesn't alter the FACTUAL record in the USMB posts.

View attachment 32831

That you have to use BS like the OJ case says volumes. It was the first instance of using DNA and the fact that it was mishandled by the LAPD is irrelevant.

Your DNA and fingerprints are evidence that identify you as an individual. If they are found at a crime scene you would have been there either before, during or after the crime was committed. Your lawyer can argue about the time frame but no one can refute that evidence that you were at the crime scene at some point in time is not subjective.

Again, I addressed your point. Why are you still whining about that? DNA and fingerprints ARE evidence, I never claimed otherwise. They are not universally accepted evidence and I gave you a very good and well-known example of that. What you did was reject my point on the basis that it was the first time... but still, my point is valid. What if I am totally ignorant of what DNA or fingerprints are? Say I live in a hut in the middle of Africa or something? Would that evidence be universally accepted by me, someone who has no idea of what the hell you're even talking about? No... because evidence is subjective, like I said.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Drowning in denial again?

You really are a complete and utter failure when it comes to logic and reason.

What is the language of quantum physics? Mathematics, right? So according to you quantum physicists don't agree that 2 + 2 = 4 but somehow they all use the same mathematics to communicate their ideas to one another even across language barriers.

Your desperation is palpable!

First of all, when I said there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, I wasn't talking about mathematics. But even with mathematics, on a subatomic or quantum level, we are uncertain... (see Heisenberg.)

You are the one who is desperate here, Dorito. You want so desperately to jump in here and prove me wrong about something so you can feel good about yourself, but you are just too stupid to pull it off. I kinda feel sorry for you...nahh... I don't.

You get b/slapped by the facts that your allegations are just FOS and so retreat into denial.

What is notable is that you ignored the hard evidence of fingerprints and DNA uniquely identifying an individual because you couldn't refute it.

Your disingenuousness oozes out of your posts!

Maybe I ignored it because you didn't mention it? Fingerprints and DNA are not universally accepted evidence... ask the OJ Simpson jurors. Yep, it's hard evidence, it's compelling evidence, and perhaps most people would agree with the evidence, that still doesn't mean it's universally accepted.

Evidence can always be refuted by someone because evidence is subjective. That's not being disingenuous and you're not bitch slapping anyone. In fact, I am slapping you around like a little crack whore with my 12-inch e-cock as we speak.

Just because you edited out what I posted for your own nefarious purposes doesn't alter the FACTUAL record in the USMB posts.

View attachment 32831

That you have to use BS like the OJ case says volumes. It was the first instance of using DNA and the fact that it was mishandled by the LAPD is irrelevant.

Your DNA and fingerprints are evidence that identify you as an individual. If they are found at a crime scene you would have been there either before, during or after the crime was committed. Your lawyer can argue about the time frame but no one can refute that evidence that you were at the crime scene at some point in time is not subjective.

Again, I addressed your point. Why are you still whining about that? DNA and fingerprints ARE evidence, I never claimed otherwise. They are not universally accepted evidence and I gave you a very good and well-known example of that. What you did was reject my point on the basis that it was the first time... but still, my point is valid. What if I am totally ignorant of what DNA or fingerprints are? Say I live in a hut in the middle of Africa or something? Would that evidence be universally accepted by me, someone who has no idea of what the hell you're even talking about? No... because evidence is subjective, like I said.

Fingerprints and DNA are not universally accepted evidence

DNA and fingerprints ARE evidence, I never claimed otherwise.

Flipflopping now?



You are so FOS. The case you provided was anything but a "good" one. It exposed the fallacy of your position because it is well known for the mishandling of evidence.

You are equivocating by introducing all kinds of red herrings that are utterly irrelevant. Someone in a hut in Africa is not one of your peers and eligible to be on a jury.

As usual you just make a fool of yourself when faced with the irrefutable facts.

 

[Boss]

Agnosticism is BASED on NOT KNOWING SOMETHING. So, add daft to your list

Excuse me, but you are not behaving like an agnostic. If you honestly are agnostic, then you'd reserve you commentary and not argue so vehemently against God. When someone makes an argument for God, you'd say... that's interesting, good point, I hadn't thought about that... or... maybe you're right, I don't know. Instead, we see you repeatedly bash and trash God and those who believe in God. We see a litany of insults and denigration towards God and those who believe in God. You aren't acting like a person who honestly doesn't know, you are acting like an Atheist who's mind is made up.

I dont argue against God, I argue against persons with the hubris to believe that they have proof of him/she/it.

That's where simple minds get confused.

Arguing against unsound reasons for god =/= arguing that god doesnt exist. That's easy enough to follow.

Well I've never claimed I could prove God to you. In fact, I have explained specifically why I can never do that. However, "evidence" is not proof. It may be, it depends on how it is valued and what is truth. But evidence is subjective and is evaluated differently by different people. There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.

What's "unsound reason?" Isn't that simply you stating an opinion that you think a reason is not sound? Everything I have ever presented comports with logic and reason, can be supported by science and observation or rational thought. You don't have to agree, but that's your opinion.

There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.

2 + 2 = 4.

That is universally accepted evidence.

The onus is now on Boss to prove that it is "subject to evaluation of the individual". Of course he won't because he can't. He just throws out total BS allegations trying to pretend that "all evidence" is subjective when it isn't. Fingerprints and DNA are evidence that can be used to uniquely identify an individual. There is nothing subjective about that evidence itself.

Since Boss can't refute that his allegation about "evidence" has been proven to be utterly bogus he will throw another hissyfit or just ignore the fact that he has been b/slapped by the facts yet again.

I don't agree with Boss that all evidence is subjective because not all evidence it subjective. Also it's not right to say that evidence may be proof either. That is wrong because evidence is never proof, not even sometimes. Evidence is something that we use to support logical proofs or scientific theories. That's why like he says, "there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual." This is mostly right, but not exactly right. It's the part that he does get right that some of you don't see.

Here's what I've learned on this thread from my greater understanding of logic from my own research, from M.D.R. and from his posts on logic. He's the one who knows logic better than any of us, not Q.W. because he's an idiot. Most of Boss's statements are right, but just a little off sometimes but he mostly gets what few others get on this thread.

We have universally accepted evidence for God's existence everywhere. You just gave an example of another. That's why Boss shouldn’t say that there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence but what a lot of atheists don't get is why that’s true for God even as the meaning of their belief proves that’s true.
Ultimately, what Boss really means though is true. Individuals can choose not to the see the truth of that, which means they're just lying to themselves. This is what I'm trying to get Boss to see. He's so close. What closes people's minds are their lies. Once Boss sees that he'll see where he's just a little off and he can make things right with everything he does get right. Boss is wise but just a little off. His wisdom is that he doesn't lie to himself and has an open mind that can correct where he's off unlike so many others on this thread.

I don't think I am off or that I have it wrong with regard to universally accepted evidence. If there was universally accepted evidence that God exists, then everyone would agree that God does exist. Atheists do not view theistic evidence for God as evidence of any kind. Spiritual evidence is anecdotal to them because they don't acknowledge spiritual nature.

Now people DO close their minds and not see truths. But this happens with all people, not just Atheists. In fact, many religions are very closed-minded... take Muslim extremists for example. What causes people to be closed-minded is belief their evidence is proof or belief that no evidence is proof. The reality is, nothing is ever "proven" not even reality itself. Proof is merely what you recognize as truth. It does not mean everyone else has to agree or see your proof or recognize what you believe to be true.

 

[Boss]

Fingerprints and DNA are not universally accepted evidence

DNA and fingerprints ARE evidence, I never claimed otherwise.

Flipflopping now?

No, there are two completely different statement there, are you retarded?

You are equivocating by introducing all kinds of red herrings that are utterly irrelevant. Someone in a hut in Africa is not one of your peers and eligible to be on a jury.

As usual you just make a fool of yourself when faced with the irrefutable facts.

Well you're the one talking about juries and courts, I was talking about universally accepted evidence. Again, I presented you with an example of how even something you consider irrefutable is not universally accepted. If you still don't see my point, you must be retarded.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Fingerprints and DNA are not universally accepted evidence

DNA and fingerprints ARE evidence, I never claimed otherwise.

Flipflopping now?

No, there are two completely different statement there, are you retarded?

You are equivocating by introducing all kinds of red herrings that are utterly irrelevant. Someone in a hut in Africa is not one of your peers and eligible to be on a jury.

As usual you just make a fool of yourself when faced with the irrefutable facts.

Well you're the one talking about juries and courts, I was talking about universally accepted evidence. Again, I presented you with an example of how even something you consider irrefutable is not universally accepted. If you still don't see my point, you must be retarded.

Resorting to ad hom attacks is a de facto admission that you have conceded your position.

Have a nice day!