Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

[ppp]

No literate person could buy it, a cursory Google search destroys it utterly, which does rather beg the question?

I believe it's a way to make a bunch of claims while hiding behind the thin veneer of "I believe". I believe it's pure cover for proselytizing while dodging accountability. I believe it's a crutch for those who lack the courage of their convictions. I believe I will have another drink.

 

[rational experiences]

The man of science son was the criminal scientist.

Owned teaching said why your choices sacrificed your spiritual man.

Equated Jesus two terms.

Not Jesus first as a baby man is not named first. Baby of no name.

A man any man is spiritual.conscious developing DNA changes as water oxygenated by presence ground....changed human life body from our origin parents.

Baby self developed.

You get irradiated fallen star atmospheric development mass gone.

Your own mind advice. What had developed DNA change in biology.

Science theist created by that event.

Father said don't listen to converting advice as atmosphere that developed you greater body than your father was gone.

So Jesus just named by men was a titled teaching only.

As first no man was Jesus. Just an unnamed man. Became a human father by sex only.

Why you lie trying to make one man vs Jesus one man's life got removed totally out of all men's DNA.

The teaching only stated the name holy but criminal. As man is equally spiritual first. Any man.

So hence it owned no name as summation said don't give names. To any God status.

Until you summarised did you then give your own self a correct answer.

Read the last page first as it was correct.

Some humans actually began reading a book backwards.

The answer then makes sense.

Saviour wandering star once only the moon first.

Saviour ice was gods planet O owned not human.

But it supported a biology animal beast plus baby DNA birth. Stable not nuclear UFO converting above us as human science activated below us.

 

[samtonga43]

I do not claim it, I say it. I say that I believe that the claims of Baha'u'llah were the truth.

Obviously, what I believe really bothers you. Nobody who was not bothered by it would stalk me, following me from thread to thread, trying to make me look bad to other posters, calling me illogical

I am not stalking you
I am not following you
I am not trying to make you look bad to other posters.
I call your reasoning, on this subject, illogical, and the basis for my opinion is your posts.

when there is no basis for that accusation except that you do not LIKE the conclusion I came to, that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

It’s not that I do not LIKE the conclusion you came to. I couldn’t care less about your belief concerning the B.man. I just disagree that your conclusion is based on logical thinking.

Nobody else does this but you

.
Open your eyes.

If there was a basis for the accusation that I am illogical you could explain it, but you cannot explain it. You simply BELIEVE that my thinking is illogical, but that does not mean it is illogical.

.
And you believe that your thinking is logical, but that does not mean it is logical.
Actually, I’m not the only one who believes that your thinking is illogical. But I hasten to add, before you rush to tell me about that old bandwagon, that I am not, of course, saying that because others think as I do, my opinion is validated.

You simply BELIEVE that my thinking is illogical, but that does not mean it is illogical. You have no evidence that proves that I committed any logical errors.

.
See above. The evidence is in your posts. It has been pointed out to you, over and over again.

Prosecutor: Mr. Smith murdered his wife.
Judge: Do you have some evidence to present?
Prosecutor: No, I just believe that Mr. Smith murdered his wife, I have no evidence.
Judge: Case closed.

Prosecutor: Mr. Smith murdered his wife.
Judge: Do you have some evidence to present?
Prosecutor: We have his own written evidence sent to people with whom he corresponded.
Judge: present the evidence.

 

[samtonga43]

I believe it's a way to make a bunch of claims while hiding behind the thin veneer of "I believe". I believe it's pure cover for proselytizing while dodging accountability. I believe it's a crutch for those who lack the courage of their convictions. I believe I will have another drink.

I believe I will join you.

 

[Trailblazer]

You didn't just think it though, you stated or asserted it on here....more than once....

Not even once.

 

[samtonga43]

So you're not claiming it is true, just stating or asserting that you believe it is true.



Claim
verb
1. state or assert that something is the case.



The real irony is you could have corrected your error months ago, but the more you dig in, the funnier it gets. We all make mistakes, even basic errors in semantics, but to defend an error like this is just beyond silly. It's a single post, and then it goes away, "sorry my bad I made a mistake", how hard is that?

For a certain type of person, it is very, very hard.

 

[Trailblazer]

You know that's a claim right?

I believe the claim is true but.....
I AM MAKING NO CLAIMS. I ONLY HAVE BELIEFS.

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh come off it, this place is littered with you using known common logical fallacies. ignore that by all means if it makes you happy, but please don't even try and pretend it hasn't happened.

That is a claim. Prove it is true or stop claiming it is true.
Talk is cheap. I'm waiting for the proof......

 

[Sheldon]

I believe it's a way to make a bunch of claims while hiding behind the thin veneer of "I believe". I believe it's pure cover for proselytizing while dodging accountability. I believe it's a crutch for those who lack the courage of their convictions. I believe I will have another drink.

I believe you're right, and I believe I will have another drink as well.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you're not claiming it is true, just stating or asserting that you believe it is true.

Claim
verb
1. state or assert that something is the case.

I stated I believe it is true, but NOT without providing evidence.

I see that you conveniently left out the second half of the definition.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=claim+means

I have provided evidence umpteen million times.

 

[rational experiences]

That is a claim. Prove it is true or stop claiming it is true.
Talk is cheap. I'm waiting for the proof......

Science is not small words he says. They are capitals or dark words.

Stated by its believer in forum.

Father said bible human DNA genesis.

If you equate theme billions of years I want electricity.

One place one mass is one family how many billions of humans live now.

As man says maths equals DNA genesis as biblical theists.​

 

[Trailblazer]

I am discussing errors in your logical thinking process

I, and others, have tried to show you where you commit logical errors and why they are logical errors. You don’t seem to understand.

I, and others, have explained how you commit your errors of logic. I'm afraid you are in a rut of your own making; you cannot, or will not, understand our explanations.

What explanations?

 

[Sheldon]

There is no claim there. Thinking and being sure is not claiming.

You didn't just think it though, you stated or asserted it on here....more than once....

Not even once.

Are you seriously going to claim you have not even once asserted to believe something on here?
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓

I believe (1) God exists and there is evidence

Good grief. Now before you spin this again, here was your original claim:

Show me where I ever claimed that my belief is true.

So are you here claiming this belief to be false, or even that you're not sure it is true?
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓

I believe (1) God exists and there is evidence

 

[Sheldon]

I believe the claim is true but.....
I AM MAKING NO CLAIMS. I ONLY HAVE BELIEFS.

You know that's a claim as well right?

 

[Sheldon]

Oh come off it, this place is littered with you using known common logical fallacies.

That is a claim. Prove it is true or stop claiming it is true.
Talk is cheap. I'm waiting for the proof......

Ok you asked for it, and just to be fair I will only use your posts on the first page from this thread of almost 270 pages.

I believe (1) God exists and there is evidence, because if there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him.

That uses a begging the question fallacy.

I say the only way that God could prove that He exists would be by doing a miracle, something supernatural?

That is an argument from incredulity fallacy.

Even if a Messenger did miracles that would only be proof to the person or people who witnessed the miracle, so it can never be proof for everyone.

That is a no true Scotsman fallacy.

The evidence is readily available at all times but since humans have mucked up the evidence tat was provided in the past, some of the evidence does not agree with other evidence.

That is a special pleading fallacy.

If atheists do not have the slightest interest in believing in God they won't search for God and in that case they will never find God.

That is another no true Scotsman fallacy.

As I said, that is just in the very first page of this thread of almost 270 pages. Your use of logical fallacies litter multiple threads, your posts are relentlessly irrational.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am not stalking you
I am not following you
I am not trying to make you look bad to other posters.

That is all you do on this forum...
Everyone can see it because the evidence is plastered all over this forum and in your Profile.

The hundred-dollar question is why you have been obsessed with me and my beliefs for almost a year now.

I call your reasoning, on this subject, illogical, and the basis for my opinion is your posts.

But it is not illogical just because you believe it is illogical.
It is not illogical unless you can prove I committed logical fallacies. You have not done so,

It’s not that I do not LIKE the conclusion you came to. I couldn’t care less about your belief concerning the B.man.
I just disagree that your conclusion is based on logical thinking.

Yet you cannot EXPLAIN why my conclusion is not based on logical thinking.
It should be easy peasy for you to explain if you have an explanation..

And you believe that your thinking is logical, but that does not mean it is logical.

And you believe that my thinking is illogical, but that does not mean it is illogical.

Actually, I’m not the only one who believes that your thinking is illogical.

Why would it matter what a few other people believe? What would that prove?
All the Baha'is would believe that my thinking is logical. Does that prove it is logical?
No, what many people believe does not prove anything at all, so why do you keep bringing up what a few atheists believe?

Now, let's look at your beliefs, and you tell me why they are logical.

How Can Jesus Be God and Man?

Equally amazing to the doctrine of the Trinity is the doctrine of the Incarnation — that Jesus Christ is God and man, yet one person, forever. As J.I. Packer has said, “Here are two mysteries for the price of one — the plurality of persons within the unity of God, and the union of Godhead and manhood in the person of Jesus. . . . Nothing in fiction is so fantastic as is this truth of the Incarnation.”1

How Can Jesus Be God and Man?

The atheists on this thread don't know what you believe, but I do. You are a Trinitarian Christian.

 

[Sheldon]

I stated I believe it is true, but NOT without providing evidence.

I see that you conveniently left out the second half of the definition.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

It had no relevance, as I was demonstrating that you had made a claim to believe something, but it seems you don't understand what the word "typically" means in the definition, but it is a general caveat, not an absolute. A claim can be with or without evidence or proof, it is nonetheless a claim. How deep are you going to dig this pit, seriously?

 

[Sheldon]

It is not illogical unless you can prove I committed logical fallacies.

Sheldon: This is an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓

All the Baha'is would believe that my thinking is logical. so why do you keep bringing up what a few atheists believe?

Quod erat demonstrandum...

 

[Trailblazer]

Sheldon: This is an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

I said: "All the Baha'is would believe that my thinking is logical. Does that prove it is logical?
No, what many people believe does not prove anything at all, so why do you keep bringing up what a few atheists believe?"

Straw man fallacy.
I said that all the Baha'is would believe that my thinking is logical but I never said that would mean my thinking is logical.

 

[Sheldon]

I said: "All the Baha'is would believe that my thinking is logical. Does that prove it is logical?
No, what many people believe does not prove anything at all, so why do you keep bringing up what a few atheists believe?"

Straw man fallacy.
I said that all the Baha'is would believe that my thinking is logical but I never said that would mean my thinking is logical.

You challenged anyone to show you had been illogical here:
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓

Trailblazer said: ↑
It is not illogical unless you can prove I committed logical fallacies.

I then indicated you had made a claim that was based on a known logical fallacy here:
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓

All the Baha'is would believe that my thinking is logical. so why do you keep bringing up what a few atheists believe?

You claimed your beliefs were logical or rational, and I am pointing out that yet again, you are basing another argument or claim, on a known logical fallacy. Logically the number of people who believe something, tells us nothing about the validity of that belief.