Hobbs

You briefly mentioned the liar's paradox. You utterly failed to give any coherent explanation of how it is relevant to the present discussion.

False. Atheism is based on the lack of evidence of a god that exists anywhere outside of believers' minds.

Put up or shut up.

You can run, but you can't hide from your lack of evidence.

MrDarwin

MrDarwin

If anybody feels compelled to engage WJ in any semblance of discussion or debate, feel free to start a new discussion. In the meantime I'll wait to see if he actually has anything to contribute to this one--but I'm not holding my breath. (This discussion, which I thought was a very simple one but which is apparently too complex for WJ to understand, is about whether there is evidence of God's supposed benevolence in the natural world.)

WJ

...and as far as politics, let it be known that the answer to the thread's question and I quote: "Convince me there is a God" is that God, is a logically necessary Being.

Now that that's out of the way , mrdarwin, for the second time, what is the essence of your argument? Contradiction? Consistency?

Walrus

WJ

"Atheism is based on the lack of evidence of a god that exists anywhere outside of believers' minds."

And what type of logic is used to arrive at your conclusiveness about the 'lack of evidence'?

You put up or shut up. I've proven my case [that aspect anyway] you baffoon!

Lord Asriel

The conclusion about the lack of evidence is based not on logic, but on the lack of evidence.

(I think I'm starting to get the hang of this...)

MrDarwin

[Apu]Thank you, come again![/Apu]

Paddy

WJ

The bible asserts that god is benevolent, however, this assertion is not congruent with reality (see MrDarwin's OP). Therefore, why in the face of this stark inconsistency should one believe that there exists a benevolent god?

A simple, straightforward question that requires a simple, straightforward answer...PLEASE!

Paddy.

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Paddy ]</p>

seanie

WJ

I come back and what do I find.

Do I find your explanation of why god is a logically necessary being?

Do I find your explanation of how to reconcile this with your claim that you can't trust logic because all human logic is fallible?

No I don't.

I find further claims:

But again no substance to back these up.

I've already said I'm willing to look at evidence or argument in favour of god. But all you provide is empty assertions. Nowhere do you provide any evidence or logic (be it inductive, deductive or whatever) to back up your claims.

You challenge other people to find the flaw in your statement.

But since none of us can see how the hell you arrived at that conclusion we can't see the flaw in your reasoning. There doesn't appear to be any reasoning to fault.

And since you appear unwilling or unable to explain your position my (provisional) conclusion is that your an empty-headed bullshitter.

I may be wrong but if so please state the reasons why.

Hobbs

And MrDarwin should just take your word for it?

Oh, I get it! WJ is God! He can just assert things into existence!

You don't really think that just because you assert that God is logically necessary that you have therefore proved that to be the case, do you? You don't really think that you can just define things into existence, do you? If so, you are way beyond any help anyone can provide in a forum such as this.