That isn't the argument though. The argument was "There is zero evidence God exists". It doesn't matter what you, I or anyone else believes in; but the debate is solid and valid. If Denny can refute my arguments about evidence, then he could easily win the argument. Unfortunately, his broad and bold statement dug him a hole. And his ego refused to accept defeat.
If you could provide a shred of evidence that isn't entirely between someone's ears, I'm a believer. The gauntlet has been thrown down and you dodge it because it's impossible. Impossible because there is no evidence you can find. Good luck.
I have provided more than just a shred. And it's not my fault that you pick and choose evidence that only supports your argument. But the reality is, I don't need to prove anything to you. Anyone that can look at my argument about "evidence", and of sound mind and judgement should accept it as evidence. They don't have to believe it though. That wasn't the point of the debate.
Lmao... The point was not to prove God exists. I was arguing your argument that there is zero evidence that God exists, which is 100% false. All I needed to do was have just one argument stick and your entire argument crumbles. It was easier than breathing. It wasn't my fault that you put the trap right in front of you, then screamed bloody murder after the fact.
And that only proves my point, as crazy as it sounds, it is still evidence. So yes, we do have evidence that leprechauns exist. Not proof, per say, but evidence all the same. You are just supporting my argument Denny.
Just wow. OK, you win. The only "evidence" of "god" is the batshit crazy kind, like the kind that supports the existence of leprechauns and unicorns.
This is such a silly statement. You have no idea what "God" means to each person. There is no way you can possibly say there is no evidence. You have a preconceived notion of "God" and you're arguing against the existence of that "God". You've built yourself a nice little strawman to knock down though.
I have repeatedly said "any god" in this thread, and I even mentioned a bunch of gods on a mountain. So I have no particular a priori notion of "that god". The bolded bit is the strawman.
My friend John Doe's "God" is light. Everything is governed by, limited by and created by EM waves, which are the embodiment of this "God". I see lots of evidence in a "God" such as this.
Yes. Fits perfectly well. Now I see you want to change your argument to what is acceptable for people to claim as their "God". Moving goal posts and strawmen. Typical of your arguments.
The moon is made of cheese. You can define cheese to mean anything, since words have no meaning it seems. Light is no spirit, nor is it superhuman, nor does it have power over nature or human fortunes.
Depends on how you look at it. Light "sunlight" helps man grow their food, give them vitamin D and help them see to build grand monuments.
Denny, don't you remember that dialogue we had in the past where you were stripping certain words of any kind of meaning in order to back whatever point it was you were trying to make? Because I do and it was odd.
