You are clearing the trees. You believe that something that has never been observed happened. Pretty simple. As for your argument... It's even more laughable. I am here because I think God put me here. I post because God created me. Both of us believe in something that requires faith. You may think your idea is more logical, but it still is just the same as what I believe.
I think I'd like a $million, but God isn't doing shit for me on that score. So much for thinking God does anything.
Ah but you use greed and the concept that God owes u something. That is absolutely backwards thinking. But it does explain why you don't want to believe in God. For me, creating me, this universe or even life itself is more than enough to give him praise. Shit, I'm sure you go goo goo when you see the accomplishments of man. The accomplishments of the creator of this universe trumps all.
And here is the funny thing about your debate. You are attacking my faith without defending yours. Not being able to defend that your idea doesn't require faith. Pay attention! All you need to do is show the empirical evidence and this debate is over. I'm still waiting. The moment you realize that you put faith in something you can't see or observe, the sooner you can free yourself from those chains you bind yourself with. The funny thing is atheist believe they will set us free, yet they just bind you with chains that are camouflaged. You are still bound by beliefs that you cannot prove. What you choose to do the moment you realize this will actually free you.
And you won't accept empirical evidence, no matter how it's presented. Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. I observe self replicating molecules. I don't observe anything at all that suggests there is a god or mountain with family of gods on it.
Exactly!!! Thank you! God didn't need to make us but he did. He created us because he loves us. He gave us this amazing universe, free will, ability to make great things and the gift of eternity. They are gifts not because he owes us, it's because he loves us. Get the bulldozer out, Denny's clearing out the forest!
Hahahaha and you laugh at a Christian that uses their personal experience as proof! Do you even see how we are cut from the same cloth? You believe in something that requires faith, using tools that cannot be seen. You claim they are logical because 1.) they are backed by scientists 2.) that you've observed living organisms. Here's your problem. You can have a billion people, animals, plants or even life in other parts of this universe and if you can't find the source "smoking gun", it is all just a guess. It's no better than thinking a magical unicorn took a shit on this planet and created life. And your definition about empirical evidence definition. "Sense of experience". Amazing!!! So all those Christians that experience God everyday is empirical! Thanks man, Christians are using science!
I know we can see self replicating molecules with differing complexities. Your personal experience is not observation, but a delusion. You are here because a leprechaun made it so. Prove me wrong.
Amazing Denny, you opened the flood gates! "Sense of experience" even the observation of this experience. Millions of Christians everyday can give testimony they feel God presences. Their sense of experience is not only empirical, but has more peer reviewed documentation than any other philosophy! Not only is this scientific, it is now empirical. You asked for proof that God exists. Well here you are! Now move on!
You can't observe testimony. It is subjective. People testify to seeing aliens and Bigfoot, too. Testify. Lol.
Multiverse is subjective. Anything in science is subjective. Lmao bro, you have proof, now stop with your yapping. You lost... And as for the aliens and Bigfoot... You can peer review the evidence and allow them to decide. The eyewitness accounts are evidence. You are actually proving my point.
Multiverse is subjective. It's only a hypothesis. Science is not subjective. You are here because of a leprechaun - you have the quality of proof of that as you provide. Eyewitness accounts are not empirical evidence. I testify about the leprechaun and you. You lose.
I'm using whatever it is you claim empirical evidence is. It's not making you look good. Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject. 35MPH is objective if you measure the distance and time with accurate instruments. "Really fast" is subjective because there's nothing to measure and what you testify is really fast is based upon your biases.
I am using "YOUR" provided definition. Do you agree or disagree with what you posted is true? Pretty simple... Yes or No?
And your concept of objectivity is absolutely correct, but that objectivity is still empirical. Just as one would have objectivity of a Multiverse or Multi-dimension. They approach it carefully, but any evidence subjective or "bias-free" is still evidence. And with that, the testimony of Christians, Muslims or Hindus that they feel the presence of God is evidence and it is "empirical" as your definition claims. So when you claim there is zero evidence that God exists, you are 100% wrong.
