"Atheist proves god does exist"

I explained why they believe they are right, but obviously you
don't agree.
So the real question must be; why not?

The only claim I have made is that God is proven to exist to some,
and not agreed to be proven by others (you). This is a fact. Now the onus is on you to
explain why you disagree.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure I agree that they believe that they are right. But that isn't even close to being evidence for God's existence.

No. That's not what you said. You said:
"God has already been proven, it's just that you don't accept it."
The onus is on YOU to provide the evidence.

What is? That God is proven to exists to some? Perhaps they believe that, but if there is actual proof I still like to see it.

HA! You're funny

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Enmos,

You mean it isn't close for you.
Which is what i'm saying.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

God HAS already been proven to exist [for some], but you don't accept it.
That's what I meant.

Already done that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's not an answer.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

:wallbang:

You are simply incorrigible..
Never mind then.

 

And now you've started on the deceit.
I have already posted Spidergoat's answer - IN FULL.
Here it is again:

I.e. there is no evidence to support your implicit claim in post 159.

 

Dywyddyr,

There's nothing deceptive at all.

It is in two parts. The first part answer my QUESTION;
''IT ISN'T'' which is a direct claim.
The second part asks me a question.

Do you know what a question mark is, and what it is used for?.
159 was a QUESTION not a claim.
Get over it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

jan.

 

Wrong again:

It was an implicit statement (phrased as rhetorical question) that Spidergoat should consider that matter is a product of consciousness.
Or maybe it's just one more example of inability with English...
YOU raised the point, not Spidergoat.

 

No I'm not.
Most religious people will say God has been proven to exist.
Which is why I directed you to search for the information.

You disagree with them.
That was my point all along.

So how is an atheist going to prove the existence of God
to those for whom proof is already available.
And in the same breath, an atheist will not accept the proof offered
by religionists.

It all boils down to personal perception.

jan.

 

Then you should have approached this differently
instead coming out with guns blazing.
How can we have a good dialouge with this kind of attitude.

I think there is meaning on both sides of the argument,
and as such we can learn from each other.

jan.

 

Huh?
YOU raised the point. YOU made a claim.
You have consistently failed to support it.

Exactly. Learn to admit your error and act like an adult.

Yet you have failed to provide any support for your "side". How then, do we learn from you?

 

I didn't make a claim, I asked a question, complete
with question mark. Why are you being obstinate?

Maybe if you answer the question I posed, we can
move further on in the discussion.
That being said, we can probably learn from each other.

jan.

 

You asked a question that wasn't pertinent AT ALL to the topic. That had no bearing whatsoever on the subject under discussion. UNLESS you were also (implicitly) suggesting that the idea was worth consideration - i.e. an implicit claim.
The way the "question" was used - as a reply indicates that you appear to consider it SHOULD have been taken into account. Once again - it was a point YOU raised.

And Spider correctly answered: it isn't worth consideration - unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Now, support your position.

 

No Jan. It was a suggestion/request, not a question. As in: "Perhaps you'd like to consider the fact that matter is a product of consciousness?"
If it was a question you wouldn't have put the word "that" in front of the sentence.

 

Why wasn't it pertinent, in any way to the topic?
And why does it have no bearing on the subject under discussion?

And spider did not answer ''it isn't worth consideration'', and if he did
he should have made himself clear. As it stands, to anyone reading the dialogue, it is a direct answer to my question in the form of; ''IT ISN'T.''
And I am quite within my right to ask for an explanation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You're being incredibly dis-honest.

jan.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Missed or ignored this did you?

Try again:
Spider - Is there anything that should warrant [reconsidering] that?
You - That matter is is product of consciousness?
Spider - It isn't. Unless you have evidence otherwise?

The explanation was implicit: there is no evidence - unless YOU have some.

Wrong again.

 

Enmos,

The ''That'' is a response to spiders question, as in' there may be something that could warrant that.

jan.

 

Uh huh. And what, exactly, would that "something" be?

 

Dywyddyr,

I know what I was thinking when I made that reply.
You are infering what I was thinking in order to
prop up you weak and failed position.
We should stick to what is written, not make stuff up.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yeah!!!
So what's your point?

Stop making stuff up, and deal with the evidence.
Isn't that a part of critical thinking?

Err! Right again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So all of a sudden you can't read now?

jan.

 

So basically you're saying you're incapable of posting and making your point clear. Okay.

There is no evidence, as Spider said. Unless YOU have some.
Which apparently you don't since you have STILL failed to provide any despite numerous requests.