"I look forward to your reasoned reply."

There you go with that tongue position - again.

You have a masochistic streak?

Jul 8, 2012 -- 9:19AM, 57 wrote:

Jul 7, 2012 -- 9:26PM, Paladinsf wrote:

I don't think any of us have taken the position that supernatural beings CANNOT exist. We admit such a thing is POSSIBLE. But like the invisible unicorns on Mars there is simply no evidence for such beings and considerable against their existence.

Unless and until such verifiable, testable, falsifiable, EVIDENCE can be produced we take the position that the belief in such beings is - unwarranted.

And we reject out of hand the argument that such evidence is NOT needed. That UPG or legends or ancient writings or philosophical argument or ALL of the above is sufficient to establish their existence.

Wow, listen to this guy.....he has not addressed the OP.  Instead he has played the game of handwaving.

Produce your evidence 57. Not your argument, not your fables, not your wishful thinking and not your loud obnoxious screaming.

EVIDENCE; objective, testable, falsifiable, repeatable.

Produce it.

Or admit you CAN'T; that you believe this stuff because you are AFRAID not to.

Jul 8, 2012 -- 9:42AM, amcolph wrote:

Jul 8, 2012 -- 9:19AM, 57 wrote:

Wow, listen to this guy.....he has not addressed the OP.  Instead he has played the game of handwaving.

When are you going to quit waving your hands and address the fact that a logical "proof" is not evidence?

When will you refute the logic?  

The logic was just one of 4 methods I presented the fact that God exist.   

Jul 8, 2012 -- 9:48AM, 57 wrote:

Jul 8, 2012 -- 9:42AM, amcolph wrote:

Jul 8, 2012 -- 9:19AM, 57 wrote:

Wow, listen to this guy.....he has not addressed the OP.  Instead he has played the game of handwaving.

When are you going to quit waving your hands and address the fact that a logical "proof" is not evidence?

When will you refute the logic?  

The logic was just one of 4 methods I presented the fact that God exist.   

See #31.

He puts a lot more time and effort into a responSe (ever hear of spell check?) than your "argument" merits.

All I have done it take your initial assumptions and shown they could lead to a very different result. And neither you nor any other believer has ever been able to show that result is impossible.

That's why they call it "faith."

Sadly your "faith" is based more on fear than anything else.

I have some respect for the sincere believers here who think believing this stuff makes them a better person.

What you post is just hell fire and damnation; believe or burn. I lost respect for that crap - and those who spout it - about age 9.

Jul 7, 2012 -- 10:52AM, 57 wrote:

Devout Atheist ...

It's always interesting to see theists use theistic language to describe non-theists.  It indicates that you know you have a difficult and questionable position.

... often demand proof for God ......."So keep it up and we will keep reminding you; until you can produce EVIDENCE for it - it is CRAP."

Anyone, including theists, have to be responsible for what you claim.  If you are going to claim a god exists in a discussion forum you can expect to be asked to back it up.

But when presented with evidence they never really disqualify the evidence.  Rather they handwave.

For example, watch the Atheist responces to this thread as they try to reply to the topics.

1)  Is the earth as old as the atheist claim?   Here's proof that it is indeed young. 
Radioisotopes and the  age of the earth. RATE.

2) Life is so complex there is absolutly no way a natural process could have brought it about.   There is a short 3 min video at the Signature in the Cell site you can watch.  How will the Atheist refute it?

Creationists have no credible science, so we can throw all of that out right away.  Science does nothing to support creationism, or young earth beliefs.

3) There are over 300 prophetic prophecies fulfilled that show the bible divine origin.  The book Evidence that demand a verdict closes the door on atheist.  You can visit the site and get a sample of the book.

Very weak argument here since you need quite heavy interpretation to make all this seem true and valid.  We've been over this.  your interpretation of stories in a book does not make evidence for any gods.

4) Because we, stuff, the universe is here...there has to be a God. There are 3 possibilities.  Two which can be ruled out.
a) The universe self created...which is ruled out because you can't be and not be at the same time.
b) The universe always existed....in this case the Atheist must then admit something existing from eternity past is possible, but run into problems when change (big bang) was required.  Something had to cause the change.  That would be God.
c) God created the universe.  The only available option left.

You haven't exhausted the other possibilities.  And you haven't shown any reason why a god is the only available option for why anything exists.  

4 examples are enough for a start.......have at it my Atheist friends.  I presented examples from geology, biology, prophecy and philosophy. 

Here's the rules:
No handwaving.
No mockery. 

Refute God.   

No gods are being refuted.  Your arguments are.  You shouldn't confuse yourself with a god.