Matthew Le God

Asking you to read the answer I have to a question that you keep asking... is not me playing a game.

1) As I have not seen sufficient evidence they are wrong. As if no sufficient evidence is provided it is logically impossible for both a and b to be true for a God that wants to be known, knows what it would take but refuses to provide it. 2) Nonsense. If a system can lead to polar oppositepostions... it is not a reliable path to truth.

Read it yourself

It was a yes or no question.

Well if he is making me do something... then I exist. He can't though if he is outside space and time. As existence is spatial and temporal.

I did give a yes or no answer.

My senses corresponding in a reliable, consistent and demonstrable manner to my experiences.

1) Do you agree many Christians think God wants everyone to believe in him? Do you believe many Christians believe God knows what it would take for someone to believe in him? 2) Is something a reliable path to truth if it can be used to justify two opposing and conflicting beliefs?

I think, therefore I am.

1) Does he want me to believe in him? Does the God know what evidence I'd need to believe in him? Both can't be true. 2) It is very relevant. Faith can be used to justify opposing/contradictory beliefs.Thus making it not a reliable methodology to get to a truth as any outcome can be derived at!

Nope, you need to read it for once!

The story of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit is the moment sin entered the world. This "Fall" is seen as the reason humans are born sinful and separated from God. Jesus is described as the solution to the Fall. Jesus's death is presented as the atonement for humanity’s original sin. So, without a real "Fall," the need for a savior (Jesus) could be called into question. The Adam and Eve story is incompatible with evolution.

Would you like to face a jury that used faith rather than evidence?

I've address this in the rebuttal you keep avoiding.

I have answered it. You keep avoiding the rebuttal.

My answer to that is in the rebuttal you keep ignoring.

Because we have been discussing the God of the Bible. The Bible overwhelmingly uses male pronouns—He, Him, and His—to refer to God. Additionally, God is often called Father, King, and Lord, all traditionally masculine titles. So we can add pronouns to the list of % and counting.

A) Religious people and scripture say their God wants everyone to know he exists. B) They say that his is capable of knowing what evidence you'd need to believe in him. And yet... he refuses to provide it. A and B can not both be true if he fails to provide it.

Again you ignored the rebuttal.

Again, you ignored the rebuttal.

1) Being wrong on one thing does not mean something else you've said is wrong. Using science for one thing, but no evidence for the other. 2) You failed to address anything I said in that part. No, because of the reasons I outlined that you ignored! It was not 'all evidence'. There was evidence it would work, so a belief it could work is based on evidence, not faith.

Anything I believe in, I believe due to evidence of past experience to justify that belief. It isn't infallible, but it is a reliable path to truth that doesn't run into the same issues as faith does when it can be used to support two contradictory positions.

In advance of evidence... means without evidence currently. Do you think courts should use such a system? It is not a reliable path to truth.

1) Einstein being a scientist and talking about a belief in a God has no impact on his relevance to the truth. He is not using the scientific method and is making an unsubstantiated leap. 2) You said 'all evidence' pointed to it being impossible. I gave you 3 pieces of pre Wright brother flight evidence that counter that. So it was not 'all evidence' at all.

In religious terms, faith is the excuse you have to believe something without evidence.