Counterfeits.

[Sparko]

Not without credible evidence, "that way lies madness". (King Lear)

so God appearing in front of you and proving himself to you is not credible evidence?

Then, Tassman, you are not worth debating on any subject because if you do not believe your own experiences then you won't believe any one else no matter what the evidence. Your nonsense about "credible evidence" is just an excuse not to believe anything you don't want to believe. If you would not believe in God if he appeared right in front of you and proved himself to you, then you won't believe anything.

[Tassman]

so God appearing in front of you and proving himself to you is not credible evidence?

Muhammad's first revelation was when he was visited by the archangel Gabriel. Was that "credible evidence"?

[37818]

Because your saying so does not make it so.

My saying so has nothing to do with whether God is or not. That God is would still be a reason. So unless the uncaused existence cannot be God, it remains to be God's identity. Uncaused existence does not need any kind of God. It, uncaused existence just is. God just is. All the other arguments for God fall if God cannot in any way be that uncaused existence. So unless a valid argument can be made that the uncaused existence cannot be God - that is God's identity. And even if such an argument is concocted that the uncaused existence cannot be God, the premise that the uncaused existence is God cannot go away. Atheists willingly ignorant of this does not make it not true.

[Roy]

My saying so has nothing to do with whether God is or not.
...
God just is.

Your posts would be less unconvincing if you could manage to maintain consistency for more than half a paragraph.

So unless a valid argument can be made that the uncaused existence cannot be God - that is God's identity. And even if such an argument is concocted that the uncaused existence cannot be God, the premise that the uncaused existence is God cannot go away. Atheists willingly ignorant of this does not make it not true.

But atheists understanding it better than you do to the point that we recognise the fallacies that you have committed does make it not true.

[Sparko]

Muhammad's first revelation was when he was visited by the archangel Gabriel. Was that "credible evidence"?

If he wasn't lying, then yes, it was credible evidence to him.

You are saying that God appearing in front of you and willing to prove himself to you is not credible evidence? Exactly what would be credible evidence if God wanted to prove himself to you personally?

[Tassman]

If he wasn't lying, then yes, it was credible evidence to him.

Exactly! So you're agreeing that Gabriel appearing before Muhammad, or YHWH appearing before Moses or Jesus revealing himself to you is a purely subjective experience which cannot be verified as true?

[Sparko]

Exactly! So you're agreeing that Gabriel appearing before Muhammad, or YHWH appearing before Moses or Jesus revealing himself to you is a purely subjective experience which cannot be verified as true?

You are free to believe or not believe anyone you wish Tassman. I never said you had to believe an eyewitness or even your own eyes. Which apparently you don't.

Just answer my question: What evidence would God have to give to you in order to prove that he exists if he was willing to prove himself to you personally? Let's say you prayed, "Dear God, if you exist, please prove it to me!" - what would you have him do for you that you would accept? Apparently him appearing to you and saying "Hi there! I am real" isn't good enough for you.

[Tassman]

You are free to believe or not believe anyone you wish Tassman. I never said you had to believe an eyewitness or even your own eyes. Which apparently you don't.

AND

Just answer my question: What evidence would God have to give to you in order to prove that he exists if he was willing to prove himself to you personally? Let's say you prayed, "Dear God, if you exist, please prove it to me!" - what would you have him do for you that you would accept? Apparently him appearing to you and saying "Hi there! I am real" isn't good enough for you.

[Sparko]

AND

Are you afraid to answer the question? You claim to be open minded and only don't believe in God because there is no evidence he exists. Assuming he did exist, what evidence could he give you personally to convince you? If you say "none" then you are admitting to be close-minded and evidence is useless to you. Which is what i suspect is the truth. You like to argue and demand evidence all the time, yet there is no evidence that could convince you because you have made up your mind that God does not exist and wouldn't believe if he appeared right in front of you and did a miracle.

Which means any discussion about God with you is pointless. I might as well argue with my couch.

[Tassman]

Are you afraid to answer the question? You claim to be open minded and only don't believe in God because there is no evidence he exists. Assuming he did exist, what evidence could he give you personally to convince you? If you say "none" then you are admitting to be close-minded and evidence is useless to you. Which is what i suspect is the truth. You like to argue and demand evidence all the time, yet there is no evidence that could convince you because you have made up your mind that God does not exist and wouldn't believe if he appeared right in front of you and did a miracle.

[Sparko]

I asked you first. Are you afraid to answer?

I already believe in God and he didn't even have to appear in front of me. You are the one who always is talking about there not being good evidence for God. I am asking you what that good evidence would be? If God himself appearing to you and showing you who he is is not good enough, what would be?

[37818]

Your posts would be less unconvincing if you could manage to maintain consistency for more than half a paragraph.

What is not consistent in my argument that you refer to?

But atheists understanding it better than you do to the point that we recognise the fallacies that you have committed does make it not true.

And that fallacy is?

[Tassman]

I asked you first. Are you afraid to answer?

I already believe in God and he didn't even have to appear in front of me.

Prove that he exists.

You are the one who always is talking about there not being good evidence for God. I am asking you what that good evidence would be? If God himself appearing to you and showing you who he is is not good enough, what would be?

[37818]

Prove that he exists.

To ask to prove God exists is like asking to prove existence exists. God's fundamental identity is the uncaused existence in which all other things exist in. God being omnipresent.

[Tassman]

To ask to prove God exists is like asking to prove existence exists. God's fundamental identity is the uncaused existence in which all other things exist in. God being omnipresent.

What is you evidence that God exists and that he's omnipresent?