Frank Apisa wrote: Quote:
The exact same amount of evidence exists for the nonexistence of each of the above entities (NONE), correct?
No
absolutely phuking not!
Please provide all the evidence you have that gods do not exist
and I will go through this exercise with you. If not
blow it out you're a$$. Because you are the person claiming "the evidence for the nonexistence of each" is exactly the same
so all I have to do is to present one more piece of evidence that you present to show that gods do not exist
and you will be shown to be wrong.
Frankyboy; you need to read more carefully. The above, essentially rhetorical question, is asking you to confirm there is ZERO evidence that can prove the nonexistence of each of the above entities. Now we know you reject the thought of evidence against the existence of God. That much is clear.
Now I'd like you to show me evidence against the existence of any of the other above entities that is any more concrete then that which you reject in respect to God. Meanwhile, for as long as you're silly enough to try, I'll just kick back and take potshots at your apparent stupidity in not recognizing the futility of the task. Considering your treatment of atheists, this strikes me as the fair and noble thing to do until you either provide the evidence to back your untenable position, or admit your hypocrisy, or (and this is the most likely) you ignore the big bold challenge above while pretending your hypocrisy hasn't been exposed. Anyone may feel free to come up with an answer for anything he may produce. You will find, just as when he does it to atheists, it's exceedingly simple. :wink:
Frank Apisa wrote:It is interesting to me that you claim there IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT GODS DO NOT EXIST
yet you are willing to claim they do not exist. What kind of abject fool would do something as ignorant as that
and actually brag about it in public?????
Other than paraphrasing you and others; I've yet to offer an opinion on this thread one way or another... purposely not, so you couldn't shift the burden of proof to me. I'll tell you when we've finished this exercise. :wink:
Frank Apisa wrote:Bill wrote:
Quote:I understand you perfectly, Edgar. I believe Frank has stepped into a trap that will force him to admit he does too.
THIS...from the guy who didn't have the brains to actually set the trap...and had to ask my help in doing so!!!!!!
Oh this is too phuking funny for words. My life is normally filled with joys...but today has started out on a splendid note!!!
Yes; trapping a word-player can be tedious
but if one asks politely, sometimes they'll construct their own trap. Thank you for playing along. :cool:
Cyracuz wrote:Occom Bill wrote:
Quote:Nope. There is no cause to assume the an all mighty Darth Vader would choose to enlighten George with the "truth". He may work in mysterious ways, you know.
Well, based on that line of "reasoning" there is no cause to assume that you're a real person. You might just be a thought in my head, and you might vanish when I go to sleep.
Not so. Presence
is proof of existence. However; a lack of presence does not constitute proof of non-existence. And therein lies the problem.
It would appear you do indeed get the point, though. Frank's silly burden shift is absurd on it's face. Proving the non-existence of any supernatural entity will forever remain impossible. One can always conjure up a rebuttal, regardless of the objection. That is the nature of the supernatural beast. That's why Frank gets to have fun abusing atheists, and why I now get to have fun abusing Frank until he recognizes his folly. :wink:
Like I said before:
OCCOM BILL wrote: At this juncture; the only difference between Frank and Edgar's positions; is the degree to which each will lend the slightest bit of credence to that which is un-provable, improbable, or depending on your view; flat out ridiculous. Edgar has a slightly lower threshold for that which is ridiculous.
