How do you convince people god exists?

antiskeptic · 28-09-2020 6:25pm

robindch wrote: »

Based upon evidence? It certainly is not. This so-called "evidence" is based solely upon your belief that evidence has some relevance to whether or not your brakes work.

Therefore evidence is just a belief and therefore, your brakes don't work.

Huh?

karlitob · 28-09-2020 6:32pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

God's view is that lust not only affects the lustee (they feel the effects in their lives of being seen as meat) but affects the life of the luster also. Nobody lists without darkening their own soul.

His prohibition is aimed at protecting all

Ah, finally, the mask drops.

Nothing more dangerous than the mortal who can read into the mind of, and speak of behalf of, the divine.

Always amazes me that such an omniscient power - who made the universe and all within in - has such need to not only ban adultery, but also thinking about adultery. How fragile must your god be if he has laws against thought crime.

Such fragility - Interceded by mere mortals - would never manifest in people being stabbed to death to avenge the caricature of god. Can a god be a ‘god help us’ case? If only a mortal could tell me.

Well I for one am thankful that the god that doesn’t exists has stopped me from being raped because he has a law against thinking such things.

antiskeptic · 28-09-2020 6:33pm

karlitob wrote: »

You’re confusing faith and belief. Not only does faith require no evidence, it requires the suspension of evidence that does exist - or else there would be no need for miracles.

Belief is confidence or trust. I have belief that my car brakes will work based on a wide variety of evidence. That’s not faith.

You seemed to have omitted the dictionary definition of faith in your argument. One wonders why.

Faith in someone can also be faith in something. Brakes for example.

And I'm not sure what 'the suspension of evidence that does not exist' means.

You seem to be starting from the premise that faith is belief in the absence of evidence. But even a simple dictionary definition renders that problematic (not that the dictionary, influenced as it by the commoner garden philosophies of men, are my guide, but we need common ground to discuss)

But if it really matters to you: I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord .. based on a shed load of evidence.

At which point you might start not only perusing the word evidence in your dictionary, but also the words used in the definition of same. You'll doubtless find that you run out of road on the necessity for 'evidence' to be empirically demonstrable. Else nobody would have any evidence that anyone loved them.

antiskeptic · 28-09-2020 6:41pm

karlitob wrote: »

Ah, finally, the mask drops.

Nothing more dangerous than the mortal who can read into the mind of, and speak of behalf of, the divine.

'But we have the mind of Christ' 1 Cor 2:16

Even if my nether regions chose not to apply his mind to their wanderings.

Bible affirmation aside, for you likely won't place much stock in that: you seem to be saying the divine cannot chose to let us know his mind.

Which would be a divine claim indeed.

It wouldn't be that strange anyway. The basic set up is thus:

- you've been going you own way with your self directed life. You called time on that particular gig and put yourself under new management

- the new management is saying that this is the way to go.

Hard to do without some two way communication. One way would suffice, but two way is better.

karlitob · 28-09-2020 6:46pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

and men need to make sure that all men get the message that women's bodies are not their bloody playthings. .

I am certainly very sorry about what happened to you. I would not wish it on anyone.

And I agree with most of what you say - I note that you qualify your statements with ‘most’ men. However I disagree with this point you made.

It’s no more my job than anyone else’s to inform other men that women’s bodies are not playthings.

Just because I am a male does not mean that I have some sort of connection to a male rapist or a responsibility to one to ensure that they don’t do something that they might do in the future. No more than I don’t have a responsibility to tell a murderer not to murder, or a thief not to steal. Male or female.

Associating some responsibility on me on the basis of my gender is like saying that men are responsible for making sure men don’t kill themselves.

But as you say - this is a thread about evidence of god, and not personal experiences or the role of gender across a wide range of issues.

karlitob · 28-09-2020 6:49pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

'But we have the mind of Christ' 1 Cor 2:16

Even if my nether regions chose not to apply his mind to their wanderings.

Bible affirmation aside, for you likely won't place much stock in that: you seem to be saying the divine cannot chose to let us know his mind.

Which would be a divine claim indeed.

Well I’m saying there’s no such thing as good so yeah, that would be the general gist of what I’m saying for the believers on this thread.

Similarly, I presume you would be advocating men to sell their daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7) since we’re quoting a 1500-1800 year old text written by a few mad lads.

karlitob · 28-09-2020 6:50pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

'But we have the mind of Christ' 1 Cor 2:16

Even if my nether regions chose not to apply his mind to their wanderings.

Bible affirmation aside, for you likely won't place much stock in that: you seem to be saying the divine cannot chose to let us know his mind.

Which would be a divine claim indeed.

But we’ll done on avoiding the Charlie Hebdo murders by those who have faith in your god.

karlitob · 28-09-2020 6:55pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

You seemed to have omitted the dictionary definition of faith in your argument. One wonders why.

Faith in someone can also be faith in something. Brakes for example.

And I'm not sure what 'the suspension of evidence that does not exist' means.

You seem to be starting from the premise that faith is belief in the absence of evidence. But even a simple dictionary definition renders that problematic (not that the dictionary, influenced as it by the commoner garden philosophies of men, are my guide, but we need common ground to discuss)

But if it really matters to you: I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord .. based on a shed load of evidence.

At which point you might start not only perusing the word evidence in your dictionary, but also the words used in the definition of same. You'll doubtless find that you run out of road on the necessity for 'evidence' to be empirically demonstrable. Else nobody would have any evidence that anyone loved them.

Will you come off it - dictionary definition. Is that what you base your life on. A dictionary definition.

As I’ve already pointed out to you on this thread - and everyone else has. No one cares about what you believe in. We only care how it affects everyone in society - from schools to hospitals to the constitution - let alone the religious dictatorships across the world. And atheists (and I would imagine everyone) clearly have an ontological and intellectual Interest in religion.

But since you say it’s based on a shed load of evidence - and this is a thread about evidence - then provide your evidence.

Looking forward to reading a lot of ‘personal Jesus’ stuff.

nozzferrahhtoo · 28-09-2020 6:57pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

What you believe is what it is that constitutes 'evidence'.

And YET AGAIN despite many people pulling you up on it you ignore the challenge directed at you and A) Contrive to talk about evidence without presenting any and

Talk about what you think I believe rather than listen to me tell you what I believe.

However your inventions about my positions on what is and is not evidence is baseless because you have refused to offer any. As I said I am open to listening to anyone who presents any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to lend credence to their claims. We can THEN discuss whether I accept it as evidence, or not, and why.

Since you absolutely refuse to do step 1, I can not even begin step 2.

So rather than you telling me what I think evidence is or means, in your constant campaign to tell me what I think over and over again... let me tell you what I think it means. I think evidence is a process. Simple as. And the process is simple:

1) State what your claim is clearly.
2) State what you think supports the credibility of that claim clearly.
3) Equally clearly explain how the things listed in step 2 support the claim made in step 1.

Wanna try it? For the first time EVER with me? It seems a useful way to break your little contrived stalemate agenda, rather than sit around listing a string of "perhaps" about what you imagine I will or will not say about what you present or worry about how we "decide what it is".

The only stalemate you reach therefore is not the lofty one you pretend to be striving for. But a simple, simplistic, more base canard of a stalemate. Which is that you refuse to ever present evidence but hand wave around pretending to know how it will be taken if you ever did.

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is plenty in the data set to suggest God.

If you say so. But until you get around to pointing it out, rather than vaguely and ineffectually claim it is there without telling anyone where, I simply to not believe your claim it actually is. You do nothing but remind me of that one kid every school yard seems to have who claims over and over again he has a girlfriend.... but somehow always manages to find a way to ensure no one ever meets her. But he SWEARS she exists.

antiskeptic wrote: »

So, cutting to the chase: it tends to be when those answers aren't sufficient: a person cannot suppress a sense that their life must have more meaning

This sounds like nothing more than saying that people who do not like or accept the reality the world presents them with, they simply make stuff up to fill in the gaps. On that we would have little argument. I already know this about people.

However the sense that life "must" have more meaning is just that.... a sense or a feeling. Feeling that that is true does not in any way suggest it IS true.

Further there are perfectly good evolutionary reasons for feeling that way. We are narrative driven animals. So much so that Terry Pratchett suggested calling us the "Wise Ape" (homo sapien) was a bad choice. We should have been called "Pans Narrans" which means the Story Telling Chimpanze.

Hyper active agency detection, pattern seeking brains, and narrative driven minds are enough for us to derive things like "meaning" and "purpose" within our own lives. It is a natural enough sense for this to misfire and project outwards and..... driven by a narrative of meaning in our own lives simply to be unable to "suppress a sense" that everything else must have one too.

antiskeptic wrote: »

We are made to be children. To have someone to run to who looks after the big picture. We need a dad (and a mam).

Speak for yourself. Many of us out grow that requirement somewhere between age 16 and 24. Imagining a sky daddy to fulfil some internal need to remain always a child is a position I have no need for. Certainly not enough need that it drives me to subscribe to entirely unsubstantiated notions about the universe in order to satiate it.

But Christopher Hitchens for one did speak a lot about needing a god as fulfilling a need to always be a child with a parent to run to, or always be a serf with a master. I have no such need myself.

I also do not share your need to have "answers" all the time. If some answers "don't work" for me as you put it then I abandon them. I do not need to instantly replace them with unsubstantiated nonsense just so I have SOME answers. I can wait until new answers with actual credibility arrive. A period of not knowing for me, to simply say "I do not know" is not something that gives me the terrors it seems to give others I have met.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I just think you project the information you have onto others.

And like pretty much EVERY other time you move to tell me what I think, or feel, or believe.... you are wrong again. The only ting I want/need is to increase the data set available to me. I have no need to project anything onto others. I challenge people who make what seem to me unsubstantiated claims for argument, evidence data and reasoning because the ones (not you, clearly) who do get around to offering some enrich MY dataset. And selfish as that might be, it is all that drives me.

Some day you might enrich my set. So far however you have done nothing but practice the art of saying absolutely nothing, but saying it with the maximum possible number of words. Which is, I suppose, in itself a moderately impressive art form if nothing else.

karlitob · 28-09-2020 6:58pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

And I'm not sure what 'the suspension of evidence that does not exist' means

You know - dead people coming back to life. She’s load of resurrections in the bible.

antiskeptic · 28-09-2020 7:02pm

karlitob wrote: »

I am certainly very sorry about what happened to you. I would not wish it on anyone.

And I agree with most of what you say - I note that you qualify your statements with ‘most’ men. However I disagree with this point you made.

It’s no more my job than anyone else’s to inform other men that women’s bodies are not playthings.

Just because I am a male does not mean that I have some sort of connection to a male rapist or a responsibility to one to ensure that they don’t do something that they might do in the future. No more than I don’t have a responsibility to tell a murderer not to murder, or a thief not to steal. Male or female.

Associating some responsibility on me on the basis of my gender is like saying that men are responsible for making sure men don’t kill themselves.

But as you say - this is a thread about evidence of god, and not personal experiences or the role of gender across a wide range of issues.

I would disagree with your statement inferring that men are no more connected to rapists than are anyone else (women being the alternative, in my view).

Men have a testosterone level that women don't have. Men have a conquer with violence characteristic that women don't have (that said: I'd frequently prefer a punch in the face to the kind of caught-in-a-briar experience that is engaging with a woman who feels you've scorned her). Men have an ability to rape that women don't have. Men are more peculiarly attracted to women, such as to employ the aforementioned attributes, than are women.

Men are more a threat to women wrt rape, by significant degree, than are women.

Fact.

By all means distance yourself as a person. But not as a man.

antiskeptic · 28-09-2020 7:06pm

karlitob wrote: »

You know - dead people coming back to life. She’s load of resurrections in the bible.

I don't see the particular problem with people raised from the dead. All it takes is God.

You might not believe the evidence. But that's as much a belief issue as an evidence one.

antiskeptic · 28-09-2020 7:14pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And YET AGAIN despite many people pulling you up on it you ignore the challenge directed at you and A) Contrive to talk about evidence without presenting any and Talk about what you think I believe rather than listen to me tell you what I believe.

However your inventions about my positions on what is and is not evidence is baseless because you have refused to offer any. As I said I am open to listening to anyone who presents any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to lend credence to their claims. We can THEN discuss whether I accept it as evidence, or not, and why.

Since you absolutely refuse to do step 1, I can not even begin step 2.

But my position is that you can't see the evidence. Indeed, if you could we wouldn't be having this conversation. We might be arguing the toss between Arminianism and Calvinism. But not on the existence if God.

How do you propose we resolve this?

I don't mean arguing about the veracity of the gospels and the like. I mean evidence that I have that you are, until such time as you (hopefully) see are blind to.

The tribesmen continues along with his sky God such time as he can see (have a boatful of aeronautical engineers arrive on shore with their easy-learn experiments). Failing such arrival, doesn't the tribesmen continue in his view?

A category of evidence outside anything that you currently have access to. I know the usual arguments (Royal We, multiple religions etc). That's all arguing along lines which you and everyone else has access to.

I'm talking about a line you have no access to. You blind, me see.

How do we approach that possibility? Your blindness? It is not addressed by calling it a challenge that pink unicorns could mount.

Which is why stalemate is the only option and you are left relying on comparisons with pink unicorns to break it. Works only with those of like mind as you - it has no actual purchase in argumentation terms.

karlitob · 28-09-2020 7:25pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would disagree with your statement inferring that men are no more connected to rapists than are anyone else (women being the alternative, in my view).

Men have a testosterone level that women don't have. Men have a conquer with violence characteristic that women don't have (that said: I'd frequently prefer a punch in the face to the kind of caught-in-a-briar experience that is engaging with a woman who feels you've scorned her). Men have an ability to rape that women don't have. Men are more peculiarly attracted to women, such as to employ the aforementioned attributes, than are women.

Men are more a threat to women wrt rape, by significant degree, than are women.

Fact.

By all means distance yourself as a person. But not as a man.

Don’t you dare personalise this. Or impugn my manhood.

I have no more connection to a male rapist than a female one. I have no more connection to a male murderer than a female one. I have no more connection to a male jihadist than a female one. I have no more connection to men who believe in gods or pink unicorns than a female one.

Whether or not men have more testosterone than a women does (most men and most females that is), and whether or not all the above that you have stated is true - which in my view it is - does not mean I have a personal responsibility to stop Male rapists from raping just by the nature of my gender. That is sexist.

Sure next you’ll be saying that (insert identity in here) people need to ensure that there’s no (insert terrible social crime in here) committed by (reinsert identity in here) people.

Why don’t all the Muslims who don’t commit acts of terror stop all the Muslims that do? Or Irish people if you lived through the troubles. Or travellers.

All rapists have mothers - why are they not more responsible for their son, rather than me for a man I don’t know, for a crime he has yet to commit?

karlitob · 28-09-2020 7:27pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

But my position is that you can't see the evidence. Indeed, if you could we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Haha / to be fair, it’s fascinating logic.

‘There’s loads of evidence your honour. But the jury ‘can’t see’ it. QED - he’s guilty. Easy-peasy, lemon squeezy’

Bannasidhe · 28-09-2020 7:47pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

and men need to make sure that all men get the message that women's bodies are not their bloody playthings.

karlitob wrote: »

And I agree with most of what you say - I note that you qualify your statements with ‘most’ men. However I disagree with this point you made.

It’s no more my job than anyone else’s to inform other men that women’s bodies are not playthings.

Just because I am a male does not mean that I have some sort of connection to a male rapist or a responsibility to one to ensure that they don’t do something that they might do in the future. No more than I don’t have a responsibility to tell a murderer not to murder, or a thief not to steal. Male or female.
.

karlitob wrote: »

I have no more connection to a male rapist than a female one. I have no more connection to a male murderer than a female one. I have no more connection to a male jihadist than a female one. I have no more connection to men who believe in gods or pink unicorns than a female one.

Whether or not men have more testosterone than a women does (most men and most females that is), and whether or not all the above that you have stated is true - which in my view it is - does not mean I have a personal responsibility to stop Male rapists from raping just by the nature of my gender. That is sexist.

Sure next you’ll be saying that (insert identity in here) people need to ensure that there’s no (insert terrible social crime in here) committed by (reinsert identity in here) people.

Why don’t all the Muslims who don’t commit acts of terror stop all the Muslims that do? Or Irish people if you lived through the troubles. Or travellers.

All rapists have mothers - why are they not more responsible for their son, rather than me for a man I don’t know, for a crime he has yet to commit?

Hold your gallop there.

I said men need to to make sure that all men get the message that women's bodies are not their bloody playthings.

And now it's become the fault of rapist's mothers :rolleyes:

I did not say that all men are rapists. I said that men have a duty to challenge other men who view women's bodies as playthings . In exactly the same way as white people have a duty to challenge white supremacists. And yes, Muslims have a duty to challenge Radicals Islam, and Christians have a duty to challenge Radical Christianity. And feminists have a duty to challenge TERFs and straight people have a duty to challenge homophobes.

Because the problem is within a demographic of whom you are a member so your word carries more weight.

Rather than take that on board you decided your very manhood is being challenged. Seriously?

Saying that men need to challenge the narrative that some men have which portrays women as being nothing but sexual objects is a threat to anyone's manhood is a notion I have to say I find ridiculous.
So is it only women who should challenge this narrative then? Is it perfectly ok for non-rapists to shrug their shoulders and say it has nothing to do with me?

The idea that it's men who rape but rape is only a woman's issue is part of the problem.

(and yes, I do know women can and do commit sexual assaults and I believe women need to acknowledge that and challenge any narrative that would portray male victims of sexual assault as 'not a real man' because it's B.S.)

robindch · 28-09-2020 8:16pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Men have a testosterone level that women don't have. Men have a conquer with violence characteristic that women don't have (that said: I'd frequently prefer a punch in the face to the kind of caught-in-a-briar experience that is engaging with a woman who feels you've scorned her). Men have an ability to rape that women don't have. Men are more peculiarly attracted to women, such as to employ the aforementioned attributes, than are women.

As with your comment some years ago that you would murder somebody in cold blood if you believed that your chosen deity had told you to do so, your post here - lacking supporting evidence of any kind or the most cursory familiarity with the world you live in - is equally memorable.

Tell me - have you ever spoken with a woman, or even met one?

jaxxx · 28-09-2020 8:19pm

robindch wrote: »

As with your comment some years ago that you would murder somebody in cold blood if you believed that your chosen deity had told you to do so, your post here - lacking supporting evidence of any kind or the most cursory familiarity with the world you live in - is equally memorable.

Tell me - have you ever spoken with a woman, or even met one?

My deity, who's a gigantic Potato Dragon called Sprinkles McTickles, told me that there is a very high likelihood that they've never even been outside of their own basement before.. .. ..

I mentioned my deity so this is still on topic! .. .. I think.

antiskeptic · 28-09-2020 10:16pm

robindch wrote: »

As with your comment some years ago that you would murder somebody in cold blood if you believed that your chosen deity had told you to do so, your post here - lacking supporting evidence of any kind or the most cursory familiarity with the world you live in - is equally memorable.

Tell me - have you ever spoken with a woman, or even met one?

In writing terms, you ought to have fainted for lack of oxygen long before you got to the end of that .. er .. sentence.

antiskeptic · 28-09-2020 10:21pm

karlitob wrote: »

Haha / to be fair, it’s fascinating logic.

‘There’s loads of evidence your honour. But the jury ‘can’t see’ it. QED - he’s guilty. Easy-peasy, lemon squeezy’

Er... pass...

karlitob · 28-09-2020 10:22pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Hold your gallop there.

I said men need to to make sure that all men get the message that women's bodies are not their bloody playthings.

And now it's become the fault of rapist's mothers :rolleyes:

I did not say that all men are rapists. I said that men have a duty to challenge other men who view women's bodies as playthings . In exactly the same way as white people have a duty to challenge white supremacists. And yes, Muslims have a duty to challenge Radicals Islam, and Christians have a duty to challenge Radical Christianity. And feminists have a duty to challenge TERFs and straight people have a duty to challenge homophobes.

Because the problem is within a demographic of whom you are a member so your word carries more weight.

Rather than take that on board you decided your very manhood is being challenged. Seriously?

Saying that men need to challenge the narrative that some men have which portrays women as being nothing but sexual objects is a threat to anyone's manhood is a notion I have to say I find ridiculous.
So is it only women who should challenge this narrative then? Is it perfectly ok for non-rapists to shrug their shoulders and say it has nothing to do with me?

The idea that it's men who rape but rape is only a woman's issue is part of the problem.

(and yes, I do know women can and do commit sexual assaults and I believe women need to acknowledge that and challenge any narrative that would portray male victims of sexual assault as 'not a real man' because it's B.S.)

You can take my quotes out of context any way that you wish. My point is the same and it won’t change just because of your point of view or your need to label people into identities to help you to process the world.

I already know not to rape women or not to kill people based on their religion. I’m happy to repeat what I said in my above comments - it is no more my responsibility to prevent men from committing any crime before they have committed it, nor more than its your responsibility to prevent women from committing crimes that any women commits, purely on the basis of your gender.

It is only your opinion that men who go into rape a woman would be prevented from doing so because a man said something before they did it, purely on the basis of happening to the same gender. So when a woman tells a man who might be a rapist, don’t be one - that falls on deaf ears. But when a man says it - well they’ll listen to that and won’t be a rapist.

So yeah - I’ll repeat - I have no responsibility to prevent men from committing a crime that they have yet to commit purely on the basis that we share the same birth.

And not only have you told me what I should be doing or saying (Woman-splaining) when I disagree you tell me I’m wrong, insult me and misappropriate my comments. Some way to get men on board.

You know perfectly well that my point was that since all rapists have mothers and fathers, then they clearly have far more responsibility as parents to their child that I to someone I don’t even know and never have met for a crime they have yet to commit. If you think that the cause of rape is men who thing women are only sexy objects, then it’s not me who taught them that - where is the parenting?

It is simply outrageous of you to think that there is a responsibility on the near 2bn Muslims in the world to challenge the fundamentalist approach of terrorists who use religion to suit their murderous needs. I presume you have the same opinion that the negative aspects of racial and ethnic communities need to be sorted by those within those communities - purely on the basis they are part of that community. Two thirds of knife offenders under 25 in London were black or minority ethnic; the same rate for knife crime victims - what colour person should be leading the charge to prevent his using your identity politics approach.

And take care with your comments - I know you didn’t mean to infer that I believe that rape is only a women’s issue, but that is the end result. Since I agree with you that women also rape - I can’t therefore, come to a position that it’s only a women’s problem. Nor have I written that anywhere.

How do you engage with your female peers about them not raping men?

antiskeptic · 28-09-2020 10:30pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Because the problem is within a demographic of whom you are a member so your word carries more weight.

Well it's problem in across demographics. Men who are incited to consider women as meat are incited by both men and women to consider women so.

But men certainly have to challenge what I would consider to be a majority part.

Sorolla · 28-09-2020 10:33pm

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

How do you in history?

And how do you do it now?

With all the evidence etc.

It has to be shnowflakes - no two are identical - that proves to be that there must be a Devine power

Another proof is the miracles carries out by the Saints

karlitob · 28-09-2020 10:43pm

Sorolla wrote: »

It has to be shnowflakes - no two are identical - that proves to be that there must be a Devine power

Another proof is the miracles carries out by the Saints

Are you messing?

karlitob · 28-09-2020 10:45pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Men who are incited to consider women as meat are incited by both men and women to consider women so.

Not sure what your mean by ‘incite’. To be clear, no one can ‘incite’ another person to consider anyone to do anything, let alone rape. ‘S/he made me do it’ is not a defence.

pauldla · 29-09-2020 1:54am

karlitob wrote: »

Are you messing?

It's as good an explanation as any other we have seen here, and is mercifully short, too.

antiskeptic · 29-09-2020 5:38am

karlitob wrote: »

Not sure what your mean by ‘incite’. To be clear, no one can ‘incite’ another person to consider anyone to do anything, let alone rape. ‘S/he made me do it’ is not a defence.

Incite: encourage, persuade esp in an unlawful direction. Given men and women encourage men and women to consider women as meat. And their considering women so is a component of rape, I'd say incite is a pretty good fit.

Take Wesley on disco night. Young girls tottering along doing their best to look like walking t*ts and ass. And groups of scrawny boys in their best trainers with eyes out on stalks. Add some booze and access to harcore porn a click away.

Satan isn't a rocket scientist. "Give me the boy until age post pubescent and I'll show you the man". Since its men who largely driven all this..

nozzferrahhtoo · 29-09-2020 7:26am

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see the particular problem with people raised from the dead. All it takes is God.

You might not believe the evidence. But that's as much a belief issue as an evidence one.

I would have to see the evidence first, but you have not offered any yet. Is there any evidence available that a story book about a dead man suddenly not being dead any more is actually a real historic event that actually happened?

antiskeptic wrote: »

But my position is that you can't see the evidence.

Which is the only position you can hold having not actually offered any to see. Reference my previous analogy about accusing someone of refusing peas at dinner when you offered them only an empty bowl. Claiming they magically can not see the peas in the bowl just makes YOU look worse, more dishonest, and more desperate. Not them.

Until you actually offer some evidence your claims that I am blind to it, will not see it, can not see it, will not accept it.... are all just white noise to project YOUR failings on to me. Nothing more. Nothing less.

karlitob · 29-09-2020 7:54am

pauldla wrote: »

It's as good an explanation as any other we have seen here, and is mercifully short, too.

No the fact that snowflakes - or fingerprints - are identical does not prove the existence of god.

Just because you say miracles occur does not mean that they do occur, nor does it prove the existence of god.

So no - it’s not as good an explanation as any.

antiskeptic · 29-09-2020 8:25am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I would have to see the evidence first, but you have not offered any yet. Is there any evidence available that a story book about a dead man suddenly not being dead any more is actually a real historic event that actually happened?

Which is the only position you can hold having not actually offered any to see. Reference my previous analogy about accusing someone of refusing peas at dinner when you offered them only an empty bowl. Claiming they magically can not see the peas in the bowl just makes YOU look worse, more dishonest, and more desperate. Not them.

Until you actually offer some evidence your claims that I am blind to it, will not see it, can not see it, will not accept it.... are all just white noise to project YOUR failings on to me. Nothing more. Nothing less.

But couldn't a blind man be expected to say that? His protestations, though understandable, arises from his blindness.

nozzferrahhtoo · 29-09-2020 8:47am

Blindness is simply not the handicap you think it is. There are many things blind people can not see, but you can still evidence their existence to them. An entirely blind person might not be able to see light/color for example, but I can still evidence it's existence in many ways. They would still be left in a position of not being able to see what I can see.... but they can be still convinced the thing they are blind to actually exists.

You can not even get THAT far.

Am I saying that it is impossible that there is evidence I am blind to exists? No, of course not. But that someone who has consistently refused to present ANY evidence and is known to frequently dodge conversation for their position.... conveniently claims that the evidence is there but it can't be seen is monumentally suspect. At best. I simply do not buy it and feel it to be a canard.

Bannasidhe · 29-09-2020 10:37am

karlitob wrote: »

You can take my quotes out of context any way that you wish. My point is the same and it won’t change just because of your point of view or your need to label people into identities to help you to process the world.

I already know not to rape women or not to kill people based on their religion. I’m happy to repeat what I said in my above comments - it is no more my responsibility to prevent men from committing any crime before they have committed it, nor more than its your responsibility to prevent women from committing crimes that any women commits, purely on the basis of your gender.

It is only your opinion that men who go into rape a woman would be prevented from doing so because a man said something before they did it, purely on the basis of happening to the same gender. So when a woman tells a man who might be a rapist, don’t be one - that falls on deaf ears. But when a man says it - well they’ll listen to that and won’t be a rapist.

So yeah - I’ll repeat - I have no responsibility to prevent men from committing a crime that they have yet to commit purely on the basis that we share the same birth.

And not only have you told me what I should be doing or saying (Woman-splaining) when I disagree you tell me I’m wrong, insult me and misappropriate my comments. Some way to get men on board.

You know perfectly well that my point was that since all rapists have mothers and fathers, then they clearly have far more responsibility as parents to their child that I to someone I don’t even know and never have met for a crime they have yet to commit. If you think that the cause of rape is men who thing women are only sexy objects, then it’s not me who taught them that - where is the parenting?

It is simply outrageous of you to think that there is a responsibility on the near 2bn Muslims in the world to challenge the fundamentalist approach of terrorists who use religion to suit their murderous needs. I presume you have the same opinion that the negative aspects of racial and ethnic communities need to be sorted by those within those communities - purely on the basis they are part of that community. Two thirds of knife offenders under 25 in London were black or minority ethnic; the same rate for knife crime victims - what colour person should be leading the charge to prevent his using your identity politics approach.

And take care with your comments - I know you didn’t mean to infer that I believe that rape is only a women’s issue, but that is the end result. Since I agree with you that women also rape - I can’t therefore, come to a position that it’s only a women’s problem. Nor have I written that anywhere.

How do you engage with your female peers about them not raping men?

I take it from all that that your position is that while other people who may share a demographic with you (e.g.- groups for illustrative purposes only and I have no idea if you fit into any of these, apart from male as you told us -male/European/ablebodied/ethnic background ) etc etc) may do a 'thing', if you do not do that 'thing' it essentially has nothing to do with you and there is no reason whatsoever for you to challenge the people who do the 'thing' as you have no responsibility for their engagement with the 'thing'.

Yet here you are - challenging people who believe there is a God even when you do not.
And taking general comments very personally.

karlitob · 29-09-2020 10:59am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I take it from all that that your position is that while other people who may share a demographic with you (e.g.- groups for illustrative purposes only and I have no idea if you fit into any of these, apart from male as you told us -male/European/ablebodied/ethnic background ) etc etc) may do a 'thing', if you do not do that 'thing' it essentially has nothing to do with you and there is no reason whatsoever for you to challenge the people who do the 'thing' as you have no responsibility for their engagement with the 'thing'.

Yes. You got there in the end.

I’ve given you plenty of examples above. I don’t believe that women have a responsibility to prevent other women from committing infanticide - a crime overwhelmingly committed by women (notwithstanding murder-suicides of whole families by men) purely on the basis of their gender.

You can buy into identity politics, and simplify problems based on constructs that you deem important - I don’t.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yet here you are - challenging people who believe there is a God even when you do not.

Ah, you were doing so well. I’m challenging people who believe in a god to provide evidence of their belief. And none it of course has got anything to do with my gender or theirs. I’m not sure what your point is.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And taking general comments very personally.

I’m taking personal comments personally. And general comments generally.

Bannasidhe · 29-09-2020 11:36am

karlitob wrote: »

Yes. You got there in the end.

I’ve given you plenty of examples above. I don’t believe that women do not have a responsibility to prevent other women from committing infanticide - a crime overwhelmingly committed by women (notwithstanding murder-suicides of whole families by men) purely on the basis of their gender.

You can buy into identity politics, and simplify problems based on constructs that you deem important - I don’t.

Ah, you were doing so well. I’m challenging people who believe in a god to provide evidence of their belief. And none it of course got to do with my gender or theirs. I’m not sure what your point is.

I’m taking personal comments personally. And general comments generally.

Ah - it's the gender thing that got your knickerunderpants in a twist.
How dare I say men need need to challenge a demeaning view of women held by other men and now lets talk about women. And whitter on about 'identity politics'.
Gotcha.

Tell me, is it just when it's gender based you believe in saying nothing? I listed quite a few things but you don't seem to want to refer to like religious extremism being challenged by co-religionists. Or racism...

Still doesn't explain why you feel the need to challenge a religious view you do not share. You are not religious - nothing to do with you if other people are.

And no - it's not actually about YOU. I made a general comment where I referenced 'men', antiskeptic made a general comment where he/she referenced 'men'. You decided to take those general comments personally.

karlitob · 29-09-2020 12:04pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ah - it's the gender thing that got your knickerunderpants in a twist. .

See - there’s the personal comments directed at me. Imagine a man telling a woman not to get her knickers in a twist.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How dare I say men need need to challenge a demeaning view of women held by other men and now lets talk about women. And whitter on about 'identity politics'.
Gotcha.

Reread my posts. You can say what you want - it doesn’t mean you’re right or that I have to agree with you. You made statements that persons of a certain demographic have a responsibility to prevent crimes of people who share that demographic solely on the basis of being from the demographic. I don’t want to be siloed by you or anyone. I disagree with this perspective. This is identity politics. It’s not that hard to understand.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Tell me, is it just when it's gender based you believe in saying nothing? I listed quite a few things but you don't seem to want to refer to like religious extremism being challenged by co-religionists. Or racism...

Firstly, I never said that I wouldn’t say anything to anyone who says something inappropriate in my company - Male or female, black or white, gay or straight or whatever demographic you wish to label people as. You don’t know me and you don’t know who my friends are or how I interact with people or what standards I uphold.
Please reread my posts - I disagree point that I - purely on the basis of my gender - have a responsibility to other people in my gender to prevent a crime from occurring. But feel free to keep misrepresenting my posts. I presume there’s more than one mod to complain to if this happens again.

I did refer to your points on religion, race etc. I have the same response as in all my other points. I’ll try again....NO, I don’t think that any member of any demographic has a responsibility to other members of that demographic to prevent a future crime yet to be committed purely on that basis of being from that demographic.

You of course have yet to respond to my questions back on where you feel - in your world of identity politics - where the responsibility lies for BAME people in London with respect to knife crime - BAME are the highest perpetrators and highest victims. Are you saying this is a BAME problem and BAME has to fix it.

I’ve asked you what responsibility the parents - both mother and father - has to the upbringing of rapists and why the mother has less responsibility to her son that she made and reared (in all likelihood) than I, who has never met this man. How can I prevent a rapist from rapist when I don’t know who will be a rapist?

I’ve asked you what responsibility women have to other women who commit infanticide.

I can presume your answer but I won’t.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Still doesn't explain why you feel the need to challenge a religious view you do not share. You are not religious - nothing to do with you if other people are.

I’m quite surprised that a moderator on this thread is asking that question. It’s the same response that was given to our religious friends on this post - and the same that Christopher Hitchens also gave when he was asked the same question. I’ll repeat it but again I’ll note to mods that I’ve been asked the same question again.

I’m challenging the evidence that people have which informs their decision to believe in god.

I have a right to do so. Especially when it effects me and my fellow citizens in society and around the world.

Why are you not questioning the integrity of other atheists on this thread and only me.

Religion and it’s study is an ontological and intellectual pursuit that I find interesting, allowed to study, and happy to debate with anyone who wishes to do so. I don’t need your approval. Is this toxic femininity, I wonder?

And finally, and most importantly, and again I repeat - I don’t debate the existence of god in this thread - or in any other sphere - on the basis of gender. Your reference to this point in our discussion within a discussion makes no sense.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And no - it's not actually about YOU. I made a general comment where I referenced 'men', antiskeptic made a general comment where he/she referenced 'men'. You decided to take those general comments personally.

I never said it was about me. YOU said it was about me when you brought ‘men’ into it. It seems you want me to part of a demographic when it suits you and assign a responsibility to me on some sort of moral high ground and then when a person from that demographic disagrees with it you get tetchy and climb even higher on your high horse.

And again, it’s for the mods to note - I highlighted your personal comments made to me in the last post. And I await your respond to my retort on what would happen - on this site as well as in real life - if a man told a woman not to get her knickers in a twist.

It is an unusual approach that you take to offend a man by using an offence normally directed to a woman but made gender specific by referencing underpants. I’m not sure if it’s more offensive to women or to men. Next you’ll be telling me to ‘man-up’.

I would suggest that this discussion ceases now as it clearly doesn’t relate to the topic.

smacl · 29-09-2020 3:01pm

karlitob wrote: »

You made statements that persons of a certain demographic have a responsibility to prevent crimes of people who share that demographic solely on the basis of being from the demographic.

karlitob wrote: »

I’m quite surprised that a moderator on this thread is asking that question.

Seems like one the one hand you're complaining about blaming a group for the actions of an individual member of that group and then doing exactly the same thing yourself.

karlitob wrote: »

You of course have yet to respond to my questions back on where you feel - in your world of identity politics - where the responsibility lies for BAME people in London with respect to knife crime - BAME are the highest perpetrators and highest victims. Are you saying this is a BAME problem and BAME has to fix it.

I suspect you've got some rather divisive correlation going on there. Many types of violent crime tend to be higher in socially disadvantaged groups within our society and certain ethnicities are over represented in such groups. This issue isn't one of ethnicity so much as social disadvantage where it is our collective responsibility as a society to eliminate such disadvantage. Where the problem does squarely lie with a given group, e.g. FGM as part of a cultural tradition, then yes, pressure needs to be applied to that group to fix it.

Sorolla · 29-09-2020 4:23pm

The thing about the snowflakes is that since the beginning of time they have been trillions upon trillions of snowflakes and not one of them resembles another in any way.

That is the truest proof to me that there has to be a higher Devine being.

Anytime I am questioning my faith I like to stand out in the back field and hold a spoon up in the air and catch a few snowflakes and once I see that no two are the same my faith is restored

I cannot understand why more people don’t do this

smacl · 29-09-2020 4:36pm

Sorolla wrote: »

The thing about the snowflakes is that since the beginning of time they have been trillions upon trillions of snowflakes and not one of them resembles another in any way.

That is the truest proof to me that there has to be a higher Devine being.

Anytime I am questioning my faith I like to stand out in the back field and hold a spoon up in the air and catch a few snowflakes and once I see that no two are the same my faith is restored

I cannot understand why more people don’t do this

Not so, many are very similar, though not identical. Why would they be the exact same though? The conditions under which every snowflake is created are also different hence one would expect a correspondingly different result. I make pancakes for the family every Sunday for breakfast and no two are exactly the same. Would you also consider this a result of a divine hand at play? There are very few example of things being identical in the physical world when you consider it.

antiskeptic · 29-09-2020 6:02pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Blindness is simply not the handicap you think it is

It is an analogy. Someone can be blind to damaging behaviour they engage in as adults being sourced in subtleties of their upbringing. Sure, a counsellor might help them see after a fashion but the focus,.whilst they are still blind is on their being blind.

If you blind and the only way to see is to be led to some sight then lacking such leading (such as the intervention you list) blind you remain

You presume there is some intervention that I ought be able to.make. That there is not need not be a problem of mine. It can be yours

You can not even get THAT far.

Or you can't get that far.

Am I saying that it is impossible that there is evidence I am blind to exists? No, of course not. But that someone who has consistently refused to present ANY evidence and is known to frequently dodge conversation for their position.... conveniently claims that the evidence is there but it can't be seen is monumentally suspect. At best. I simply do not buy it and feel it to be a canard.

I have long said that God is the only one who can evidence himself to you. Drumbeat message of mine

What I have also long since said is that your presumptions, aimed at evading stalemate don't and cannot achieve that goal

It is not impossible you are blind. Not only that, there is no way.for you to even begin to establish probabilities as to where the problem lies: you blind / me deluded. Its utterly 50/50

The logical option is agnosticism .. you just don't come across as an agnostic. No, you take the stance of someone who somehow holds the higher ground. But without the means to do so - other than convincing yourself of that being the case.

But on an argumentation level you've a busted flush. Not that that matters much - you are the one to live with your decisions and if your happy to assume the higher ground without being able to show your work then let that be so.

wench · 29-09-2020 6:10pm

Sorolla wrote: »

The thing about the snowflakes is that since the beginning of time they have been trillions upon trillions of snowflakes and not one of them resembles another in any way.

That is the truest proof to me that there has to be a higher Devine being.

Anytime I am questioning my faith I like to stand out in the back field and hold a spoon up in the air and catch a few snowflakes and once I see that no two are the same my faith is restored

I cannot understand why more people don’t do this

So does this divine being, with nothing better to do with their day, sit there making snowflakes, while checking in their big book of snowflakes to make sure they haven't used that design already?

antiskeptic · 29-09-2020 6:26pm

@ nozz

Huge swathes of humanity are theist.

Whilst the atheists (here at any rate) tend to focus on the diverging and indeed contradictory gods, the sense is that they do so to divide and conquer. "Even if I wanted to be a theistx which God or version of each God would I / could I chose.

What they don't seem to want to focus on, in very.much woods for trees fashion, is what function the gods serve. Unless that function serves the atheist end: which is to reject anything that would threaten the self directed life.

'God' deals with the ultimate questions on destination.. But they also deal with how we ought to live. Life goals (often centred around family life and the establishment and protection of same) is one such..morality, both personal and wrt to others is another. Our place in the world - not Kings ourselves is another.

Most people recognise that to self determine such things is a fools errand. Every.man his own King. What an utter folly. Rely on Mindless Evolution to keep us on the right path? Evolution might have produced society and empathy and fit-morality. But everyman who is King has transcended that which brought him to this place. He can do precisely as he likes.

The vast majority (since the Royal We is so beloved here) of the world think that to be utter hogwash.

-
One wonders why an atheist objects so strenuously to Religion anyway. We have evolved to be theists in the main. Arguing against is arguing against the onward March of Evolution. Just a gene mutation that ended up in some being theists and others atheists, I suppose. Much ado..

karlitob · 29-09-2020 8:23pm

smacl wrote: »

Seems like one the one hand you're complaining about blaming a group for the actions of an individual member of that group and then doing exactly the same thing yourself.

Nice try but that’s a fairly weak point.

smacl wrote: »

I suspect you've got some rather divisive correlation going on there. Many types of violent crime tend to be higher in socially disadvantaged groups within our society and certain ethnicities are over represented in such groups. This issue isn't one of ethnicity so much as social disadvantage where it is our collective responsibility as a society to eliminate such disadvantage. Where the problem does squarely lie with a given group, e.g. FGM as part of a cultural tradition, then yes, pressure needs to be applied to that group to fix it.

You can suspect all you want - it’s data from the Met and the CPS. I suspect that you’re using a nasty insinuation to undermine me rather than address my point.

I fully agree with you that the problem - and solution - is multifaceted and requires a collective responsibility as a society. That’s exactly my point.

Where we divert is that you - like your mod colleague - seem to be the one who decides what societal problem is ‘squarely’ within a given group as what isn’t.

So by your reasoning - and that of you mod colleague - I have no responsibility to address the scourge of sulky racing on national roads as I’m not part of a particular ‘given group‘ but I have responsibility to the same men - the exact same men - to call them on on crimes that they have yet to commit as somehow my voice will be listened to by those men from that separate ethnic community and culture. Or is sulky racing an ‘issue of social disadvantage’ rather than ethnicity. You’re having a laugh.

You reference a ‘cultural tradition’ of FGM - what cultural tradition and given group are you speaking about? When women in these ‘cultures’ give their daughters too these Male and female cutters, it’s an everyone problem.

No mention of the male genital mutilation of course. Or response to my point on what responsibility mothers and fathers have to rapists, when compared to ‘men’. Maybe try tackling the ball rather than the man.

Why in the name of pink unicorns would a mass going old biddy in lahinch have any responsibility to prevent fundamentalist Christians cause harm to someone purely on the basis that they both believe in the same god. As ridiculous as that meant to sound, it’s the same as saying - as your mod colleague said - that ‘Muslims’ have a responsibility to stop Islamic fundamentalism. Sure why bother taking on isis militarily - should’ve just sent in a few non- fundamentalist Muslims to tell them to cop on to themselves. If only the Muslims in Manchester told the Manchester bomber to not bomb anyone.

karlitob · 29-09-2020 8:29pm

smacl wrote: »

Seems like one the one hand you're complaining about blaming a group for the actions of an individual member of that group and then doing exactly the same thing yourself.

Who guards the guards, eh?

Stop taking my quotes out of context. You know perfectly well that the first quote was in response to your mod colleague where I said that I have no responsibility to prevent future crimes of a person purely on the basis of my gender.

The second quote was in response to the rather ridiculous question of why I am on this thread, ‘challenging those who believe in god’ or something silly like that. I responded as you quoted above. It is clear that your mod colleague is not a believer in god, moderates a thread of both believers and atheists and does so without gender being an issue for anyone. So that’s why I said what I said in that quote.

You know full well that both points were separate and responded to separately.

Maybe the Jesus heads in here are right - it is a nasty place when you don’t agree with the leftist ideologies.

karlitob · 29-09-2020 8:35pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

'God' deals with the ultimate questions on destination.. But they also deal with how we ought to live. Life goals (often centred around family life and the establishment and protection of same) is one such..morality, both personal and wrt to others is another. Our place in the world - not Kings ourselves is another.

Who said the ultimate question is where do we go when we die? We just die - Newton’s first law covers that off nicely. Surely the ultimate question is how to live?

God doesn’t deal with the ultimate question - a book a few lads wrote who wrote a book a 1500+ ago already told you that there’s a magical place in the sky that everyone goes to after judgment day. There’s that myth and 1000s of others. That doesn’t mean that there is a god, only that it is of interest to the human race.

Your god is not the source of morality. Morality does not prove the existence of a deity. I already know not to kill someone - or rape someone. I don’t need Odin for that.

karlitob · 29-09-2020 8:45pm

Sorolla wrote: »

The thing about the snowflakes is that since the beginning of time they have been trillions upon trillions of snowflakes and not one of them resembles another in any way.

That is the truest proof to me that there has to be a higher Devine being.

Anytime I am questioning my faith I like to stand out in the back field and hold a spoon up in the air and catch a few snowflakes and once I see that no two are the same my faith is restored

I cannot understand why more people don’t do this

Nice. I presume this is low level trolling. Because if it’s not - then presuming you live in ireland -
I) your lapses in faith occur in or around when snow falls in ireland,
ii) (and I’m not certain of this point) but the identicality of snowflakes is seen under a microscope so while you might know they’re not identical you can’t see that they’re not identical, meaning you can just imagine snowflakes or google a picture of snowflakes to get you through your faith hump,
iii) who in the name of (insert mythical creature / being here) would base their life on the presence of snowflakes. What would you have based your life on before someone looked down a telescope and found out they weren’t identical?
IV) your reference of snowflakes seems like a nice - if simple - double entendre

Bannasidhe · 29-09-2020 9:05pm

karlitob wrote: »

Stop taking my quotes out of context. You know perfectly well that the first quote was in response to your mod colleague where I said that I have no responsibility to prevent future crimes of a person purely on the basis of my gender.

.

Speaking of taking quotes out of context

I said:

Bannasidhe wrote: »

and men need to make sure that all men get the message that women's bodies are not their bloody playthings.
.

You took this personally so I clarified:

Bannasidhe wrote: »

.

I did not say that all men are rapists. I said that men have a duty to challenge other men who view women's bodies as playthings . In exactly the same way as white people have a duty to challenge white supremacists. And yes, Muslims have a duty to challenge Radicals Islam, and Christians have a duty to challenge Radical Christianity. And feminists have a duty to challenge TERFs and straight people have a duty to challenge homophobes.

At no point did I say all men are responsible.
At no point did I say you were responsible.

I said men (general term meanings more than one man) need (meaning it is necessary but in no way implies responsibility) to get the message out (to convey information) to all men (indicating there is a sub-set of men within the general male population)

I never used the term responsible. I never even implied, suggested, posited that all men are responsible for the actions of some men.

In my clarification I did use the term duty to challenge - again, this in no way implies responsibility for any crimes that are committed.

karlitob · 29-09-2020 9:22pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In my clarification I did use the term duty to challenge - again, this in no way implies responsibility for any crimes that are committed.

Haha - duty doesn’t imply responsibility. Good one.

smacl · 30-09-2020 7:48am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In my clarification I did use the term duty to challenge - again, this in no way implies responsibility for any crimes that are committed.

karlitob wrote: »

Haha - duty doesn’t imply responsibility. Good one.

You seem to have spectacularly missed the point here. Challenging a crime is in no way the same as committing said crime, thus the duty and responsibility relate to very different things.

Steve F · 30-09-2020 10:24am

antiskeptic wrote: »

What belief system caused you to arrive at that conclusion?

Biology.

Mark Hamill · 30-09-2020 10:35am

Sorolla wrote: »

The thing about the snowflakes is that since the beginning of time they have been trillions upon trillions of snowflakes and not one of them resembles another in any way.

That is the truest proof to me that there has to be a higher Devine being.

Anytime I am questioning my faith I like to stand out in the back field and hold a spoon up in the air and catch a few snowflakes and once I see that no two are the same my faith is restored

Why?

A snowflake weighs about 0.005 grams. That means they contain about 2*10^20 molecules of water. That is 2 with 20 zeros after it. Or 200 million trillions of molecules.
The shape of a snowflake is determined by how these molecules are effected by minute differences in temperature, pressure and humidity where it formed and falls. For the most part, you can't even see the differences without a powerful microscope, as the changes are on a molecular level.
Even assuming they were all different in an easy and immediately discernible way, so what? Why does that mean that any god must exist? What part of that is not easily explainable by basic science?

How do you convince people god exists?

Comments