Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

There is a word for a situation where any statement is no more and no less true than any other statement: MEANINGLESS.

It's not meaningless to be intelligent enough and intellectually honest enough to examine the evidence and realize that in regards to these questions, we are ignorant.

I agree 100% that, BY DEFINITION, we are currently ignorant of things that are currently beyond our sphere of knowledge.

I am really glad that you finally admitted ignorance! Thank you!

Up to a few minutes ago, you were ASSERTING that an entity that transcends logic exists. You sounded like an expert in LTEs (Logic Transcending Entities), you were totally sounding like you were the OPPOSITE of ignorant.

But I'm glad you came to your senses and changed your way.

Now you're saying the exact opposite of what you were saying earlier, right? Now you're saying you're ignorant, you're saying that YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE if a Logic Transcending Entity exists or doesn't exist, right? As far as you know, it's totally a 50-50 toss up whether some kind of God exists or not, right? You wouldn't DARE assert that a God exists, because you're ignorant of whether he exists or not, right?

I agree with you that we have no way of knowing, at this time, if some kind of Logic Transcending Entity exists or not. Therefore we shouldn't waste time speculating on assertions we have no way of verifying, such as "LTEs exist" or "LTEs don't exist". We should just say "we don't know" and move on to more relevant questions.

Like for example this one: Do you have any evidence of the supernatural? Can you point to any specific, measurable, verifiable event which demonstrates the existence of any kind of supernatural entity?

If not, can you please refrain from posting on this thread? I'd gladly continue any conversation you like about a different topic - on a separate thread.

[Jax Agnesson]

There is a word for a situation where any statement is no more and no less true than any other statement: MEANINGLESS.

It's not meaningless to be intelligent enough and intellectually honest enough to examine the evidence and realize that in regards to these questions, we are ignorant.

It's only when we finally give all this fantasy knowing ego tap dancing that we'll be able to shift focus and energy to exploring and making good use of that which we do have, that which is real, our ignorance.

If you would consider taking a break from being an automated rejection machine, you might have the opportunity to realize that following the evidence, facing the facts, and embracing reality sounds quite a bit like something that just might work out for those with atheist inclinations.

Is there any chance you might be intellectually honest enough to answer the questions I have posed to you HERE and HERE, and in several other places on this forum?
You seem throughout your posts on this forum to be claiming to know that there is not a reasonable God, (a god whose attributes can be reasoned about) but to believe that there is, or at least that there could be, an unknowable one.

If you concede that unknowable gods are at least possible, how can you claim to know that a knowable god is not possible?

[Philbert]

The "fantasy knowing ego tap dancing" is being done by you with your projections of a 'god' who can make a square circle or a rock he cannot lift.

Please demonstrate how you could possibly know that human logic is binding on all of reality, an area you can't define in even the most basic way.

[Jax Agnesson]

The "fantasy knowing ego tap dancing" is being done by you with your projections of a 'god' who can make a square circle or a rock he cannot lift.

Please demonstrate how you could possibly know that human logic is binding on all of reality, an area you can't define in even the most basic way.

Can you clarify what you mean 'human' logic?
As opposed to what other sort of logic?

[Philbert]

Is there any chance you might be intellectually honest enough to answer the questions I have posed to you HERE and HERE, and in several other places on this forum?

Is there any chance that if you're going to ask me a question I've already answered a great many times, you could do so in the post I'm currently reading?

The answer is no, I don't claim to know there is a God.

You seem throughout your posts on this forum to be claiming to know that there is not a reasonable God, (a god whose attributes can be reasoned about) but to believe that there is, or at least that there could be, an unknowable one.

I'm claiming none of us know if there is a god or not. That is, we have not the slightest idea if there is anything supernatural, outside of what we call the laws of nature and human logic.

Thus, we have no idea at all whether our human logic calculations are even vaguely relevant to these questions....

Thus, all this adamant table pounding and fantasy superiority poses, mostly by atheists on this forum, is pure sillyness.

If you concede that unknowable gods might exist, how can you claim to know that a knowable god does not?

Like I keep saying, I have no idea, and neither do you or anybody else. I propose that intelligent and productive inquiries in to the subject of religion aren't really possible until we face, accept, and embrace this simple obvious fact.

Facing facts is something atheists claim to enjoy, thus I am directing most of my comments to them.

[Goat]

Is there any chance you might be intellectually honest enough to answer the questions I have posed to you HERE and HERE, and in several other places on this forum?

Is there any chance that if you're going to ask me a question I've already answered a great many times, you could do so in the post I'm currently reading?

The answer is no, I don't claim to know there is a God.

You seem throughout your posts on this forum to be claiming to know that there is not a reasonable God, (a god whose attributes can be reasoned about) but to believe that there is, or at least that there could be, an unknowable one.

I'm claiming none of us know if there is a god or not. That is, we have not the slightest idea if there is anything supernatural, outside of what we call the laws of nature and human logic.

Thus, we have no idea at all whether our human logic calculations are even vaguely relevant to these questions....

Thus, all this adamant table pounding and fantasy superiority poses, mostly by atheists on this forum, is pure sillyness.

If you concede that unknowable gods might exist, how can you claim to know that a knowable god does not?

Like I keep saying, I have no idea, and neither do you or anybody else. I propose that intelligent and productive inquiries in to the subject of religion aren't really possible until we face, accept, and embrace this simple obvious fact.

Facing facts is something atheists claim to enjoy, thus I am directing most of my comments to them.

Yet, do you know what this thread is about?? that is 'do you have evidence'. When you boil your entire set of responses down, take out frivolous remarks, the answer is NO.

[Philbert]

Can you clarify what you mean 'human' logic? As opposed to what other sort of logic?

I add the word "human" to "logic" to remind readers that we are a single species living on one tiny little planet in one of billions of galaxies and that we were quite recently living in caves, and are still nuttier than a fruitcake, with means of our self extermination aimed down our own throats, a topic we're rarely interested in discussing.

This is the "logic" platform at use in all these calculations.

[Danmark]

Is there any chance you might be intellectually honest enough to answer the questions I have posed to you HERE and HERE, and in several other places on this forum?

Is there any chance that if you're going to ask me a question I've already answered a great many times, you could do so in the post I'm currently reading?

The answer is no, I don't claim to know there is a God.

You seem throughout your posts on this forum to be claiming to know that there is not a reasonable God, (a god whose attributes can be reasoned about) but to believe that there is, or at least that there could be, an unknowable one.

I'm claiming none of us know if there is a god or not. That is, we have not the slightest idea if there is anything supernatural, outside of what we call the laws of nature and human logic.

Thus, we have no idea at all whether our human logic calculations are even vaguely relevant to these questions....

Thus, all this adamant table pounding and fantasy superiority poses, mostly by atheists on this forum, is pure sillyness.

If you concede that unknowable gods might exist, how can you claim to know that a knowable god does not?

Like I keep saying, I have no idea, and neither do you or anybody else. I propose that intelligent and productive inquiries in to the subject of religion aren't really possible until we face, accept, and embrace this simple obvious fact.

Facing facts is something atheists claim to enjoy, thus I am directing most of my comments to them.

So you are agnostic on the issue of the existence of God. Do you live your life by making any assumptions at all? Do you believe in differing probabilities of various assumptions? Is it more likely than not that when you are typing at your computer there really is a computer there, outside your own consciousness? Where do you place the possibility of a supernatural God compared to the existence of your computer?

Or do you believe in some sort of solipsism where any point of view about the existence of anything is just too unsophisticated for "the ultimate source of all wisdom in the universe."

[Philbert]

Human reason has proven itself useful in a great many cases, too many to mention. I am happy to apply reason where it can be shown to be useful.

Thousands of years of reasoning, believing and arguing etc about gods in every corner of the world has yielded nothing.

At the beginning of that debate nobody could prove anything, and the same remains today thousands of years later. Evidence of a pointless endeavor.

Thus, it's not really reason that suggests we keep doing the same thing over and over expecting different results, which I remind readers is actually the definition of stupidity.

[Danmark]

Thus, it's not really reason that suggests we keep doing the same thing over and over expecting different results, which I remind readers is actually the definition of stupidity.

I see the ultimate source of all wisdom in the universe has his cliches mixed up.
'Insanity,' not stupidity is 'doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.' If you are going to try to 'remind your dear readers' of a cliche, try to at least get such hackneyed stuff accurate.