Moderator: Moderators
For debate:...
For a general definition of God, "the underlying source of all else which exists"...
Never said anything differentThere are many levels of consciousness
I looked through that - nothing there that speaks of evidence to meThe evidence I speak of is throughout the thread I created
A rather pompous and arrogant assumption on your part as you have less than zero idea about me or my past experiences.That you have not 'seen' it may be because you have not looked into it and tested it out for yourself.
Personal insult noted and filed as more poppycock. But thanks for showing your true colors.Intelligence Without Wisdom
The evidence I speak of is throughout the thread I created
But did you really look into it?I looked through that - nothing there that speaks of evidence to me
That you have not 'seen' it may be because you have not looked into it and tested it out for yourself.
It is not about you or your past experience that I am referring to. It is about whether you have examined the data and tested it out for yourself...A rather pompous and arrogant assumption on your part as you have less than zero idea about me or my past experiences.
Intelligence Without Wisdom
It was not a "Personal Insult" and if it were true that you have actually looked into the workings of the Message Generating thread, you could have understood the reference.Personal insult noted and filed as more poppycock. But thanks for showing your true colors.
That fact you expect one to magically know what you're referencing is mindboggling and speaks to, well, I shouldn't say. But no, I'm not buying into your magic word count scheme. Unless you can show I can use it to win the lottery, it's simply fodder not worth my time TBH.It was not a "Personal Insult"
Skimmed it. So far, nothing I've seen in this place has ever netted what it claims. I don't expect your magic claims to net anything but wasted time.But did you really look into it?
"Those who prove not to be interested in the evidence for gods, are those who can be ignored when they demand evidence for gods."Unless you can show I can use it to win the lottery, it's simply fodder not worth my time TBH.
But did you really look into it?
Surface scratching seldom provides results one can work with. Do the science. Intelligence is best utilized wisely in that regard. Laziness - unless some material gain is promised - is not the same thing as "I have been provided no evidence" - but does explain why so many non-theists don't want to go there. Nothing of material value, so nothing worthwhile of interest to them.Skimmed it.
There is no 'mind-reading' involved in the process. What are you referring to exactly?Thus, there's no reason to dive deeply into what you provided - especially in light of the above mind reading expectation you seem to have of others.
"Those who claim to have evidence for gods and yet don't provide it can be ignored by those who request it."
I provide the evidence. I cannot make anyone do the science, perform standard repeatability, check the results of the data and peer-review.
William wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:41 pmI provide the evidence. I cannot make anyone do the science, perform standard repeatability, check the results of the data and peer-review.
If they are too lazy to do the science necessary to prove it is right or wrong for themselves, that is a separate issue which has no bearing on my providing the evidence.
Nor can I make anyone support their statements - such as the statements like;
"Funny how the creator's numerology applies to modern English language and probably not to any other stage of its evolution, or any other language for that matter."
Opinions do not prove the evidence of the science is wrong.
Huh? Assigning numbers to letters of the alphabet and evaluating sentences is science? My Ouija board says NO. Ask yourself and answer honestly. "What is the definition of science?"
