You can not assert the conclusion and then find evidence for it. This is called, ‘begging the question.’
Historically, begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which the speaker assumes some premise, “God Exists” or “The Universe was caused.” that has not been demonstrated to be true. You must demonstrate the premise to be true and the demonstration must lead to the conclusion, therefore god, or ‘therefore a created universe.’
Those are mostly human concepts. Just make up whatever answers you want as those concepts tend to disappear when the speaker has gone short a few million calories over a few days.
2 Likes
Cmon Cog if you don’t bring your back pack what are you going to carry your banana’s in?
1 Like
Seriously? You don’t want to know.
No reason for God to troll. He ordained all that is written!
Google: Does Santa Claus have Free Will?
That’s a claim, can you demonstrate any objective evidence that any deity exists, or is even possible? If you can’t then your assertion is meaningless.
1 Like
LOL - The claim is “God ordained all that is written.” Does that include the articles in Playboy magazine? Did God have a hand in Mao’s little red book? How about Mein Kampf? How do you know God has hands? If he had a ‘hand in it’ does that mean he actually used a pen and paper? Do you have any evidence of this? What sort of “hand in it” did god actually have and how do you know this? Just a few questions that come to mind aside from the fact that we have not yet demonstrated that such a thing as a god is even possible.
Well I would think that, linguistically speaking, “I am convinced” is synonymous with “I’m sure” which is dangerously close, if not equivant to “I know.”
Either way, you seem to be implying that you have some knowledge or at least evidence that has convinced you that they deities don’t exist.
You are not denying or skeptical of their existence, you are affirming that they actually don’t. I’d be fascinated to know what makes you think so.
I will disagree. I am convinced of many things that I can honestly say I know nothing about. LOL How does that come as a surprise to anyone?
No one needs knowledge to be convinced of something. (I give you the religions of the world as evidence.)
This is just improperly stated. The correct question would be… I would be fascinated to know what makes you convinced of that?
1 Like
I think you will find that the conventional view here is that there is not enough (and not good enough) evidence to convince us that deities exist. That’s something completely different.
Who are you talking to, you need to use the quote function otherwise your accusation is meaningless.
Again who are you claiming made any such assertion, quote it please. In the meantime, can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or that a deity is even possible? If not then that is sufficient reason for me to remain disbelieving, and I need not know whether the claim is true or not.
I’d be fascinated to know why you’re talking about, could you quote where you’re claiming they said this.
No…not a “claim” it is an opinion. Consider it as “subjective evidence”. You may agree or reject…your choice.
As for the scary meaningless comment…it was meaningful enough to garner a response. 
I love how language is so imprecise that “convinced”, “sure”, and “knowing” are considered close to each other - and at the same time far enough away from each other to be different.
For example, to me “convinced” means 51%, where “sure” is in the 70% to 80% range, but “knowing” is in the 95% range.
You stated that opinion in a public debate forum, this makes it a claim, do you imagine they’re mutually exclusive? If so then you;re very wrong. Here is your claim…
Here is my question about your claim…
You failed to answer the question, this presents a rather obvious inference.
The response was to demonstrate why I considered it was a meaningless claim, since it was made in the absence of any objective evidence. The question was posited to clarify if you have anything beyond your bare claim, your reaction suggests not.
1 Like
Patience grasshopper…patience!
It’s not a good look to be the first person to publicly ask the question that everybody knows the answer to!
I’m new here but…
The evidence should accompany the claim, or else the claim is meaningless, as I explained when you first made it.
“quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur”
And I will post requests for evidence as and when I am minded to, since this is a public debate forum.
Nor do have any expectations on this matter, I am simply showing you a courtesy by asking. Nothing you have posted so far suggests you’re here for honest debate, but that’s your problem, not mine. Glib and dismissive answers won’t evidence your assertions, and each reader must infer from your evasion what they are minded to.
3 Likes
…or, as it is perhaps better know as - Hitchens’s razor:
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence
1 Like
In other words, you neither have evidence or an answer. Do remember that this is neither a Christian forum nor a Church. Talking about a god as if he were present and making bold god claims will not get you very far here. 
2 Likes
Actually, my answer is, and I thought this was common knowledge, but apparently not … that some are convince that there is no evidence. Others are convinced without the evidence that “others” … require.
I understand and appreciate both positions.
No offense intended but you clearly understand neither.
You do not know my intended path! Your statement is a bold claim itself.
Since you have admitted in another thread you know of no objective evidence for any deity, wouldn’t it be more honest to simply say which deity you believe exists and why? If you already know people don’t set the same standard for belief, then why are you being so reticent about your own standard?
Perhaps, but this is an atheist debate forum, you hardly can expect us to imagine you came here to make claims about a deity by accident or as a coincidence, and preaching or proselytising is against the forum rules, so your plan is irrelevant to anyone else here. So what’s required is honest debate, and I think you must have some concept of honesty, while debate is pretty straight forward, since you believe something atheists do not. Now I have told you plainly and honestly why I don’t believe any deity exists, it is because I have never see any objective evidence that they do, or that they’re even possible.
Why not reciprocate and plainly say which deity you’re claiming exists and why, that would be honest. The evasive tap dancing away from questions, is not very honest. I also know that despite only creating 26 posts, you have read 297 posts, or viewed them anyway, it’s all in your profile.
1 Like