humphreys wrote:Now, what I think you're trying to ask me is "what would I consider proof of God's existence",
humphreys wrote:I would also be swayed by any valid logical proof of God's existence
humphreys wrote:By the way, I do not think tempers flared at all in this thread.
greeney2 wrote:humphreys wrote:Now, what I think you're trying to ask me is "what would I consider proof of God's existence",
Thats exactly what I ask you to do, tell us what logical proof you would accept, and you would not do it.
greeney2 wrote:You say a miracle would sway you, but how would you decide if it was a miracle, or just refute them too?
greeney2 wrote:humphreys wrote:I would also be swayed by any valid logical proof of God's existence
greeney2 wrote:Tempers are starting to escalate,and flare with each other, so lets all reel it in a little. Everyone is just getting frustrated with everyone else, so before the flaming gets out of hand, please agree to just disagree. Stop with the little digs, and labeling. This was why I moved it out of the battle forum, to avoid conflicts
humphreys wrote:Why is it not logically possible for something to exist, and yet not exist in actuality? I doubt you even understand the question.
greeney2 wrote:Thank You Event, for your reply to me, you cleared up some of the definition of "weak and strong" atheists from your perspective, that neither claims any proof so to speak, one just makes stronger assertions of non-existance than weak atheists do, if I understand you. From my perspective, I don't see much difference with neither having proof, by your own definition you all are weak.
Users browsing this forum: greeney2 and 0 guests