You just cannot acknowledge that your assertion is nothing but a BLIND GUESS...and you are accusing me of lacking courage. C'mon. Be real.
I've shown you it isn't frank. Your furious dodging of the analogy shows even you know how absurd your argument is. But, I still have hope for you frank. All you have to do is answer the question I asked honestly.
We both know that you have not substantiated the assertion you made. I understand why. It cannot be substantiated...IT IS BLIND GUESS. Deal with that when you finish dodging.
Hey Frank and Rahl I can referee your ongoing bout if you like once I can figger out what you're arguing about?
So far you haven't posted a single factoid of any sort whatsoever! All you have ever done is fallaciously allege that those who are basing their logical and rational conclusions on scientific data are making "blind guesses". That is a puerile game on your part and it has been exposed for what it is. Get back to us when you can actually provide something of substance to your own irrational "blind guesses" about something that you obviously don't know much about. Have a nice day!
I most assuredly have. In fact, LOTS more than you. For instance, I have posted that I do not know if this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation or not. I have posted that I do not know if gods exist or not. I have posted that I do not have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess. All of those are FACTS. No I haven't. I have posted that blind guesses are blind guesses...even if the person making the blind guess wants to kid him/herself into supposing the blind guess is actually logical, rational conclusions based on scientific data. Name one thing YOU have posted here that YOU consider a logical, rational conclusion based on scientific data...that I have called a blind guess. I defy you to do it. It is not a game, puerile or not...so it could not possibly have been exposed as such. I'm right here and arguing the point right now...and I know plenty about it. You have a nice day yourself, Derideo. Try to calm down a bit. We're just having a bit of fun discussing things...not engaging in a war.
Lol, of course I have frank. You being too scared to address the analogy which does so is entirely on you. And it doesn't change reality because you furiously dodge it.
Yeah...considering you think you have the facts when you don't. Same word I was thinking of when I read your post.
Your attempts to derail the actual discussion have been noted...and dismissed. Fact is, you and I both know that when you assert "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...YOU ARE BLINDLY GUESSING. No problem. Atheists often try that silly derail stuff when they realize they are boxed.
What really is hilarious is that you are unable to acknowledge that you are making a blind guess in your assertion. But, whenever an agnostic has a discussion of this sort with an atheist...this kind of nonsense almost always comes up. Atheists of your sort just hate to discover that your guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...is just as much a blind guess as those of devout theists. Too bad that bothers you.
It would seem your understanding of "Atheists" is far above my own, even though I'm Atheist. Actually I am an Atheist Agnostic in that I do not believe in any of the Human created god thingys but fully accept I do not know what else might be out there.
Some vanity-cultists and fanatics might like to think they know everything and that the rest of us poor slobs know jack, but any true Christian will admit they don't know it all.. Of course it's fun to speculate about what "reality" is, but the bottom line is that JC said our human brains simply can't grasp it- "You hardly believe me when I tell you earthly things, so how would you believe me if I told you heavenly things?...I know where I came from and where I am going, but you have no idea where I come from or where I am going....you are of this world, I am not of this world" (John 3:12,John 10:38,8:14,8:23)
Sounds like a reasonable position. But Rahl is asserting that it is more probable that there are no gods...than that there are. He has never offered a truly logic explanation for the assertion...and certainly no math to show the probability of each so the comparison can reasonably be made. He is blindly guessing that it is more probable that there are no gods. Nothing wrong with blind guesses...I have made some myself. But he is pretending it is not a blind guess...and we are politely discussing that. - - - Updated - - - When I was a Christian...I acknowledged that it was a "belief"...which is to say it was not something I KNEW. I was, in effect, something I was guessing.
Uh, I'm not evading. I gave you an analogy showing how absurd your position is and you are furiously trying to dodge it. It's hilarious
You never gave an analogy that shows my position to be wrong. Actually, you cannot, because I am not wrong...but your "analogy" (which really is not an analogy)...is itself an absurdity. One, admittedly, that is trotted out by atheists who are boxed in a corner by an agnostic. I guess I am enjoying your struggles. I just want to put that out there.
It is endlessly amusing to watch your "blind guessing" about things that you obviously know nothing about. Have a nice day!
