....show me the evidence....show me the evidence....show me the evidence....show me the evidence....show me the evidence....
Summing up: You are a broken record. By "evidence," in every case you mean scientific and empirical evidence. That view makes a god of science. You overlook the fact that we use other kinds of evidence all the time, and even scientific evidence is lacking conclusiveness. Inconclusive is not proof of anything. I don't know whether you call yourself an agnostic or an atheist. You only argue the agnostic position but you do it with the insistence of the atheist.
You think all the evidence proves the non-existence of God, so you put yourself in the position of judge and prosecutor, overruling any evidence but what you introduce. You require someone who believes in God to use that evidence to prove his position. The trouble with that is that then you become the jury -- and you declare yourself winner of the debate. The truth is that no believer needs to prove God's existence. He only cares to show you that you do not need to come to the conclusion you have reached. If someone could convince you -- with only the evidence you lay on the table -- that God exists, that he created everything, that he is sovereign, that Jesus rose from the dead, and that he's coming back, none of that would gain you one millimeter of standing with God.
When this becomes a debate over who is smarter, which your previous
ad hominum arguments suggest you think it is, you apparently think the question of the existence of God is a question that only the people you regard as most intelligent have any real suasion. The problem with that is that lots of believing people are smarter than you are. That's no problem for you -- you simply fall back on an
ad hominem argument. Being smart is irrelevant. Chances are you're not even the smartest person on a discussion forum. You lost this debate a long time ago.
Steve.
