john9blue wrote:Woodruff wrote:
You have stated several times IN THIS VERY THREAD that there is just as much of a possibility that God exists as that he does not. Yet, despite that claim of the possibility, you have presented zero proof of it. And yet, I posit the possibility that the initial mass of the universe has always existed, and you've made the statement that, in order to make that claim, I had better have proof. You can't have it both ways, John.
you're confusing possibility with certainty/belief.
No I'm not. Where did I say any such thing?
john9blue wrote:i agree that there is a possibility that the initial mass has always existed. that doesn't mean i believe it.
to justify your belief in that proposition, you need some kind of evidence.
How have you entirely missed the exact point I've been making for several posts now? Although since you snipped away the context, I suspect that you didn't miss it at all...
You are stating that in order to justify my belief in the initial mass always existing, I need some kind of evidence. AND YET, you have no evidence at all for justifying the belief that there is just as much a possibility of God. Why must I be required to show evidence for my belief yet you are not required to show evidence for your belief?
john9blue wrote:me saying that "god might or might not exist" is tautologous. why would i need evidence for a statement like that?
Either it is a belief or it is not. If you are requiring evidence for one belief, then you must require evidence for all beliefs, else you are a hypocrite. Oh right, I forgot who I was speaking with.
john9blue wrote:Woodruff wrote:SCIENTISTS (not ATHEISTS) recognize that "proof" is an impossible concept to achieve. We don't even have PROOF of the mechanics of gravity. We simply have a theory.
fine, change "proof" to "evidence" and reread.
I have no idea what the context for this is any longer.