@Mikethewander1 “Zero proof”
A belief in God isn’t lacking of evidence. The issue is whether or not you’re able to accept the evidence, or you have a standard that is built upon a presumption to deny the evidence. IE: there is no God because I don’t believe God would do A, B, C…
@McClureShawn So the historical standard is false? First hand, secondary are tertiary aren’t relevant?
They are.
First hand accounts can be recorded by a chronicler. That doesn’t make them secondary.
@randyjo93598077 An ability to understand science leads one to God.
The argument against God isn’t made using science. That is like trying to use the existence of a car to disapprove the existence of Henry Ford.
@athiestboi By using the word, “evil” you are creating a self defeating foundation for your argument.
Evil is a reference point of an objective moral standard.
What makes a morality objective?
@SawtelleAn5682 Life comes from life. That’s a natural world fact.
Your argument hinges on God being governed by nature. Yet… It’s the other way around.
@Skeletonkey5555@IngrahamMa32664 It’s interesting looking at your responses.
You either say, “bullshit” or a mocking meme.
Nothing of substance.
You aren’t defending your position, you’re simply floundering.