It still doesn't make sense why you don't consider Siddartha to be a teacher just as Jesus was. You're not getting my point. Every religion's message is similar; it doesn't matter how the "prophet" delivered it. Yeah, I took 8 years of CCD. I was a Catholic; I guess you didn't pick up on my sarcasm. Faith is not knowledge. To know something, you must have facts. Faith is essentially just a personal feeling, but you still don't KNOW anything based on that faith. Sure you can have faith and THINK in your mind that God listens to you, but you still don't KNOW.
1) Ad hominems don't work well in debates. I'm pretty sure I ended the argument anyway, there was no need for you to continue. 1.1) I'm not the instigator, don't begin to attack me like I am. "Enoch" was relevant because he had met God, I was correcting a mistake. 1.2) I'm pretty sure I already stated this. 2) My point wasn't the similarity between the two. My point was that one is far more advanced than the other and yet for both a one word answer can still accomplish the original goal.
Aside from it being completely untrue that there is no evidence, there is absolutely no reason to assume that something cannot exist if there is no evidence. There is no evidence that a cure for the common cold exists, this, however, does not mean that no cure ACTUALLY exists. Evidence does not determine existence. 2,000 years ago we had no evidence that atoms or bacteria existed, does that mean they did not exist at that time… there certainly was no evidence for them? To assume there is no evidence at all and be correct you would have to have definitive proof that you scaled every millimeter of the universe and found nothing. At all.
Evidence does not determine existence, but the more definitive evidence you have of something, and the stronger that evidence is, the more likely that something is to exist. So there's god, who's existence goes completely without evidence, and the current model of the atom, which has a plethora of scientific backing. The atom is more likely. There are plenty of logical contradictions to god's existence, as well as evidence against events in the bible. There is definitely "evidence to the contrary".
Give me one piece of evidence that would confirm a God The statement that "there is no cure for the common cold" refers to the fact that given our current medical capabilities, we cannot cure the virus that causes the common cold. Given enough time, we will eventually find a "cure" for the disease, it's just our technology is currently unable to deal with the rapid mutations the pathogen undergoes. Evidence is used to prove and explain existence. The evidence for bacteria and atoms existed well more than 2,000 years ago but humans had yet to investigate for their existence. If someone traveled back in time 2,000 years, they could prove the existence of both bacteria and atoms from the evidence available in that time. That's why the standing is that "given the current evidence, there is no reason to believe a god exists." If enough credible evidence for god's existence could be produced to outweigh the evidence against, then science would restate its conclusions on the matter.
1) I stated that, and the rest is obvious. 2) Assuming you've gone throughout the entire universe (or multiverse, for that possibility) and there's no evidence at all, then you can safely say there is none. 3) I don't care. That's not what I'm trying to prove. 1) I'm not arguing that. You're straying from the point. 2) There.. is .. a .. cure.. and I stated that. 3) I stated exactly this. If you're attempting to support my claims - great, I appreciate it. 4) Again, straying from the point, providing a twisted argument, and then building on that argument like it matters. No go.
This thread discusses the existence of God. I don't know what you're talking about, but I directly asked you to provide a piece of evidence proving his existence. You claimed that it was "completely untrue that there is no evidence." This implies that you have seen the evidence in some or fashion and still you have yet to present it. If you are claiming that the infinite size of the universe makes it possible that such evidence exists, then you cannot claim that it is "completely untrue" that no evidence exists.
You concede that when I say "that's completely untrue" that there must be some sort of evidence out there. However, this is not the case. In the sense that there is no definitive proof the universe has been scoured for evidence of a God's existence, there is no harm to make a logically sensible claim that there is some sort of evidence out there, before science (as you stated) has enough evidence to outweigh the matter. The problem with your closing statement is that it is slightly misleading. I am not claiming that the size of the universe makes the possibility of the evidence, however, I am claiming that due to the universe's size, it is impossible to say there is no evidence, frankly because of the oblivious and unsubstantiated nature of that argument.
You declare there is no evidence for God's existence...arrogance...I promised myself I wouldn't post here again but it looks like I have to. Just because we haven't found evidence doesn't mean there isn't any. Prior to discovering evidence of germs we saw no evidence, so people like you said "THERE I S NO EVIDENCE!! YOUR WRONG I'M RIGHT!! THHHBBBBTTTT!!!" Though people with open minds looked around and saw that there was evidence and wallah germs are fact!! Simple right?
Show me this evidence. The probabilistic chance of evidence existing does not lend credence to a hypothesis. Only verifiable, credible, reproducible evidence can be used to prove something. Until that evidence is found, there is no reason to believe otherwise.
I'm just going to mention a passage from the catholic catechism here but isn't faith without evidence the basis for belief and our lack of evidence is due to there being no evidence because knowing and believing are two different things? To paraphrase the catechism, if you knew him he wouldn't be god. You can't think without an open mind and you can't love without an open heart.
That is the basis of the word faith. All religion is built upon it. Trying to argue otherwise is unwise as no religion can be supported factually.
As to not get into a semantical debate I will define a few terms: magic –adjective 8. employed in magic: magic spells; magic dances; magic rites. 9. mysteriously enchanting; magical: magic beauty. 10. of, pertaining to, or due to magic. 11. producing the effects of magic; magical: a magic touch. Magic Definition | Definition of Magic at Dictionary.com man –noun 1. an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman. Man Definition | Definition of Man at Dictionary.com sky –noun Often, skies (for defs. 1–4). 1. the region of the clouds or the upper air; the upper atmosphere of the earth: airplanes in the sky; cloudy skies. 2. the heavens or firmament, appearing as a great arch or vault. 3. the supernal or celestial heaven: They looked to the sky for help. 4. the climate: the sunny skies of Italy. 5. Obsolete. a cloud. sky definition | Dictionary.com Now. Let's rephrase that statement. A mysteriously enchanting adult male in the region of the clouds or the upper air. First off: God is not mysterious Gos does not enchant God is not an adult Or a male God does not reside within the clouds or the upper air