Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's the evidence, you've just said. Now you need a methodology by which to examine it.

Oh, so glad you so rigorously failed to put forward anything resembling an argument, that makes it so much easier to dismiss your comment out of hand. You might not think an infinite regress 'cuts it' - fine, but why?

O.

But what IS the evidence for there being no good reasons to believe in God as Gordon positively asserted?

[Gordon]

But what IS the evidence for there being no good reasons to believe in God as Gordon positively asserted?

Easy peasy - just the absence of good reasons for 'God': as in the 'reasons' being offered by the likes of yourself can easily be dismissed as incoherent or fallacious, and especially since you offer no robust methods to assess, for example, how miracle claims can be investigated and confirmed.

You can't even explain how you've assessed the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Easy peasy - just the absence of good reasons for 'God': as in the 'reasons' being offered by the likes of yourself can easily be dismissed as incoherent or fallacious, and especially since you offer no robust methods to assess, for example, how miracle claims can be investigated and confirmed.

You can't even explain how you've assessed the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT.

You are trying to shift the burden of proof here.
Anyway, I'm off. Good luck everybody.

[Alan Burns]

Easy peasy - just the absence of good reasons for 'God': as in the 'reasons' being offered by the likes of yourself can easily be dismissed as incoherent or fallacious, and especially since you offer no robust methods to assess, for example, how miracle claims can be investigated and confirmed.

Have you ever considered how the miracle of life came into existence from the chaos of an exploding cloud of gas?  (Before evolution or biology came to exist)

You can't even explain how you've assessed the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT.

Have you ever considered the risk of ignoring the possibility of the NT being true?

[Stranger]

Have you ever considered how the miracle of life came into existence from the chaos of an exploding cloud of gas?  (Before evolution or biology came to exist)

FALLACY: Personal incredulity.

Also, what "exploding cloud of gas"? If you mean the big bang, that's a staggeringly ignorant description.

Have you ever considered the risk of ignoring the possibility of the NT being true?

FALLACY: False dichotomy.

Have you ever considered the risk of ignoring the possibility that you believe in the wrong God?

[Gordon]

Have you ever considered how the miracle of life came into existence from the chaos of an exploding cloud of gas?  (Before evolution or biology came to exist)

Of course, though I don't think its is 'miraculous': but then I consider that it may be we can never really know how abiogenesis happened, though we can be sure it did else I wouldn't be typing this.

Have you ever considered the risk of ignoring the possibility of the NT being true?

No - it seems to me that the possibility of mistakes and/or lies remains unresolved by you guys and that some of the claims can't be taken seriously - therefore I'd say the NT can be dismissed.