Assumptions, Part 3

Nick Rogers is back at the Religious Dispatches article called “Atheist Monument: Proof of Unintelligent Design.” He promised to provide the evidence for his god but failed to do that and my response pointed that out, multiple times in fact.

So Nick replied:

“How about proving to me that you, as a conscience, exist, in the same way I know I do. It is absolutely impossible with Empirical evidence. Without logic empiricism is useless and blind. Your only conception of “Evidence” seems to be a personal sensory sign from God saying “Here I am!”.

I’ve got another one. Try proving to me that empirical evidence is valid. Lets begin with that. And remember, you cant use Logical arguments and philosophical trickery…you can only use raw, unbiased, scientific facts, to prove to me, that raw scientific facts are true.”

Great job with the burden of proof, Nick.

Epic fail on your part.

You agreed to give me evidence, then waste two posts trying to get me to agree to things I don’t have to agree to and demanding I answer your questions.

So this was my response to him:

“So you are a liar. You promised me evidence of your god and then refuse to provide it. Why should I answer any of your questions when you can’t even keep your word?

Evidence doesn’t require my participation (i.e. I’m only required to review said evidence to determine it’s validity). And you started the ball rolling by positing a god separate from a universe we both accepted as existing.

Obviously your non-evidenced god has failed you. If it existed and it answered your prayers, why didn’t it provide you with evidence it knew would convince me?

Even though you’ve lied and obfuscated, I’ll give you another chance. Give me your single best piece of evidence that your god exists. That should be trivially easy.”

Think he’s going to continue in this way or actually give me some evidence?

I’m not holding my breath.