Posted by Gremlin [12.211.200.127 - 12-211-200-127.client.attbi.com] on 11 October 2003 at 19.48.19 ZuluTime:

Some idiot just hit me with this:

I don't see any convincing evidence for the existence of God,

1. That does not mean there is no God. 
1. Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports his existence.
1. Therefore, it is possible that God exists.
1. If it is possible, then faith has its place.
2. If it is possible that God exists, then you should be an agnostic (an agnostic holds that God may exist but no proof can be had for His existence.)
2. It is possible that there is no evidence at all for God.
1. But this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence.
1. Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that evidence exists that supports theism.
3. Then what kind of evidence would be acceptable?
1. If you have not decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state that there is no evidence for God.
2. If you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is it?
1. Does Christianity fit within that criteria?
1. If not, why not?
4. Is it possible that your criteria for evidence is not reasonable?
1. Does your criteria put a requirement upon God (if He exists) that is not realistic? For example
1. Do you want Him to appear before you in blazing glory?
1. Even if that did happen, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you?
2. How would you know?
2. Does your criteria put a requirement on logic that is not realistic?
1. Do you want him to make square circles, or some other self-contradictory phenomena or make a rock so big He cannot pick it up?
2. If God exists, He has created the laws of logic. He, then, cannot violate those laws.
5. Are you objectively examining evidence that is presented?
1. Granted, objectivity is difficult for all people, but are you being as objective as you can?
2. But, do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur?
1. If so, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence.
1. Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding the miraculous may prevent you from recognizing evidence for God's existence.
1. If so, then God becomes unknowable to you and you have forced yourself into an atheistic/agnostic position.
2. Do you define the miraculous out of existence?
1. If so, on what basis do you do this?
3. If you assume that science can explain all phenomena then there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof.
1. If you made that assumption, it is, after all, only an assumption.

I could spend the next hour pointing out flaws with this. But I'll just do this instead....

I don't see any convincing evidence for the existence of goblins,

1. That does not mean there are no goblins. 
1. Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves the existence of goblins, or at least supports their existence.
1. Therefore, it is possible that goblins exist.
1. If it is possible, then faith has its place.
2. If it is possible that goblins exist, then you should be an agnostic (an agnostic holds that goblins may exist but no proof can be had for their existence.)
2. It is possible that there is no evidence at all for goblins.
1. But this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence.
1. Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that evidence exists that supports goblinism.
3. Then what kind of evidence would be acceptable?
1. If you have not decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state that there is no evidence for goblins.
2. If you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is it?
1. Does goblinism fit within that criteria?
1. If not, why not?
4. Is it possible that your criteria for evidence is not reasonable?
1. Does your criteria put a requirement upon goblins (if they exist) that is not realistic? For example
1. Do you want them to appear before you in blazing glory?
1. Even if that did happen, would you believe they existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you?
2. How would you know?
2. Does your criteria put a requirement on logic that is not realistic?
1. Do you want them to make square circles, or some other self-contradictory phenomena or make a rock so big they cannot pick it up?
2. If goblins exist, they have created the laws of logic. They, then, cannot violate those laws.
5. Are you objectively examining evidence that is presented?
1. Granted, objectivity is difficult for all people, but are you being as objective as you can?
2. But, do you have a presupposition that goblins do not exist or that the goblinismical cannot occur?
1. If so, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence.
1. Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding the goblinismical may prevent you from recognizing evidence for the existence of goblins.
1. If so, then goblins become unknowable to you and you have forced yourself into an agoblinistic position.
2. Do you define the goblinismical out of existence?
1. If so, on what basis do you do this?
3. If you assume that science can explain all phenomena then there can be no goblinismical evidence ever submitted as proof.
1. If you made that assumption, it is, after all, only an assumption.