i don't see gods

I don't see radio waves.
Tell me why I'm wrong.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Point is not seeing is not proof of non-existence.

It can be proof of non-existence depending on the propositions. If one of them is "If (and only if) X exists it would be seen" then the conclusion that X does not exis,t because if is not seen, would be logically valid.

Originally posted by @js357
It can be proof of non-existence depending on the propositions. If one of them is "If (and only if) X exists it would be seen" then the conclusion that X does not exis,t because if is not seen, would be logically valid.

God is a Spirit but He was seen when He came to earth in bodily form some 2,000 years ago.

Originally posted by @romans1009
But a deity (i.e. God) has been seen.

Worth noting is that God’s existence is not dependent upon anyone believing in Him; if everyone in the world were an atheist, God would still exist.

Nor is God’s character defined by human beings.

Not addressed to you.

Originally posted by @romans1009
God is a Spirit but He was seen when He came to earth in bodily form some 2,000 years ago.

Don't worry about who was addressed and who wasn't. I benefited from the truth being written. Others did I too, I think.

Originally posted by @sonship
Don't worry about who was addressed and who wasn't. I benefited from the [b]truth being written. Others did I think too.[/b]

How is me not wanting to communicate directly with him any different from you not wanting to communicate with Rajk?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
How is me not wanting to communicate directly with him any different from you not wanting to communicate with Rajk?

I don't get some of you guys. I really don't.

All you should care about is the TRUTH !
Let everyone be a fink as long as you get what is TRUE.

Originally posted by @sonship
I don't get some of you guys. I really don't.

All you should care about is the [b]TRUTH !
Let everyone be a fink as long as you get what is TRUE.[/b]

I think Rajk posts the truth.

You cool with that?

Originally posted by @romans1009
But a deity (i.e. God) has been seen.

Worth noting is that God’s existence is not dependent upon anyone believing in Him; if everyone in the world were an atheist, God would still exist.

Nor is God’s character defined by human beings.

....

God is a Spirit but He was seen when He came to earth in bodily form some 2,000 years ago.

That's your belief. The OP-title refers to apathist not seeing gods; it makes no reference to whether the God you know as Yahweh exists or does not exist or the specifically Christian belief that God was incarnated in bodily form about 2,000 years ago.

Apathist says he does not see gods. There is no contesting that statement. It's not a statement about God; it's a statement about what he sees or does not see. One might as well contest the statement that he does not see Mt. Everest or does not have a belly ache. It is no rebuttal to say, "But Everest really exists and is not defined by human beings" or "belly aches really exist."

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Not addressed to you.

And...?

You’ve got your panties in a twist ‘cause I offered an answer to a question addressed to someone else?

What a delicate little buttercup you are!

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
How is me not wanting to communicate directly with him any different from you not wanting to communicate with Rajk?

You seem to have no problem communicating with me on other threads, trollmaster.

Got the cramps from Aunt Flo visiting?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I think Rajk posts the truth.

You cool with that?

An atheist thinks rajk posts the truth. Yeah, that makes sense.

Originally posted by @moonbus
That's your belief. The OP-title refers to apathist not seeing gods; it makes no reference to whether the God you know as Yahweh exists or does not exist or the specifically Christian belief that God was incarnated in bodily form about 2,000 years ago.

Apathist says he does not see gods. There is no contesting that statement. It's not a statement about G ...[text shortened]... y, "But Everest really exists and is not defined by human beings" or "belly aches really exist."

I’d hate to think the OP is that limited. What’s the point, then?

Originally posted by @romans1009
And...?

You’ve got your panties in a twist ‘cause I offered an answer to a question addressed to someone else?

What a delicate little buttercup you are!

Your answer was a nonsense.

Firstly you say that 'a deity (i.e. God) has been seen,' even though I was giving the example of an individual who had 'not' seen God. (You know, with his own eyes). Then you reason (poorly) that it is 'worth noting God’s existence is not dependent upon anyone believing in Him; if everyone in the world were an atheist, God would still exist.' - In truth, it wasn't worth noting that at all. Why is it not possible that everyone in the world was an atheist with good cause and that God 'doesn't exist?!

Why would God still exist?! Because a numpty like you says so?

And finally, you offer the gem 'nor is God’s character defined by human beings' when you know you are responding to an atheist who believes God's character is not only defined by human beings, He was invented by them.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Your answer was a nonsense.

Firstly you say that 'a deity (i.e. God) has been seen,' even though I was giving the example of an individual who had 'not' seen God. (You know, with his own eyes). Then you reason (poorly) that it is 'worth noting God’s existence is not dependent upon anyone believing in Him; if everyone in the world were an atheist ...[text shortened]... heist who believes God's character is not only defined by human beings, He was invented by them.

Believe it or not, my post was addressed to a broader audience than you.

I understand why you have trouble comprehending it, though. Your second paragraph in particular was an illogical word salad.