Why do you believe in God?

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 393
--> @GuitarSlinger

My definition of True is "in conformity (alignment) with facts or reality"
You said I would assert that "some things are true and unverifiable" and this would violate my definition of True.
I said, nope, not my definition, yours.  In other words, it wouldn't violate my definition of true, but rather your. 
Ok, your usage of True seems a bit squishy to me, so, for clarity I'm going to start using the more precise term "Real-True-Facts".

Real-True-Facts are "in conformity (alignment) with facts [and] reality", it actually appears tautological.

Do you believe the statement, "I ate a sandwich yesterday" is a Real-True-Fact?  I'm going to say no. 

You might say, "not at the moment".

Do you believe it can ever be a Real-True-Fact?  I'm going to say no. 

You might say, "perhaps, if the stakes were high enough, but most likely it's not worth the effort".

In other words, it all depends on how you define "True".  You will notice, I did not put "verifiable" in the definition of true.  YOu were the one that started adding it in (hence, why I said "Nope, not my definition.   Yours."
Do you accept something as FACT if you can't verify it?  I'm going to guess you believe FACTS are indisputable.

Is the statement, "I ate a sandwich yesterday" indisputable?

Do you accept something as REAL if you can't verify it?  I'm going to guess you believe REALITY is undeniable.

Is the statement, "I ate a sandwich yesterday" undeniable?

** Is the statement, "I ate a sandwich yesterday" in conformity (alignment) with facts or reality? **
That all depends on whether or not you ate a sandwich yesterday, doesn't it?
Is that a FACT?  Or should I say, "is that statement a Real-True-Fact?"

If you did indeed eat a sandwich yesterday, then I would say "Yes, that statement is in conformity (alignment) with facts or reality, and is thus TRUE".
If you did not eat a sandwich yesterday, then I would say "No, that statement is not in conformity (alignment) with facts or reality and it thus NOT TRUE."
If you and I had lunch yesterday and WE AGREED it was a FACT, then it would be a Real-True-Fact. [LINK]

I will go one further and say if one doesn't know if you ate a sandwich yesterday, then one can't make a claim either way.  It may very well be true, but without knowing one can't say. 
When you say, "it may very well be true" do you perhaps mean, "it may very well be plausible"?

If you can't verify it, then it has no truth-value.  If a statement is not a Real-True-Fact, then it falls into the realm of OPINION.
--> @3RU7AL
First rule in discussion, don't answer for the other person.  Don't ask a question and then answer it for me.  Let me answer it.  

Which statement is tautological-- yours or mine?  Personally, I think yours (Real-True-Facts) is tautological.  Mine (True is pretty straightforward with no redundancy).  I thought I offered a very simple, concise and solid definition of "TRUE".  

But it seems it's not to your liking (too squishy, I think is what you said?).

Since you've introduced a new concept (Real-True-Facts), how about you go ahead and define what that is.  I want to make sure I know exactly what you mean when you say "Real-True-Fact".   I'll start you off:

 The definition of "Real-True-Fact" is _______________________________.  Just fill in the blank.  

I'm reluctant to answer the questions until you first define "Real-True-Fact".  But I will do so anyway, however I do reserve the right to come back and change my answers based on how you define it above.

** Do you believe the statement, "I ate a sandwich yesterday" is a Real-True-Fact?  I'm going to say no.  **

You may so no, but I wouldn't it.  I believe you can't say yes or no.  I thought I answered this already?  It all depends on whether or not you ate the sandwich or not, doesn't it?
      1.  If you indeed did eat the sandwich yesterday, then I would say "yes", that statement is a Real-True-Fact.
      2.  If you did not eat the sandwich yesterday, then I would say "no", that statement is not a Real-True-Fact.
      3.  If it is unknown if yo uate the sandwich or not, then i would say "Can't answer.....one doesn't know therefore one can't say either way if it's a Real-True-Fact or not".

** Do you accept something as FACT if you can't verify it?  I'm going to guess you believe FACTS are indisputable."


Whether I accept something as FACT, and whether or not that something is a FACT are two entirely different questions.  But again, go back to my thought process. If there is no evidence, or it can't be verified then I can't claim either way it's a FACT or it's not a FACT.  I use "H".

A.  A can be anything (either an action the book, a superhero, a myth, gods, a God, a historical figure, you name it)

The question becomes Is "A" a REAL-TRUE-FACT  Can be posed in many different ways ("Do you believe in "A", do you believe "A" can happen, etc)

B.  If there is evidence suggesting A is real, I examine it with an open mind. 
C.  I will also challenge the claim that it is real (ask questions, etc)
D.  If there is evidence suggesting A is NOT real, I examine it with an open mind.
E.  I will also challenge the claim that it is Not real (ask questions, etc)
F.   If there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the claim that "Action A" is real, then I will tend to believe it's real
G.  If there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the claim that "Action A" is not real, then I will tend to believe it's not real. 
H.  If there is NO evidence, here it becomes a gray area-- you use judgement, experience, and/or logic to lead you to draw a conclusion.  Technically and philosophically speaking, if there is NO evidence, you can not definitively make a claim either way that something is real or not-- the best, technically/philosophically speaking, you can say is "I have no evidence".  


** Is the statement, "I ate a sandwich yesterday" indisputable? **

"Indisputable" means "unable to be challenged or denied."  No it's not indisputable.  It can be challenged or denied.  I can challenge/dispute any claim on earth.  The question is, does the challenge or denial hold up-- can it (the challenge) be upheld?  I can dispute your claim "I ate a sandwich yesterday" by countering "No, no you did not."  The question now becomes-- who's right and who's wrong?  Two contradicting statements can not both be true, one is false.  How do you prove which is which?


** Do you accept something as REAL if you can't verify it?  I'm going to guess you believe REALITY is undeniable.

Is the statement, "I ate a sandwich yesterday" undeniable? **

ok.  Now who's being "tautological"?  You're just reframing the same question with different words.  "Undeniable" means "unable to be denied or disputed".  No it's not undeniable.  It can be challenged/denied/disputed.  I can challenge/dispute/deny any claim on earth.  The question is, does the challenge or denial hold up-- can it (the challenge) be upheld?  I can deny your claim "I ate a sandwich yesterday" by countering "No, no you did not."  The question now becomes-- who's right and who's wrong?  Two contradicting statements can not both be true, one is false.  How do you prove which is which?






--> @GuitarSlinger
Since you've introduced a new concept (Real-True-Facts), how about you go ahead and define what that is.  I want to make sure I know exactly what you mean when you say "Real-True-Fact".   I'll start you off:
The definition of "Real-True-Fact" is ___________"in conformity (alignment) with facts and or reality"____________________.  Just fill in the blank.  

I simply added your definition to the term itself.  True + Facts + Reality = Real-True-Fact.

And when I mention the word "tautological" I'm speaking specifically of a logical-tautology, which is something that is "necessarily true by definition".
--> @GuitarSlinger
Whether I accept something as FACT, and whether or not that something is a FACT are two entirely different questions.  But again, go back to my thought process. If there is no evidence, or it can't be verified then I can't claim either way it's a FACT or it's not a FACT.
How do you, personally, distinguish between an "accepted fact" and an "actual fact"?

There's always "some evidence" otherwise asking the question itself would be impossible.

For example, there is a very common ontological argument for the existence of god(s) which simply states that because you are able to ponder the concept of god(s), that pondering, in-and-of-itself is incontrovertible proof that god(s) exists.

The "problem" is Standards-of-Evidence.
--> @GuitarSlinger
You seem to be suggesting that if a statement is not "provably true" (Real-True-Fact) or "provably false" (contrary to Real-True-Fact) then it can be declared either "believable/true" or "unbelievable/false" by an individual (you use judgement, experience, and/or logic to lead you to draw a conclusion, leaning heavily on an appeal to ignorance).

I call this individual declaration "OPINION".

Do you believe it is important to distinguish between True (as in provably true Real-True-Fact) and True (as in declared believable-true by an individual based on their personal gut instinct, personal judgement, personal experience, and or personal private logic, leaning heavily on an appeal to ignorance)?  For example, [LINK]

There are only two categories.

Quanta = Provably-True and or Provably-False Indisputable-Real-True-Facts

and

Qualia = Personal, Private, Experiential, Qualitative, OPINION.
--> @3RU7AL
Hey, things have been pretty hectic the past two days (son starting college, "fighting fires" at work, etc), so please pardon my delay in responding.  I might be responding out of order too, so please accept my apologies.

** You seem to be suggesting that if a statement is not "provably true" (Real-True-Fact) or "provably false" (contrary to Real-True-Fact) then it can be declared either "believable/true" or "unbelievable/false" by an individual (you use judgement, experience, and/or logic to lead you to draw a conclusion, leaning heavily on an appeal to ignorance). **

Actually, that is not what I"m suggesting or saying at all.  In fact, I've been saying the opposite all along:

     1.  If you can not prove/verify/show/demonstrate that something is TRUE (substitute whatever word you want for "TRUE", such as "real", "facts", etc), then you can not make the assertion "It is true.".  On the flip-side though you also can NOT assert that it's "not TRUE" either.  You simply do not know.

I guess one can just  simply utter the words, but doing so doesn't make it "true."

** Do you believe it is important to distinguish between True (as in provably true Real-True-Fact) and True (as in declared believable-true by an individual based on their personal gut instinct, personal judgement, personal experience, and or personal private logic, leaning heavily on an appeal to ignorance)?  For example, [LINK] **

Well yes.  Your basically saying is there a difference between a statement that is "TRUE" (as in provably true, Real, etc) and a statement that is TRUE (as in declared true based on instinct, personal judgement, etc).  Yes.  Of course. They are two separate things.  I think it's best to view them as they are, without assigning any clarifier such as "opinion, etc".  

Here's what I mean.  Suppose there is an blue ball on the other side of the world.  You and I have no way of seeing this ball, etc. We honestly truely have never seen the ball, heard about the ball, etc.  All we were told is that this ball exists over there.

   The objective fact (truth, reality) is that the ball is blue.  

   You make the statement, let's call it statement A:  "the ball is blue."

   You also make the statement, let's call it statement B:  "My statement A is truth."

    I make the statement, let's call it statement C:  "the ball is orange."

    I also make the statement, let's call it statement D:  "My statement D is truth."

    You then make the statement, let's call it statement E:   "Your statement C is false, and is your statement D."

    I then make the statement, let's call it statement F:  "Your statement A is false, as is your statement B."


First and foremost, the objective fact of the ball being blue is independent of what you or I say, think, observe about it.  Hell, you and I can cease to exist and that objective fact (the ball is blue) will remain.

Your statement A is simply that.  A statement.  One can assign any other clarifier (opinion, belief, whatever), but it's simply a statement.  You can not call that Statement A a "fact" or a "truth" (i.e you can't really make statement B) because you simply don't know.

Likewise my Statement C is simply that-- a statement.  I can not call my statement C a "truth" or a "fact" (i.e. I can't really make statement D) because I simply don't know.  

Likewise neither one of us can say the other person's statements are false (statements E or F) because we simply do not know.  
--> @GuitarSlinger
Your statement A is simply that.  A statement.  One can assign any other clarifier (opinion, belief, whatever), but it's simply a statement.  You can not call that Statement A a "fact" or a "truth" (i.e you can't really make statement B) because you simply don't know.
Ok, it looks like we've completed step one, "stake-out common ground".

Let's move to claim that Orion walked on water.

Do you believe this claim is provably-false (or merely opinion-false)?
--> @3RU7AL
** Let's move to claim that Orion walked on water.

Do you believe this claim is provably-false (or merely opinion-false) **


I know what you are trying to get to with this, so I'll first answer it from a "technical" or "logical" perspective:

 So first, let's just remove the name "Orion", and just substitute X. Let's rephrase the question then as "Do you believe the claim that 'X walked on water' is provably-false (or merely opinion-false)?"

     1.  When you say "provably-false", I"m assuming you mean that it can be proven to be false.  
     2.  Technically, logically, philosophically speaking, I think it's rather difficult to prove a claim from the past as being "false".. 
                  - Perhaps one could say "there is no evidence of X walking on water."....My response to that, playing Devil's Advocate, is "That is not proof that X didn't walk on water.  You simply just don't have evidence."
                  - Perhaps one could say "there are no witnesses of X walking on water".  My response to that, playing Devil's Advocate, is "That is not proof that X didn't walk on water.  You simply are saying you don't know of anyone who saw X walk on water. "
     3.  So with that being said, here is what I would say about that claim "X walked on water."  I can't say that claim is false-- I do not have "evidence" or "proof" to definitively say that claim has been "proven to be false."
     4.  Therefore, it follows that that claim "X walked on water" is merely a statement.  
                      - if you don't know or can't prove (what that "proof" is for you) that it's false, then you can't really say it's a false claim
                      - likewise, if you don't know or can't prove (whatever that proof is for you) that it's true, then you can really say it's a true claim.
                      - You simply do not know.  Therefore, we in "H" of my thought process.

Now as I said, if one doesn't have enough "evidence" or "proof", one can't make a definitive statement either way.  However, one can indeed use experience, logic judgement, etc to lead one to a conclusion about that claim.....

But I think what you are really wanting to get to is this: 
           (a) I believe Orion did not walk on water
           (b) but I do believe Jesus walked on water.  

I can almost anticipate your next questions ;-) 


--> @GuitarSlinger
However, one can indeed use experience, logic judgement, etc to lead one to a conclusion about that claim.....
There you go again.  Do you think it would be fair to say, "However, one can indeed use personal experience, private logic judgement, etc to lead one to an OPINION about that claim...."?

But I think what you are really wanting to get to is this:  
           (a) I believe Orion did not walk on water
           (b) but I do believe Jesus walked on water.  
That's an interesting proposal.

What Standards-of-Evidence can you apply to BOTH of these ancient claims?

Here's one better, what if I told you that I walked on water yesterday, and a newspaper published a full report on the event, and there were over a hundred eye witnesses.

Would you consider my claim a Real-True-Fact? 

Or would you conclude that it's significantly more likely to be some sort of staged magic trick? [LINK]
--> @3RU7AL
**Do you think it would be fair to say, "However, one can indeed use personal experience, private logic judgement, etc to lead one to an OPINION about that claim....**

Sure, if by "opinion" you mean "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."   Let me give you an example, the statement "X did not walk on water" might not be "provable/verifiable", so the assertion "X did not walk on water" is essentially an opinion in that sense.  

**What Standards-of-Evidence can you apply to BOTH of these ancient claims? **

Well.  For starters, I would look at some "who's": 
     - Who's the claim about?  Are they credible?  What else do we know about them and their life?
     - Who's making the claim?  Are they credible?  What else do we know about them and their life?
     - Who are the witnesses (if any)?  Are they credible?  What else do we know about them and their life?

Then, dig a little deeper:
     - THe person making the claim, would they have a reason to lie?  What would happen to them if this were false?  What would happen to the happen if this were true?
     - Same question about who the claim is about, and about the witnesses, etc

What are the circumstances surrounding the claim, the environment, etc

In my opinion, one has to really dig deep-- you can't just take what you hear and then make a decision without first analyzing it.  We actually do this everyday, but for some instances/events, it's an almost instantaneous assessment (for example, if my mother tells me something, I don't need to dig deep into her life and assess her life to determine "It's unlikely she would lie to me.").

But to make snap judgment without doing this assessment (not matter how "quick" the assessment is) wouldn't be prudent.

  ** Here's one better, what if I told you that I walked on water yesterday, and a newspaper published a full report on the event, and there were over a hundred eye witnesses.

Would you consider my claim a Real-True-Fact?  

Or would you conclude that it's significantly more likely to be some sort of staged magic trick?**

Initially, I would say "No".  Why not? Again, revisit my "H".  I don't know or haven't seen any evidence indicating "yes" or indicating "no"-- I simply do not know for certain if it happened or not.  So, technically I can not say "your claim is a real-true-fact"....nor can I say "your claim is NOT a real-true-fact."  The are many explanations to explain this claim-- perhaps the event didn't even happen at all and it was just a story put out by you, the paper and the witnesses......perhaps it was just a fanciful story by the newspaper writer, and none of the people in the story even exist  (you, the witnesses)....perhaps the people are real, but perhaps the author and the witnesses saw a mirage, and saw you from a distance it just "looked like" you walked on water......perhaps it wasn't a mirage, and you were indeed walking on something that they thought was water....perhaps it was indeed a staged magic trick....perhaps you did walk on water unassisted......There are a myriad of things and details that could be surrounding that claim.  Hell, the first starting point is figuring out "Is this 3RU7AL guy a person that even existed"...that's the first starting point.....are there records indicating this person existed, etc.

But remember, since there are a lot of unknowns surrounding the claim about you, I am in "H".  So now I can use my experience, judgement and logic to help form a judgement about this (perhaps you'd rather I use the word "opinion" in lieu of judgement):

         a)  My experience tells me that the chances are high that you are just a regular, normal human being.  Honestly, I've not seen anything to indicate otherwise.  In fact, usually when I meet people or here accounts of people, my first inclination is "THis person is a regular human being like you and me".  Along with that comes certain limitations, such as not be able to breathe underwater unassisted, fly in the air unassisted, walk on water
unassisted.   Based on this one claim alone I'm inclined to think you probably did not walk on water unassisted

Do I know enough of the circumstances to say it was a staged magic trick?  Nah.  Do I know enough of the circumstances to say it was just a falsified stories with made-up people? Nah.  Do I know enough to say the people were real, but the witnesses were just mistaken?  Nah.

Perhaps if there were other accounts like this, it might lead to think "Hmmmm, maybe there is something to this 3BRU7AL guy walking on water".....Maybe if there some data that would lead to believe "Hmmmm, it makes no sense that the author would fabricate this story".....

THere are some other things I wouldn't do or surmise though, such as automatically assume it's a myth, etc. 

--> @GuitarSlinger
Sure, if by "opinion" you mean "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."   Let me give you an example, the statement "X did not walk on water" might not be "provable/verifiable", so the assertion "X did not walk on water" is essentially an opinion in that sense. 
This is incorrect.

The statement, "a human (and or a being or entity that is indistinguishable from a human) cannot walk on water" is NOT an opinion.

If the claim was, "Orion was able to float on his back", this would be a plausible claim.
--> @TheAtheist
Because the evidence is more in favor of God existing than not.
--> @Fallaneze
"Because the evidence is more in favor of God existing than not."
Could you name some of that evidence?

--> @TheAtheist
Sure. First we need to agree on what evidence means.

Evidence means facts or information indicating whether something is true.

Agree?

--> @Fallaneze
Because the evidence is more in favor of God existing than not.
Let me guess, another ontological argument?
--> @3RU7AL
This guy is a smart fella you should listen to what he's writing. Don't miss the point, he's trying to give you a starting point where you can be more objective and open-minded about the nature and reality of it all rather than just being ignorant to it. You can label thing as you like but part of the problem is atheists rejecting what evidence consists of particularly when it comes to spirituality or Theism because there isn't some scientist or lab that can replicate something for them, it's almost comical but what we have to work with currently. Evidence is defined as that which is an indicator of something true, when you evaluate all the activity and evidence that correlates with that transcendent reality it's pretty obvious when you get down to it. One has to wonder why it goes over the heads of some folks, particularly the atheist camp. 
It's more of an accumulation of everything involved which is more of an interpretation (not solely), however this interpretation is much stronger than what atheists tend to focus on. There needs to be some starting point, where we can have a better understanding about Theism and the nature of it, it begins with at least....at LEAST, admitting that evidence exists. Until then all these discussions and empty claims of "no evidence" will just be of no progression...it will just be atheists claiming "no evidence.. no evidence" over and over meanwhile the evidence (that which indicates something true) has been there all along lol.
You MUST, look at the evidence that correlates with the nature of God, or the Creator or whatever you want to call that. 
--> @EtrnlVw
...at LEAST, admitting that evidence exists.
Look, True = Fact = Real = Exist = Provable = Indisputable

To support the claim, "god(s) exist", you must make your definition of "god(s)" explicit.

Then you must make your definition of "exist" explicit.

Spinoza does this quite nicely.  Certainly Spinoza's god exists.
** This is incorrect.

The statement, "a human (and or a being or entity that is indistinguishable from a human) cannot walk on water" is NOT an opinion.

If the claim was, "Orion was able to float on his back", this would be a plausible claim. **

This is getting fun...Nope, actually it's not incorrect. 

If an event happens in the past, and you have no evidence, you can't make a claim either way (it's true/false, it happened/didn't happen)......

Technically, scientifically, and philosophically speaking, you can't "prove" that "all" humans cannot walk on water....Sure, you can say humans A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, and Y do not have the ability to walk on water, but this does not necessarily "prove" that human "Z" can not walk on water.  So, you are technically in realm "H" (see below)...so what do you do? you use your experience, logic and judgement (your observation that humans A-Y can not walk on water) to draw a conclusion about human "Z"-- that they can't walk on water, and likewise you use this to make the further generalization that all humans can not walk on.   By the way, I'm right there with you-- I, too, draw the same conclusions...

If there is a claim of something in the past, and you have no evidence ("proof"), you can't make a definitive claim either way....all you can do is simply draw upon your experience, judgement and reasoning to draw forth a conclusion.  It doesn't matter what the even or claim is, one is basically doing the same thing.

The only difference is, you prefer to call some opinions and others "proof" or "facts" based on YOUR experience and judgement.


H.  If there is NO evidence, here it becomes a gray area-- you use judgement, experience, and/or logic to lead you to draw a conclusion.  Technically and philosophically speaking, if there is NO evidence, you can not definitively make a claim either way that something is real or not-- the best, technically/philosophically speaking, you can say is "I have no evidence".  
--> @EtrnlVw, @3RU7AL
**it will just be atheists claiming "no evidence.. no evidence" over and over meanwhile the evidence (that which indicates something true) has been there all along lol. **

I've been with folks in the mountains, and I'll tell them "Looks like there was a bear here...".....And the city slickers will scoff and say "That's B.S.!  I don't see a bear ANYWHERE!   I don't see any evidence!".   Then I'll show them the faint tracks, the bear scat, the claw marks on the trees.....These city slickers just weren't able to see the evidence.  Of course, every now and then you get one guy that's still insistent and says "Well, THAT doesn't PROVE there was a bear here!  For all we know, ANYTHING could have left that evidence."   Some folks, for whatever reason, will simply refuse to see the evidence.   To that guy, I'll usually just smile and think to myself "Ok, if the bear returns, all I have to do is outrun that guy..."




Absence of Evidence is NOT evidence of absence

--> @GuitarSlinger
Absence of Evidence is NOT evidence of absence
Absence of Evidence is NOT evidence of existence.

Existence itself is defined by its obvious indisputability (verifiability beyond reasonable doubt).

You can't seriously claim something "exists" unless it meets some explicit standard-of-evidence.
--> @GuitarSlinger
If an event happens in the past, and you have no evidence, you can't make a claim either way (it's true/false, it happened/didn't happen)......
(IFF) a human being (or something indistinguishable from a human being) has a general density greater than water (THEN) it can't walk on water.

(IFF) a human being (or something indistinguishable from a human being) CAN apparently walk on water (THEN) (EITHER) they have a general density significantly less than water and would be blown about by the slightest breeze (thus being easily distinguishable from a human) (OR) they are walking on something just below the surface of the water.

Humorous Hume can't save you.
--> @3RU7AL
** Absence of Evidence is NOT evidence of existence.

Existence itself is defined by its obvious indisputability (verifiability beyond reasonable doubt).

You can't seriously claim something "exists" unless it meets some explicit standard-of-evidence.**



Yep, I 100% agree-- if you have no evidence , one can't make the claim/assertion that it exists.  If you have no evidence of X, you can't make the claim that X has existence.  I totally agree-- I don't think anyone is making that claim, I know I certainly am not,

Likewise, though, you can't make the claim that it doesn't exist or can't exist.  Sure, you can say it's silly, preposterous, or pure fantasy for X to exist, but you can't base that assertion on "no evidence", you use something else (remember my "H"?) to make that judgement.  







--> @3RU7AL
**(IFF) a human being (or something indistinguishable from a human being) has a general density greater than water (THEN) it can't walk on water.

(IFF) a human being (or something indistinguishable from a human being) CAN apparently walk on water (THEN) (EITHER) they have a general density significantly less than water and would be blown about by the slightest breeze (thus being easily distinguishable from a human) (OR) they are walking on something just below the surface of the water.

Humorous Hume can't save you.**

Like I said, I"m right there with you-- I draw the same conclusions as you about humans walking on water-- no need to explain the science behind it to me :-)   

But I stand by my statements, you technically can't prove that all humans can't walk on water, all you are doing is taking your observations and data and making a conclusion (which I happen to agree with) about humans walking on water.  

--> @GuitarSlinger
Hey hi man. G
Nice day?
Nice day.

So ummmmm, can you give me a quick run over yourself.  (  i said that wrong ) 
I just want to know , Are you a Catholic gutsling?  Thats all. 

Your smart hey. Well i think you are. 
I love smart thinking theists. Well Christians.  

Oh crap. Sorry to jump in. You guys were going good.
' Face palm ' 
Sorry.  Tell me a bit about yourself after. 
Carry on. 





--> @GuitarSlinger
Yep, I 100% agree-- if you have no evidence , one can't make the claim/assertion that it exists.  If you have no evidence of X, you can't make the claim that X has existence.  I totally agree-- I don't think anyone is making that claim, I know I certainly am not,
I'm glad we can agree that things (EITHER) exist (OR) do not exist.

(IFF) exist = yes (THEN) it is obvious and indisputable and verifiable beyond reasonable doubt (ELSE) IT DOES NOT EXIST.

Likewise, though, you can't make the claim that it doesn't exist or can't exist. 
Hold on, let's not conflate "doesn't exist" and "can't exist". 

We CAN say it "doesn't exist" if it doesn't currently qualify, if it doesn't meet the definition of "exist", otherwise what's the point of having a definition in the first place.

On the other hand, "can't exist' is PURELY HYPOTHETICAL.  Hypothetical proposals are OPINION.  I mean, unless it's LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

I mean, unless it's LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

I mean, unless it's LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

I mean, unless it's LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Sure, you can say it's silly, preposterous, or pure fantasy for X to exist, but you can't base that assertion on "no evidence", you use something else (remember my "H"?) to make that judgement.  
The property of Existence is like a light-switch.  It's either on or off.