Looks like my clock was correct and it cut out. haha
@nellyj how weird. mine kept going. Anyway. good to talk Nelson. Sorry you lost the debate. lol. Hope to catch up with you again some time. Thanks for a great debate.
@bookman tied 1:1 now haha
@bookman Thank you for the great discussion. I found it very good indeed. I really enjoyed chatting over the issue and sorry it did cut short. Would have loved the extra 5 minutes. Maybe we do this again sometime. I have an interview is about 30min today though but thanks again and look forward to another
huge topic to tackle in one debate lol. @nellyj existence of non-physical worlds/things is a far stretch to the existence of one omniscent being, don't you think?
@patrickconan it obliterates the atheistic, naturalistic world view. So let's debate.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" @bookman I like that! Need to use that when my super religious family tries to get into this argument with me...
@ldempsy why thank you kind sir. Good luck in your.....discussions!
@ldempsy Then if any evidence at all exists you would be unable to dismiss it and clearly there is some evidence for God's existence by the mere fact that you are able to disbelieve His existence and claim it to be your own opinion.
@nellyj that is completely illogical...As Spock would say...:-)
@nellyj a commonly held belief that God exists is not evidence of God's actual existence, only evidence of the IDEA of his existence
@ldempsy the naturalist must believe that everything has a natural explanation including 'thoughts' themselves and most believe that everything is predetermined. So where do your 'thoughts' come from and are they even your own thoughts and not just the random combinations of chemicals in the brain?
@sarahmiller excellent breakdown and your points are much appreciated. Glad you enjoyed it and thanks for your vote.