>>93
listen, you're powerfailing. no one's arguing with what you just said in bold in that last post, we're arguing with your application of fallacious reasoning to pretend your assumptios are somehow obvious or self-evident.
what you just did is the following:
Assume [(god exists) implies (we have evidence of god)]
Assume [We do not have evidence of god]
Therefore, god does not exist.
this is
Assume A implies B
Assume not B
Therefore not A
This is fine, this is a valid argument. But we don't know that it is a sound argument. We don't know that the premises are true. If you could demonstrate that the assumptions are true, then maybe you'd get somewhere. However, you just take them as given.
so, back to asking questions you'll never answer:
1) how do you know that god's existence implies that we would necessarily and knowingly have evidence of god?
2) how do you know that we don't have evidence of god currently, and either misinterpret it, or do not recognize it at all?
the most annoying thing about you is you don't even understand what it is that we say you're wrong about.