I [lie] a lot.
I can do that too.
I asked you over and over for proof of god. Not a "higher being". God. You failed to provide any at all.
Now you're reduced to lying about it. How telling that is.
There's an understatement.
So you were lying about that too? Okay.
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god.

And you said you'd provide proof of [a higher being's] existence. [And you sure did.]
I practice a lot.
Oh, and I'm not his colleague.
There's an understatement.
~~
Matthew 15:14

Your colleague graham-167 advanced the discussion, accepting that there had to be an intelligent designer, but that it could have been something not a god such as an alien with no more science than we have. It sparked much interest.
And you said you'd provide proof of god's existence. Only you didn't.
So I didn't feel stupid, but rather disappointed and let down by your failure.
Oh, and I'm not his colleague.
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god.

Possible in the sense of Star Trek possible, which is another way of saying impossible.
In this case, God is possible in the sense Gandalf is possible, which is another way of saying
warriorspirit
: if the penis is used as a pencil holder we'll incur a cost.

You do realize that the idea of life on earth being created by aliens is merely one
possible
explanation
Possible in the sense of Star Trek possible, which is another way of saying impossible.
Cleanup on aisle 4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
~~
Matthew 15:14

present science will have to be revised in order to make the alien answer any good
I don't understand why you think this is anything more than a thought experiment. You do realize that the idea of life on earth being created by aliens is merely one
possible
explanation and that only the Erich von Dänikens of the world actually believe it's trueright? Who am I kidding, of course you don't realize that.
the big bang was a hoax perpetrated by theists
I'm sorry, what?

Not even so much as that.
Arlon promised proof of god. But then he kept changing the subject to intelligent design instead. He resolutely ignored every single request for his proof of god. I asked him several times! All ignored.
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god.

I sure don't. What would make you think that it was?
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god.

Why couldn't God choose to start everything with a BB, Arlon? After all, you say that ID doesn't imply any particular genesis story.
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000

No.
"Whether homosexuality causes less harm (than slavery) is debatable" -
Hada

Do you agree that the big bang was a hoax?
~~
Matthew 15:14

setting things off
by accident
.
The resulting order
..
This is
too much!
(At least, you recognize there is order; but I'll bet you won't call it 'design', will you? Like you can really have order to the degree that is observed, without preparation and arrangement being behind it!)
www.jw.org
or
https://tv.jw.org/#en/home

Yes you have already said that. No need to repeat yourself. But it remains the case that, if someone admits that they could be wrong, it is more likely that they are unable, rather than unwilling, to believe. You'll just have to take God's, and my, word for that.
With only two weeks to go, can't you be a little more interesting?
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000

I think it can be reasonably suggested that only you and God know if you're unable or unwilling. As I said. Now stop talking in circles.

Whether you're unable or unwilling is something only you know for sure
Well spotted.
Problem is, if God exists, then He knows it too,
This assumes of course that 'god' is conscious - and I know we have had words on this being necessary in the case, say, of a creation which was not deliberate. But otherwise, well spotted again!
I can only hope that you hope you're not wrong.
You are naturally entitled to hope. That, after all, is what religion is all about at the end of the day, is it not? But since I am the only one chatting here (God being busy on the politics board recently) who knows for sure, and as you know that I always attest to the possibility of ultimately being wrong in lacking belief in your god, then it can reasonably suggested that I am
unable
rather
unwilling
. But will you be willing, or able, to accept that reasoning?
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000

Incredulous can also mean
unable
to believe
Whether you're unable or unwilling is something only you know for sure. Problem is, if God exists, then He knows it too, and so if it's the latter, then you are
without excuse
, just as Romans 1 says. I can only hope that you hope you're not wrong.

There are two very different things.

1. There is no evidence.
2. You believe there is no evidence.
   You do not appear to understand that very significant difference.
   Then show me the evidence Arlon, away from your regular personal credulity and the scripture being proof of its own supposed truths.
   Until you do, you are wasting the time of everyone.
   I'm well aware that railing does no good
   kurt2000

There are two very different things.

1. There is no evidence.
2. You believe there is no evidence.
   You do not appear to understand that very significant difference.
   Until you do you're wasting your time.
   ~~
   Matthew 15:14

Then you don't believe because you don't want to believe
Incredulous : not willing or not able to believe something; showing an inability to believe something
http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/incredulous
Incredulous can also mean
unable
to believe, Miscella - such as in the case where there is no empirical evidence for something.
Unwilling
implies more of a reluctance even when, perhaps, there is reason. See the difference? But since as always along with other soft atheists I admit that, in the event, I could be wrong, then the former is more pertinent here. Of course, one still might insist that I really 'don't want' to believe in a particular god; but actually I can easily see how the idea of comforting and reassuring supernatural with a confirmed moral structure and reason to everything would be very attractive. Unfortunately 'want' to believe and 'able' to are just too far apart to make this possible, for me at least.
I hope that helps.
Also 'credulous' is more of a negative statement about someone than 'incredulous', which to me at least sounds fairly neutral. And you better believe it.
That pretty much ends all of our little debates about the existence of God.
Incredulity is still not a 'belief' Miscella, something out of which you always wish to make scepticism and doubt - which is generally the point of our 'little debates'. Sorry about that. But keep going.
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000

I have no issues in being called incredulous
Good. Then you don't believe because you don't want to believe. That pretty much ends all of our little debates about the existence of God. Anything else you'd like to discuss?

That's right Arlon. I do agree with the definition of a soft atheist.
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000

my words tend to agree with dictionaries soft atheist
~~
Matthew 15:14

note that it's my word against yours.
Indeed. But my words tend to agree with dictionaries, while some of yours require arguing with dictionaries, I recall.
There you go again messing with definitions to avoid rather than to facilitate communication.
Does one really
have
to believe there is no God then to lack belief in one? Where does that leave the standard definition of a soft atheist? Would you have to
mess
with it?
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000

Although I can be a veritable font of patience, I'll skip abruptly to a point here and note that it's my word against yours. There appear people on both sides who seem certain they are less afraid than the other side. If you imagine you can resolve that or change anyone's mind, good luck. I find it sufficient to note the quandary. Perhaps that's because I have less fear of losing after all.
A lack of belief in a deliberate supernatural is not contingent on belief that it does not exist
There you go again messing with definitions to avoid rather than to facilitate communication.
But you have been told this before
Your attitude is not as impressive as you might think.
~~
Matthew 15:14