Poll: Whaddya reckon about God's existence?

[Seth]

So presumably you have some critically robust scientific evidence that all religions are devoid of truth or social utility,

I don't believe I said that, did I? I said they were founded upon bullshit: specifically folk-tales and the supposed divine revelation of unverifiable sources.

Any truth contained within religion is unverifiable

Is it? Your critically robust scientific evidence of the unverifiability of religious truths is....??? You should try to distinguish between "not yet verified" and "unverifiable."

but, to my mind, doubtful to the point of irrelevance.

That speaks to the expansiveness of your mind more than it proves your point.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

So presumably you have some critically robust scientific evidence that all religions are devoid of truth or social utility,

I don't believe I said that, did I? I said they were founded upon bullshit: specifically folk-tales and the supposed divine revelation of unverifiable sources.

Any truth contained within religion is unverifiable

Is it? Your critically robust scientific evidence of the unverifiability of religious truths is....??? You should try to distinguish between "not yet verified" and "unverifiable."

but, to my mind, doubtful to the point of irrelevance.

That speaks to the expansiveness of your mind more than it proves your point.

In your own words: Yet another weak-kneed evasion admitting your inability to formulate a cogent and persuasive rational argument.

[pErvinalia]

So presumably you have some critically robust scientific evidence that all religions are devoid of truth or social utility,

I don't believe I said that, did I? I said they were founded upon bullshit: specifically folk-tales and the supposed divine revelation of unverifiable sources.

Any truth contained within religion is unverifiable

Is it? Your critically robust scientific evidence of the unverifiability of religious truths is....??? You should try to distinguish between "not yet verified" and "unverifiable."

God is a supernatural concept. By very definition it is unverifiable scientifically.

[Seth]

So presumably you have some critically robust scientific evidence that all religions are devoid of truth or social utility,

I don't believe I said that, did I? I said they were founded upon bullshit: specifically folk-tales and the supposed divine revelation of unverifiable sources.

Any truth contained within religion is unverifiable

Is it? Your critically robust scientific evidence of the unverifiability of religious truths is....??? You should try to distinguish between "not yet verified" and "unverifiable."

God is a supernatural concept. By very definition it is unverifiable scientifically.

Is it? Sez who? Could whomever says God is supernatural be wrong? What if God is entirely natural, but misunderstood?

Trying to dismiss God-concepts by labeling them as "supernatural" without the slightest bit of objective, critically robust scientific evidence that God is indeed supernatural is just a lame evasion.

[pErvinalia]

That's what god is by definition. You've got Christian friends, go ask them.

[Seth]

That's what god is by definition. You've got Christian friends, go ask them.

And Christians are infallibly correct about the "definition" of God how, exactly?

[pErvinalia]

You apparently know even less about religion than you know about logic.

[rainbow]

That's what god is by definition.

You cannot deFINe the inFINite.

[pErvinalia]

Here we go..

[rainbow]

What are the BOUNDS of the BOUNDLESS?

[pErvinalia]

What drugs are you on?

[rainbow]

What are the LIMITS of the UNLIMITED?

[pErvinalia]

What are the limits of your inanity?

[Animavore]

That's what god is by definition.

You cannot deFINe the inFINite.

I like this. God as a fish view of reality.

[Animavore]

Is it? Sez who? Could whomever says God is supernatural be wrong? What if God is entirely natural, but misunderstood?

What if your face is on backwards?

Please don't abuse sentences.

Trying to dismiss God-concepts by labeling them as "supernatural" without the slightest bit of objective, critically robust scientific evidence that God is indeed supernatural is just a lame evasion.

I dismiss them not by labelling them "supernatural", but by labelling them, "ill-defined". Give me a working definition of a god that I can examine and then, when I try worm my way out of accepting its truth by diverting the question, you can claim that I'm "evading" and not before.
Without a definition in the first place there is nothing to evade. Literally.