Dtruthspeaker:


I never presented reason as evidence, I presented evidence, as evidence.

The only thing I have seen you present is arguments for why either a god exists or there is some kind of afterlife. Which is why I asked if you think argument/reason is evidence. Since you say only lawyers can determine if reason is evidence why are you presenting it to me as evidence? How am I supposed to accept it since I can't determine if it is indeed evidence?

LordReed:


The only thing I have seen you present is arguments for why either a god exists or there is some kind of afterlife. Which is why I asked if you think argument/reason is evidence. Since you say only lawyers can determine if reason is evidence why are you presenting it to me as evidence? How am I supposed to accept it since I can't determine if it is indeed evidence?

Arguments are mere presentations but evidence, are evidence and everytime I make a presentation, I drop some evidence unless when I am withholding evidence so that someone would clearly demand it from me.

But most often, all my arguments have in them the evidence in support.

Dtruthspeaker:


Arguments are mere presentations but evidence, are evidence and everytime I make a presentation, I drop some evidence unless when I am withholding evidence so that someone would clearly demand it from me.

But most often, all my arguments have in them the evidence in support.

I have not seen you present anything but arguments. If you have presented evidence then it should be a simple thing to either point out where you did so or replicate it here.

LordReed:


I have not seen you present anything but arguments. If you have presented evidence then it should be a simple thing to either point out where you did so or replicate it here.

You in Truth did see the evidence it is only because it is your personal power as I told you above that you exercise your power of refusing to accept them, which no one can do.

But you did see them and you often responded based on their presence.

Dtruthspeaker:


You in Truth did see the evidence it is only because it is your personal power as I told you above that you exercise your power of refusing to accept them, which no one can do.

But you did see them and you often responded based on their presence.

I can only recall responding to your arguments, I cannot recall any other form of evidence you presented. Since you are not replicating any arguments why not just provide the evidence here?

LordReed:

I can only recall responding to your arguments, I cannot recall any other form of evidence you presented. Since you are not replicating any arguments why not just provide the evidence here?

Until now, you could not Truly distill the difference between an argument and an evidence, so you just have to wait until the next debate to see if you can Truly distill an argument from evidence.

Dtruthspeaker:


Until now, you could not Truly distill the difference between an argument and an evidence, so you just have to wait until the next debate to see if you can Truly distill an argument from evidence.

Why wait, we are already debating now that an afterlife does not exist. If you have evidence to the contrary present it now.

Dtruthspeaker:


Until now, you could not Truly distill the difference between an argument and an evidence, so you just have to wait until the next debate to see if you can Truly distill an argument from evidence.

Imagine!!!!

You said he saw the evidence.

Now, you are saying he can't determine the difference between the argument and the evidence.

In other words, you have either changed your mind or you never meant what you said.


Based on whatever you and LordReed are having,I can determine that nothing concerning God will ever be determined by either of you till you die.


Case closed!!!!!!

LordReed:


Why wait, we are already debating now that an afterlife does not exist. If you have evidence to the contrary present it now.

And this was my answer,
"No sir, all do not Cease!. They simply move to the next stage of living depending on their results in this stage."

Then your fellow brother in belief, HardMirror, gave me opportunity to present my evidence when he asked

HardMirror:
how do you know this?

And after I answered, he said

HardMirror:
ok sir. i will agree with you. so what are these things you have created. lets learn.

So, you see I had presented my evidence but you refused to see it, as is your power.

Dtruthspeaker:


And this was my answer,
"No sir, all do not Cease!. They simply move to the next stage of living depending on their results in this stage."

Then your fellow brother in belief, HardMirror, gave me opportunity to present my evidence when he asked



And after I answered, he said



So, you see I had presented my evidence but you refused to see it, as is your power.

Your answer to how do you know this was:

Dtruthspeaker:


Because I am A Creator myself. And I solely decide the future and fate of each and everyone one of my creations, whether they shall live the length of my life or whether they shall Cease To Exist!

That's the Absolute Unfettered Power and Right of A Creator.

This is an argument/reason, it is not a different type of evidence as you claimed.

HellVictorinho:


Imagine!!!!

You said he saw the evidence.

Now, you are saying he can't determine the difference between the argument and the evidence.

In other words, you have either changed your mind or you never meant what you said.

If you had thought about it very well, you would have seen that there is a difference between "Seeing" evidence and ability to distill, separate or extract evidence from other particulars.

LordReed:


Your answer to how do you know this was:

This is an argument/reason, it is not a different type of evidence as you claimed.

Nope! I had made myself and my ability to create "the evidence".

Dtruthspeaker:


If you had thought about it very well, you would have seen that there is a difference between "Seeing" evidence and ability to distill, separate or extract evidence from other particulars.

Imagine!!!!


It is impossible to see anything without distinguishing it from another thing with your brain.


If you can't distinguish between me and LordReed,then you can never see or recognize me as a separate or distinguishable entity.


Accusing me of not understanding English won't change anything
That's what some people do whether or not you agree with them


Spits

HellVictorinho:

If you can't distinguish between me and LordReed,then you can never see or recognize me as a separate or distinguishable entity.

Yes, that is the problem Reed has! You have TO KNOW EACH ELEMENT IN THE MIX VERY WELL before you make a distinction.

It is exactly as you need to know Hydrogen and Oxygen very well before you can make a distinction between them in the Compound 2H2O.

I did not accuse you of anything, I was only pointing out your error.

Dtruthspeaker:


Nope! I had made myself and my ability to create "the evidence".

You keep claiming that you have given the evidence even when nobody has agreed with you concerning the definition of the evidence.


LordReed asked if an argument is the evidence.
Then you said it is and it is not at the same time before claiming to have given it along with your argument.
You said it's in your argument.

You have actually said different contradictory things towards a specific question.


What a waste of time!!!

Dtruthspeaker:


Nope! I had made myself and my ability to create "the evidence".

That is called an argument, if A therefore B. That is not evidence.

HellVictorinho:

You keep claiming that you have given the evidence even when nobody has agreed with concerning the definition of the evidence.

No one has asked me what "what evidence is" and therefore, I can reasonably presume that they know what it is, so it is not in issue.

Secondly, Agreement is not made to Agree what the Definition of Evidence is or shall be.

That has been done already which is what The Law of Evidence has Settled.

LordReed:


That is called an argument, if A therefore B. That is not evidence.

This is where the scantiness of your knowledge of evidence fails you and must fail you.

I did not say if A or B (which is Logic, i am a Professor of Logic also).

I gave evidence and directed you that I and all like me, on the ability to create, are evidence.

Dtruthspeaker:


Yes, that is the problem Reed has! You have TO KNOW EACH ELEMENT IN THE MIX VERY WELL before you make a distinction.

It is exactly as you need to know Hydrogen and Oxygen very well before you can make a distinction between them in the Compound 2H2O.

I did not accuse you of anything, I was only pointing out your error.

It depends on the nature of your analogy or illustration .


I made use of living things in my illustration


You are using compounds


Based on your analogy,you are saying the evidence is in the statements you make


But I disagree


Words are not enough to prove the existence of a being.


The being has to be felt by other beings as it cannot exist without being felt by other beings


Don't accuse anyone of refusing to accept that God is being felt by him or her because you think it is God that is being felt


You don't have the power to determine the being a person is feeling except the being is seen by you with your eyes


If you are having sex or feeling your wife,I won't be sure until I see you having sex or feeling your wife.

Dtruthspeaker:


This is where the scantiness of your knowledge of evidence fails you and must fail you.

I did not say if A or B (which is Logic, i am a Professor of Logic also).

I gave evidence and directed you that I and all like me, on the ability to create, are evidence.

You are not an evidence because there's nothing about you that shows there was ever a construction of you by anyone.


You are not a construction.

Since we don't agree on your identity,we also don't agree towards the definition of an evidence and there's no law that is worth considering on issues like this except the law that says there is no reason why anyone should be accused of refusing evidence since there's no agreement by all humans towards the definition of an evidence on issues like this.

Ultimately,there is no evidence since there's no agreement towards the definition of an evidence on issues like this.


If God really exists,then God should be felt or seen by everyone in the same environment as God


If God is very tiny,then God should be seen as very tiny.

HellVictorinho:

You are not an evidence because there's nothing about you that shows there was ever a construction of you by anyone.

You do not know what evidence is nor how to identify one, so you can not validly point out whether I am not an evidence or not.

Dtruthspeaker:


You do not know what evidence is nor how to identify one, so you can not validly point out whether I am not an evidence or not.

You are not capable of determining what I don't know or what I know.


So, what's the use?

HellVictorinho:

I made use of living things in my illustration.

You are using compounds

I had wanted to say sugar and salt but I liked the obvious difficulty a non science person will experience when dealing with a subject he knows nothing about which is my point as your confession here has proven, hence my play for for specific knowledge of certain elements like Hydrogen and Oxygen, which the ordinary man like you will not know the difference, therefore it would be impossible for you to identify them and separate them, which is my point

HellVictorinho:


You are not capable of determining what I don't know or what I know.

i have already determined that you do not know what evidence is or can be. So chill.

Dtruthspeaker:


I had wanted to say sugar and salt but I liked the obvious difficulty a non science person will experience when dealing with a subject he knows nothing about which is my point as your confession here has proven, hence my play for for specific knowledge of certain elements like Hydrogen and Oxygen, which the ordinary man like you will not know the difference, therefore it would be impossible for you to identify them and separate them, which is my point

You just keep assuming that I don't know Bla Bla Bla


Who needs your praise??


If you think I don't know,it doesn't mean I don't know.


What else

HellVictorinho:


You just keep assuming that I don't know Bla Bla Bla...

If you knew, you would have presented long before now. So chill!

Dtruthspeaker:


i have already determined that you do not know what evidence is or can be. So chill.

You think I don't know.


Does your thinking matter??


I say NO

What you think doesn't mean anything to me

Dtruthspeaker:


If you knew, you would have presented long before now. So chill!

You are meant to present.

But you keep repeating like a terrorist.


The onus is on you.

HellVictorinho:


You are meant to present.

But you keep repeating like a terrorist.


The onus is on you.

Change of post!

HellVictorinho:


You think I don't know.


Does your thinking matter??


I say NO

What you think doesn't mean anything to me

Out of point.

Dtruthspeaker:


Change of post!

Honestly

This debate is meaningless



Can you do me a favor??


It won't cost you much


I just need something I can use to get anything except garri


I don't want to keep taking it like that


It's not helping my health

Dtruthspeaker:


This is where the scantiness of your knowledge of evidence fails you and must fail you.

I did not say if A or B (which is Logic, i am a Professor of Logic also).

I gave evidence and directed you that I and all like me, on the ability to create, are evidence.

It is not evidence because you are not the god in question. You telling me that because you can create therefore there is a creator, if A therefore B. This again is an argument not evidence.