Theoretical question

Yes (but not only that, I would prefer 'unambiguous')  - something which ought to be clear enough in the event to exclude reasonable doubt. That of course does not mean there will be no obdurates. I still wait for a sensible objection to anyone being given an informed choice in the event of a significant decision which is common in so many other aspects of life. Good luck with the election lol

The words you quoted were mine. And supposing I even did this, to what effect was it? You don't need my help to argue poorly.




Don't tell me what I have on my mind.




Once again it seems I must say that I not asking for your supposed deity for anything which includes coercion (like threatening all with hellfire who do not believe in Him) By repeating this misrepresentation you are creating a false a false argument. As previously noted though your god has form in "hardening hearts" or threatening hellfire, to force his will on people does he not?




A no true Scotsman fallacy, or appeal to purity, is a fallacy where the one arguing says or writes that all people belonging to a certain group have the same trait, and those in that group who do not share that trait are not really part of that group EG "No true Scotsman puts brown sugar on his porridge. The fact that Angus MacGregor puts brown sugar on his porridge just proves that he's no true Scotsman!" I hope that helps.




I can't speak for most atheists like you can, obviously, - but speaking for myself I are more attracted by reason per se. And dragging in science when I am just asking your god to stick above the parapet to give us all a wave would appear rather irrelevant.



Some posts tend to fall to bits as they go along, it would seem.




No idea what you are on about here,  sorry.

In the meantime you still have to make it clear why an informed decision about any significant decision is worse than being left in the dark. Or why what we expect in other aspects of our lives is suddenly a bad idea. The suspicion though is once that quite reasonable hope is accepted, given what we know of your supposed god's expressed will and power, there's a likely reason why there is continued silence from above.

corrected: spelling

If there's only one candidate, it most certainly would be the case.

Brown sugar rocks, Film flaneur. Only thing i shall have in pieces. Not my posts.
Divide and rule?
Who do you think you are, the King of England ?
And you will stop it it with ”my supposed god”. True, there’s nothing wrong with speculation. It even might help the transit, ”god” knows how.
But after reading your Litterature, I suspect you imply that I am actually a catholic.
I would not turn down a philosophical debate with one of the philosophers I reffered to above.
But I am an agnostic.
Good luck with all your agressive ways.

Just a guy trying to work out what on earth you are on about as usual.

Film flaneur

Achievment is better than trying.

Film flaneur
Please leave my ”spelling ” mistakes alone.

Other than knowing that I have no choice, what information do you think I would need?

If it were impossible to lack belief in God, then belief in his existence wouldn't be a choice, informed or otherwise. This isn't rocket science.

Film flaneur
I told you I won’t engage in légal speech without getting a fee. I’m expensive.
12 mins 600 €.
Do you want a legal speech about contracts, as it comes to the point of consent, focus on violence?
I can have bitcoins.