I accepted this debate to talk about the existence of God.....God is a mystery.
This debate - as you will knoe quite clearly from the discussions that when on when it was being set up, is to debate the evidence
for your god. Thus far, you have refused to discuss what you regard as sufficient evidence for a claim, nor have you made any attempt to present any evidence.
Do you intend to debate the evidence for your god Junebug, yes or no? If you are unwilling or unable to do so, please let me know and we can stop wasting our time.
If you DO intend to debate evidence, then before we begin we need to agree on what is sufficient evidence to support such a claim. I am trying to establish what you believe is sufficient, by suggesting that the hypothetical John has made an identical claim to the one you made in this thread, and asking whether his statement is sufficient for you to accept his claim.
John asserts that his Magic Talking Socks are the Power that is Life and without that Power life would not exist.
Do you accept that John has provided sufficient evidence to support his claim?
Now.....you also stated that "I don't care if John believes in socks. I know too much about socks. I wear them on my feet everyday", which appears to mean that you do NOT believe John has presented sufficient information to support his claim. I'll use these claims to begin to establish our baseline for sufficient evidence
First Criteria - "I don't care if John believes in socks". Absolutely agree. What one person happens to believe is entirely irrelevant as evidence as to the fact behind any belief. We can therefore discard any statements beginning "I believe....." as being evidence. I thank you in advance for not offering any further statements of that kind as evidence.
Second Criteria - "I know too much about socks". Interesting. You are suggesting that the fact that you have examined a large number of claims about an item - in this case socks - therefore invalidates any future claim about a particular item of that class? "I have worn socks - my socks have never exhibitied magical properties - therefore no socks have magical properties". I applaud you for this position, as it is generally a good one to have - however it does present us with a problem.
"I have examined many claims for gods. None have ever displayed any magical properties. Therefore no claims for gods are true" would be my flipped version of your statement, which leaves us with a problem. By the terms you are using, we cannot accept as true your own claim about a god - we must reject it immediately, without
looking at evidence because no claim in the past has ever proven true.
I don't think that is the position you want me to take, so - in determining sufficient evidence, we need to look at how we can establish the truth of a claim. Hence, I return to John's socks.
Without dismissing his claim as irrelevant and unworthy of examination, what criteria would you use to investigate the truth of John's claim? What evidence would you accept from him that might support his claim as being true?