This misstep. You imply knowledge of evidence, which is fine, but you could have anticipated that the definition of "evidence" is arbitrary. Now you're battling with vhehn in the five-senses, materialistic sphere. He will win there. Then pure materialism will prevail. That negates millenia of philosophical thought on the issue, and discredits thousands of great minds. In fact, you may have single-handedly destroyed the Western tradition. Thanks, riskfree. ; )
What proof do you have that I am blowing smoke? Since you make a conclusion without proof, what makes you think you are not doing the same with God?
\ I have the evidence, and my evidence, by its nature, will defeat any argument he may have against my evidence. He just proved my challenge at the beginning that he is a liar, and that he is not able to look at the evidence seriously.
In fact time is on side of the truth. Those who would come after us, just like us who came after those before us, are more positioned to find the truth. In addition what makes you think that the evidence is not there in the past?
What is wrong with you? Since you could not defeat the argument, you now attack the person bringing forth the argument? You have to get rid of internal tensions to address such topics as God. You need to be honest not only with others but with yourself in discussing such a topic.
are you as dense as you seem? or do you have a mild case of mental retardation? you claimed to have some evidence. we asked you to present your best evidence. you refused and now claim we could not refute what you refused to present.