Workch:
So there's evidence against it right?

Yes

Workch:
is there evidence against a flying human?

Yes. Gravity!

jaephoenix:

Yes. Gravity!

good, you have answer your own question.

To add to it, there's also no gene to code for wings in humans.

Do you see why I won't believe it as well?

There are evidence against it

jaephoenix:

Yes

So it's why I won't accept it myself.

There's evidence against it

jaephoenix:

Yes. Carbon dioxide is 96% of the air! Meanwhile, Mars has almost no oxygen; it's only one-tenth of one percent of the air, not nearly enough for humans to survive. If you tried to breathe on the surface of Mars without a spacesuit supplying your oxygen – bad idea – you would die in an instant.

you see why I will not accept it again.


So is there evidence against a deistic god?

jaephoenix:

Neither is there evidence for it.
In the law court, they would have struck out your argument ages ago, because no evidence for it. They don't look out for 'evidence against'

law court is not science.

Even in the law court, you are always required to provide evidence for or against else the case will be struck out based on lack of evidence

Workch:
you see why I will not accept it again.


So is there evidence against a deistic god?

As a follow-up to my question, what if I insist I flew to work. And proceed to write a book how I grew wings and flew…

Workch:
law court is not science.

Even in the law court, you are always required to provide evidence for or against else the case will be struck out based on lack of evidence

There you go. Struck out based on lack of evidence
Same way I'm striking off deism based on lack of evidence

Workch:
you see why I will not accept it again.


So is there evidence against a deistic god?

Let’s know the nature of this deistic god, we know how mars operate, like you said we know how genes operate to know a man cannot fly.
What are the qualities of this “deistic god”, let’s put it toscientiifc test, so we know how it operates.

We know mars has a thing called carbon dioxide that’s why we can’t breathe on it.

What’s the composition of the deistic god that makes it possible for it to form before big bang?

jaephoenix:

As a follow-up to my question, what if I insist I flew to work. And proceed to write a book how I grew wings and flew…

If there is evidence for or against it, then I will think that you are probably drunk or you need to visit the psychiatrist.

However if there no evidence for or against, I will remain skeptical about it.

jaephoenix:

There you go. Struck out based on lack of evidence
Same way I'm striking off deism based on lack of evidence

lack of evidence for or against.

Stop cherrypicking.

In the United States Court, the prosecutor is always required to provide evidence against the defendant

Workch:
If there is evidence for or against it, then I will think that you are probably drunk or you need to visit the psychiatrist.

However if there no evidence for or against, I will remain skeptical about it.

What if there's no evidence for it, would you remain skeptic?

Workch:
lack of evidence for or against.

Stop cherrypicking.

In the United States Court, the prosecutor is always required to provide evidence against the defendant

Is the prosecutor not the theist that’s suppose to provide evidence against atheist, the defendants?

jaephoenix:

What if there's no evidence for it, would you remain skeptic?

yes

Maynman:

Is the prosecutor not the theist that’s suppose to provide evidence against atheist, the defendants?

But In Nigeria, it's the other way.

The defendant is suppose to defend himself by providing evidence against the prosecutor's claims.

He will practically defend himself

Workch:

In the United States Court, the prosecutor is always required to provide evidence against the defendant

If you go to court and claim i killed someone, you provided no evidence, will the judge say I should prove myself that I didn’t kill anyone?
And because I can’t provide evidence against a claim, I should go to jail?
Is that how it works?

Workch:
But I Nigeria, it's the other way.

The defendant is suppose to defend itself by providing evidence against the prosecutor's claims.

He will practically defend himself

So the prosecutor only need to make claims(blank statement) without proving it?
What exactly will the defendant defend?

Workch:
But In Nigeria, it's the other way.

The defendant is suppose to defend himself by providing evidence against the prosecutor's claims.

He will practically defend himself

You see the underline part is what I’ve been trying to explain.

How do you know a thing called “god” has the ABILITY to exist or not.
Because if you say you don’t know if it can exist or not, you’ve already ascertain that a thing called god might have the ABILITY to exist.

A true agnostic rejects all gods because he knows nobody knows of any, it’s unknowable, any explanation by theism, science or rationality is automatically already wrong on the fact that no one knows.
I’m an atheist because I’m agnostic.