And again, burden of proof has to do with the actual production of evidence. That's not even the topic of this conversation. The question is, are you capable of articulating what evidence would need to be produced. If not, then you haven't truly thought through all sides of an argument.

Statements have logical implications. That's not claiming to be psychic. P1: A rational person who is capable of being convinced of X should be able to articulate what could convince them of X. P2: MD cannot articulate what would convince him of X. C: MD is incapable of being convinced of X.

I agree with that statement, but it has nothing to do with any point I have made. You're confusing the burden of actually producing the evidence with the rational position of being able to articulate what type of evidence would need o be produced to convince you. Those aren't the same thing.

Which is what I believe is the logical outworking of what he said. Watch the video.

I never said Matt explicitly said nothing would convince him. I pointed out his argument fails to recognize that possibility and that logically, saying you don't know what will convince you strongly suggests that nothing will. Any rational person should be able to say what would change their mind.

I am aware of who Mr. Dilahunty is and he is welcome to interact. I disagree with your characterization of his programming. He often talks over people rather than listening, which is not a sign of someone interested in genuine interaction.

Nothing I said was a lie. Matt has often made the argument that he does not know what would convince him. I am simply pointing out the logical outworkings of that position. He presents a false dilemma and ignores the option that God knows he will never be convinced.

"Evidence" quite obviously does NOT mean "that which is seen." I guess according to you there is no evidence for black holes. By definition you can't "see" a black hole (because it pulls in all light), so hey, I guess we shouldn't believe in them.

Your caption for this is a pretty spectacular self-own. So you think you are more qualified to tell other people what they believe? I wonder if you would feel the same about someone dictating to you what you believe. Smh. Or, maybe YOU don't really know what Christians believe. Just a thought.

No, that is not what weeping and gnashing of teeth means. If so, explain why God gnashed His teeth at Job. Why did the Jewish Council gnash it's teeth at Stephen in Acts? It is a phrase denoting extreme anger, NOT physical pain. Respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm dodging?! Seriously? You are avoiding the plain and obvious fact that you have one standard for everything else but are bending over backwards to justify a different standard for God. Sorry, but no. Your entire worldview is completely inconsistent.

"What happens to people" is they are separated from God and constantly cursing/blaming Him (which is what "weeping and gnashing of teeth" means). So people who want nothing to do with God end up separated from Him. You blame God for that? You'd rather He force them to be with Him against their will?

(1) Your argument is like saying the government who set up the laws and prisons is responsible for the criminals who end up there.
(2) Who said the sins are finite? If an inmate murders another inmate while in prison, should his sentence be extended? You assume people don't keep sinning in Hell.