(September 18, 2009 at 3:37 pm)Arcanus Wrote: I am wondering if you are aware that your signature proudly champions a very basic logical fallacy, and whether or not you care. It's fine if you don't, of course; it's just weird that you parade it so proudly. (That is, "God does not exist. Unless there is evidence to prove otherwise.")

It's not that I claim there is no god, it's that I don't believe in such a thing due to lack of evidence. So I dismiss the claim.

If you want me to make it more clear then I will. In the eye's of science and observation, there is no such thing as a god. Now this actually applies to every fictional character. God is a fictional character like any other. The god claim will be dismissed if the claimer fails to provide evidence. Evidence that is measurable, study-able, empirical. If you cannot provide that kind of evidence then from that we conclude that god or gods do not exist until evidence is found to say otherwise. We are not saying god does not exist, fact. We are saying god does not exist based on lack of evidence to say it does. We have every reason to dismiss gods existence.

Ace,

It is the wording that you use. It conflates existence with evidence. A thing can exist even if there is no apparent evidence.

Rhizo

(September 18, 2009 at 5:21 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Ace,

It is the wording that you use. It conflates existence with evidence. A thing can exist even if there is no apparent evidence.

Rhizo

I'm not saying it does not exist. I'm saying there is no evidence to suggest that it exists. The same goes for the pink unicorn or the FSM. The FSM isn't an impossibility and could exist despite lack of evidence. Maybe I should rephrase it to make it more clear.

Ace,

That one is worse. I am looking around my room and see no tigers, therefore tigers do not exist. I think any scientist worth a damn would add a probably between god and does which would make that statement great in my opinion.

I'm thinking of becoming a theist just because refuting us seems as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. I'll admit I have no great argument for atheism, but I think that is the point; I don't need one. Oh, and how dare you misslabel the Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHH)! We know she is invisible because we can't see her (science) we have faith that she is pink (religion) NOMA be damned!

Rhizo

(September 18, 2009 at 5:36 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Ace,

That one is worse. I am looking around my room and see no tigers, therefore tigers do not exist. I think any scientist worth a damn would add a probably between god and does which would make that statement great in my opinion.

I'm thinking of becoming a theist just because refuting us seems as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. I'll admit I have no great argument for atheism, but I think that is the point; I don't need one. Oh, and how dare you misslabel the Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHH)! We know she is invisible because we can't see her (science) we have faith that she is pink (religion) NOMA be damned!

Rhizo

There you have it. Sig gone. Happy now?

Tigers are not in your room based on your observation. You don't see any. That does not mean they do not exist, it just means they are not there to be observed. I can say I have a pink apple in my hand that is invisible, naturally people would say it's not there because it is not observable. That does not mean it is not there, it's just not there to be observed. Same goes to god. I'm not saying he does not exist, I'm saying there is nothing to suggest that he does. Therefore it's reasonable to not believe in it.
In the eyes of scientific observation, there is no evidence to suggest it exists. Get it now? Please tell me you get it?!

Ace,

I got it first go 'round. The fact that you keep parroting it back to me amuses me to no end. My tiger comment was meant to mock your sig and demonstrate, using a known existing object, how absurd your sig was. Please understand I do not ACTUALLY worship the Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHH) nor do I ACTUALLY believe that tigers do not exist based on observations in my room.

Rhizo

I've facepalmed so many times my face hurts. I can't be bothered to continue debating. I'm too busy facepalming.

Unicorns exist!! They are in the bible!

Psalm 29:6
He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

Dragons too!

Isaiah 34:13
And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls.

And talking Donkeys!!

Numbers 22:28
And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

Thank goodness this bible is inspired by God or else I wouldn't have believed it! (Sarcasm)

Arcanus, I take it you are trying to point out a contradiction as well, yes?

Well in both instances they are actually the exact same thing. In Ace's siggy you only highlighted "God does not exist.". If you actually highlighted the rest of the signature which includes "Unless you have evidence to say otherwise", then you'll realize that his statement in the post itself is exactly the same, no contradiction there.

Furthermore, how is it a fallacy when god has never been proven with infallible evidence? All you have is a skill with words but that is hardly enough for us to believe in this god. We need irrefutable proof that "yes he is very much real and cannot be denied".