(July 18, 2013 at 6:42 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Is this proof?

No more so than the bible is proof of god's existence. However, a fiction book is proof that its writer exists. Since god did not fax down the bible directly from heaven....

---

(July 18, 2013 at 6:46 am)fr0d0 Wrote: What kind of fact?

The kind that is easily discerned from fiction.

(July 18, 2013 at 6:46 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(July 18, 2013 at 6:42 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I said : there cannot be proof

You said : there is no proof

Claim = yours.

There is no proof. Simple as that. The burden always lies with the one making the positive, extraordinary claim for which there is no evidence to support the claim.

And again you start with the semantics. There cannot be proof and there is no proof are the same thing. If you had stated there is currently no proof, that would have been different.

But I make no claim. I state that there cannot ever be proof. The claim is of your imagining.

That's not semantics. I'm being very clear.

And so are you. You think proof is possible, and the reason for your disbelief is the lack of it. So you must have an idea of what that proof is, or your objection must be illogical, or based on blind faith.

(July 18, 2013 at 6:42 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I said : there cannot be proof

You said : there is no proof

Claim = yours.

If there cannot be proof, if proof is impossible, then by definition there is none of it. The claim is self evident.

Moreover, if there cannot be proof, how can you be rationally justified in believing any part of it? You've been asked this over multiple threads, and are remarkably evasive when it comes to answering.

(July 18, 2013 at 6:50 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You think proof is possible.

I do not think proof of god's existence is possible. I, like most atheists, merely ask for proof because otherwise there is no valid reason to believe in something for which there is no proof.

(July 18, 2013 at 6:54 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(July 18, 2013 at 6:50 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You think proof is possible.

I do not think proof of god's existence is possible. I, like most atheists, merely ask for proof because otherwise there is no valid reason to believe in something for which there is no proof.

So then you're not an atheist who doesn't believe in God because there is no proof, as you said earlier.

You and I don't think that proof of God is possible, yet I believe with reason and you do not.

So the question hinges on the validity of each of our reasoning. And you've just destroyed your own reasoning. So where next?

(July 18, 2013 at 7:00 am)fr0d0 Wrote: yet I believe with reason and you do not.

It is not possible to believe in a deity with reason, for there is no valid reason to believe in something for which cannot be proven to exist. What you call reason is blind faith, which is not reason at all.

Well I think I'll let that logical car crash stand as evidence.

---

If I had blind faith, that would be unreasonable, just like your blind faith in no proof.

My faith, however, is based upon reason, and is not blind. (see the "what is faith" thread for the definition)

(July 18, 2013 at 7:14 am)fr0d0 Wrote: If I had blind faith, that would be unreasonable, just like your blind faith in no proof.

My faith, however, is based upon reason, and is not blind. (see the "what is faith" thread for the definition)

Reason is based upon premises, though, and those premises need to be demonstrated to be true in order to be justified, reasonable, and indeed, acceptable to a rational mind. One of the premises of belief in a god, by necessity, is "some god exists," and without a justification, or even a methodology by which that premise can be discerned as truthful, then you cannot rationally hold it.

Let me put it another way: something convinced you that this god proposition was true, something had to, since we as people don't come with preinstalled ideas. You saw something that convinced you of the existence of a god, or heard an argument, or even pieced it together from your own observations, but there was something that made you accept this claim. What was that thing?

You say your position is based upon reason, yet you never seem to explain or identify what's reasonable about it. You just assert, over and over again, that your thinking is reasonable, but how is anyone else to differentiate it from the usual theistic non-arguments if you refuse to let us in on the secret?

I do present it endlessly esq.

The question of God cannot be known. Therefore the assumption has to be made. The evidence of coherent supporting logic that would make that assumption viable enables faith.

Your objection rests on the substantiation of proof, which as Maelstrom has demonstrated above, is impossible.

Do you think proof of God is possible? If so, please describe what form that proof might take. If you cannot reason any workable hypothesis, then you hold a position of blind faith.

The Maelstrom conundrum:
1. There cannot be proof of God
2. We cannot believe in God without proof
3. 1 defeats 2

(July 18, 2013 at 8:10 am)fr0d0 Wrote: The Maelstrom conundrum:
1. There cannot be proof of God
2. We cannot believe in God without proof
3. 1 defeats 2

Technically, she said she didn't think it possible to prove God's existence. If she thought it was possible to prove, I would be interested in hearing her proof of why.

2. enforces her confidence in 1, although she did not claim it WAS impossible, only that it is clearly beyond her faculties. I think that's where the confusion is coming in at.