RE: Argument against atheism
December 24, 2011 at 2:51 pm
(This post was last modified: December 24, 2011 at 2:53 pm by amkerman.)
You work the other way around downbeat?
I can't believe I am actually responding to your garbage. But here it goes
"Well we know that tree planting pixies exist, trees exist, therefore pixies plant trees, this is proof positive in the existance of tree planting pixies".
- and how do we know these things in your argument? What evidence
do you rely on to make such claims?
That statement relys on three assumptions. That pixies exist, that trees exist, and that things(trees at least) can be planted.
Your primary statement, that, "pixies plant all trees" would not be an assumption at all, but a hypothesis which is based upon the three assumptions and likely evidence.
Your argument is simply contrary to my statement. You prove my point.
Downbeat how do you define "god"? Once you define what god is god is easily refuted. You are simply conjuring a god in your imagination and then refuting it.
I can't believe I am actually responding to your garbage. But here it goes
"Well we know that tree planting pixies exist, trees exist, therefore pixies plant trees, this is proof positive in the existance of tree planting pixies".
- and how do we know these things in your argument? What evidence
do you rely on to make such claims?
That statement relys on three assumptions. That pixies exist, that trees exist, and that things(trees at least) can be planted.
Your primary statement, that, "pixies plant all trees" would not be an assumption at all, but a hypothesis which is based upon the three assumptions and likely evidence.
Your argument is simply contrary to my statement. You prove my point.
Downbeat how do you define "god"? Once you define what god is god is easily refuted. You are simply conjuring a god in your imagination and then refuting it.
