Atheism Destroyed in Under 50 Seconds

[CliveStaples]

How do you deny something you generally don't believe exists? I'm not denying anything. I've rejected the claim that a god exists, that's it. Of course I'm going to live as if there is no god, I've been living that way from as far back as I can remember.

I feel like you didn't actually read what I wrote.

I didn't say that you're denying anything. I said that under Pragmatism, which is something like "Action is belief", you functionally deny the existence of God.

Let's put it another way. Suppose there was a pill that would kill you if a god exists, but makes you live for as long as you wish if no gods exist. Would you take it?

Well you tell me, how does a universe that had a beginning proves the existence of a god?

Uh, burden of proof. You're the one who made the claim. Support or retract.

Did I say you can't be hypothetical of the idea of a god? No. However before it can be used to explain anything, you do need to establish that said being actually exists and then to go on to demonstrate that this being did in fact create the universe.

Okay, I think it was just a miscommunication about what "adding God to the equation" amounts to. I don't really care about prolonging that semantic argument.

It seems like you're failing to account for certain circumstances. What if the only available explanations all include God's existence? What if most of the available explanations include God's existence? What if the most likely explanation includes God's existence?

You'd just totally ignore all of those explanations until it was separately and independently established that God exists?

I'll make it easier for you. Let's say I asserted that pixies created the universe, it's essentially a non-answer. I haven't demonstrated that pixies even exist yet, let alone demonstrated that they were responsible for the universe. So just like god, you must first demonstrate that this god actually exists before you can use it to suggest or support the claim that he/it created the universe. A does not prove B without first proving A. Or X does not prove Y if you have not demonstrated X to begin with.

If you will, a house without a foundation.

You...are really bad at explanations. You literally repeated your sentence changing A to X and B to Y. Wow.

I think you're saying something like:

"Pixies created the universe" is really "Pixies exist, and created the universe." So any proof that pixies created the universe must prove along the way that pixies exist.


Is that a good characterization of your argument?