RE: Atheist or really Agnostic
October 1, 2013 at 5:47 pm
(This post was last modified: October 1, 2013 at 6:03 pm by Mister Agenda.)
"This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
If the universe, therefore God.
The universe.
Therefore, God.
This is equally as logical as:
If I am Bill Gates, I am rich.
I am rich.
Therefore, I am Bill Gates. "
I bungled the above. It should have been:
If God, then the universe.
The universe.
Therefore, God.
This is equally as logical as:
If I am Bill Gates, I am rich.
I am rich.
Therefore, I am Bill Gates.
Your Google finger is broke? Here:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Pick the one you think is best and I'll have a crack at it.
Afterall, it's not like an irrefutable argument for God would make the news or anything.
There you are, going on about absolute negations again. What are you on about? Atheism doesn't require believing in an absolute negation. Not understanding the definition of atheism is forgivable. Being uneducable on the topic is not.
You must only prove one of them.
What is our burden of proof, exactly? In every other situation, it's the person who says something exists who has the burden of proof. The only reason there seems to be to shift it in this case is because you don't want it.
It would be utterly ridiculous to expect people to believe everything that hasn't been disproven. Without strong evidence one way or the other, the null hypothesis holds. That's why I'm not obliged to believe in leprechauns, even if I can't prove they don't exist. If someone wants me to believe in leprechauns, they'll have to provide me with convincing evidence, or I won't buy it. It's as simple as that.
If you really accepted your burden of proof, you'd be showing us God is real instead of thinking it's some kind of victory if people who can't prove any made-up invisible insubstantial thing isn't real can't prove your favorite one isn't real either.
If the universe, therefore God.
The universe.
Therefore, God.
This is equally as logical as:
If I am Bill Gates, I am rich.
I am rich.
Therefore, I am Bill Gates. "
I bungled the above. It should have been:
If God, then the universe.
The universe.
Therefore, God.
This is equally as logical as:
If I am Bill Gates, I am rich.
I am rich.
Therefore, I am Bill Gates.
(October 1, 2013 at 2:59 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Please list all of the hundreds and the refutation.
Your Google finger is broke? Here:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Pick the one you think is best and I'll have a crack at it.
Afterall, it's not like an irrefutable argument for God would make the news or anything.
(October 1, 2013 at 2:59 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: But even then an absolute negation is not proved by listing some and disproving.
There you are, going on about absolute negations again. What are you on about? Atheism doesn't require believing in an absolute negation. Not understanding the definition of atheism is forgivable. Being uneducable on the topic is not.
(October 1, 2013 at 2:59 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: You must disprove them all.
You must only prove one of them.
(October 1, 2013 at 3:49 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Actually I am trying to get atheists and agnostics to accept their burden of proof. Some in those camps are trying to escape their burden of proof.
I have already accepted mine.
That is coming in future topics.
What is our burden of proof, exactly? In every other situation, it's the person who says something exists who has the burden of proof. The only reason there seems to be to shift it in this case is because you don't want it.
It would be utterly ridiculous to expect people to believe everything that hasn't been disproven. Without strong evidence one way or the other, the null hypothesis holds. That's why I'm not obliged to believe in leprechauns, even if I can't prove they don't exist. If someone wants me to believe in leprechauns, they'll have to provide me with convincing evidence, or I won't buy it. It's as simple as that.
If you really accepted your burden of proof, you'd be showing us God is real instead of thinking it's some kind of victory if people who can't prove any made-up invisible insubstantial thing isn't real can't prove your favorite one isn't real either.
