Atheists... why do you believe that God doesn't exist?

[Rampant.A.I.]

Well, the pigeon just craps the board and knocks over the pieces.

A hobbit will eat some of your pieces, claim the board is evidence for their argument, make up obscure rules and claim the invisible chess champion behind him has assured him they're legal, then drops his pants and craps all over the board and demands you explain why he did that.

[The Reality Salesman01]

We call what cannot be faulted knowledge.

I don't know who "we" is, but since you've thrown yourself in with them, this statement explains quite a bit about how you rationalize your position. I'd be willing to bet that this standard for what qualifies as knowledge for you is limited to only one subject, and if I were to be so bold as to make another guess, it would be that with regards to the subject for which this standard of knowledge is acceptable, your definition of "fault" is probably a bit skewed as well.

---

Jim was just murdered.

I think Steve did it.

My evidence is that Jim was murdered.


...all you can do is disagree. But if you can't fault it, it's knowledge of who the culprit is.

[fr0d0]

All you can say it's that you disagree.

Our disagreement is based on your, and other theists, flawed logic.

Yet you can't show that. QED

---

Lolno. If you're going with Plato's "justified true belief" model of knowledge, of course you can be wrong about things you know. After all, how does one ascertain what is true? By means of justification, which is the third component in Plato's theory of knowledge. Perhaps you should look up the Gettier cases, because they showcase what's wrong with trying to view knowledge like that.

Fail

Your supposed refutation is unrelated.

This knowledge isn't flawed and has never been refuted. Like I said, you could suggest alternatives that may or may not provide as complete an answer (i'm not aware of any).


As for the rest of you, your input is pathetic

[Simon Moon]

Our disagreement is based on your, and other theists, flawed logic.

Yet you can't show that. QED

---

Sure I can.

Present any 'logical' argument for the existence of god, and I, and others here, can point out the fallacies.

[fr0d0]

Yet you can't show that. QED

---

Sure I can.

Present any 'logical' argument for the existence of god, and I, and others here, can point out the fallacies.

Some above moon flower. Do your worst.

[Bad Writer]

It should be simple to do it again, Frodo.

[MindForgedManacle]

Fail

Your supposed refutation is unrelated.

Er, how is it unrelated? You said - did you not? - that what one knows cannot be faulty?

This knowledge isn't flawed and has never been refuted. Like I said, you could suggest alternatives that may or may not provide as complete an answer (i'm not aware of any).

I think by saying that you show you don't know what you're talking about on this. If you're treating knowledge as a justified true belief, then you can be wrong about things you "know" under that epistemic model: the Gettier cases. Take the following thought experiment:

A person sees two large barns out in the distance. Given the time of day, the side of the barns the persons sees are dark, so he can't make out much of anything about them aside from their general shape. Unbeknownst to this person, only one of the two objects is an actual barn. One of them is in fact just a large cardboard cutout. Epistemically (under Plato's theory of knowledge), no matter which barn this person looks at, they can say they "know" it's a barn. After all, this belief is held with justification (observation, in this case) such that no matter which barn the person looks at, it seems that they "know" that they're looking at a barn. And yet, if the person is only looking at the cardboard cutout they'd be wrong that he knew it was a barn. And yet, regardless of which one they look at, there appears to be no epistemic difference to the person that allows them to distinguish false knowledge from true knowledge if their means of justification is, unknown to them, faulty.

[Rampant.A.I.]

If the above is true, you should be able to demonstrate it in some way. If you can't, then I have every reason to assume you are talking out of your ass while having no way of knowing that you're not.

I know, you insist that you can't demonstrate it. What I don't get is why you think that this failure on your part weakens my position.

I can demonstrate it, just not objectively.

Eg. look all around you for evidence of him. Everything which exists/ irrefutable logic of his existence attested by believers.

All you can say it's that you disagree.

Of you take the materialist stance, however, you deny the ability of humans to reach conclusions via logic. Logic which is founded in reality.

This is your "rational proof"? An existent universe is your proof that your specific incarnation of the the deity you were enculturated to believe exists?

How can you by the same logic deny the thousands of other gods said to have existed, or other supernatural entities -- which I can only assume after 4-5 pages you cannot reasonably defend the dismissal of any of the supernatural entities out forth by other superstitious beliefs, and qualify why your own beliefs are compartmentalized from any criticism, external or internally -- and yet still claim evidence which points to "existence demonstrates existence" and bend that arrow to conveniently point to a supernatural entity you already believe exists that you already defined as: "that entity for which no transferable or objective evidence exists".

So which is it? Objective evidence does exist, or no objective evidence can by definition exist?

What links <existence exists> to <:. My specific supernatural deity in the way I define it exists>?

It's equivalent to saying "A baby named David will be born in 1953, and 6 people will be killed and 7 wounded between 1976-1977, as demanded by his neighbor's dog, therefore all dogs are innately evil and can communicate telepathically."

Do you understand what a logical proof is?

A formal proof or derivation is a finite sequence of sentences each of which is an axiom or follows from the preceding sentences in the sequence by a rule of inference. The last sentence in the sequence is a theorem of a formal system. (Wikipedia)

You've logically proved that you can throw together a premise and conclusion, and believe you have an objectively logically sound proof of your specific specific deity with all the qualifications and descriptors you tag on to that deity not only exists, but is somehow related to the evidence you are presenting. You've failed to logically show how and why this is the case.

There is nothing objectively reasonable in connecting the conclusion you presuppose to be true is evidenced by reasoning you've utterly failed, for the entirety of this thread, to provide, presumably because you don't have any.

You were raised to believe <God exists>,
Therefore <My specific deity named God exists>
Therefore <My God is omnipotent>
Therefore <My God created the universe>
Therefore <My God created the universe>
Therefore <The universe existing is evidence of my God> makes sense, to you. You presuppose six conclusions, that you are incapable of logically supporting, and have presented as evidence of the first conclusion.

Objectively. Because you think your reasoning is sound, and this makes you feel intellectually superior to anyone who would have to bash themselves over the head repeatedly with a sack of bricks until they were able to accept your reasoning as a logical argument, and are proud of it, fancying yourself intelligent for seeing the connection between multiple conclusions with no deduction behind them, where none objectively exists.

Congrats. If you're good, and can come up with some tenable reasons for why those conclusions connect, what logical arguments support each conclusion, and a tenable reason to reject every other supernatural entity lacking evidence except the one you've decided you believe in, you can have glitter to use with your macaroni and Elmer's glue painting of what your supernatural entity looks like.

[Coffee Jesus]

As for the rest of you, your input is pathetic

I beat you to it.

[Simon Moon]

Sure I can.

Present any 'logical' argument for the existence of god, and I, and others here, can point out the fallacies.

Some above moon flower. Do your worst.

It doesn't work that way, frods, and you know it.

I am not positing anything that needs to be supported, you are. My position is a response to you positing the existence of a god.

You are the one in the position of demonstrating the existence of a god. And unless you have a brand new logical argument for the existence of a god, you're shooting blanks. All of the known logical arguments thus put forth, have been refuted. They all contain at least one fallacy.

So, as far as I can tell, your position is not rational, nor is it supported by evidence or reasoned argument.