Strong Atheism starts from faith

[Rhizomorph13]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

[Violet]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Do you even know what that means?

[Zhalentine]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

The argument from ignorance,[1] also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance"[1][2]), argument by lack of imagination[citation needed], or negative evidence,[1] is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true. - wikipedia

I'm not sure who you were talking to since neither fall under this. From what I have gathered from fr0d0's responses, he does not believe in god only because it has not been proven false, he believes in god for more than one reason and theVOID does not believe in god only because it has not been proven true.

[Rhizomorph13]

1) Why does God require and thus ensure that there is no evidence for his existence?

I wouldn't know why, not being God.

2) How do you know your answer to 1) to be true?

How do I know I'm not God? If I knew then I'd think I'd know.

1) Fr0d0 has posited that God requires that there be no evidence, Void asks for his reasoning, Fr0d0's reply is I don't know, I'm not God. Classic AAI. Premise = God requires that there be no evidence reasone why = I don't know I'm not God.

2) Premise = I know 1) to be true, reason = How do I know, I'm not God? If I knew then I'd think I'd know.

Can I haz cookie?

Rhizo

PS No I don't know what argumentum ad ignoratium means, therefore it must apply to this situation!

[Zhalentine]

Fr0d0 has posited that God requires that there be no evidence, Void asks for his reasoning, Fr0d0's reply is I don't know, I'm not God. Classic AAI. Premise = God requires that there be no evidence reasone why = I don't know I'm not God.

"a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true."

I think you're getting hung up on the word ignorance in the fallacy's phrase. The fallacy isn't committed when asked to provide a reason you say "i don't know". The fallacy is when someone believes something for the sole reason that there is no evidence for something or because it has not been proven true.

[fr0d0]

VOID didn't ask for my reasoning... he asked how I knew why God 'required and ensured' nil evidence.

My reasoning is in everything we can understand to be 'God like', given a serious consideration of God.

The question goes very deep, and requires explanation of the base formulation of 'God'. There's no way we could cover such a massive topic easily, unless you know better.

[Rhizomorph13]

Fr0d0 has posited that God requires that there be no evidence, Void asks for his reasoning, Fr0d0's reply is I don't know, I'm not God. Classic AAI. Premise = God requires that there be no evidence reasone why = I don't know I'm not God.

"a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true."

I think you're getting hung up on the word ignorance in the fallacy's phrase. The fallacy isn't committed when asked to provide a reason you say "i don't know". The fallacy is when someone believes something for the sole reason that there is no evidence for something or because it has not been proven true.

Ahh point taken, fuck I hate being wrong, but now I have one more fuck post! I retract what I said.

---

Fr0d0,

You need to at least attempt an explaination instead of just calling people ignorant, or advising them to study up on God. I get that it can be a large task but you claim it is reasonable and we want to know your reasons. I have studied God from many angles and I have no idea where you get your idea of God from or even what it is because you seem to hold conflicting ideas about God.

Rhizo

[tackattack]

---

Everything in faith is covered by the non verifiable clause VOID. The prayer test was a clear abandonment of all logic pertaining to the subject tested. Do you really think, in all honesty, that God would ever be proven? I can't believe that you do, I have too much respect for your intellectual prowess.

Do i think God will be proven? No, he doesn't exist. Do i think there would be evidence for him if he did exist? Yes.

I asked you once before why god requires that there is absolutely no evidence for his existence and how you know this to be true. but you completely ignored them so i will post them again:

1) Why does God require and thus ensure that there is no evidence for his existence?

2) How do you know your answer to 1) to be true?

---

I answered you EXACTLY above. That you're too much of a fucktard to understand possibly defines you.

You didn't give me an answer, just dodge and spin.

Do you or do you not have any empirical or logical evidence for the existence of god?

If yes, present it.

---

1) The idea of God as percieved by human intellect requires justification, yes. God does provide evidence through influence that he exists that is in relation to his nature, insubstantial, no unsubstantiatable.

2) Humans could exist without seeking or identifying true and false but that's not our nature. I have no way of giving substantial (all 5 webster contexts) evidence to substantiate an idea of God that isn't subjective so I don't know objectively that it's true. However subjective truth doesn't equal false.

3)logical conclusions based off of relative subjective evidence in the Existance of God... hmmmm . Well first we'll have to define God and existance and you'll have to conceed to 2) above or it's a pointless excercise of debate which I want nothing to do with personally.

[Edwardo Piet]

Fr0d0, stating all my points to be "thoughtless bullshit" doesn't make them so.

You completely failed to answer post #135.

I do not really consider this:

[thoughtless bullshit]

- to be an appropriate response to post #135 at all. I was pointing out what seems to be to be your failures in logic and self-contradictions, and I also asked questions and made points. You dealt with none of them. I think that your response that it is simply 'thoughtless bullshit' is clearly more thoughtless.

EvF

[FaithvsFact]

Sorry for the late replies to everyone's posts.Super busy at work and I have a busy social life and other commitments as I am sure you all do.

From reading through all the subsequent posts from where I left off, it is obvious that this thread has gone completely in the OPPOSITE direction of where my OP began!

The discussion about the existence of god was NOT in the scope of my post - it was "simply" to ask the strong atheist to define what faith and fact are from THEIR points of view, and then once established, to proceed from there.

It started that way, got to a point, and now has completely focused on proving whether god exists which is what I said very clearly in my OP was not in scope (and is best left to another thread). This is what happens when you leave a thread for this long!

To all the people who have joined this thread subsequently to my last post, I would request you to please read the OP - the direction the thread has taken is quite a bit off!

Can I please ask everyone who is a STRONG ATHEIST on this thread to please answer the two questions from my OP.

I have received many answers but few from actual strong atheists. It is you strong atheists who are in view!

BTW - in case you can't be bothered going all the way back to my OP, I am a Christian who is interested in hearing back from strong atheists about their answers to my two questions.

Thanks in advance, and again, apologies for such a long delay in coming back.