Ybe an atheist

[LastPoet]

Trying to use formal logic on an informal subject.

[The Valkyrie]

35 pages , guys.

Is this nonsense going to reach 380 pages like the DNA thread?

[Ybe]

Ybe's own statements:   

If no G, then no reason 4 responding.      #326

We see no reason to believe that a "G" exists.  
You apparently think that a "G" exists.  
If you cannot provide the evidence that you claim exists in abundance, then there is NO REASON 4 THIS THREAD.

Good 4.  Wow how long is it you have not read the first post.

B OR NOT 2B...   Y B an A.  Can U tell me Y B an A? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G = ... G found in the B"
B= Bible (My G's book)
A = Atheism, belief in the absence of any belief in G; "One who does not believe in G" is an A.
Belief= an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.   "his belief in the value of the absence of a belief"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I mean, is there any  logical. reasonable. rational reason to be an A
 (One that  differs from, " I flipped a coin,  so tails I am an atheist".)
 Bad ex. reasons;  I'm an A because there is no G  or .

This thread is not about giving evidence for G or for the Bible. It is about As giving a logical. reasonable. rational reason for being an Atheist

---

There are many proofs and evidences given for G.  Example of just one. Proof.

 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_...ical_proof)

From the wikipedia article:

First, Gödel axiomatizes the notion of a "positive property":[note 2] for each property φ, either φ or its negation ¬φ must be positive, but not both (axiom 2). If a positive property φ implies a property ψ in each possible world, then ψ is positive, too (axiom 1). Gödel then argues that each positive property is "possibly exemplified", i.e. applies at least to some object in some world (theorem 1). Defining an object to be Godlike if it has all positive properties (definition 1), and requiring that property to be positive itself (axiom 3),[note 3] Gödel shows that in some possible world a Godlike object exists (theorem 2), called "God" in the following.[note 4] Gödel proceeds to prove that a Godlike object exists in every possible world.

There is no such thing as an objectively "positive" property.  Godel has erred.  And his proof fails because his premising the existence of "positive" properties is unsound.

I wouldn't know that. Just posted it to say Ts give lots of reasons and not just a definition as their reason(s).

I have pointed out the error in saying:
 If an A definition, then A definition is true,
 A definition
 so A definition is true

If you wish to point out errors point out the ones As are making in their so called proof or even better yet post your own.

---

YB: The quote thing seems weird.


The basics non proofs that atheists have given for the Q. (see first post of this thread) are pretty much like:
 " because I don't believe in g(s) and it fits my definition of an A.
 "oh, *?&9@* stupid troll"
  "I don't believe those many proofs for G"

Or answering the Q  with a Q:
 " Did G write the B?
 " Do you believe in S Us or Ds?"

I gave you one of my many reasons not believing, a god that directs/commands child killing I can't/won't believe in. 
Valid logical reason.

I didn't ask for a valid reason for not believing in G, I asked for valid reason for believing one should be an A.

But perhaps we need to clarify your reason(s):

 P1 If I would be other than an A, then the G in the B would be liked by me,
 P2 The G in the B is not liked by me. (I think we agree to this premise being true)
 C. So, not true that  I would be other than an A, or (I am an A)

But if you hold to this your argument, then you are only proving there is a G (that you do not like).
Now, one can like or not like G that is a choice one makes, but I do not recommend not liking G.

I have sincerely tried to represent your argument. If I misunderstood, my apologies.

I would be glad for your own clarification this is how your argument appears to me.

[brewer]

---

I gave you one of my many reasons not believing, a god that directs/commands child killing I can't/won't believe in. 
Valid logical reason.

I didn't ask for a valid reason for not believing in G, I asked for valid reason for believing one should be an A.

But perhaps we need to clarify your reason(s):

 P1 If I would be other than an A, then the G in the B would be liked by me,
 P2 The G in the B is not liked by me. (I think we agree to this premise being true)
 C. So, not true that  I would be other than an A, or (I am an A)

But if you hold to this your argument, then you are only proving there is a G (that you do not like).
Now, one can like or not like G that is a choice one makes, but I do not recommend not liking G.

I have sincerely tried to represent your argument. If I misunderstood, my apologies.

I would be glad for your own clarification this is how your argument appears to me.

I'm admitting that people believe in a god. I'm stating that I don't believe in that god, therefore atheist. You asked for a logical reason, I provided it. 

People that like god are people that need a mental crutch to get through life.

[Mystic]

You guys are asserting you have proof of why it's good to be Atheists (ie. lack of evidence).  You haven't actually provided that proof.

[Ybe]

[quote pid='1765981' dateline='1527619315']
Ybe:
To prove the premises false As would have to Give me convincing/sufficient E. So far not done.

I declare that the lack of evidence for a god is my evidence for gods non-existence.
Let me put it like this.
If I told you there was an elephant in my kitchen you would want to have evidence of said pachyderms unlikely position in my kitchen which, lets face it, has quite small doors.

If I then go and check and there is not elephant, not trace of said elephant and no way that the floor could have stood the weight of an elephant then it is reasonable to assume that the person telling you there was an elephant was either:
A: Mistaken.
B: Lying.
C: Mad.
So that lack of evidence FOR the elephant in the kitchen leads to my conclusion that there never was an elephant there. If the person then says "no REALLY there WAS an elephant" then they'd better have something pretty convincing in the way of evidence.
This is where we are with god.

[/quote]
 YB: About this first elephant so like G. If this thread were about proof for G then Elephants are not the same as X-rays you go into the Kitchen and say no radio waves  
A: Mistaken.

B: Lying.
C: Mad.
D: What about, not willing to admit that you don't have any logical rational reason for being an A-radiowavist or an A.
(Who would  make a forum about that"

[brewer]

You guys are asserting you have proof of why it's good to be Atheists (ie. lack of evidence).  You haven't actually provided that proof.

Not necessarily good, but I consider it better than any other theist/deist option.

[Mystic]

You guys are asserting you have proof of why it's good to be Atheists (ie. lack of evidence).  You haven't actually provided that proof.

Not necessarily good, but I consider it better than any other theist/deist option.

What YBE is showing is that none of you are willing to articulate your analysis of evidence presented for God.  So in that sense, none of you are providing proof there is lack of evidence, not even proof that there is lack of evidence in what you've seen so far.

[Ybe]

I tried to edit the post #346
with the wierd quote thing as after I posted it didnt fix.

---

downbeatplumb:
There isn't a god. (prove me wrong, I am always willing to view new evidence)
So it would be illogical to believe in a god.
There is no G so I am an A.

Trying to put what you said into a logical  reason:
[Assertion No G]
P1 If there is no G it would be illogical to believe in G
P2 No G
C. it is illogical

If that is not what you meant to say, then the following would not apply:
Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error or fallacy of the inverse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the inverse from the original  
statement. It is committed by reasoning in the form: If P, then Q. Therefore, if not P, then not Q.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent)

To prove you meant to say otherwise give a logical proof.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sounds like you think you have the ability to judge E for G.

But (using A way of thinking)  
Assertion - there is no convincing/sufficient E for As being able to logically reason that.  
Proof:
P1. If A's can"t give convincing/sufficient E (that As are able to logically reason), then As have no ability to judge E for G.
P2. I agree that As can't give convincing/sufficient E (that As are able to logically reason).
C. So,  it is true they have no ability to judge (any E for G presented)

(by modus ponens) - rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement (“if p then q ”) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds,
then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred.   (ref google search)

To prove the premises false As would have to Give me convincing/sufficient E. So far not done.

I declare that the lack of evidence for  a god is my evidence for gods non-existence.


Let me put it like this.

If I told you there was an elephant in my kitchen you would want to have evidence of said pachyderms unlikely position in my kitchen which, lets face it, has quite small doors.


If I then go and check and there is not elephant, not trace of said elephant and no way that the floor could have stood the weight of an elephant then it is reasonable to assume that the person telling you there was an elephant was either:
A: Mistaken.
B: Lying.
C: Mad.
So that lack of evidence FOR the elephant in the kitchen leads to my conclusion that there never was an elephant there. If the person then says "no REALLY ther WAS an elephant" then they'd better have something pretty convincing in the way of evidence.

This is where we are with god.

To put it another way.


Do you have evidence that there are no underpant gnomes?
If you have no evidence for there not being no underpant gnomes then you must believe in underpant gnomes. That's how you seem to think evidence works.

The other post is not how I wanted it so to clear it up I will make this short and sweet. Sorry, it will be a question, but hopefully it will make my point.

So, are you also going to join the A(elephants in the kitchen forum) and the  A(gnomes) forums and tell people I just don't see enough evidence for those and make spout more illogical reasons for being one of those?

[brewer]

Not necessarily good, but I consider it better than any other theist/deist option.

What YBE is showing is that none of you are willing to articulate your analysis of evidence presented for God.  So in that sense, none of you are providing proof there is lack of evidence, not even proof that there is lack of evidence in what you've seen so far.

How many times have we gone over the evidence for god(s) and always found it lacking. The reason I've found it lacking always comes down to no actual evidence, only assertion, testimony, argument and debate. Nothing concrete has ever been provided, and Ybe is no different. And I'm not surprised, man made god(s) as a mental crutch.