Islam owns atheism with a single verse

[brewer]

Arguing a god into existence, totally new line of reasoning.

You can argue that the 'concept' of a god(s) exists, or does not exist, but actual existing in reality requires concrete evidence, not argument or abstractions.

[Loaded dice]

 actual existing in reality requires concrete evidence, not argument or abstractions.

Consider the assertion P : "actual existing in reality requires concrete evidence, not argument or abstractions."

Is the assertion P provable by argument or abstractions...??? does it need concrete evidence ...? 

[Bucky Ball]

Unfortunately for you, you are the one making the claim, so you get to do the proving. That's how that works. 

Except that @no one made the claim that God doesn't exist.
Asserting that God positively doesn't exist is also a claim that needs proving.
Tell me more about me needing logic classes. 

LOLOLOLOL
This is one of the things you'll learn when you grow up and get all big. There is no evidence for any of the gods. 
That's what "there are no gods" means ... no evidence. I do see now why you thought Pink Sparkly Unicorns was "logical" and why you equated that idea with the gods. 
It's also one of the reasons why you need to take Logic 101 as soon as they let you. 

"Proving a negative is not possible" is one of the first things they will teach you when you start to learn big people ideas. 
The fact that you would say "prove it" to someone, asking them to prove a negative demonstrates how totally uneducated you are.   

Now run along outside and play, dear. Your brain seems quite foggy. 
Did you stay up past your bedtime ? 
Maybe a little exercise will help clear your mind.

[brewer]

 actual existing in reality requires concrete evidence, not argument or abstractions.

Consider the assertion P : "actual existing in reality requires concrete evidence, not argument or abstractions."

Is the assertion P provable by argument or abstractions...??? does it need concrete evidence ...? 

Outside of belief/faith in a god concept, yes it does require concrete evidence.

Sorry, I don't follow religious threads much, they are usually filled with bullshit. What is assertion P?

[no one]

I already proved that god is make believe, and only the stupidest cunts subscribe to the idiocy of religion.

[Loaded dice]

LOLOLOLOL
This is one of the things you'll learn when you grow up and get all big. There is no evidence for any of the gods. 
That's what "there are no gods" means ... no evidence. I do see now why you thought Pink Sparkly Unicorns was "logical" and why you equated that idea with the gods. 
It's also one of the reasons why you need to take Logic 101 as soon as they let you. 

It's simple, Bucky. When you claim a negative assertion, you should prove this negative assertion.

"Proving a negative is not possible" is one of the first things they will teach you when you start to learn big people ideas. 

Hot garbage. I can prove that there is no greatest prime number right now, and yet this is a negative.

Sounds like they didn't teach you much.

[Loaded dice]

Outside of belief/faith in a god concept, yes it does require concrete evidence.

Yeah, we know. That's why the vast majority of theistic arguments begin from observations and facts about the universe.

What is assertion P?

It's your assertion that actual existing requires concrete evidence and not abstract arguments, does this assertion itself require concrete evidence ? or abstract arguments ?

[Bucky Ball]

LOLOLOLOL
This is one of the things you'll learn when you grow up and get all big. There is no evidence for any of the gods. 
That's what "there are no gods" means ... no evidence. I do see now why you thought Pink Sparkly Unicorns was "logical" and why you equated that idea with the gods. 
It's also one of the reasons why you need to take Logic 101 as soon as they let you. 

It's simple, Bucky. When you claim a negative assertion, you should prove this negative assertion.

"Proving a negative is not possible" is one of the first things they will teach you when you start to learn big people ideas. 

Hot garbage. I can prove that there is no greatest prime number right now, and yet this is a negative.

Sounds like they didn't teach you much.

Thanks for demonstrating you never took Logic. AND that you know nothing about the Philosophy of Science or math. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

But .... I have to give it to you dear. 
You have added what will in due time be one of the novel and most glaringly overlooked proofs in all of Logic. 

Congratulations !
"Proof by cartoon" - by the famous philosopher, Loaded Dice

will certainly go down in history as one of the most famous advances in Logic in modern history. 
 

[Anomalocaris]

LOLOLOLOL
This is one of the things you'll learn when you grow up and get all big. There is no evidence for any of the gods. 
That's what "there are no gods" means ... no evidence. I do see now why you thought Pink Sparkly Unicorns was "logical" and why you equated that idea with the gods. 
It's also one of the reasons why you need to take Logic 101 as soon as they let you. 

It's simple, Bucky. When you claim a negative assertion, you should prove this negative assertion.

"Proving a negative is not possible" is one of the first things they will teach you when you start to learn big people ideas. 

Hot garbage. I can prove that there is no greatest prime number right now, and yet this is a negative.

Sounds like they didn't teach you much.

Except of course the proof of there being no greatest prime is a proof of a positive, there there are an infinite number of primes.      


You should learn that you are stupid enough so you should never assume you are right and others are wrong, particularly where your religion is concern.  There you religion made you even more likely to be wrong than would ordinarily be within your extraordinary power to be wrong,

[Loaded dice]

Except of course the proof of there being no greatest prime is a proof of a positive, there there are an infinite number of primes.      

Proving that Non-P is true (negative assertion) is equivalent to proving P is false, so all provable statements in mathematics can be reformulated to be negative assertions. And needless to say that the simplest definition of an infinite set is a negative assertion : a set that is not finite.

Spare us your lack of understanding of mathematics, and go back to hiding.