OK Atheists.......prove god doesn't exist

Again, it is nothing but a blind religious belief which has no roots in realty. Proving a negative is quite common in mathematics and formal and informal logic.
As an atheist you are not aware about existence of such as well as about reality around you.

 

Atheism is by definition ALWAYS the rejection of a positive assertion; it is impossible for an atheist position to be the rejection of an assertion that has not been made.

 

First, define God.

 

Why do I have to prove that you don't have a live elephant in your pocket when it is well known that you have a live elephant in your pocket?

 

More refusal to jump through your hoops.

There is a thread, "The Folly of Atheism" which has at least four people asserting "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are."

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-folly-of-atheism.492383/#post1067078729

Read through it if you want...or try to get someone else to jump through your hoops.

 

Indeed, so many gods... Go for this one: I have never proceeded from any Genus supremum of the actual infinite. Quite the contrary, I have rigorously proved that there is absolutely no Genus supremum of the actual infinite. What surpasses all that is finite and transfinite is no Genus; it is the single, completely individual unity in which everything is included, which includes the Absolute, incomprehensible to the human understanding. This is the Actus Purissimus, which by many is called God.

 

Bull turds.

An atheist can easily make the assertion, "There are no gods."

Many do.

There is no need for the assertion, "There are gods" to be made...because both are assertions about what does or does not exist in REALITY.

 

By doing so you would be proving a positive: that there is nothing in your pocket, if you can see what I mean.

But you didn't prove there's no elephants in there; they may be of a different specie or you migh be not technologically advanced to have the means to perceive them, as far as a lawyer could advance.

You can't prove, for exemple, that you don't have the cold - but you can prove that you are in perfectly good health.

Another, more closely-related exemple: Prove that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

No one in the history of the world has seen one or talked to one. But I guess one exists, probably lives next door to the leprachaun and unicorn.
End of thread.

BTW - did you have a specific god in mind?

 

Freedom to choose or not choose a god? Most, if of biblical in nature god, say the being is omniscient and will know prior which every human ever will ever choose.
That also means the being knows the exact moment every single human will leave this earth and where those humans will spend eternity. If the being is omniscient.

Which also means, no single human ever, can choose something that isn't already known prior to the life on earth.

 

Really? You have submitted a positive proof that you never had take a job where you had to prove that you don't use drugs.
I think Jimmy is positively over it, you can do too.

 

If God is everything, then there is no God.

 

These tests don't prove absence of drugs; They prove presence of drugs.

 

Not everyone has voices in their heads to convince them something exists.
And most likely the existence in only in the head of the hearing voice.

 

And by logic, if the positive isn't found, it is assumed the presence of what was being looked for doesn't exist.

 

But that's just an assumption, or a conclusion. Not a proof.

 

It is a very interesting logic
if G =E then there is no E=G.
But the given text does not define God as everything.

 

Oh, man...You already have submitted a positive proof that you never had take a job where you had to prove that you don't use drugs or absence of drugs in your body. And as drugs I mean the stuff you use to support your logic - heroin, cocaine and all other things you used to help you to make such a statement.
I really cannot find any other reason for your confusion or any mistake which can be corrected...

 

Well, if you were here with me and asserted you had an elephant in your pocket, I could prove you did not. Unless you ran away with thousands of pounds in your pocket before I could turn them inside out to prove it to you.

But of course if you were not here with me, since I have no access to you, you should have never asked me to prove you didn't have something it was impossible to prove. I don't see a fallacy as much as I see irrationality. LOL

If god does exist, not a particular god, but just something outside of time, space, matter, there is no way to prove or disprove what there is no access to. Also, logically if god is immeasurable, how do you measure what is outside of measurements? I guess this is why religion is based upon faith? A faith that what is impossible to prove exists anyways. But does this faith in something impossible to prove or disprove useful to some people? It seems to be the case, in helping people to deal with the inevitable suffering of human life. So no wonder there is so much resistance in trying to take this faith away, when it helps people to deal with horrible things? From this point of view, it seems kinda cruel to take away something that helps people, whether it exists or not. Especially given that there is really no way to have honest certainty. Perhaps atheists are akin to those people who love pulling the legs off of insects and then taking delight in what they have done to the insect?

 

So quote those who assert "there are no gods" not interested in the others.

 

To reply in any other way would indicate that I care at all about what you post. To all intents and purposes you post like a theist, that is essentially what you are, you worship ignorance. 'Bull turds'? really? have they changed your meds?

 

How do you stand up for a lack of belief?

 

Frank needs to believe that he knows exactly what atheists think in order to justify his religion to himself, I don't care much for his psychic capabilities and complete lack of an ability to listen to what people say. I predict that he will start quoting dictionaries and etymologies if we don't conform to his straw man.

 

The given text to which I responded: "it is the single, completely individual unity in which everything is included, which includes the Absolute, incomprehensible to the human understanding."

If God is as you describe, then none can point to a thing or non-thing and say "that is God." Therefore, God does not exist, or God is all that exists and therefore cannot be described or proved as to do so would be to limit God.

 

I've never met an atheist who claims 100% evidence that no gods exist. We don't make any claims about gods at all ... religious people do.

Asking atheists to prove there is no god is like asking you to prove that giant lizards who sing opera arias live inside the Horsehead Nebula. Do you feel you need or want to prove anything relating to this claim? Or do you sensibly dismiss it because it's my nutty claim, and therefore my problem?