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

What do you see as irrational about my answers?

Here is my position:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

What do you see about any of that...as unreasonable.

Why do you have a problem with acknowledging that you do not know something that you do not know...and why do you have a problem with saying that you will not make a meaningless blind guess about something like that?

The CHILDISH thing is to refuse to acknowledge the obviousl

Get away from the childishness, Golem. Come to the world of the adult.

 

You're using your arbitrary definitions again. I only "blind guess" at the roulette in a Casino. And sometimes on things that just don't interest me. For everything else, I look for data, research, try to find out... and if I can't find enough information to know, then I usually end up with a "guess" that is not blind (a.k.a. "belief" by some) because I now have information about it.

Yesterday a friend asked to the group that had met for lunch if we thought Gonzaga or North Carolina was going to win. Basketball is one of the few sports that just doesn't interest me. I told my friend I didn't follow College Basketball, and just wasn't interested. He insisted that everybody make a guess, so I said "Gonzaga". That's a blind guess. If I had made even the smallest brain effort to "un-blind" it just the smallest of smidgens, , I would have remembered (as I just realized as I was writing this) that North Carolina is a Public university, and Gonzaga is a religious institution, and I would have said "North Carolina". But I didn't even make that effort. If I had any interest, I might have looked up their records, or some other factor in order to "un-blind" it a bit. In other words, I would have made an effort. It would still have been a "guess", but not a "blind guess"

I do. But a guess doesn't have to be a blind guess. Unless you're too intellectually lazy and you don't "un-blind" it. As I was on the basketball question. This is the fallacy you have gotten yourself into.

The only things that are "simply right" or "simply wrong" are religious dogma. Religious dogma is the unquestionable Truth. For everything else there is a reason. And there is always a way to, at a minimum, form a belief.

 

Do you not notice how, to you, things are "obvious", or "simply right" or "simply wrong"...?

That's not rational thinking. That is religious thinking.

 

It is only blind guessing in your case because your definition of a god has no criteria that are possible to test.

 

You do not have a single piece of information that indicates no gods exist in REALITY. NOT ONE TINY PIECE. The reason being...there IS NO EVIDENCE THAT NO GODS EXIST.

There also is no way to calculate the likelihood of gods vs. no gods.

So everything you have said here that includes..."there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...

...IS NOTHING BUT A BLIND GUESS.

Become an adult and acknowledge that.

An estimate about who will win in a contest of that sort...IS NOT A BLIND GUESS...although it may be a guess. But it most likely is an estimate...or a calculation.

So what. What I said above holds.


I do. But a guess doesn't have to be a blind guess. Unless you're too intellectually lazy and you don't "un-blind" it. As I was on the basketball question. This is the fallacy you have gotten yourself into.

I hope the hood finally comes off for you. I truly do. If it does, you will marvel at what you see.

In the meantime, if you are going to continue to try to fake it here in PF...we'll continue to bump heads.

 

No...but if you want to delude yourself...if kidding yourself makes you feel better about what is happening here...

...continue with it.

I will do my best to help you get on the right track.

 

It IS blind guessing on your part...whether you can see it or not.

 

you guys are talking across each other.

Seems some people cannot fathom that their religious faith is a blind guess and some atheists cannot fathom that despite the "rationality" of science, to affirm that there are no gods is equally a blind guess,even with having the spectacles of science to assist in arriving at that philosophical conclusion.

 

The assertion, "There is a god" is almost certainly a blind guess.

The assertion, "There are no gods" DEFINITELY is a blind guess.

The assertions, "It is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none" and "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...is a blind guess.

There is no way logic, reason, science, or math...lead to any of those things.

 

I believe we violently agree.

 

All wrong.

The assertion that there is no santa clause is NOT a blind guess it is instead a reasoned and intelligent position and statement.

The assertion that there is no god is equally and intelligent and reasoned assertion with the precise same logic behind it.

You have lost this argument many many times, everytime you have tried it. Rather than dancing with mental gymnastics try some logic

 

C'mon, Nazi...you can do better than this.

If you are saying that because one thing is a blind guess...everything else must also be a blind guess...you really have fallen off the edge.

I have NEVER lost this argument...because I am correct.

The statement, "There are NO gods" cannot be anything more than a blind guess.

But...continue to suppose you are prevailing...and don't let my laughter upset you.

In the meantime...nothing wrong with your blind guesses that there are no gods...

...but that does not make them more than just blind guesses.

 

Either you have a serious reading comprehension problem or are pretending you do because you do not wish to address what I said.

There is no either or about what I said and it was very clear.

you have lost this argument time after time again and you know you have.

The statement there are no gods is not a blind guess it is a logical conclusion as is the statement there is no Santa clause.

You not only lose again you lose in humiliating fashion.

 

C'mon...are you actually trying to sell that nonsense?

The assertion, "There are no gods" CANNOT BE ANYTHING BUT A BLIND GUESS.

There is not a shred of evidence that there are no gods.

Not a single shred.

But that doesn't stop people like you from pretending there is...and from pretending that you have defeated my argument.

You are a card...I'll give ya that!

The statement that there are no gods...IS PURELY A BLIND GUESS.

 

Yes you are proven wrong and merely reinforce the proof with childish means. This shows not only a lack of maturity ad intellect but also insecurity and a backhanded concession that I am right and you are defeated.

It is not a blind guess to assert there is no santa claus.

It is not a blind guess to assert there is no tooth fairy.

It is not a blind guess to assert there is no god or gods.

The same logic applies to all of these examples which you fearfully and desperately ignore at any and all costs.

When we know there is no evidence of god AND we know that every tale or bit of information about any god is from fictional books written by men it is by definition and logical and intelligent conclusion that there is no god. Just as there is no santa or easter bunny or batman etc etc.

You lose again and are proven wrong as you always have been

 

I have tons and tons of information, evidence,... or whatever you want to call it, that convinces me that God does not exist. See the word "me" underlined? Within my philosophical framework, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that god exists. And there are many reasons for me to believe that he doesn't. But what I use is my philosophical framework, and you don't. Nor should you have to. There is no reason for you to agree with it. And I have no interest whatsoever in convincing you or anybody that god doesn't exist. Among other things because, in the end, you don't actually want to be convinced.

In my basketball example, did you see why, after a bit of pondering, I decided that I should have said "North Carolina"? That is my framework. I have about as much interest in convincing you that god doesn't exist, as I have of convincing you that North Carolina is a better choice. But it fits my framework. I could spend hours discussing with you why I prefer Public Universities over religious institutions. But I would have to do that in order to explain why I prefer North Carolina.

But I do have an interest in convincing you to not claim that you use reason and logic to come to your conclusion. So whether you believe or not in god, is irrelevant. You can say that you believe in god, but have no rational motive. Or that you don't believe in god, but have no rational motive. That's fine. But once you submit a motive that you claim is rational, I will analyze the actual rationality of it. Because reason and logic are objective attributes. And yours, I'm afraid, doesn't hold.

I'm not expecting you

 

Atheists are fond of qualifying their argument by saying things like "there is no evidence that God exists". However, there is no evidence that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, and they have no problem believing that...I guess it's all in where you want to place your faith.

 

He punishes people for being *******s, not for not believing in Him. Not believing in Him only reduces your chances for being forgiven for being an *******.

 

...If you leave out the evidence for God...

 

You have not even close to the kind of "victory" you are imagining...and your absurd claims do not deserve better than I am giving them.

If you want to discuss Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy...do it with a toddler or a fellow atheist. (Perhaps I repeat myself here.)

It most assuredly is a blind guess to assert there are no gods...and most people have the ethics to acknowledge that. Some do not have that ethical wherewithal...and do what you are doing...and then actually claim it as proof that they have defeated their debate opponents.

Hilarious...isn't it?

There is no logic in your comment. It is merely a blind guess you are making. And I am not in any way fearful of debate with you...although there are times I feel people might consider me picking on you, because you are not prepared for this level of discussion.

Any logician would laugh at that. All you are doing when you assert "there are no gods"...is sharing a blind guess you are making about the REALITY.

You are a laugh a minute!

Thanks.

 

Nothing to be convinced of. I ALSO DO NOT BELIEVE ANY GODS EXIST.

So what is your point?

You have NO EVIDENCE that gods do not exist. Not one tiny shred of evidence.

All you are doing is to make a blind guess that no gods exist.

That's what theists do in reverse.

Don't let it bother you so much that you are like a theist. They are good people.

 

IF you want to blindly guess that no gods exist...do it.

If you want to pretend your blind guess is the result of logic, reason, or science...I am going to laugh at the notion.

Try not to let that bother you so. Anyone with any true sense of logic would laugh at it.

 

"Gods" tend to have that problem.

That is why I laugh at people who think it is logical to say, "There is at least one god"...

...or, "There are no gods."

But people still do it...and the one's who claim there are no gods...also claim it is the result of logic.

Ain't that a gas?

 

As long as your definition of god remains so purposely vague you will continue to be correct. Not possible to test against a meaningless term.

 

But when you provide analogies Frank resorts to name calling because of course he can't actually deal with them. And of course he can't provide his own analogy because any analogy might serve to pin down his definition of god.