Anselm's Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.

Well, you can't have it both ways... Your statement is a belief, whether you want to believe it or not.

 

No, I lack belief. That God does not exist is not belief, it is a fact. I lack belief in gods.

 

Not A implies B is logically equivalent to A implies not B. It's that simple. "Facts" are simply things you firmly believe are true. It doesn't matter how many people believe them, either, it still constitutes a belief in your mind. You believe it's true, so it's a "fact". But the truth is you have nothing to base your belief on except your own interpretation of reality. If your interpretation of reality is wrong, your beliefs are wrong and your "facts" are shaky. Schizophrenics act in accordance with their interpretation of reality, but their interpretation of reality is incorrect. Their "facts" are wrong. To say that you lack belief in gods is to say with equal truth you believe gods do not exist. There's no logical difference between those two statements. Wriggle all you want, but you're still stuck on the hook.

 

No. I have made my position clear, if you do not believe that I hold that position sincerely then that is not my problem. If you want me to change my position to one that you would find easier to attack, which is called strawmanning, then you are whistling down the wind. Did you have anything of consequence to say about what I actually believe?

 

The God particle is evidence of God. Without it nothing exists.

 

No it is not evidence of god.

 

Prove it.

 

The burden of proof is on you that it DOES prove god,.'
That is HOW science works.

DO not invoke science if you ignore how it works which is what you are doing.

 

feel free to prove that God does not exist.

 

Why not the atheist Dawkins did

to an agnostic ....maybe.... not to an atheist because atheists have an affirmative claim, and are required to prove their claim.

 

You are the one that claimed you had something in your ass that you could pull out that you apparently believe is pure love and you dont know what it looks like, seems you may have problems to deal with. I can neither confirm nor deny that you have a Flibbertybob up your ass .

 

'God' by definition does not exist, those that assert that it exists disagree about the nature of it's existence and define it in contradiction of known facts.

However, I lack belief in gods.

 

No.

Seriously, say what you like about Dawkins opinions on religion but, it is absurd for you to claim that he does not understand science, it completely undermines what little credibility your posts have.

 

Wrong, to the contrary God by definition does in fact exist, your eternal problem is that the level of proof you require demands you can hit God with a hammer, and it does not work that way and no one can help you because you simply plug your ears and refuse to consider any other branch of philosophy or theology. Either its a rock or its not, fine if you want to cage yourself like that but when you preach it then other need to point those things out.

Thats your claim about my my claim, not my claim. The best way to not falsify what I said is to quote it. Its well understood that people never quote when tey intend to falsify what another said.

 

He did not in fact, you did.

Atheists have no such claim nor are they required to defend their negative claim.

You lost that argument at every turn.

Repeating false presumptions does not make you look better

 

Thats absurd, come on man, if we apply that to a known murderer the only way we could put them in prison according to your rules is if they admit they are a murder.

Thats not the way it works, others review your beliefs and practices and assign the appropriate label to your claims.

Thats why we have courts to sort out people who are incapable of sorting themselves out.

stop accusing me to cover what you are doing.

Everyone who understands reason and logic knows that lack of belief (negative) in God is the identical same as belief (positive) there is no God .

Have it your way, that shoe fits both sides, theists lack belief in no God so they are not required to prove a negative either.

 

What a stupid comparison we are talking about beliefs not what people do and your analogy is a massive FAIL
I am not accusing you I am stating facts about your idiotic and uneducated assumptions and you are flat out wrong.

Reason and logic DICTATE that you are wrong and everyone KNJOWS that to be true they do not know what you claim and you are MASSIVELy immature and dishonest.

Atheism by definition states a negative and it is NOT identical as a positive.

You in complete denial of reason and logic to assert that they are the same.

You got shredded owned and debunked in every thread which you started this weak and stupid and illogical argument on and as others pointed out you merely start new ones to try and cover up how badly you failed.

Theists believe in a god which is a positive and the burden is on them to prove it. You are quite deliberately and dishonestly spinning and perverting grammar because you have been crushed like a bug.

 

So, you are saying that a person that has published in excess of 30 scientific papers and numerous books and articles does not understand science, you are standing by that position?

SN - "...DO not invoke science if you ignore how it works which is what you are doing."

Koko - "Why not the atheist Dawkins did"

Explain away.

 

What??..You don’t believe there is an invisible man in the sky who will have you burn in hell if you do not believe in him… But he loves you

 

I can't imagine what that would be. What you (and Anselm) said makes no sense to me at all.