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

No, "god" must be a thing, or you could not objectify "it".

As for talking about God, all indications are that when you do that, you don't say anything intelligent.

 

That is probably true, but this is an internet thread, and therefore very little intelligent is said anyway.

Still, what I posted was an attempt to progress things a little.

 

I'm afraid you don't get it, Frankie My point had very little to do with what I believe or don't believe. It was that your attempting to arbitrarily re-define words to suit your needs is absurd. Words mean what they mean because their only purpose is to be used as a means of communication.

But that's ok. Don't bother. I didn't think it would be that hard for you to understand such a simple concept. I guess I overestimated you.

 

I don't know how many times one poster can be shown problems with their position until it finally occurs to them that it is not the rest of the world that has the problem.

 

You have UNDERESTIMATED me, Golem.

You'll soon get over that.

In the meantime, you are a "believer." You "believe" that no gods exist...which is to say you have a blind guess that no gods exist.

I get that.

Now...if only you would.

 

What is your problem with my assessment of what Golem is doing?

Try to get away from your fascination with me...and deal with the subject being discussed.

 

Your rather pathetic continuing assertion that believing that no gods exist is a blind guess is just your desperate attempt to duck the fact that you cannot present one single piece of evidence in support of the existance of a god. But then of course since you cannot even define what you mean by god I guess it follows that you can't provide any evidence of something that you can't even define. So yes of course something that has no meaning or no definition is just as likely to exist as to not exist.

 

True stupidity is an incredibly comfortable and unassailable position.

 

You certainly helped things to "progress" in the direction of stupidity.

 

And I'm not even asking Frank to agree with me. I'm just asking him to understand what I'm saying. I was hoping that it was because he refused to. But now it's clear to me that it's because he just can't.

 

Your Adam and Eve story is like all other mythology, i.e., stories and legends to explain the creation and how the universe came about. It is a story, nothing more. The closest thing to a real Eve is probably the Australopithecus Afarensis named Lucy.

I despise the way you people use "free will" as an explanation for why your god is invisible. I guess God never provides cures for diseases because he wants us to be free to suffer. Don't you think it odd that the prophets in the Bible could predict the future (or so it is claimed) yet somehow managed to never obtain any scientific information from God that would advance the human race? How were the prophets in the Bible any different than Jim Jones or David Koresh?

 

Your logic definitely holds. As I said, I was just quibbling. I do understand the context of your post.

 

Nope. My belief for the existence of sentient beings in the universe is not based on the writings of Arthur C. Clark or Robert Heinlein. My belief for the existence of sentient beings in the universe is based on my understanding of nature and of probabilities.

I'm sure you would be happy if I agreed with your silly notion. I don't.

Nothing wishy-washy can be considered "solid".

If I understand your point of view correctly you are of the opinion/belief/knowledge that maybe everything was created LastThursday by a PsychicSnowflake.

 

• Fairies must be a thing, or we couldn't talk about them.
• A PsychicSnowflake must be a thing, or we couldn't talk about it.
• The Easter Bunny must be a thing, or we couldn't talk about it.
• Santa Clauses must be a thing, or we couldn't talk about them.

What was the point you were trying to make?

 

∞ ​

 

Omniscient God created the world knowing that His creation, Eve, would eat the fruit from the forbidden tree in Eden.

 

Actually, I think that he does understand; I've observed him shift his position around the periphery in response to being shown where he is wrong but, he never comes out and admits it, he just sneaks things in, and appears to believe that it won't be noticed. I now restrict myself to simply satirising him when I choose to and jumping in when he makes obvious debating blunders like the hypocrisy of attacking ecco for a definition; these things tend to occur when he strays off script. He is unable to support his position, unable to engage and simply prefers to be a smart ass about an asinine sixth form philosophical game that everyone knows about but, he thinks is a revelation. He won't debate a point that strays away from his dogmatic assertions which is where you will end up going in circles with him by patiently explaining your position only for him to shut it down by referring back to his stock phrases. It is like dealing with an evangelical theist working from a script and in fact, the exploitation of ignorance that he employs is remarkably similar to that of a theist, it is a nice curiosity to observe an agnostc apologetic in action but, just like dealing with theistic apologists, it will lead to very little that is productive.

 

6th grader destroys Frank's argument.

 

I think I was trying to say that god must be part of the universe, ie a thing, and therefore could not have created it. Another poster denied that it was a thing. I have no problem categorising god in a similar way to your examples, ie concepts which not real.

 

Why would I hide that.

I CANNOT PRODUCE A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE EXISTENCE OF ANY GODS.

Fact is...I doubt there is any unambiguous evidence of that sort.

I also cannot produce a single piece of evidence in support of "there are no gods"...because I doubt there is any unambiguous evidence of that sort either.

So...what on Earth are you talking about?

I have given one definition of a god...and I am sure there are many more.

But, people like you who want to blindly guess that there are no gods...need that guess in order to feel secure, so continue to make that blind guess.

If you once were a theist and became an atheist because you realized guessing there is at least one god...you are half way on your journey to reason and logic on the issue. The final destination is agnosticism.

I'm hoping you make it.

 

It is.

That is why I am hoping you and William finally complete the journey.

 

I have understood what you are saying, Golem. I disagree with it.

 

So...you agree that the fact that humans have imagined things...does not mean those things do not exist.

So stop with that argument about gods.

Not sure why you think "It is possible gods exist; it is possible there are no gods" is a silly notion. But yes, I would be happy if you finally saw the logic in that statement.

Nothing I am saying is wishy-washy.

If you truly understood my view...you would realize it is: It is possible gods exist and it is also possible that there are no gods.

 

People who insist there are no gods...are like people who insist there is at least one god. They are people making blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

It is possible gods exist...and it also is possible there are no gods.

My position has been as consistent as a rock. I defy you to show any deviation from what I have been saying.

 

Poor William...hope for destruction of my arguments never dies with him.

It is possible that gods exist...it is also possible that there are no gods.

THERE IS NO UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE THAT GODS EXIST...AND THERE IS NO UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE THAT THERE ARE NO GODS,

The fact that there is no unambiguous evidence FOR THE EXISTENCE OF ANY GODS...is not evidence that there are no gods...anymore than the fact that there is no unambiguous evidence that there ARE NO GODS...is evidence that there are no gods.

At some point...you will finally GET that. And when you do, you will probably continue your journey to agnosticism. Until then...you are stuck in belief...just like the theists.

I understand that bothers you and causes you to follow me around and try desperately to denigrate my arguments...but you are wasting your time. You will never do it, because me arguments on this issue are rock solid.