"You cannot prove a Negative" Another Claim?

What? How the hell do you come to that conclusion? You're the one who was asking if anything could live in the center of the earth. I simply asked if you considered God to be alive and if God is alive if God could live in the center of the Earth. You're also the only one saying that God must follow some human limitation to live on the Earth. Maybe the movie Dogma was right.

There is indeed a standard, atheists just want some evidence of the existence of God. If you could prove the existence of god why would there be atheists to begin with? It would be like having people who don't believe in gravity (which BTW is caused by the invisible unicorns fighting in the center of celestial objects; locked in an eternal war).

Please show me this tested and verified evidence. I hope you're not talking about the bible because if so then you're basically saying that my BS about magic unicorns could become a respectable religion in 2000 years if I simply write it down. Well I guess it worked for L.Ron Hubbard and that didn't even take 2000 years

Again I'd like to see this evidence. I hope it's not going to be something like "in the Bible, God says 'let there be light,' and as you can see light exists so that's proof."

Wait so not believing in the supernatural is irrational now? So you fully admit that not believing in unicorns is entirely irrational, correct?

The whole point behind the flying spaghetti monster and the unified unicorn understanding is to allow you to see how atheist view religion. Personally I don't care what you believe. I do have to say though that I find your arguments that none believers are some how irrational or 'taking it on faith' are completely irrational.

 

No, the name of the game is called sematics.

Its the the same things as teh magic question in which the goal is not discernment, but obfuscation. You are dealing in generalities and, quite literally, the realm of absurd imagination.

For example, if I say that I believe in magic in a general sense - then the unicorn situation stands. If I say know, then there is no God.

Same things for the living question - you are dealing in extremes, and ignoring the actuality of context - completely.

Do I believe in the kind of magic that makes a unicorn live in the middle of molten core and still be able to interact with humanity? Of course not.

Do I believe in miracles? Which can be termed magic? You bet, because I have seen them, and indeed that are hundreds of documented miracles. Its teh context that matters.

The same for living. Is God, the creator or the universe alive in the biological sense that we know it? Of course not. Is he 'alive'? You bet.

It's context that matters.

And when you trace back a magic ball just appearing and exploding with purpose rather than just eneregy, see documented miracles, answered prayers in the millions, purpose in his revealed word, Prophets taht are documented and in the historical record, etc. etc. this all point to preponderance.

All you are doing is the old bait and switch. You believe that God is fake, but rather than making a case for this, you are quite literally making things up, unbound by claims or context, and offering it as proof.

Unfortunately, what you are doing is known by logicians as an arguement ad infinitum and an arguement from absurdity. THey are patently illogical.

We have repeatedly provided it.

Unfortunately, you are talking about unicorns instead.

Logicians, people of both integrity and intellect, whose goal is discernment and problem solving, approach problem sets with the intent to solve.

You merely obfuscate, irrationally so. And that means that your beliefs in nothing is supported by known logical fallacies and thus fallcious.

See above, again, do you think you are the first atheist to do this? Its all over this thread, and many others, go back and read.

But if all you offer is laziness on the subject, well, like EVERY atheist before you, if you are too lazy to read what is practically hand delivered to you that just makes you lazy.

THere is indeed no evidence for people who are too lazy to read it.

Its in this thread.

Again, as I am sure you are expert on our religion like every other atheist, you should be able to logically approach the problem set from two angles.

#1 - a genearic Creator God, or a supernatural orgins of teh universe. That is something Einstein believed in, and the only portion he could not stretch his mind around was comprehending how something so vast and powerful could care about little specs like us.

#2 - There are claims made in the Bible by God. You should be aware of them, and able to rationally approach them and see, to the extend possible that these claims are indeed true.

Again, preponderance supports our side, not atheism. Feel free to engage, but your position, that there is no God is YOUR position to argue.

If you are convinced that there is no God because you are waiting for someone else to figure it out for you .... once again, that is just lazy.

Not believeing in something because you are using an arguement from sbsurdity and totally avoiding an actual contextual examination of the relevant information is indeed irrational.

After all, I can very easily prove that grass is green - does that necessittate that God is real?

So tell me, why are you talking about unicorns that we all know you literally just made up? The evidence and discussion are bound by the evidence and invetigative context relating to God.

I suppose you are now going to give me the cop out of which God? Already answered above.

And like I have told every other atheist that has used that, quite frankly insulting, methodology - we already know you don't believe in God - its self evident by declaring yourself an atheist.

Unfortunately, you are also claiming that Christians use arguements from absurdity - when in fact, outside of Creationists (which are a minority of Christians - and yes I have seen the polls have you seen the wording of the question in the polls?) not being used by Christians, and certainly not by all but a small few on this forum and exactly zero in this thread.

The only people, and this appears to be a universal among atheists who engage in debate, taht use arguements from absurdity are atheists.

Yet YOU claim that your position and conclusion on God are the result of solid intellect and rational processes ... but we listen to a bleet about unicorns?

Really, and despite all the protests from atheists on this thread, your position is not all that complex or difficult to understand - just like it is not difficult to understand that your unicorn example is a fallacious arguement that has no bearing on the evidence or lack thereof for God.

On the contrary, it indicates a total lack of familiarity with God or anything that is claimed by God - and if you don;t believe in something because it appears you haven't bothered to give it an honest assesment ... well, whose fault is that?

Again, you have concluded there is no God - but you can't tell us why? Are you ANOTHER agnostic atheist?

 

OK how's this; give me your proof of God. I'm interested. I do not believe in God because I have seen no proof that God exists. I fully admit I cannot explain everything; that there are unknowns. I'm fine with that. However I cannot come to the conclusion, from what I have seen in my life, that God exists. This isn't some anti-God thing or anything like that, it is my conclusion given the evidence at hand. I cannot disprove the existence of God, much like you cannot disprove the existence of those unicorns, but much you like highly doubt in the existence of those unicorns, I highly doubt the existence of God. I believe the vast majority of atheist feel the same way. Saying "there is no God" is a quick summation of their belief because when you say "there may be a God" people are unlikely to understand that what you mean is "there may be a God, but it's just as likely there are unicorns in the center of the Earth." There is no real finding or seeking, just an acknowledgement that you cannot truly know, just as you cannot know that the next rock you let go of won't float into the sky rather than drop to the ground.

 

A square circle does not exist. We could use both mathematical induction and deduction, logic, and geometry. You can prove a negative.

The statement: "You cannot prove a negative." Prove you cannot prove a negative. The statement itself is a negative and a paradox.

 

Let me restate that: You cannot prove a negative is false. You cannot prove some negatives is true. Whether or not you can prove God's in existence or existence is indeterminate, not undefined or unknown since you can according to multiple laws of logic conclude both for the existence and in existence of God.

 

Well, there is one problem with what you write: you are certain.

To be an atheist, and despite the many arguements that atheists use when confronted, means you have concluded that there is no God or that the chance of their being no God is so small that it is effectively the same thing. Otherwise, if you are generally uncertain - you'd be agnostic.


That being said, there are things that definitively point toward probability.

Science can neither prove nor disprove God. The best we can do is a preponderance of the evidence case, one that demonstrates not just possibility, but probability. I have laid this case out literally dozens of times and linked to a dozen or so arguements from philosophy to hard science that make a clear and compelling case for the probability that there is indeed a designer/Creator.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

Indeed there is an entire field of Christian apologetics and large and growing body of literature that harmonizes science and religion. There is indeed many compelling cases that point rather strongly toward the probable existence of God - none are definitive.

With probability, however, comes the leap of faith.

The final proof for God is not found in science, as indeed the disbelief in God is not found in science either. It is found from picking up a Bible and seeing God's Love for us all, his purpose, his allocation, his design, his wisdom and seeing the TRUTH of it.

Love is correct.

His moral code is correct.

His wisdom is correct.

His aspiriation are loft, difficult, challenging, and utterly beneficial.

They are truth.

And when something is true? Well, can't definitively confirm the source through science, but the truth reveals the reality of the source nevertheless.

In fact, the later portion is indeed not airtight, and so, very logically, it demands that we keep an open mind with regard to these issues of faith. As such, I have deep and meaningful relationships with Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. all which provide an insightful and different point of view that challenges me to examine this faith and see new aspects of spirituality that have only enriched and deeped my personal faith and relationship with a loving God.

Understandably, people disagree. Its not atheism I have a problem with, its the atheists who run around insisting that they are right and that everyone else is wrong when in fact ... atheism is another faith choice. Those that are lead to it through preponderance, I may disagree with, but the choice is valid. Evengelical atheists however ... well, I put them in the same category as the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

To me this is really comprehensive.

Let us catalogue this statement- "YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE".

What is the context of this statement?
Who asked this statement?
Who was asked of this statement?

What is the meaning of "NEGATIVE" in this statement.

polscie

 

sounds lame.too elementary, it's the 21st century.

polscie

 

Not as lame as that excuse.

Nor as lame as saying you can't prove a negative because I say so. Indeed as AT points out above, that statement is itself a negative - and yet you believe it anyway?

Oh well, its the 21st Century so if you break it down without actually breaking it down or making a case .... well, then you are correct by default.

Are you familiar with an appeal to authority? What exactly do you think it is when you come in and tell people - I am right because I say so?

 

To be fair, there can be no evidence. Inm most religions, God exists outside of nature. Therefore, there can be no proof in the natural world for his existence or nonexistence.

 

"Appeal to authority" is unavoidable because one is not able to personally discover everything, even in a narrow area of specialization.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

 

To clarify, an appeal to authority is not always a fallacy. Some posters misuse the term and just throw it out there whenever they lack an actual argument (which for some, is quite frequently).

 

That is why we have a logical element of discourse.

Thesis -

Supporting evidence - which MUST BE more than JUST, because I say so.

Rebuttal of common criticism -

Restated conclusion.

If all you are doing is running around fousting your opinion and calling everyone else fallcious? Well, we call that trolling, not the inevitable premise that we cannot prove all points of all things.

A thesis requires support, some kind of logical, be it inductive or deductive reasoning, support. My thesis is self evident because I say so?

THAT is an appeal to authority.

 

This would be an example of an appeal to authority in which nullity makes the claim, his thesis - and then simply lectures that some people, ostensibly those who disgree with him, are using it inappropriately.

Well, this is also an example of an adhominem fallacy as well.

And this SHOULD be demonstrateable.

If, as he claims, posters are using this inappropriately, he SHOULD be able to demonstrate posters making this claim inappropriately, where the solid evidence is presented in support of a thesis and its just dismissed.

Unfortuantely, many atheists use this tactic were they take personal digs devoid of arguementation and evidence, and that indicates emotion not logic.

As I have long said.

Support your claims atheists.

 

could you please forward me the claim of atheists.

polscie

 

Read your own thread.

I find it amazing how often atheists ask for proof, and, not only do they ignore it when presented, they never seem to present any of their own.

Hence the appeal to authority discussion.