Political Crossfire Forums

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Vexillum wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote: What probability? Let's assume for a moment that there is a supreme being that we might rightfully call "God." The possibility that God is the Christian God, out of the nearly infinite subset of "possible supernatural beings," approaches zero.

Do you think a god who has never made himself known to anyone has the same probability of existing as a god who is practically unchallenged by other gods for our praise?

Do you think a god that has been worshiped, interpreted, re-interpreted, and whose will has apparently changed over the centuries has more of a chance of existing than an incomprehensible, or, itself forbid, a logically consistent deity? Secondly, your argument is flawed because the worship of the Christian God is not "unchallenged" by other gods--in fact, if I read the statistics correctly, no more than a third of people in the world is Christian. Thirdly, since when was eternal truth dictated by a popularity contest?

Quote: By definition, there can only be one supreme being. So, the worst you're going to do is get His name wrong.

Only as long as you continue to refer to the infinite possibility of supreme entities in the singular form. In the realm of infinite possibility, what's to stop two, twelve, or five thousand supreme beings from existing? Yes, "supreme being" is singular by definition, but the realm of infinity is not singular... by definition.

Quote: Besides, regarding the consequences set forth in the original post, does it really matter which God, as long as you believe in God?

Now that you stipulate that God exists, I guess you're no longer an Atheist.

Atheist is a funny term. It means disbelief in a god or gods. You're probably as much a Zeus atheist as I am a Jehovah atheist.
Most religious people would think it crucial that you believe in a certain God... "no one comes to the father but through me" is an old favorite, IIRC.

[ieatfood]

John wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: John wrote: ieatfood wrote: Vexillum wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: If no God exists, then there is no basis for morality / life is meaningless and not worth living / death becomes scary since it ist he end / etc
These consequences are undesirable, therefore God must exist


Logically, the desirability of the existence of God has nothing to do with the probability of God existing. But, only a fool would bet against the probability, considering the consequences.


Actually,using that logic only a fool would choose Christianity instead of Sunni Islam. You see, according to Christianity, Sunni Muslims still goto heaven. According to Sunni Islam, all Christians are going to hell. So who's the fool?

I think you got it backwards.

How so? Are you more of an authority on the will of God? As I recall, Xians are famously sinful/flawed. I don't think we can trust a person who claims to be congenitally flawed. :wink:

According to Christianity if you reject Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior...you'll end up in Hell. Islam teaches that "good" Christian will go to Heaven...so yeah...it seems like he has it backwards.

And I'm not asking ya to trust me. :wink:

not according to the Catholics. In sunday school, they taught that people in all religions can goto heaven as long as they are good people. Sunni Islam, on the other hand, teaches that even Shiite Muslims will be going to hell. So Christians don't stand a chance.

[eynon]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Why do you guys always resort to Ad Hom's? Are you trying to psychoanalyize atheists? Are you an authority on this, too? :lol:

I'll have you know I'm an authority on many things I know nothing about........

Quote: We are talking about Theism in general (see OP), while you may THINK you are right but Xianity is just one of many mutually exclusive religions. true, but I am gonna view things through my lense, as a close-minded Xian.....


Quote: BTW, A tautology is a self defining definition. "All triangles have three sides" is a tautology. A tautology also can't (by defintion) be false. "Bigfoot has large feet". Or, "God is good".

Or, "By definition, there can only be one supreme being." This is not necessarily true, except you have tried to make it true by creating a tautology to negate any opposing view.

Logic, is a wonderful thing.

I try to avoid em.....but, if you are thiest then you believe there is an ultimate source, ie supreme being.....more-over if you follow a moral code that you believe stems from such source then you would believe good stems from said source.

[Enoch]

What I find amusing is that some of the atheists on this board use a pretty strong argumentative fallacy themselves in arguing with religious people on the board. Many often resort to hasty generalizations in taking the arguments of some religious people as indicative of the mindset of all of us. Such as when modular man stated "I think we could do a whole post on the fallacies that religionists use." Not all "religionists," as you call us, use fallacies or even attempt to prove the existence of the divine.

I have never, once, attempted to "prove" God exists to anyone, and have multiple times denoucned Pascal's Wager. I believe (not KNOW) that God exists and that is fine with me.

So, for those atheists who are accusing the religious of using argumentative fallacies, please make sure you aren't being a hypocrite and using some yourself.

Thank you.

[feederband]

Enoch wrote: What I find amusing is that some of the atheists on this board use a pretty strong argumentative fallacy themselves in arguing with religious people on the board. Many often resort to hasty generalizations in taking the arguments of some religious people as indicative of the mindset of all of us. Such as when modular man stated "I think we could do a whole post on the fallacies that religionists use." Not all "religionists," as you call us, use fallacies or even attempt to prove the existence of the divine.

I have never, once, attempted to "prove" God exists to anyone, and have multiple times denoucned Pascal's Wager. I believe (not KNOW) that God exists and that is fine with me.

So, for those atheists who are accusing the religious of using argumentative fallacies, please make sure you aren't being a hypocrite and using some yourself.

Thank you.

If I actually knew (not believe) I would attempt to prove it to everyone...I would convert as many as possible... If I knew I would have the proof all would need...But no one has that...

[Vexillum]

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Do you think a god that has been worshiped, interpreted, re-interpreted, and whose will has apparently changed over the centuries has more of a chance of existing than an incomprehensible, or, itself forbid, a logically consistent deity? Secondly, your argument is flawed because the worship of the Christian God is not "unchallenged" by other gods--in fact, if I read the statistics correctly, no more than a third of people in the world is Christian. Thirdly, since when was eternal truth dictated by a popularity contest?

How can you set odds on Abraham's God existing when you're stuck with such subjective arguments as a re-interpreted god vs. an unknown but presumably logically consistent god?

Muslims, Christians, and Jews all explicitly believe in Abraham's God. Just because they disagree on details doesn't make Abraham's God different gods. Who is there to challenge Abraham's God?

You don't think a known god has more chance of existing than an unknown god? That assumes that God would make no attempt to make himself known. What do you base that assumption on?

Quote: Only as long as you continue to refer to the infinite possibility of supreme entities in the singular form. In the realm of infinite possibility, what's to stop two, twelve, or five thousand supreme beings from existing? Yes, "supreme being" is singular by definition, but the realm of infinity is not singular... by definition.

These multiple gods would either be totally unknown or themselves are created beings (e.g. the dead and abandoned gods of Greek and Egyptian mythologies are created beings, not supreme beings, they have mommies and daddies and are very limited in power).

Quote: Atheist is a funny term. It means disbelief in a god or gods. You're probably as much a Zeus atheist as I am a Jehovah atheist.

That kind of reasoning makes the term "atheist" meaningless. Zeus is a guy with supernatural ability, not a supreme being. He has a daddy. He didn't create the universe. So, you're really saying I'm an atheist in regards to a non-supreme being. I'm an atheist in regards to pink unicorns, too. But, you're an Atheist in regards to God.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Vexillum wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Do you think a god that has been worshiped, interpreted, re-interpreted, and whose will has apparently changed over the centuries has more of a chance of existing than an incomprehensible, or, itself forbid, a logically consistent deity? Secondly, your argument is flawed because the worship of the Christian God is not "unchallenged" by other gods--in fact, if I read the statistics correctly, no more than a third of people in the world is Christian. Thirdly, since when was eternal truth dictated by a popularity contest?

How can you set odds on Abraham's God existing when you're stuck with such subjective arguments as a re-interpreted god vs. an unknown but presumably logically consistent god?



My point was that the probability that any supreme entities exist exactly as any religion in the world says they do, approaches zero. I remain skeptical of anyone who attempts to impose a personality or a code of ethics upon the incomprehensible, infinite, and unknowable.

Quote: Muslims, Christians, and Jews all explicitly believe in Abraham's God. Just because they disagree on details doesn't make Abraham's God different gods. Who is there to challenge Abraham's God?

I disagree with your assertion that a difference of details makes no difference. I think that a significant difference in details, most conspicuously who that God sends to heaven and who that God sends to hell, and for what reasons, fundamentally changes the nature of the god. Would you agree or disagree?

Quote: You don't think a known god has more chance of existing than an unknown god? That assumes that God would make no attempt to make himself known. What do you base that assumption on?

What is there in the nature of a known god that makes him more likely than an unknown one? That a truth is known or unknown has no bearing on whether or not it is true. To claim otherwise is a fallacy of logic.

Quote: Quote: Only as long as you continue to refer to the infinite possibility of supreme entities in the singular form. In the realm of infinite possibility, what's to stop two, twelve, or five thousand supreme beings from existing? Yes, "supreme being" is singular by definition, but the realm of infinity is not singular... by definition.

These multiple gods would either be totally unknown or themselves are created beings (e.g. the dead and abandoned gods of Greek and Egyptian mythologies are created beings, not supreme beings, they have mommies and daddies and are very limited in power).

But that's simply your opinion. You are conforming the infinite unknown to your subjective opinion.

[Enoch]

feederband wrote: Enoch wrote: What I find amusing is that some of the atheists on this board use a pretty strong argumentative fallacy themselves in arguing with religious people on the board. Many often resort to hasty generalizations in taking the arguments of some religious people as indicative of the mindset of all of us. Such as when modular man stated "I think we could do a whole post on the fallacies that religionists use." Not all "religionists," as you call us, use fallacies or even attempt to prove the existence of the divine.

I have never, once, attempted to "prove" God exists to anyone, and have multiple times denoucned Pascal's Wager. I believe (not KNOW) that God exists and that is fine with me.

So, for those atheists who are accusing the religious of using argumentative fallacies, please make sure you aren't being a hypocrite and using some yourself.

Thank you.

If I actually knew (not believe) I would attempt to prove it to everyone...I would convert as many as possible... If I knew I would have the proof all would need...But no one has that...

You are right...no one knows whether or not God exists. To claim that you KNOW God exists is wrong. Likewise, to claim that you KNOW God does not exist is equally as wrong.

But, are you denying the hypocrisy of some atheists who use argumentative fallacies while occusing others of doing the same?

[mODULAR mAN]

Enoch wrote: What I find amusing is that some of the atheists on this board use a pretty strong argumentative fallacy themselves in arguing with religious people on the board. Many often resort to hasty generalizations in taking the arguments of some religious people as indicative of the mindset of all of us. Such as when modular man stated "I think we could do a whole post on the fallacies that religionists use." Not all "religionists," as you call us, use fallacies or even attempt to prove the existence of the divine.

I have never, once, attempted to "prove" God exists to anyone, and have multiple times denoucned Pascal's Wager. I believe (not KNOW) that God exists and that is fine with me.

So, for those atheists who are accusing the religious of using argumentative fallacies, please make sure you aren't being a hypocrite and using some yourself.

Thank you.

I apologize, however, the very nature of Faith is to practice fallacies. In Xianity, it even declares this (I'm paraphrasing): that Faith is not logical.

And, yes, I hope to always be called on my own fallacies. Sometimes they are hard to find, so I'd appreciate the help.
If nothing else, we can both agree that we want to be accurate, and not hypocritical.

[mODULAR mAN]

Enoch wrote: feederband wrote: Enoch wrote: What I find amusing is that some of the atheists on this board use a pretty strong argumentative fallacy themselves in arguing with religious people on the board. Many often resort to hasty generalizations in taking the arguments of some religious people as indicative of the mindset of all of us. Such as when modular man stated "I think we could do a whole post on the fallacies that religionists use." Not all "religionists," as you call us, use fallacies or even attempt to prove the existence of the divine.

I have never, once, attempted to "prove" God exists to anyone, and have multiple times denoucned Pascal's Wager. I believe (not KNOW) that God exists and that is fine with me.

So, for those atheists who are accusing the religious of using argumentative fallacies, please make sure you aren't being a hypocrite and using some yourself.

Thank you.

If I actually knew (not believe) I would attempt to prove it to everyone...I would convert as many as possible... If I knew I would have the proof all would need...But no one has that...

You are right...no one knows whether or not God exists. To claim that you KNOW God exists is wrong. Likewise, to claim that you KNOW God does not exist is equally as wrong.

But, are you denying the hypocrisy of some atheists who use argumentative fallacies while occusing others of doing the same?

To claim you know a God exists is wrong. I agree. The evidence for this omnipotent being is inconsistant and tenuous, if the evidecnce exists at all.

To claim the you know a god doesn't exist is wrong, but not equal.

Since you are claiming a specific being exists, with certain properties that are impossible to know, your god has such an improbable existence that the atheist could easily declare it non-existant and be comfortable that he would be right.

PLus, since the burden of proof rests on the person claiming the existence of a god, or pixie or ghost, you must provide the evidence. We don't expect everyone to be adept at presenting evidence, but it should be of an equal character that YOU accept the evidence.

For example, do you believe Thor, Zeus, pixies or elves exist? Why not?

To claim you KNOW they exist would be wrong, and to claim you KNOW they don't exist - by you logic, would be equally wrong.

I say they aren't equal.

[toddytodd]

ieatfood wrote: Vexillum wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: If no God exists, then there is no basis for morality / life is meaningless and not worth living / death becomes scary since it ist he end / etc
These consequences are undesirable, therefore God must exist


Logically, the desirability of the existence of God has nothing to do with the probability of God existing. But, only a fool would bet against the probability, considering the consequences.


Actually,using that logic only a fool would choose Christianity instead of Sunni Islam. You see, according to Christianity, Sunni Muslims still goto heaven. According to Sunni Islam, all Christians are going to hell. So who's the fool?

Well said

[Babylon_Horuv]

Vexillum wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Do you think a god that has been worshiped, interpreted, re-interpreted, and whose will has apparently changed over the centuries has more of a chance of existing than an incomprehensible, or, itself forbid, a logically consistent deity? Secondly, your argument is flawed because the worship of the Christian God is not "unchallenged" by other gods--in fact, if I read the statistics correctly, no more than a third of people in the world is Christian. Thirdly, since when was eternal truth dictated by a popularity contest?

How can you set odds on Abraham's God existing when you're stuck with such subjective arguments as a re-interpreted god vs. an unknown but presumably logically consistent god?

Muslims, Christians, and Jews all explicitly believe in Abraham's God. Just because they disagree on details doesn't make Abraham's God different gods. Who is there to challenge Abraham's God?

You don't think a known god has more chance of existing than an unknown god? That assumes that God would make no attempt to make himself known. What do you base that assumption on?

Quote: Only as long as you continue to refer to the infinite possibility of supreme entities in the singular form. In the realm of infinite possibility, what's to stop two, twelve, or five thousand supreme beings from existing? Yes, "supreme being" is singular by definition, but the realm of infinity is not singular... by definition.

These multiple gods would either be totally unknown or themselves are created beings (e.g. the dead and abandoned gods of Greek and Egyptian mythologies are created beings, not supreme beings, they have mommies and daddies and are very limited in power).

Quote: Atheist is a funny term. It means disbelief in a god or gods. You're probably as much a Zeus atheist as I am a Jehovah atheist.

That kind of reasoning makes the term "atheist" meaningless. Zeus is a guy with supernatural ability, not a supreme being. He has a daddy. He didn't create the universe. So, you're really saying I'm an atheist in regards to a non-supreme being. I'm an atheist in regards to pink unicorns, too. But, you're an Atheist in regards to God.

Jesus has a daddy too.

[Babylon_Horuv]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Enoch wrote: feederband wrote: Enoch wrote: What I find amusing is that some of the atheists on this board use a pretty strong argumentative fallacy themselves in arguing with religious people on the board. Many often resort to hasty generalizations in taking the arguments of some religious people as indicative of the mindset of all of us. Such as when modular man stated "I think we could do a whole post on the fallacies that religionists use." Not all "religionists," as you call us, use fallacies or even attempt to prove the existence of the divine.

I have never, once, attempted to "prove" God exists to anyone, and have multiple times denoucned Pascal's Wager. I believe (not KNOW) that God exists and that is fine with me.

So, for those atheists who are accusing the religious of using argumentative fallacies, please make sure you aren't being a hypocrite and using some yourself.

Thank you.

If I actually knew (not believe) I would attempt to prove it to everyone...I would convert as many as possible... If I knew I would have the proof all would need...But no one has that...

You are right...no one knows whether or not God exists. To claim that you KNOW God exists is wrong. Likewise, to claim that you KNOW God does not exist is equally as wrong.

But, are you denying the hypocrisy of some atheists who use argumentative fallacies while occusing others of doing the same?

To claim you know a God exists is wrong. I agree. The evidence for this omnipotent being is inconsistant and tenuous, if the evidecnce exists at all.

To claim the you know a god doesn't exist is wrong, but not equal.

Since you are claiming a specific being exists, with certain properties that are impossible to know, your god has such an improbable existence that the atheist could easily declare it non-existant and be comfortable that he would be right.

PLus, since the burden of proof rests on the person claiming the existence of a god, or pixie or ghost, you must provide the evidence. We don't expect everyone to be adept at presenting evidence, but it should be of an equal character that YOU accept the evidence.

For example, do you believe Thor, Zeus, pixies or elves exist? Why not?

To claim you KNOW they exist would be wrong, and to claim you KNOW they don't exist - by you logic, would be equally wrong.

I say they aren't equal.

I know elves exist, I have personally interacted with them. I can't prove that to you, but I know it to be true.

[mODULAR mAN]

Babylon_Horuv wrote:
Jesus has a daddy too.

Yes, he did! And he liked 14 year old girls...
Joseph really had his freak on!

[Enoch]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Enoch wrote: feederband wrote: Enoch wrote: What I find amusing is that some of the atheists on this board use a pretty strong argumentative fallacy themselves in arguing with religious people on the board. Many often resort to hasty generalizations in taking the arguments of some religious people as indicative of the mindset of all of us. Such as when modular man stated "I think we could do a whole post on the fallacies that religionists use." Not all "religionists," as you call us, use fallacies or even attempt to prove the existence of the divine.

I have never, once, attempted to "prove" God exists to anyone, and have multiple times denoucned Pascal's Wager. I believe (not KNOW) that God exists and that is fine with me.

So, for those atheists who are accusing the religious of using argumentative fallacies, please make sure you aren't being a hypocrite and using some yourself.

Thank you.

If I actually knew (not believe) I would attempt to prove it to everyone...I would convert as many as possible... If I knew I would have the proof all would need...But no one has that...

You are right...no one knows whether or not God exists. To claim that you KNOW God exists is wrong. Likewise, to claim that you KNOW God does not exist is equally as wrong.

But, are you denying the hypocrisy of some atheists who use argumentative fallacies while occusing others of doing the same?

To claim you know a God exists is wrong. I agree. The evidence for this omnipotent being is inconsistant and tenuous, if the evidecnce exists at all.

To claim the you know a god doesn't exist is wrong, but not equal.

Since you are claiming a specific being exists, with certain properties that are impossible to know, your god has such an improbable existence that the atheist could easily declare it non-existant and be comfortable that he would be right.

PLus, since the burden of proof rests on the person claiming the existence of a god, or pixie or ghost, you must provide the evidence. We don't expect everyone to be adept at presenting evidence, but it should be of an equal character that YOU accept the evidence.

For example, do you believe Thor, Zeus, pixies or elves exist? Why not?

To claim you KNOW they exist would be wrong, and to claim you KNOW they don't exist - by you logic, would be equally wrong.

I say they aren't equal.

Yes, they are equally wrong. You can no equate lack of evidence with lack of existence. Do I believe Thor andZeus exist? Yes, in a way. I believe that all gods from every pantheon are simply manifestations of certain aspects of the same God. When someone is worshipping a specific god or goddess they are, in my opinion, paying homage to the aspect of God that is manifested there.

But, here is the thing, this is all based on my faith and my opinion. I can no more prove that I am right than you could prove I am wrong. That is the nature of religion; it is all based on faith. The religious have faith that they are right, and atheists have faith that they are. Neither side can prove their claim.

[mODULAR mAN]

Enoch wrote: Yes, they are equally wrong. You can no equate lack of evidence with lack of existence. Do I believe Thor andZeus exist? Yes, in a way. I believe that all gods from every pantheon are simply manifestations of certain aspects of the same God. When someone is worshipping a specific god or goddess they are, in my opinion, paying homage to the aspect of God that is manifested there.

But, here is the thing, this is all based on my faith and my opinion. I can no more prove that I am right than you could prove I am wrong. That is the nature of religion; it is all based on faith. The religious have faith that they are right, and atheists have faith that they are. Neither side can prove their claim.

They are not the same. You are claiming a vague "in a way X exists". Well, in a way 2+2=5, but that doesn't make it true.
In a way, Santa Claus exists because people have a Xmas spirit. Santa doesn't exist.

If you are claiming God exists like Santa exists then maybe we agree.

However, the claim that something ACTUALLY (and not "in a way") exists needs to be backed up by evidence or you render language and truth meaningless.

Unicorns, pixies, Thor, god, and hobbits all exist in you world because you ask for no specificity. You can't. If you were specific about the god you claim exists you know you would be lying, since you have no evidence that you know connects to god.

you can claim "god is good", but how do you know?
Meanwhile, I can say, "god can't be good, since if all goodness came from god, there would be no objective judge of what goodness was."
And you have no example of why you think god is good other than a claim.

The evidence against a god, by almost every defintion is much greater than one for a god. And it is up to the claimant to provide the evidence.

Is there a God? I don't know, but it borders on the same level as "is there a Loch Ness monster, are aliens walking among us, do ghosts exist".

Since every claim for a god has been disproved, we can safely conclude there is no god. You can continue to believe there is one, but you are basing it on Faith (belief against evidence to the contrary).

I'll say it again. Every argument for god has been challenged and has proved wanting. It is up to theists to provide evidence for their claim.

"There could be a god" is not an argument, especially when virtually every counter to that "argument" shows that there can't be a god.

For example, "There could be a Loch Ness monster".

No there couldn't. The lake has been thouroughly searched, and many other reasons why it couldn't exist. It's not possible. However, you are welcome to believe Nessie exists despite the evidence.




edit: mostly I will argue that since you don't know what "god" is, you can't say it exists.

It's as if I said a car exists and then proceeded to describe something that in no way resembles a car as we know it. I have just made the term "car" meaningless.

Especially if I say, "A car is a square circle that loves you and wants you to worship it."

Yes, a car exists (motor, wheels, etc.) but my definiton of a car doesn't. It can't.

[Lord Hargreaves]

I suck

[mODULAR mAN]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Enoch wrote: Such as when modular man stated "I think we could do a whole post on the fallacies that religionists use.".

This is not an example of a logical fallacy. It is merely a generalisation. I do not see why atheists must be bent over for a beating merely because you personally hold such a nonconforming and unique belief system.

Actually, as I look at it, it is just a suggestion. I don't say that ALL religionists commit fallacies (I believe they do, but I'm not saying that).

I am saying, you could have a whole thread based on the fallacies committed by a group. It could be taxi drivers, bakers or Religionists. :lol:

[Enoch]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Enoch wrote: What I find amusing is that some of the atheists on this board use a pretty strong argumentative fallacy themselves in arguing with religious people on the board. Many often resort to hasty generalizations in taking the arguments of some religious people as indicative of the mindset of all of us. Such as when modular man stated "I think we could do a whole post on the fallacies that religionists use." Not all "religionists," as you call us, use fallacies or even attempt to prove the existence of the divine.

This is not an example of a logical fallacy. It is merely a generalisation. I do not see why atheists must be bent over for a beating merely because you personally hold such a nonconforming and unique belief system
Hasty generalizations ARE logical fallcies. It is illogical to paint ALL members of a group based on the actions of SOME. So, yes, saying that all "religionists" use fallacious arguments to defend their beliefs is, itself, a fallacy.

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Enoch wrote:
You are right...no one knows whether or not God exists. To claim that you KNOW God exists is wrong. Likewise, to claim that you KNOW God does not exist is equally as wrong.

As modular man has pointed out, they cannot be "equally wrong" without suspending any worth we assign to empirical observation and scientific analysis.

I completely fail to understand, for example, how one who leaves his front door, looks to the end of the road, and takes what he sees there on trust as being reality, is using as much "faith" as one who does the same but infers, simply in his own mind, that along with everything the first man sees at the end of the road there also simply must be a blue giraffe with pink stripes standing there.

Even if we were to hold that everything i have ever seen with my own eyes is almost certainly a delusion and only in my mind, it still would not be the case that everything i have not seen is equally as uncertain.

The assertion "God does not exist" does not require faith any more than the assertion "fire causes heat" or "elephants have feet" or "if i jump up into the air i will fall back down to earth" do, since although it is best that a wise man should never take anything as completely certain, all of these assertions are practically so, since against all of them there is not a single, tiny, minuscule bit of evidence

However, the difference between your God/fire/elephants/jumping/giraffes analogies is that most can be proven through empirical tests. You can not prove that God does not exist (which, to attempt to do so is a fallacy itself as you can not prove a negative). Likewise, I can not prove that God DOES exist. We are both relying on faith there as there is no data to support nor refute either of our perspectives.

Likewise, it appears that you are committing the fallacy of "Argumentum ad Ignorantium," or argument from ignorance. "There is no proof that God exists, therefore he does not." Lack of proof does not constitute lack of existence.

[Enoch]

mODULAR mAN wrote: I'll say it again. Every argument for god has been challenged and has proved wanting. It is up to theists to provide evidence for their claim.

"There could be a god" is not an argument, especially when virtually every counter to that "argument" shows that there can't be a god.


The bold part is what stands out to me the most. Why is it up to the religious to prove anything? I have no desire to prove to you that God exists. Don't believe? Fine, I don't care. In fact, I would venture to say that a great number of religious people feel this way. I don't recall seeing threads in here that attempt to prove God exists to the atheists. Yet, I have seen numerous threads from atheists attempting to disprove the beliefs of others. So, why are some atheists, such as yourself, so intent on "proving" their assertions by attempting to force us to prove ours?

Also, you say that there are arguments to show that there can't be a God? Fine, what are they? I'd really like to see those.