Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can you prove why god does/doesn't exist?

triangle.128k
Posts: 3,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2015 5:56:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I always see the same arguments recycled which don't make sense about god's existence. Can either side, either atheists or theists actually prove or disprove the existence of god? What is the proof for god existing or not existing?
sheskew
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2015 6:04:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/6/2015 5:56:35 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
I always see the same arguments recycled which don't make sense about god's existence. Can either side, either atheists or theists actually prove or disprove the existence of god? What is the proof for god existing or not existing?

There are two reasons why the arguments cycle endlessly.
1) The two sides don't accept each other's forms of proof. Some would regard physical evidence as proof. Others accept personal revelation as a form of proof. Many regard the naked assertion of a deity's existence in an ancient book as proof.
2) If you want evidence, there are no agreed-upon attributes of God that are subject to observation. If you want revelation, personal revelations aren't handed out to everyone involved in the argument, and those who do claim revelation get different revelations. If you want an old book, there are several mutually contradictory old books, each of which asserts that carries instructions for the One True Faith.
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2015 6:07:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/6/2015 5:56:35 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
I always see the same arguments recycled which don't make sense about god's existence. Can either side, either atheists or theists actually prove or disprove the existence of god? What is the proof for god existing or not existing?

Both sides will always cycle through the same arguments, never convincing each other because both sides have different standards of what constitutes evidence. One side will only accept physical evidence, while the other views personal revelation as proof.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2015 6:51:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You can't prove a negative. So any atheist who tells you that they can prove that there is positively no God is a liar. This is coming from an atheist. I can't disprove the existence of unicorns, or goblins or dragons either because you simply can't prove the nonexistence of something.

But there are many claims that go along with a theist style god such as the God in Christianity that can be falsified. Claims such as the age of the earth for example. So when a number of the claims of a religion are demonstrably false, it casts doubt on the whole thing.

Also there is a thing called the burden of proof. This principle states that it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to prove that the claim is true, and not the responsibility of the listener to prove that it is false. This is the most reasonable and accurate approach because it would be foolish to believe any claim that could not be disproven, especially since many claims can't be disproven.

The best way to ensure that the majority of what you believe is true is to disbelieve claims for which there is no evidence, or for which there is insufficient evidence. Then in order to determine what you believe its just a matter of searching for evidence and determining if that evidence is sufficient for the claim. This is how the justice system in the US and Canada and most other first world countries works, and its also how science works. A claim must be demonstrably true for it to be accepted.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,681
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2015 7:06:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/6/2015 5:56:35 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
I always see the same arguments recycled which don't make sense about god's existence. Can either side, either atheists or theists actually prove or disprove the existence of god? What is the proof for god existing or not existing?

Would you consider this to be a sound arguments? https://www.youtube.com...
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2015 7:07:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/6/2015 5:56:35 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
I always see the same arguments recycled which don't make sense about god's existence. Can either side, either atheists or theists actually prove or disprove the existence of god? What is the proof for god existing or not existing?

One thing we know for sure, all gods exist in the minds of men if nowhere else.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2015 7:37:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As noted, many of us require some kind of factual, demonstrable, potentially falsifiable evidence before accepting an assertion as most likely true. There is nothing forthcoming in that vein from any theist, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Shinto, or any other religion. Until that happens, I will reject their assertions that their deity or deities exist. That's pretty much it.
sheskew
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 12:44:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/6/2015 5:56:35 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
I always see the same arguments recycled which don't make sense about god's existence. Can either side, either atheists or theists actually prove or disprove the existence of god? What is the proof for god existing or not existing?

The trouble is also that believers always move the goalposts. When I was a believer, I read that if I had mustard-seed faith, God would answer my prayers. I prayed, and nothing happened. When I asked other believers about this, I was told that I had insufficient faith. When I asked others to pray for me and still nothing happened, I was told that God answers prayers in his own time. When I asked for them to pray for a timely miracle, I was told that God sometimes answers prayers by not answering them, knowing a better outcome will occur that way. When I asked them to pray for a timely, observable miracle, I was told it's not appropriate to test God.

You must be willing to subject your faith to the test before anyone can prove or disprove it. In 1Kings 18, the prophet Elijah does exactly this: he challenges the prophets of Baal to publicly light a fire miraculously through prayer. When they are unable to do so, he prays and the fire is miraculously lit in front of many witnesses. I know of no Christian today who would be willing to put their faith to the test in this manner.
tejretics
Posts: 6,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 6:15:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/6/2015 5:56:35 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
I always see the same arguments recycled which don't make sense about god's existence. Can either side, either atheists or theists actually prove or disprove the existence of god? What is the proof for god existing or not existing?

Null. That's why atheism is a priori more likely -- there's no proof on the side making a positive assertion, therefore the assertion is dismissed via Occam's razor.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 6:17:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/6/2015 7:06:41 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 8/6/2015 5:56:35 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
I always see the same arguments recycled which don't make sense about god's existence. Can either side, either atheists or theists actually prove or disprove the existence of god? What is the proof for god existing or not existing?

Would you consider this to be a sound arguments? https://www.youtube.com...

I wouldn't. I'm kinda bored of debating the Kalam cosmological argument via debates, so let's do it on the forums. What do you think?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 6:35:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You don't have to prove what doesn't exist. No one is asking for proof of unicorns.
The God of the bible hasn't been successful manifesting outside the pages of the bible anymore than unicorns can be seen outside of fairy tale storybooks
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 7:19:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/6/2015 6:51:41 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
You can't prove a negative. So any atheist who tells you that they can prove that there is positively no God is a liar. This is coming from an atheist. I can't disprove the existence of unicorns, or goblins or dragons either because you simply can't prove the nonexistence of something.

But there are many claims that go along with a theist style god such as the God in Christianity that can be falsified. Claims such as the age of the earth for example. So when a number of the claims of a religion are demonstrably false, it casts doubt on the whole thing.

Also there is a thing called the burden of proof. This principle states that it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to prove that the claim is true, and not the responsibility of the listener to prove that it is false. This is the most reasonable and accurate approach because it would be foolish to believe any claim that could not be disproven, especially since many claims can't be disproven.

The best way to ensure that the majority of what you believe is true is to disbelieve claims for which there is no evidence, or for which there is insufficient evidence. Then in order to determine what you believe its just a matter of searching for evidence and determining if that evidence is sufficient for the claim. This is how the justice system in the US and Canada and most other first world countries works, and its also how science works. A claim must be demonstrably true for it to be accepted.

The irony... Your claim that you can't prove a negative is itself a negative. Thus, it is a self-refuting statement and is therefore false. For some reason you seem to blindly believe it based on blind faith. hmm...

It is transparently false. Heck, one of the principles of logic is "The law of NON-contradiction" (a negative).
Furthermore, you can pretty much turn any statement into a negative with the rule of double negative; if I prove that a car exists, I have also proven that the car is not non-existent.
You can prove that square circles are impossible to exist, you can inductively prove that the ball you are going to drop isn't going to fly to the ceiling, you can inductively prove that the word "a'fdlkhsadk" doesn't exist in a dictionary.

Heck, here is an inductive argument that demonstrates that non-existence of unicorns.

1- If unicorns exist, then we should've found their fossils by now or had strong historical evidence.
2- No unicorn fossil was found, and there is no strong historical evidence.
C: It is the case that unicorns do not exist.

Note that inductive arguments are based on probabilities (Your food is probably not poisoned, so you eat it, the sun will probably rise tomorrow so you sleep soundly, you probably won't have a car accident so you drive you car, etc.). Premise 1 is probably true, however the same argument would probably be invalid if you use it for the existence of ants or a fly in a large park.
This is just human nature, when you have a proposition or thinking of a possibility, you have a reaction, and then you form an opinion ranging from total disbelief to total belief based on reasons and evidence (ie. not randomly). It would add to the discourse if you provide your reasons to be inclined to belief in God.

I assume that you are a closet agnostic who feels the need to call self and atheist. Well, here are the rational possibilities (assuming that you are not ignorant of the proposition, have amnesia, insentient, etc.)

1- Belief that the proposition is true. [rejection of 2 & 3]
2- Belief that the proposition is false. [rejection of 1 & 3]
3a- Belief that the proposition is unknowable because you need more research [rejection of 1 & 2].
3b- Belief that the proposition is unknowable because it is impossible for humans to know [rejection of 1 & 2].

Assuming that the proposition is "God exists", you would be taking 3b. This is a bold claim as it implies that every single argument for the existence of God is invalid apriori. You have the intellectual obligation to provide an argument for this claim via. philosophical burden of proof.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 7:53:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/7/2015 7:19:50 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/6/2015 6:51:41 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
You can't prove a negative. So any atheist who tells you that they can prove that there is positively no God is a liar. This is coming from an atheist. I can't disprove the existence of unicorns, or goblins or dragons either because you simply can't prove the nonexistence of something.

But there are many claims that go along with a theist style god such as the God in Christianity that can be falsified. Claims such as the age of the earth for example. So when a number of the claims of a religion are demonstrably false, it casts doubt on the whole thing.

Also there is a thing called the burden of proof. This principle states that it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to prove that the claim is true, and not the responsibility of the listener to prove that it is false. This is the most reasonable and accurate approach because it would be foolish to believe any claim that could not be disproven, especially since many claims can't be disproven.

The best way to ensure that the majority of what you believe is true is to disbelieve claims for which there is no evidence, or for which there is insufficient evidence. Then in order to determine what you believe its just a matter of searching for evidence and determining if that evidence is sufficient for the claim. This is how the justice system in the US and Canada and most other first world countries works, and its also how science works. A claim must be demonstrably true for it to be accepted.

The irony... Your claim that you can't prove a negative is itself a negative. Thus, it is a self-refuting statement and is therefore false. For some reason you seem to blindly believe it based on blind faith. hmm...

What a foolish statement. Perhaps, for those like you who perform semantic tricks to try and make things work your way, we should rephrase.

You cannot demonstrate the validity of an assertion for which no evidence can be obtained.


It is transparently false. Heck, one of the principles of logic is "The law of NON-contradiction" (a negative).

Again, a simple case of semantic trickery. It simply states that an assertion can be true or false but it cannot, by the definition of the words true and false and the mutually exclusive nature of the terms, be both.

Furthermore, you can pretty much turn any statement into a negative with the rule of double negative; if I prove that a car exists, I have also proven that the car is not non-existent.

Semantic trickery. We don't call 1 negative negative 1, we remove the cancelling terms and it is a positive one. Calling it a negative does not make it so.

You can prove that square circles are impossible to exist

Mutually exclusive terms.

, you can inductively prove that the ball you are going to drop isn't going to fly to the ceiling,

Of you can draw upon a lifetime of experience living in a gravity field and extrapolate the vanishingly faint possibility that it will do anything other than what it has done in your lifetime.

you can inductively prove that the word "a'fdlkhsadk" doesn't exist in a dictionary.

Or you can find out by looking in the dictionary.

Heck, here is an inductive argument that demonstrates that non-existence of unicorns.

1- If unicorns exist, then we should've found their fossils by now or had strong historical evidence.
2- No unicorn fossil was found, and there is no strong historical evidence.
C: It is the case that unicorns do not exist.

Note that inductive arguments are based on probabilities (Your food is probably not poisoned, so you eat it, the sun will probably rise tomorrow so you sleep soundly, you probably won't have a car accident so you drive you car, etc.). Premise 1 is probably true, however the same argument would probably be invalid if you use it for the existence of ants or a fly in a large park.

There is fossil evidence and irrefutable historical evidence of ants and flies. Try again.

This is just human nature, when you have a proposition or thinking of a possibility, you have a reaction, and then you form an opinion ranging from total disbelief to total belief based on reasons and evidence (ie. not randomly). It would add to the discourse if you provide your reasons to be inclined to belief in God.

I assume that you are a closet agnostic who feels the need to call self and atheist. Well, here are the rational possibilities (assuming that you are not ignorant of the proposition, have amnesia, insentient, etc.)

1- Belief that the proposition is true. [rejection of 2 & 3]
2- Belief that the proposition is false. [rejection of 1 & 3]
3a- Belief that the proposition is unknowable because you need more research [rejection of 1 & 2].
3b- Belief that the proposition is unknowable because it is impossible for humans to know [rejection of 1 & 2].

Assuming that the proposition is "God exists", you would be taking 3b. This is a bold claim as it implies that every single argument for the existence of God is invalid apriori. You have the intellectual obligation to provide an argument for this claim via. philosophical burden of proof.

If the proposition is God exists, I would expect evidence to support that claim. Without evidence the claim is summarily rejected and held false until such evidence is presented. No burden of proof assumed since no counterclaim or competing claim is made.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,681
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 8:41:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/7/2015 6:17:13 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/6/2015 7:06:41 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 8/6/2015 5:56:35 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
I always see the same arguments recycled which don't make sense about god's existence. Can either side, either atheists or theists actually prove or disprove the existence of god? What is the proof for god existing or not existing?

Would you consider this to be a sound arguments? https://www.youtube.com...

I wouldn't. I'm kinda bored of debating the Kalam cosmological argument via debates, so let's do it on the forums. What do you think?

I'd say it's a fairly sound argument. While I understand why others may say the Fine-Tuned or Moral Arguments are unsound, I am yet to find a significant hole in the Kalam argument.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 8:56:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/7/2015 8:41:40 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 8/7/2015 6:17:13 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/6/2015 7:06:41 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 8/6/2015 5:56:35 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
I always see the same arguments recycled which don't make sense about god's existence. Can either side, either atheists or theists actually prove or disprove the existence of god? What is the proof for god existing or not existing?

Would you consider this to be a sound arguments? https://www.youtube.com...

I wouldn't. I'm kinda bored of debating the Kalam cosmological argument via debates, so let's do it on the forums. What do you think?

I'd say it's a fairly sound argument. While I understand why others may say the Fine-Tuned or Moral Arguments are unsound, I am yet to find a significant hole in the Kalam argument.

Then you aren't looking. The only thing the Kalam argument points to is a creator or creative impulse of some sort. It in no way points to any specific god or gods.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,681
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 8:59:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/7/2015 8:56:25 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/7/2015 8:41:40 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 8/7/2015 6:17:13 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/6/2015 7:06:41 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 8/6/2015 5:56:35 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
I always see the same arguments recycled which don't make sense about god's existence. Can either side, either atheists or theists actually prove or disprove the existence of god? What is the proof for god existing or not existing?

Would you consider this to be a sound arguments? https://www.youtube.com...

I wouldn't. I'm kinda bored of debating the Kalam cosmological argument via debates, so let's do it on the forums. What do you think?

I'd say it's a fairly sound argument. While I understand why others may say the Fine-Tuned or Moral Arguments are unsound, I am yet to find a significant hole in the Kalam argument.

Then you aren't looking. The only thing the Kalam argument points to is a creator or creative impulse of some sort. It in no way points to any specific god or gods.

I don't use that argument to prove any specific religion, but to generally prove the existence of a God. Other arguments would be used to specifically prove religion over the other.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 9:00:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/7/2015 7:53:33 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/7/2015 7:19:50 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/6/2015 6:51:41 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
You can't prove a negative. So any atheist who tells you that they can prove that there is positively no God is a liar. This is coming from an atheist. I can't disprove the existence of unicorns, or goblins or dragons either because you simply can't prove the nonexistence of something.

But there are many claims that go along with a theist style god such as the God in Christianity that can be falsified. Claims such as the age of the earth for example. So when a number of the claims of a religion are demonstrably false, it casts doubt on the whole thing.

Also there is a thing called the burden of proof. This principle states that it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to prove that the claim is true, and not the responsibility of the listener to prove that it is false. This is the most reasonable and accurate approach because it would be foolish to believe any claim that could not be disproven, especially since many claims can't be disproven.

The best way to ensure that the majority of what you believe is true is to disbelieve claims for which there is no evidence, or for which there is insufficient evidence. Then in order to determine what you believe its just a matter of searching for evidence and determining if that evidence is sufficient for the claim. This is how the justice system in the US and Canada and most other first world countries works, and its also how science works. A claim must be demonstrably true for it to be accepted.

The irony... Your claim that you can't prove a negative is itself a negative. Thus, it is a self-refuting statement and is therefore false. For some reason you seem to blindly believe it based on blind faith. hmm...

What a foolish statement. Perhaps, for those like you who perform semantic tricks to try and make things work your way, we should rephrase.

You cannot demonstrate the validity of an assertion for which no evidence can be obtained.

Oh sorry, I didn't know the implication that you can prove you do not have milk in your fridge is foolish.

Can you provide an explanation (and if reasonable, try to recall the name) for any semantic fallacies when you claim that they exist?

Good thing that you are shifting the goal post, which means the original claim is conceded.

It is transparently false. Heck, one of the principles of logic is "The law of NON-contradiction" (a negative).

Again, a simple case of semantic trickery. It simply states that an assertion can be true or false but it cannot, by the definition of the words true and false and the mutually exclusive nature of the terms, be both.

And it contains a negative, is proven, and is axiomatic.

Furthermore, you can pretty much turn any statement into a negative with the rule of double negative; if I prove that a car exists, I have also proven that the car is not non-existent.

Semantic trickery. We don't call 1 negative negative 1, we remove the cancelling terms and it is a positive one. Calling it a negative does not make it so.

The existence of a negative, in which it does, make it so. I agree that the resultant is positive.
The most obvious way to turn a positive statement into a negative is by negating the claim and then negating it again; "I exist" is logically equivalent to "I do not not exist" as is 1 is equivalent to - - 1.

You can prove that square circles are impossible to exist

Mutually exclusive terms.

Glad that you conceded.

, you can inductively prove that the ball you are going to drop isn't going to fly to the ceiling,

Of you can draw upon a lifetime of experience living in a gravity field and extrapolate the vanishingly faint possibility that it will do anything other than what it has done in your lifetime.

Which is a way of inductively proving it.
Glad that you conceded.

you can inductively prove that the word "a'fdlkhsadk" doesn't exist in a dictionary.

Or you can find out by looking in the dictionary.

Which is a way of inductively proving it.
Glad that you conceded.

Heck, here is an inductive argument that demonstrates that non-existence of unicorns.

1- If unicorns exist, then we should've found their fossils by now or had strong historical evidence.
2- No unicorn fossil was found, and there is no strong historical evidence.
C: It is the case that unicorns do not exist.

Note that inductive arguments are based on probabilities (Your food is probably not poisoned, so you eat it, the sun will probably rise tomorrow so you sleep soundly, you probably won't have a car accident so you drive you car, etc.). Premise 1 is probably true, however the same argument would probably be invalid if you use it for the existence of ants or a fly in a large park.

There is fossil evidence and irrefutable historical evidence of ants and flies. Try again.

Try reading again, and you may figure out that I talked about the existence of ants or flies in a restricted area.

This is just human nature, when you have a proposition or thinking of a possibility, you have a reaction, and then you form an opinion ranging from total disbelief to total belief based on reasons and evidence (ie. not randomly). It would add to the discourse if you provide your reasons to be inclined to belief in God.

I assume that you are a closet agnostic who feels the need to call self and atheist. Well, here are the rational possibilities (assuming that you are not ignorant of the proposition, have amnesia, insentient, etc.)

1- Belief that the proposition is true. [rejection of 2 & 3]
2- Belief that the proposition is false. [rejection of 1 & 3]
3a- Belief that the proposition is unknowable because you need more research [rejection of 1 & 2].
3b- Belief that the proposition is unknowable because it is impossible for humans to know [rejection of 1 & 2].

Assuming that the proposition is "God exists", you would be taking 3b. This is a bold claim as it implies that every single argument for the existence of God is invalid apriori. You have the intellectual obligation to provide an argument for this claim via. philosophical burden of proof.

If the proposition is God exists, I would expect evidence to support that claim. Without evidence the claim is summarily rejected and held false until such evidence is presented. No burden of proof assumed since no counterclaim or competing claim is made.

Evidence exists all around away, and arguments are regularly provided. If you are to reject the arguments, then you have the burden of providing reasons for your rejections.

TBH, not believing that God exists is quite silly, as that is simply axiomatic and needed for a coherent worldview of reality.

1- Laws of logic/consciousness/reasoning/intuition/free will/morality cannot exist without God.
2- The previously mentioned entities exist.
C: Therefore God exists.

You have an opportunity to revolutionize philosophy by explaining how any of the previously mentioned can exist in a non-illusionary form in Atheism.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 9:02:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/7/2015 8:59:20 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 8/7/2015 8:56:25 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/7/2015 8:41:40 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 8/7/2015 6:17:13 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/6/2015 7:06:41 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 8/6/2015 5:56:35 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
I always see the same arguments recycled which don't make sense about god's existence. Can either side, either atheists or theists actually prove or disprove the existence of god? What is the proof for god existing or not existing?

Would you consider this to be a sound arguments? https://www.youtube.com...

I wouldn't. I'm kinda bored of debating the Kalam cosmological argument via debates, so let's do it on the forums. What do you think?

I'd say it's a fairly sound argument. While I understand why others may say the Fine-Tuned or Moral Arguments are unsound, I am yet to find a significant hole in the Kalam argument.

Then you aren't looking. The only thing the Kalam argument points to is a creator or creative impulse of some sort. It in no way points to any specific god or gods.

I don't use that argument to prove any specific religion, but to generally prove the existence of a God. Other arguments would be used to specifically prove religion over the other.

Again, no God but perhaps some other creative force. If you want to call that God, ok, but the argument is still specious. It has numerous unsupportable premises.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,681
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 9:03:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/7/2015 9:02:01 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/7/2015 8:59:20 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 8/7/2015 8:56:25 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/7/2015 8:41:40 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 8/7/2015 6:17:13 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/6/2015 7:06:41 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 8/6/2015 5:56:35 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
I always see the same arguments recycled which don't make sense about god's existence. Can either side, either atheists or theists actually prove or disprove the existence of god? What is the proof for god existing or not existing?

Would you consider this to be a sound arguments? https://www.youtube.com...

I wouldn't. I'm kinda bored of debating the Kalam cosmological argument via debates, so let's do it on the forums. What do you think?

I'd say it's a fairly sound argument. While I understand why others may say the Fine-Tuned or Moral Arguments are unsound, I am yet to find a significant hole in the Kalam argument.

Then you aren't looking. The only thing the Kalam argument points to is a creator or creative impulse of some sort. It in no way points to any specific god or gods.

I don't use that argument to prove any specific religion, but to generally prove the existence of a God. Other arguments would be used to specifically prove religion over the other.

Again, no God but perhaps some other creative force. If you want to call that God, ok, but the argument is still specious. It has numerous unsupportable premises.

However, when I see rebuttals to the Kalam argument, no other creative force is implied, it is assumed that that creative force is God (though not to any specific Religion).
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 9:07:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

But there are many claims that go along with a theist style god such as the God in Christianity that can be falsified. Claims such as the age of the earth for example. So when a number of the claims of a religion are demonstrably false, it casts doubt on the whole thing.

Also there is a thing called the burden of proof. This principle states that it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to prove that the claim is true, and not the responsibility of the listener to prove that it is false. This is the most reasonable and accurate approach because it would be foolish to believe any claim that could not be disproven, especially since many claims can't be disproven.

The best way to ensure that the majority of what you believe is true is to disbelieve claims for which there is no evidence, or for which there is insufficient evidence. Then in order to determine what you believe its just a matter of searching for evidence and determining if that evidence is sufficient for the claim. This is how the justice system in the US and Canada and most other first world countries works, and its also how science works. A claim must be demonstrably true for it to be accepted.

The irony... Your claim that you can't prove a negative is itself a negative. Thus, it is a self-refuting statement and is therefore false. For some reason you seem to blindly believe it based on blind faith. hmm...

What a foolish statement. Perhaps, for those like you who perform semantic tricks to try and make things work your way, we should rephrase.

You cannot demonstrate the validity of an assertion for which no evidence can be obtained.

Oh sorry, I didn't know the implication that you can prove you do not have milk in your fridge is foolish.

Can you provide an explanation (and if reasonable, try to recall the name) for any semantic fallacies when you claim that they exist?

Good thing that you are shifting the goal post, which means the original claim is conceded.

It is transparently false. Heck, one of the principles of logic is "The law of NON-contradiction" (a negative).

Again, a simple case of semantic trickery. It simply states that an assertion can be true or false but it cannot, by the definition of the words true and false and the mutually exclusive nature of the terms, be both.

And it contains a negative, is proven, and is axiomatic.

Furthermore, you can pretty much turn any statement into a negative with the rule of double negative; if I prove that a car exists, I have also proven that the car is not non-existent.

Semantic trickery. We don't call 1 negative negative 1, we remove the cancelling terms and it is a positive one. Calling it a negative does not make it so.

The existence of a negative, in which it does, make it so. I agree that the resultant is positive.
The most obvious way to turn a positive statement into a negative is by negating the claim and then negating it again; "I exist" is logically equivalent to "I do not not exist" as is 1 is equivalent to - - 1.

You can prove that square circles are impossible to exist

Mutually exclusive terms.

Glad that you conceded.

, you can inductively prove that the ball you are going to drop isn't going to fly to the ceiling,

Of you can draw upon a lifetime of experience living in a gravity field and extrapolate the vanishingly faint possibility that it will do anything other than what it has done in your lifetime.

Which is a way of inductively proving it.
Glad that you conceded.

you can inductively prove that the word "a'fdlkhsadk" doesn't exist in a dictionary.

Or you can find out by looking in the dictionary.

Which is a way of inductively proving it.
Glad that you conceded.

Heck, here is an inductive argument that demonstrates that non-existence of unicorns.

1- If unicorns exist, then we should've found their fossils by now or had strong historical evidence.
2- No unicorn fossil was found, and there is no strong historical evidence.
C: It is the case that unicorns do not exist.

Note that inductive arguments are based on probabilities (Your food is probably not poisoned, so you eat it, the sun will probably rise tomorrow so you sleep soundly, you probably won't have a car accident so you drive you car, etc.). Premise 1 is probably true, however the same argument would probably be invalid if you use it for the existence of ants or a fly in a large park.

There is fossil evidence and irrefutable historical evidence of ants and flies. Try again.

Try reading again, and you may figure out that I talked about the existence of ants or flies in a restricted area.

As long as you want to play word games then go ahead. All you do is demonstrate the weakness of your actual arguments in the first place.

This is just human nature, when you have a proposition or thinking of a possibility, you have a reaction, and then you form an opinion ranging from total disbelief to total belief based on reasons and evidence (ie. not randomly). It would add to the discourse if you provide your reasons to be inclined to belief in God.

I assume that you are a closet agnostic who feels the need to call self and atheist. Well, here are the rational possibilities (assuming that you are not ignorant of the proposition, have amnesia, insentient, etc.)

1- Belief that the proposition is true. [rejection of 2 & 3]
2- Belief that the proposition is false. [rejection of 1 & 3]
3a- Belief that the proposition is unknowable because you need more research [rejection of 1 & 2].
3b- Belief that the proposition is unknowable because it is impossible for humans to know [rejection of 1 & 2].

Assuming that the proposition is "God exists", you would be taking 3b. This is a bold claim as it implies that every single argument for the existence of God is invalid apriori. You have the intellectual obligation to provide an argument for this claim via. philosophical burden of proof.

If the proposition is God exists, I would expect evidence to support that claim. Without evidence the claim is summarily rejected and held false until such evidence is presented. No burden of proof assumed since no counterclaim or competing claim is made.

Evidence exists all around away,

Provide some actual, verifiable evidence and you might have a discussion.

and arguments are regularly provided.

Arguments aren't evidence.

If you are to reject the arguments, then you have the burden of providing reasons for your rejections.

Already have. Lack of evidentiary support for their underlying premises.

TBH, not believing that God exists is quite silly, as that is simply axiomatic and needed for a coherent worldview of reality.

Uh, no. I have a perfectly coherent world view and no supernatural anything required.

1- Laws of logic/consciousness/reasoning/intuition/free will/morality cannot exist without God.

Baseless assertion.

2- The previously mentioned entities exist.

Agreed

C: Therefore God exists.

Invalid conclusion due to faulty initial premise.

You have an opportunity to revolutionize philosophy by explaining how any of the previously mentioned can exist in a non-illusionary form in Atheism.

You have to first demonstrate any of your premises are correct with real evidence. So far you're batting .000
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 9:09:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/7/2015 9:03:51 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 8/7/2015 9:02:01 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/7/2015 8:59:20 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 8/7/2015 8:56:25 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/7/2015 8:41:40 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 8/7/2015 6:17:13 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/6/2015 7:06:41 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 8/6/2015 5:56:35 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
I always see the same arguments recycled which don't make sense about god's existence. Can either side, either atheists or theists actually prove or disprove the existence of god? What is the proof for god existing or not existing?

Would you consider this to be a sound arguments? https://www.youtube.com...

I wouldn't. I'm kinda bored of debating the Kalam cosmological argument via debates, so let's do it on the forums. What do you think?

I'd say it's a fairly sound argument. While I understand why others may say the Fine-Tuned or Moral Arguments are unsound, I am yet to find a significant hole in the Kalam argument.

Then you aren't looking. The only thing the Kalam argument points to is a creator or creative impulse of some sort. It in no way points to any specific god or gods.

I don't use that argument to prove any specific religion, but to generally prove the existence of a God. Other arguments would be used to specifically prove religion over the other.

Again, no God but perhaps some other creative force. If you want to call that God, ok, but the argument is still specious. It has numerous unsupportable premises.

However, when I see rebuttals to the Kalam argument, no other creative force is implied, it is assumed that that creative force is God (though not to any specific Religion).

The only thing implied in the initial argument is a cause. Everything beyond that is conjecture without any basis.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 11:02:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/7/2015 9:07:52 PM, dhardage wrote:

What a foolish statement. Perhaps, for those like you who perform semantic tricks to try and make things work your way, we should rephrase.

You cannot demonstrate the validity of an assertion for which no evidence can be obtained.

Oh sorry, I didn't know the implication that you can prove you do not have milk in your fridge is foolish.

Can you provide an explanation (and if reasonable, try to recall the name) for any semantic fallacies when you claim that they exist?

Good thing that you are shifting the goal post, which means the original claim is conceded.

It is transparently false. Heck, one of the principles of logic is "The law of NON-contradiction" (a negative).

Again, a simple case of semantic trickery. It simply states that an assertion can be true or false but it cannot, by the definition of the words true and false and the mutually exclusive nature of the terms, be both.

And it contains a negative, is proven, and is axiomatic.

Furthermore, you can pretty much turn any statement into a negative with the rule of double negative; if I prove that a car exists, I have also proven that the car is not non-existent.

Semantic trickery. We don't call 1 negative negative 1, we remove the cancelling terms and it is a positive one. Calling it a negative does not make it so.

The existence of a negative, in which it does, make it so. I agree that the resultant is positive.
The most obvious way to turn a positive statement into a negative is by negating the claim and then negating it again; "I exist" is logically equivalent to "I do not not exist" as is 1 is equivalent to - - 1.

You can prove that square circles are impossible to exist

Mutually exclusive terms.

Glad that you conceded.

, you can inductively prove that the ball you are going to drop isn't going to fly to the ceiling,

Of you can draw upon a lifetime of experience living in a gravity field and extrapolate the vanishingly faint possibility that it will do anything other than what it has done in your lifetime.

Which is a way of inductively proving it.
Glad that you conceded.

you can inductively prove that the word "a'fdlkhsadk" doesn't exist in a dictionary.

Or you can find out by looking in the dictionary.

Which is a way of inductively proving it.
Glad that you conceded.



There is fossil evidence and irrefutable historical evidence of ants and flies. Try again.

Try reading again, and you may figure out that I talked about the existence of ants or flies in a restricted area.

As long as you want to play word games then go ahead. All you do is demonstrate the weakness of your actual arguments in the first place.

Empty assertions combined with inability to respond, cowardly concession as always.

This is just human nature, when you have a proposition or thinking of a possibility, you have a reaction, and then you form an opinion ranging from total disbelief to total belief based on reasons and evidence (ie. not randomly). It would add to the discourse if you provide your reasons to be inclined to belief in God.

I assume that you are a closet agnostic who feels the need to call self and atheist. Well, here are the rational possibilities (assuming that you are not ignorant of the proposition, have amnesia, insentient, etc.)

1- Belief that the proposition is true. [rejection of 2 & 3]
2- Belief that the proposition is false. [rejection of 1 & 3]
3a- Belief that the proposition is unknowable because you need more research [rejection of 1 & 2].
3b- Belief that the proposition is unknowable because it is impossible for humans to know [rejection of 1 & 2].

Assuming that the proposition is "God exists", you would be taking 3b. This is a bold claim as it implies that every single argument for the existence of God is invalid apriori. You have the intellectual obligation to provide an argument for this claim via. philosophical burden of proof.

If the proposition is God exists, I would expect evidence to support that claim. Without evidence the claim is summarily rejected and held false until such evidence is presented. No burden of proof assumed since no counterclaim or competing claim is made.

Evidence exists all around away,

Provide some actual, verifiable evidence and you might have a discussion.

If cause and effect is consistent enough to be a principle of logic and the basis of empirical science, then it should be consistent enough for justifying the possibility that the universe had a cause which was greater than the sum components of the universe.

and arguments are regularly provided.

Arguments aren't evidence.

Arguments contain evidence.

If you are to reject the arguments, then you have the burden of providing reasons for your rejections.

Already have. Lack of evidentiary support for their underlying premises.

Then your objection is fallacious as lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps a logic course can bring your philosophical education to basic levels which should help you in your intellectual pursuits.

If you don't see how a premise is supported and is unable to refute it, then simply ask the person to clarify it. That is how discussion works; you're welcome.

TBH, not believing that God exists is quite silly, as that is simply axiomatic and needed for a coherent worldview of reality.

Uh, no. I have a perfectly coherent world view and no supernatural anything required.

Laws of logic/consciousness/reasoning/intuition/free will/morality cannot be made compatible with Atheism, as the trails of many philosophers has shown, and it seems neither can you provide any sort of explanation. Therefore, your worldview is not coherent.
If the sane can be coerced into rationality, and rationality assumes the existence of logic, then what can we do with someone who actively rejects the existence of logic?

1- Laws of logic/consciousness/reasoning/intuition/free will/morality cannot exist without God.

Baseless assertion.

Coming from someone ignorant in basic philosophy.

Based on Atheism, reasoning is based on only:
1- Irrational processes.
2- Biological impulses.

Therefore, reasoning is invalid, and Atheism is self-refuting.

Do you believe that atoms can experience conscious pain, if you arrange them the right way? If not, then you believe consciousness is an illusion. Do matter and chemicals make choices or do they deterministically follow a chain of causality? If the later then you have no free will Mr. Neurochemical zombie.

Is morality ephemeral? If not, then are social pressure and evolution no ephemeral?
Do you believe Islam's morality is as true as yours? That gladiator arenas are evil no matter what everybody says in all time periods?

2- The previously mentioned entities exist.

Agreed

They are illusionary in Atheism, so your body is embracing illusion. How fascinating.

C: Therefore God exists.

Invalid conclusion due to faulty initial premise.

Provide support for your claim.

You have an opportunity to revolutionize philosophy by explaining how any of the previously mentioned can exist in a non-illusionary form in Atheism.

You have to first demonstrate any of your premises are correct with real evidence. So far you're batting .000

So you can't, while I can? Thank you.
Q.E.D.
tejretics
Posts: 6,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 2:21:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/7/2015 8:41:40 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 8/7/2015 6:17:13 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/6/2015 7:06:41 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 8/6/2015 5:56:35 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
I always see the same arguments recycled which don't make sense about god's existence. Can either side, either atheists or theists actually prove or disprove the existence of god? What is the proof for god existing or not existing?

Would you consider this to be a sound arguments? https://www.youtube.com...

I wouldn't. I'm kinda bored of debating the Kalam cosmological argument via debates, so let's do it on the forums. What do you think?

I'd say it's a fairly sound argument. While I understand why others may say the Fine-Tuned or Moral Arguments are unsound, I am yet to find a significant hole in the Kalam argument.

P2 has to rely on a presentist ontology of time. If eternalism is true, the universe would not "begin," and only just exist as a tenseless four-dimensional block, such that "before" is an incoherent term. Eternalism is justified by special relativity and quantum mechanics. P1 is a hasty generalization. The KCA also relies on substance dualism, which is dubious in light of B-theory, which entails physicalism.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2015 4:06:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/6/2015 5:56:35 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
I always see the same arguments recycled which don't make sense about god's existence. Can either side, either atheists or theists actually prove or disprove the existence of god? What is the proof for god existing or not existing?

I see arguments recycled simply because both, when we come down to it, are used much like how black holes are discovered. We see that things are happening, but don't see what it is causing it. We only know something is there and so do our best with what we have. The area around the "black hole" being the evidence both sides present, with neither side being fully satisfied with the others and so we continue to argue about what exactly the "black hole" is. To more fully explain this theoretical "black hole", it is like trying to explain creation. All we have come up with so far is the Big Bang Theory (which is a horrible name) and even so the Big Bang still could have been the result of God. It also could have been a result of time and space conjoining and then separating again, creating a "Big Bang"(still horrible name) without any evidence of what existed before as everything became too condensed to be able to tell. Just sidebar, the reason the Big Bang is a bad name, is because it was really just matter expanding really fast everywhere. Minute Physics gave it the name The Everywhere Stretch. Anyway, the ideas of both groups hold some merit, leaving many to wonder as to which is correct. This is where those of a religious standpoint, including myself, rely on personal revelation as well as the evidence carried by the theist side. Those of an Atheist standpoint look more to finding new evidence, disproving existing evidence based on a religions certain beliefs, and then starting over. I truly think the Atheist standpoint is, in reality, a way of combing through religions, hopefully, with the intent of finding the true one.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 12:14:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/7/2015 7:19:50 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/6/2015 6:51:41 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
You can't prove a negative. So any atheist who tells you that they can prove that there is positively no God is a liar. This is coming from an atheist. I can't disprove the existence of unicorns, or goblins or dragons either because you simply can't prove the nonexistence of something.

But there are many claims that go along with a theist style god such as the God in Christianity that can be falsified. Claims such as the age of the earth for example. So when a number of the claims of a religion are demonstrably false, it casts doubt on the whole thing.

Also there is a thing called the burden of proof. This principle states that it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to prove that the claim is true, and not the responsibility of the listener to prove that it is false. This is the most reasonable and accurate approach because it would be foolish to believe any claim that could not be disproven, especially since many claims can't be disproven.

The best way to ensure that the majority of what you believe is true is to disbelieve claims for which there is no evidence, or for which there is insufficient evidence. Then in order to determine what you believe its just a matter of searching for evidence and determining if that evidence is sufficient for the claim. This is how the justice system in the US and Canada and most other first world countries works, and its also how science works. A claim must be demonstrably true for it to be accepted.

The irony... Your claim that you can't prove a negative is itself a negative. Thus, it is a self-refuting statement and is therefore false. For some reason you seem to blindly believe it based on blind faith. hmm...

It is transparently false. Heck, one of the principles of logic is "The law of NON-contradiction" (a negative).

Proving the positive automatically disproves the negative. But the fact remains that you are still proving a positive, and not a negative.

Furthermore, you can pretty much turn any statement into a negative with the rule of double negative; if I prove that a car exists, I have also proven that the car is not non-existent.

Proving a double negative is not the same as proving a negative. Double negatives are actually positives that are grammatically incorrect. That is why we distinguish them as double negatives.

You can prove that square circles are impossible to exist, you can inductively prove that the ball you are going to drop isn't going to fly to the ceiling, you can inductively prove that the word "a'fdlkhsadk" doesn't exist in a dictionary.


We can prove that all circles are round by definition. This disproves the negative by the law of non-contradiction. You are still proving a positive.

Heck, here is an inductive argument that demonstrates that non-existence of unicorns.

1- If unicorns exist, then we should've found their fossils by now or had strong historical evidence.

I agree; however, this is not sufficient to prove their non-existence. This is an argument from ignorance and is a fallacious argument.

2- No unicorn fossil was found, and there is no strong historical evidence.
C: It is the case that unicorns do not exist.

Note that inductive arguments are based on probabilities (Your food is probably not poisoned, so you eat it, the sun will probably rise tomorrow so you sleep soundly, you probably won't have a car accident so you drive you car, etc.). Premise 1 is probably true, however the same argument would probably be invalid if you use it for the existence of ants or a fly in a large park.
This is just human nature, when you have a proposition or thinking of a possibility, you have a reaction, and then you form an opinion ranging from total disbelief to total belief based on reasons and evidence (ie. not randomly). It would add to the discourse if you provide your reasons to be inclined to belief in God.


I agree that we can use inductive reasoning to determine probabilities and then make decisions based on those probabilities. But that doesn't mean we can prove anything. I can't prove that I won't die in a car accident today. I know from past experience and other evidence that the chances are very low. But there is still the possibility. Nothing has been proven here.

I assume that you are a closet agnostic who feels the need to call self and atheist. Well, here are the rational possibilities (assuming that you are not ignorant of the proposition, have amnesia, insentient, etc.)


I'm an agnostic atheist. I disbelieve god claims. That makes me an atheist. However I acknowledge that I can't prove that there are no gods, and can't know for sure. This makes me agnostic. The two labels are not mutually exclusive. One is about what you believe or claim to believe. The other is about what you know or claim to know.

1- Belief that the proposition is true. [rejection of 2 & 3]
2- Belief that the proposition is false. [rejection of 1 & 3]
3a- Belief that the proposition is unknowable because you need more research [rejection of 1 & 2].
3b- Belief that the proposition is unknowable because it is impossible for humans to know [rejection of 1 & 2].

Assuming that the proposition is "God exists", you would be taking 3b. This is a bold claim as it implies that every single argument for the existence of God is invalid apriori. You have the intellectual obligation to provide an argument for this claim via. philosophical burden of proof.

No. I take proposition #2 and 3a simultaneously. Belief and knowledge are separate and distinct. 3a is not a rejection of 1 and 2 as it is about what you claim to know, now what you claim to believe.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 2:07:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Again, not a concession. A circle, by definition, cannot be a square so the question itself is incoherent.

you can inductively prove that the word "a'fdlkhsadk" doesn't exist in a dictionary.

Or you can find out by looking in the dictionary.

Which is a way of inductively proving it.

Again, no. It's an empirical way to demonstrate the validity of the assertion or to demonstrate its invalidity.
There is fossil evidence and irrefutable historical evidence of ants and flies. Try again.

Try reading again, and you may figure out that I talked about the existence of ants or flies in a restricted area.

The area you're looking in is irrelevant. The fact is that ants and flies exist, demonstrated every day by direct observation. It's also a fact that a park in the middle of city would be an inviting environment for both since there would be food, water, and reasonable shelter. I agree it would inductive reasoning to say that the probability of ants and flies in that park would be high but I would not say it was certain until it was demonstrated with verifiable facts.

As long as you want to play word games then go ahead. All you do is demonstrate the weakness of your actual arguments in the first place.

Empty assertions combined with inability to respond, cowardly concession as always.

I've not failed to reply and I've made no empty assertions. I've pointed out the deceptive nature of your reasoning.

This is just human nature, when you have a proposition or thinking of a possibility, you have a reaction, and then you form an opinion ranging from total disbelief to total belief based on reasons and evidence (ie. not randomly). It would add to the discourse if you provide your reasons to be inclined to belief in God.

I assume that you are a closet agnostic who feels the need to call self and atheist. Well, here are the rational possibilities (assuming that you are not ignorant of the proposition, have amnesia, insentient, etc.)

1- Belief that the proposition is true. [rejection of 2 & 3]
2- Belief that the proposition is false. [rejection of 1 & 3]
3a- Belief that the proposition is unknowable because you need more research [rejection of 1 & 2].
3b- Belief that the proposition is unknowable because it is impossible for humans to know [rejection of 1 & 2].

Assuming that the proposition is "God exists", you would be taking 3b. This is a bold claim as it implies that every single argument for the existence of God is invalid apriori. You have the intellectual obligation to provide an argument for this claim via. philosophical burden of proof.

If the proposition is God exists, I would expect evidence to support that claim. Without evidence the claim is summarily rejected and held false until such evidence is presented. No burden of proof assumed since no counterclaim or competing claim is made.

Evidence exists all around away,

Provide some actual, verifiable evidence and you might have a discussion.

If cause and effect is consistent enough to be a principle of logic and the basis of empirical science, then it should be consistent enough for justifying the possibility that the universe had a cause which was greater than the sum components of the universe.

and arguments are regularly provided.

Arguments aren't evidence.

Arguments contain evidence.

If you are to reject the arguments, then you have the burden of providing reasons for your rejections.

Already have. Lack of evidentiary support for their underlying premises.

Then your objection is fallacious as lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps a logic course can bring your philosophical education to basic levels which should help you in your intellectual pursuits.

If you make an assertion and cannot provide evidence to support the assertion no burden of proof is set upon its rejection. Burden of lies with the make of the assertion.

If you don't see how a premise is supported and is unable to refute it, then simply ask the person to clarify it. That is how discussion works; you're welcome.

TBH, not believing that God exists is quite silly, as that is simply axiomatic and needed for a coherent worldview of reality.

Uh, no. I have a perfectly coherent world view and no supernatural anything required.

Laws of logic/consciousness/reasoning/intuition/free will/morality cannot be made compatible with Atheism, as the trails of many philosophers has shown, and it seems neither can you provide any sort of explanation. Therefore, your worldview is not coherent.
If the sane can be coerced into rationality, and rationality assumes the existence of logic, then what can we do with someone who actively rejects the existence of logic?

So far you've made baseless, demonstrably false assertions and arguments with no factual basis.

1- Laws of logic/consciousness/reasoning/intuition/free will/morality cannot exist without God.

Baseless assertion.

Coming from someone ignorant in basic philosophy.

Philosophy plays no part at this moment. You have made an assertion and have no means or method to demonstrate is validity. It is based entirely on your desire to prove your deity exists and is naught but presuppostional argument. It has no probative value.

Based on Atheism, reasoning is based on only:
1- Irrational processes.
2- Biological impulses.


Again, a null statement since atheism is only a disbelief in supernatural deities, not a single philosophy or school of thought. You should really learn what a word means before you use it.

Therefore, reasoning is invalid, and Atheism is self-refuting.

Again, baseless assertion.

Do you believe that atoms can experience conscious pain, if you arrange them the right way? If not, then you believe consciousness is an illusion. Do matter and chemicals make choices or do they deterministically follow a chain of causality? If the later then you have no free will Mr. Neurochemical zombie.

We're all electrochemical machines, granted awareness and will by the forces that guided our evolution, not some mythical sky deity. Chimps. ceteceans, and some birds demonstrate that same capability. Who know? Maybe one day they will learn our speech and tell us something new. We are only special in one area, our ability to reason and remember.

Is morality ephemeral?

Morality is based on survival of the species.

If not, then are social pressure and evolution no ephemeral?
Do you believe Islam's morality is as true as yours? That gladiator arenas are evil no matter what everybody says in all time periods?

2- The previously mentioned entities exist.

Agreed

They are illusionary in Atheism, so your body is embracing illusion. How fascinating.

Outright falsehood.

C: Therefore God exists.

Invalid conclusion due to faulty initial premise.

Provide support for your claim.

No evidence to support the initial premise that your God is necessary.

You have an opportunity to revolutionize philosophy by explaining how any of the previously mentioned can exist in a non-illusionary form in Atheism.

You have to first demonstrate any of your premises are correct with real evidence. So far you're batting .000

So you can't, while I can? Thank yo

You've done nothing but prevaricate and obfuscate, providing absolutely zero evidence as usual. You are a tiresome individual who must use baseless philosophical arguments since you have no evidence. That said, good day, sir.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 8:36:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 12:14:54 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 8/7/2015 7:19:50 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/6/2015 6:51:41 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
You can't prove a negative. So any atheist who tells you that they can prove that there is positively no God is a liar. This is coming from an atheist. I can't disprove the existence of unicorns, or goblins or dragons either because you simply can't prove the nonexistence of something.

But there are many claims that go along with a theist style god such as the God in Christianity that can be falsified. Claims such as the age of the earth for example. So when a number of the claims of a religion are demonstrably false, it casts doubt on the whole thing.

Also there is a thing called the burden of proof. This principle states that it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to prove that the claim is true, and not the responsibility of the listener to prove that it is false. This is the most reasonable and accurate approach because it would be foolish to believe any claim that could not be disproven, especially since many claims can't be disproven.

The best way to ensure that the majority of what you believe is true is to disbelieve claims for which there is no evidence, or for which there is insufficient evidence. Then in order to determine what you believe its just a matter of searching for evidence and determining if that evidence is sufficient for the claim. This is how the justice system in the US and Canada and most other first world countries works, and its also how science works. A claim must be demonstrably true for it to be accepted.

The irony... Your claim that you can't prove a negative is itself a negative. Thus, it is a self-refuting statement and is therefore false. For some reason you seem to blindly believe it based on blind faith. hmm...

It is transparently false. Heck, one of the principles of logic is "The law of NON-contradiction" (a negative).

Proving the positive automatically disproves the negative. But the fact remains that you are still proving a positive, and not a negative.

As I explained, your position is self-refuting and is thus untenable.

Proving the negative also disproves the negative.

Furthermore, you can pretty much turn any statement into a negative with the rule of double negative; if I prove that a car exists, I have also proven that the car is not non-existent.

Proving a double negative is not the same as proving a negative. Double negatives are actually positives that are grammatically incorrect. That is why we distinguish them as double negatives.

No special pleading, my statement that the car is not imaginary is a negative. As I already explicitly stated, my negative statement is equivalent to the positive one.

You can prove that square circles are impossible to exist, you can inductively prove that the ball you are going to drop isn't going to fly to the ceiling, you can inductively prove that the word "a'fdlkhsadk" doesn't exist in a dictionary.


We can prove that all circles are round by definition. This disproves the negative by the law of non-contradiction. You are still proving a positive.

Lol, so according to you, you can't prove that square circles are impossible, because you would like to avoid proving a negative.

Heck, here is an inductive argument that demonstrates that non-existence of unicorns.

1- If unicorns exist, then we should've found their fossils by now or had strong historical evidence.

I agree; however, this is not sufficient to prove their non-existence. This is an argument from ignorance and is a fallacious argument.

No, this is denying the consequent [Modus tollens], and is a valid argument.

1- If A, then B.
2- If not B, then not A.
3- Not B.
C: Therefore, not A.

1- If I am the axe murderer, than I can use an axe.
2- I can't use an axe.
C: Therefore I am not the axe murderer.

2- No unicorn fossil was found, and there is no strong historical evidence.
C: It is the case that unicorns do not exist.

Note that inductive arguments are based on probabilities (Your food is probably not poisoned, so you eat it, the sun will probably rise tomorrow so you sleep soundly, you probably won't have a car accident so you drive you car, etc.). Premise 1 is probably true, however the same argument would probably be invalid if you use it for the existence of ants or a fly in a large park.
This is just human nature, when you have a proposition or thinking of a possibility, you have a reaction, and then you form an opinion ranging from total disbelief to total belief based on reasons and evidence (ie. not randomly). It would add to the discourse if you provide your reasons to be inclined to belief in God.


I agree that we can use inductive reasoning to determine probabilities and then make decisions based on those probabilities. But that doesn't mean we can prove anything. I can't prove that I won't die in a car accident today. I know from past experience and other evidence that the chances are very low. But there is still the possibility. Nothing has been proven here.

Semantic argument. It depends in part on what you mean by "prove." The word has a variety of meanings. You might mean that it is established beyond all possible doubt, that it has been established beyond reasonable doubt

I assume that you are a closet agnostic who feels the need to call self and atheist. Well, here are the rational possibilities (assuming that you are not ignorant of the proposition, have amnesia, insentient, etc.)


I'm an agnostic atheist. I disbelieve god claims. That makes me an atheist. However I acknowledge that I can't prove that there are no gods, and can't know for sure. This makes me agnostic. The two labels are not mutually exclusive. One is about what you believe or claim to believe. The other is about what you know or claim to know.

Once the word "Agnostic" entered the public domain, "Atheist" started to exclusively mean denying the existence of God.

As far as I know, "agnostic atheist" on your terminology, means "pretending to know something while not knowing it through wishful thinking".

1- Belief that the proposition is true. [rejection of 2 & 3]
2- Belief that the proposition is false. [rejection of 1 & 3]
3a- Belief that the proposition is unknowable because you need more research [rejection of 1 & 2].
3b- Belief that the proposition is unknowable because it is impossible for humans to know [rejection of 1 & 2].

Assuming that the proposition is "God exists", you would be taking 3b. This is a bold claim as it implies that every single argument for the existence of God is invalid apriori. You have the intellectual obligation to provide an argument for this claim via. philosophical burden of proof.

No. I take proposition #2 and 3a simultaneously. Belief and knowledge are separate and distinct. 3a is not a rejection of 1 and 2 as it is about what you claim to know, now what you claim to believe.

Notice that I only added the rational options.
I am done, so you acknowledge that your position is irrational and thus you self-refute yourself.