Yes the its always very adult and scholarly to go after a typo.. You fullfilled all the regaular traits of the online American poster. Tell us all how you saved everybody in WW2. Single handed and all.
as others have noted... its a matter of faith. Believe or don't. Kierkegaard's leap of faith.
Requiring proof of God is the demonstration of the absence of faith.
God can be neither proved nor disproved.
Anselm's great "proof" is a proof where the premise presumes the conclusion.... God being that no greater than which may be conceived. Boom... that's like kids on the playground saying "I have 50 XYZ".... "Well I have infinity XYZ".... "Oh yeah I have infinity times infinity".... Anslem posits God as the inflatable ball floating on the water our boat is trying to catch... it always bumps just out of reach no matter how cool a boat you invent.
Accepting that, why is the notion that God exists and is that source from which everything has emerged any more difficult to accept than a singularity once existed and is now filling the universe.... where did the singularity come from?
none of you get it.....and it's cool. there is no understanding or nor can there be. We all perceive and "rationalize" based on what knowledge we have at hand now and debate topics such as these. Is there a God? Is there not? we only have our hope.
NB : For the purposes of this thread, god refers to the christian delusion.
A god-addict, is claiming that "god exists". Note that they even go as far as saying he DOES exist, not that "I think he might, for no reason", which is far more accurate assessment of his position.
Any True atheist rejects this belief, and uses reason instead. The True atheist states there is no god. Thats just a fact. An atheist does not "believe" there is no god. You cannot believe in and be asked to prove the negative. He simply does not believe in god. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief.
Any atheist who suggests there even might be a god creature is not a Truth-based atheist.
Atheism is the Truth. The Forbidden Truth dictates clearly that there is no god creature.
1. There has never been a shred of legitimate evidence that there might be a god creature, let alone there is a god creature.
2. The claim made that god exists tries to sneak in-between a claim of concept and a claim of an actual being, in order to attempt to avoid pitfalls. Atheists must watch for this trick.
3. If we take a statement like "What existed before time"? The Q is irrational, because "before" is a function OF time. The same with cause-and-effect, as this is reliant on time also. Again, this is a re-curring error on their part.
4. Prove to Me the definition of god to be real. If we cannot legitimately define god, then we have no proof to worry about either way. One must prove the definition/existence of a claim first. On this thread, I am using the general christian god creature claim.
5. If the definition of "god" becomes empty, or meaningless, then we also have nothing to prove or disprove, and thus they fail.
6. The idea of "endless" or "infinate" proof. We must also realise that "proof", always refers to a limited proof.
Example : When we say that DNA test proved that 2 samples match, we cite that as ID proof. It is not infinite proof, because nothing is infinite. It is ONE form of proof. We can then get another form of conformation (a witness or ID card) that makes 2 proofs. Same as how evolution has been proven without infinate proof. No proof need be absolute. Proof has a limitation, and that is inherant in the word "proof".
Their tactic is to ignore arguments by always asking for more proof. Then, when it is not forthcoming, we can say that "AHA! You cannot answer!" The same goes for the word fact.
7. Backhanded negation is another tactic used by god-addicts. You could not prove the non-existence of *what-have-you*." See My website at www.truthmedia.8k.com and look under the Negative proof and other irrationalities section link.
8. Surely some things are knowable, and yet to ask for proof of the non-existant endlessly is to regulate everything to belief. That is false. We can have knowledge.
9. It has been proven that god does not exist. They just wont accept that proof.
10. Common sense
If I was to claim My nose caused the big bang, and just asked for negative proof...well you know. And yet My good sense KNOWS that My nose did not create the big-bang.
While I'd love to agree 100%, I haven't seen any fact that God doesn't exist. Neither I have seen any fact that says God exists. In all probability, the concept of God is nothing more than the creation of people trying to answer questions they couldn't answer. In all seriousness, God and gods were use a lot to answer unanswerable questions, until they were answered. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
Common sense tells me that the Christian God (referred to as God going forward) doesn't make a lot of sense. Yes yes, there are those that say "an all knowing being wouldn't make sense to a mere mortal" malarkey, and they find that a perfectly acceptable scapegoat. The problem with that is the assumed fact that God is wanting to interact with these mere mortals, and that God created these mere mortals. Therefore, God should have created humans with the ability to understand, or he should be able to "dumb it down" enough for us to fully comprehend. Neither of which has happened to date.
I have no problem with people believing how they do privately or in public, so long as they don't tell me how wrong I am or try to force their beliefs on me in any way. Once that happens, the fight's on.
I am with Ice Age here, that God is the creation of faith. No one can prove that God does not exist either- proof requires evidence or support of some kind, which no one can show against the existence of God.