Originally posted by LemonJelloI didn't say bbarr fits any description. I asked him a question. It's a perfectly logical, hypothetical question based on the pronounced beliefs of an Atheist vs. a believer.
Bbarr does not fit either description with respect to your god. He claims to know that your god does not exist and he has evidence (for example by way of arguments) to show that he is right.
His claim that he has proof that God doesn't exist quite obviously doesn't come in to play, as one cannot verifiably prove a negative. He has no absolute proof. You know it, I know it, and the rest of the world knows it. So unless you are willing to depart from the real world and enter into a world where fantasies come true and the rules of basic logic don't exist... bbarr has not proven a negative. So we move past that assumably tongue-in-cheek claim, and get back to reality....
Now if you'll excuse me, I asked bbarr a question...............
Originally posted by LemonJelloProblems for you maybe. Not me. What gives you the right to shift the burden of your problems on to my shoulders?
They sure are your problems. A sound argument that shows your god does not exist is a problem for you, not for someone who doesn't believe in your god. Duh!
And yes bbarr does know that your god does not exist. So do a lot of other persons too, like me.
A "sound argument" does not a fact make. A negative can't be proven, no matter how much you personally desire such an outcome.
But, since you seem to think you have solid, verifiable *proof* that God doesn't exist--please, let's see it. I'll get my popcorn ready.
18 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydidI think the atheists have already entered that fantasy world in believing that evolution is a fact and the universe and life came about by accident.
I didn't say bbarr fits any description. I asked him a question. It's a perfectly logical, hypothetical question based on the pronounced beliefs of an Atheist vs. a believer.
His claim that he has proof that God doesn't exist quite obviously doesn't come in to play, as one cannot verifiably prove a negative. He has no absolute proof. You know it, I kn ...[text shortened]... et back to reality....
Now if you'll excuse me, I asked bbarr a question...............
18 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydidNonsense. It is perfectly possible to prove that some things do not exist. The easiest being to show that something is illogical. You yourself attempt to use this very argument in your post to try and disprove the existence of bbarrs absolute proof.
His claim that he has proof that God doesn't exist quite obviously doesn't come in to play, as one cannot verifiably prove a negative. He has no absolute proof. You know it, I know it, and the rest of the world knows it. So unless you are willing to depart from the real world and enter into a world where fantasies come true and the rules of basic logic do ...[text shortened]... negative. So we move past that assumably tongue-in-cheek claim, and get back to reality....
18 Nov 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloI would say no to that one, he may believe it isn't true, but he does not know.
They sure are your problems. A sound argument that shows your god does not exist is a problem for you, not for someone who doesn't believe in your god. Duh!
And yes bbarr does know that your god does not exist. So do a lot of other persons too, like me.
Kelly
18 Nov 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloEvidence and arguments...so do you believe that people with both of those are
Bbarr does not fit either description with respect to your god. He claims to know that your god does not exist and he has evidence (for example by way of arguments) to show that he is right.
always right? Seriously there are many a court case where both side have
both evidence and arguments and even in our court system those we think win
the debate are NOT always right in the end....so why are you so sure about
anyone with evidence and arguments being a clear winner?
Kelly
18 Nov 12
Originally posted by KellyJayMaybe they have bribed the judge and the jury. 😀
Evidence and arguments...so do you believe that people with both of those are
always right? Seriously there are many a court case where both side have
both evidence and arguments and even in our court system those we think win
the debate are NOT always right in the end....so why are you so sure about
anyone with evidence and arguments being a clear winner?
Kelly
19 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydidPerson A, obviously. But what does that have to do with me, or the problems I mentioned above?
bbarr:
All other things being completely equal, and both parties being known to be honest, completely sane, intelligent, well-educated human beings:
Person A says: God exists, because I've seen evidence of His existence.
Person B says: God doesn't exist, because I have seen no evidence of His existence.
Which person's testimony holds more weight? I believe there is only 1 correct answer.
Originally posted by sumydidOf course one can prove a negative. If some proposition P has entailments that yield a contradiction, or that are very unlikely given other evidence, then one can infer ~P. It's one instance of a reductio ad absurdum or indirect proof; you learn this in basic logic classes.
I didn't say bbarr fits any description. I asked him a question. It's a perfectly logical, hypothetical question based on the pronounced beliefs of an Atheist vs. a believer.
His claim that he has proof that God doesn't exist quite obviously doesn't come in to play, as one cannot verifiably prove a negative. He has no absolute proof. You know it, I kn et back to reality....
Now if you'll excuse me, I asked bbarr a question...............
19 Nov 12
Originally posted by bbarrAtheists on here have been claiming they can't prove there is no God, because you can not prove a negative. Apparently, that argument is just an excuse for their lack of proof then, right?
Of course one can prove a negative. If some proposition P has entailments that yield a contradiction, or that are very unlikely given other evidence, then one can infer ~P. It's one instance of a reductio ad absurdum or indirect proof; you learn this in basic logic classes.
19 Nov 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt has been a good while. I can't remember exactly who and how many. It was probably someone like Proper Knob, Void Spirit, or googlefudge. But it doesn't matter if one of you can prove God does not exist.
Can you quote one? I certainly have never made any such claim nor do I think I have ever seen it made by an atheist.
Originally posted by bbarrI said "verifiably prove," which rules out things like "very unlikely." I have heard many Atheists in my lifetime respond to Christians who say, "Oh yeah, PROVE that God doesn't exist!" -- by saying it is an unfair requirement because a negative cannot be proven.
Of course one can prove a negative. If some proposition P has entailments that yield a contradiction, or that are very unlikely given other evidence, then one can infer ~P. It's one instance of a reductio ad absurdum or indirect proof; you learn this in basic logic classes.
Now, if you disagree with them all and insist that this particular negative can be verifiably proven, then have at it. But I'll say from the outset that it would prove to be an enormous waste of time and effort on your part if you go with "God does not exist because I've seen no evidence of His existence." Because that will never, ever qualify as reasonable proof.
If your idea (and I think it is) is to prove a contradiction in God's existence, based on His actions vs. how the bible describes His character, and then use that contradiction as plausible proof to deny His existence? Then you are fighting an infinitely steep, uphill battle... but have at it. Start a new thread. We'll start with your problem of evil. That one shouldn't last long at all. Then we can go to your other points.