OK Atheists.......prove god doesn't exist

And there it is. A refusal to answer. Is intellectual honesty one of the virtues you aspire to Frank?

 

Are you saying that I've never agreed to anything you have said? Good lord man why say things that you know can be shown to be false by just looking back to a few older posts?

 

I'll claim creation of PsychicSnowflakes. As far as "skorpmnatchs" are concerned, the first time I saw it was from Frank's post.

I think Frank randomly hit some keys on his keyboard to show that beliefs in skorpmnatchs were as ludicrous as beliefs in PsychicSnowflakes. He is right, but doesn't really grasp the implication.

Apologies in advance to a poster who may have used skorpmnatchs before Frank.

​

 

That's even better. Frank is like watching a schizophrenic debate himself. The most amazing thing about it, is that he is losing. PsychicSnowflakes and skorpmnatches. Awesome.

 

I AM intellectually honest, Adorno.

I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I DO NOT KNOW IF GODS EXIST OR NOT.

I ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT GODS MAY EXIST...AND THAT THERE MAY BE NO GODS.

I ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THERE IS NO WAY I CAN DETERMINE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT GODS EXIST...OR THAT GODS DO NOT EXIST...so therefore any assertion that I might make that gods exist...or do not exist...would be a blind guess.

Are you intellectually honest enough to acknowledge those things, Adorno?

 

I have offered my take on what your position is, Adorno.

If you disagree...or think my position is unreasonable...I accept that you do.

But it remains my position.

 

Poor, poor atheists. They want to suppose they are being reasonable, logical, and scientific...

...when in fact, they are doing exactly what theists do...only in reverse..

Hey...it is fun to see...especially since it confirms by suppositions about you guys.

 

>claims God exists
>still thinks the burden of proof is on atheists

ahahhahahahahahhahahaa

 

At this point, I'm left with only one conclusion. That somewhere long ago someone named Frank Apisa wronged you in some horrific manner. As a result, you have taken his name in this forum to engage in what can only be described as systematic character assassination. It's really quite diabolical. Clearly I am in the presence of a master.

 

Nice try, Adorno.

But apparently you do not have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge the things I mentioned...so now you have to resort to as much mocking as possible.

I am Frank Apisa...and I do not disguise who I am like so many who mouth off on the Internet.

I am saying I DO NOT KNOW IF GODS EXIST OR NOT....I AM SAYING THAT GODS MAY EXIST...AND THAT THERE MAY BE NO GODS...I AM SAYING THERE IS NO WAY I CAN DETERMINE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT GODS EXIST...OR THAT GODS DO NOT EXIST...so therefore any assertion that I might make that gods exist...or do not exist...would be a blind guess.

That seems to bother you.

You might explore why it bothers you so. Do a bit of introspection...no matter how disturbing it may be to do it.

 

You just did it AGAIN in this post!

You are fallaciously alleging that all atheists (plural) are denying the existence of "gods" (plural).

That is a strawman because as an atheist I don't deny the potential for the existence of aliens with "godlike powers".

Furthermore some atheists deny the existence of a "creator" deity which is singular.

So yes, you are using a strawman fallacy by the use of imprecise language that negates your logic since there are exceptions to your allegations.

 

For some people God does not exist and neither does common sense.

 

Derideo...at no point anywhere have I ever alleged anything about ALL atheists.

Atheists come in all stripes and kinds. I recognize that.

And saying that "Anyone asserting that there are no gods is asserting a blind guess"...DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ALL ATHEISTS...because not all atheists assert such a thing.

And it certainly does not say anything about "aliens."...which is what you said originally...and to which I took exception.

Your 1295

Stop making stuff up...and let's have a conversation on what was actually said.

 

Buy you haven't figured out the illogic between what you need to prove a god and to prove a not god.

 

Jester: I do not think ANYONE can prove that a god exists...OR...prove that no gods exist.

I don't really ask for proof.

But...if a person asserts that "a god exists"...I ask for the evidence upon which that assertion is made.

If a person asserts that "no gods exist"...I ask for the evidence upon which that assertion is made.

What do you find illogical about that?

 

For the following reason: that naturalistic explanations (without gods) are extraordinarily successful in accounting for what is. Hence, the success of naturalism counts as a strong reason for asserting that gods probably don't exist. Just as naturalistic explanations (again without gods) of how your keyboard works is a strong and justifiable reason in claiming that divine beings are not responsible for the operation of your keyboard. This is pretty straight forward. After all, you said that you are not looking for proof (i.e. certainty) just evidence. Making an inference to the best explanation is not a guess, it is to give the most rational explanation for something given the available evidence. As has been said here over and over again. It is more rational to believe that naturalism (without gods) is true than to claim that the existence of gods is true, because of the explanatory success of naturalistic claims and the relative weakness of claims that assert that gods exist.

 

If you understood logic, which you apparently do not quite get, you would easily see that there is NONE in your post, Adorno.

The question is: Do gods exist or not?

The "best explanation" is that we do not know if gods exist or not...which is what I have been saying consistently throughout this conversation.

It is NOT rational to "believe" or "blindly guess" that gods do or do not exist.

Are you saying, as usual without any evidence at all, that gods could not exist if the pathways to life as we know it on planet Earth were the ones we have discovered???

A god...or gods...could exist...and simply decided to see what would happen if the ingredients that could lead to "life" were available...and billions of years were allowed to pass.

If eternal gods existed...why not, "Hey, I've got an idea. Let's create a universe and put the makings of life into it...AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS?"

Supposing that because life occurred via "naturalistic" causes...doesn't make the blind gusses of atheists who blindly guess that no gods exist...any less blind guesses.

But keep trying. We can discuss it.

 

No.

 

It's very, very simple.

Atheism is a lack of belief in the positive assertions made by theists regarding the gods that they claim exist. The gods that theists assert are the only basis on which a claim can be evaluated. It is not up to atheists to define and describe the concept; if the theist is unable to reasonably define gods then an atheist is not obliged to accept a malformed definition or description.

The gods that theists do assert that have any kind of definition or description are not supported by evidence.

If you want to say that something, somewhere that might have done something is what might be considered a god then literally all you are doing is pointing at ignorance and saying gods might be in there somewhere. That is basically a theistic argument not a skeptical one and it IS an argument that you can make for any absurd notion you choose to imagine unless you want to be a hypocrite and special plead for gods.

 

Then your previous post makes no sense.

Things can look very "natural"...and there might be gods.

Things can also look very "natural"...and there might NOT be any gods.

 

Go back and read it again...carefully.

 

I read it over again...and once again after that.

I was careful.

Either you do not understand what you wrote...or you are even further away from an understanding of logic than I am already supposing.

If your true answer to my last question actually is "no"...as you indicated...

...then your post previous to it makes no sense.

 

I would add that a few simple basal assumptions about reality are incredibly successful as well and appear to hold up to scrutiny. One of those assumptions is not the existence of gods either way.

 

I'm inclined to agree. Could you say a bit more about your last sentence?