Atheist Churches, For Real?

no, you can't.

proving a negative, or non existence is not possible.

but you aren't proving a negative, or that no beer exists in your fridge, because you are not able to do so.

it's a basic rule of logic. you can not prove a negative, or non existence.

no, it refers to everything.

I'm sorry you don't understand logic, or debates. but the one claiming a positive assertion, always bears the burden of proof. As it is not possible to prove a negative, or prove non existence.

 

Look, someone invented this idea that you espouse. I know about this idea, but never accepted it, for I think it is intellectual gymnastics, with no truth in it. So, what Logic, determines what we call logic. Where is the foundation on which to stand, which makes logic, Logical. For it is not at all logical to me. Accepting something is what is going on here. We, many, just accept that you cannot prove a negative. And yet these negatives always involve something that we already have assumed do not exist. It isn't Logic with the big L, it's a intellectual consensus, which contains no foundation other than common agreement.

And yet I can prove that something does not exist, within context. I can prove that I do not own one pair athletic shoes. I can prove not one single pair exists inside of my dwelling. I therefore can prove a negative. That one single pair exists within my dwelling. Or take something we assume does not exist, like a pair of athletic shoes that have Flubber as a sole(remember that old film about Flubber, the super rubber that allowed us to leap tall buildings with a single bound?) I can prove to you that a Flubber shoe does not exist in this world. And by doing so, I proved a negative. And in reality, you can do that too. Sure it would take work, but it could be proved. So perhaps the creator of this logic you use, was just a lazy person, not willing to do the work. Which should suit an atheist I should think. LOL

OTOH, something like god is not seen or apparent in this universe. And the universe is huge, perhaps as some say, infinite. In this case, since I cannot examine the infinite, I cannot prove a god does not exist in an infinite universe, but I can prove he does not exist within our solar system. Given the time and instruments.

Have you never questioned any of what you posted here? So, we set down rules of debate, with one rule that says you cannot prove a negative. And yet I see no Logic in that rule at all. I think Kipling's monkeys are at work here. And yes, I took Logic in college along with other courses in the Dept of Philosophy. I did not agree with all of it then nor now. But most of it, yes, for it seem Logical to my mind. But not this one. It seems more like a rule devoid of truth. For convenience perhaps.

PLUS, you have said nothing to convince me of anything. You are parroting something which you perhaps have never thought about, but just accepted the idea of some other brain. You have Authority behind you, I agree. And yet you have not logically proven to me that you cannot prove that something does not exist. And yet as a matter of daily life, we do this all of the time. While not noticing it.

I think within a finite universe proving something exists is no different than proving something does not exist. Or I should say, attempting to prove, for proof always is dependent upon an accumulation of knowledge. It may be knowledge is not yet sufficient to prove a particular thing, or disprove a particular thing.

 

How does the agnostic justify making that claim in a Universe of unknown possibilities?

 

Not sure I understand. All that we say is we do not know. It is an honest and humble statement. And the truth which atheists and theists for whatever reason do not see, or perhaps admit. I personally think with these two other groups, their ideas are highly affected by ego. The demand to say they know. And most egos are impervious to honesty, I think. For this can be observed, so often, it is prolific. One can even see it in oneself, but so few observe their own egos, its machinations, its clever little self deceptions. Know thyself came from a very wise man. So few of us know our selves, in any deep significant manner. IMO.

 

That is not what you said however, that is besides the point.

1. In a Universe of unknown possibilities, you might know that gods do not exist but, you are compelled to lie.

2. In a Universe of unknown possibilities it is arrogant to claim that we cannot know, we might be able to know.

It's ignorance all the way down.

 

So, it is ignorance to say, I do not know? There may be unknown possibilities, and probably are, given how limited knowledge is. But how does not affect the perception of someone who simply says, I do not know. He is telling the truth, for no one actually knows. There are just people who claim that they know, when in fact, there is zero evidence to back up their belief. But plenty of evidence for the man who says he does not know. After all, no one in really knows the answer to the question of the existence of god.

I dunno, it seems to me you are playing some intellectual gymnastics here, and it concludes in twisted up thinking. Only my opinion of course.

There cannot be arrogance in claiming one does not know. It is a fact in consciousness itself. Not a lie at all. Newspeak, says, humility is arrogance. War is peace and so on. Orwell noted it, and you seem to be exercising it. LOL

I can only put it as a possibility. For I do not have a firm grip on what our reality actually is, and, no one else does either. I personally think wisdom is found in not knowing, and admitting it, at least to oneself if no one else. An old chinese proverb goes...he who says he knows, does not know. It is merely a movement of the ego who demands certainty, and refuses to admit certainty is in some areas elusive, if not nonexistent. The ego is uncomfortable with not knowing particular things, and so it tends to lie.

 

You responded like a theist. Agnostics appeal to ignorance like theists, they claim we are ignorant, except about the exceptions that they special plead for.

When you dashed for the moral high ground, you said, 'The agnostic is wise enough to know he does not know, and cannot know...'

In a Universe of ignorance and unknown possibilities, you could know and you do not know that we cannot know. Remember, I'm not the one appealing to ignorance here, I'm quite OK with grounding myself in lacking belief, you are making claims about knowledge, theists are making claims about beliefs but, you are both making claims that you cannot substantiate.

 

Sorry, but it's basic logic 101. You can not prove a negative, or non existence. The examples you keep providing, are not proving a negative or non existence.

 

So you caught me? Agnostics are simply truthful, in that they have looked, and must state that they do not know. Of course, you can spin this in the manner you are doing, an attempt to make something so simple and obvious, something altogether different.

Appeal to ignorance. Not at all. It is an appeal to the truth as experienced by the agnostic. That some of us have a terrible time with the admission that some people exclaim they do not know must bother you? For you know something instead of not knowing, and refuse to believe that some of us honestly say we do not know?

It is so easy to get caught up, making something much more complex than it actually is. Which, IMO, is what you are doing. Thinking about thinking as some have put it. And yet, exclaiming one does not know is the only truthful position to take. Yet you object to the simplicity and must make it complex as to escape what should be self evident. This instead if a rather simple thing. A consciousness, a mind says it does not know. And yet you will not accept it. Is honesty so unbearable? For the agnostic who exclaims that he does not know is doing nothing more than telling the fact of the matter. And given the foundation upon which he stands, of course he must see your certainty in believing or not believing in a god, as a belief with no evidence at all to support it. That agnostic sees you or others have no evidence, and in reality cannot know what is claimed, but understands why it is done.

To you, it seems that intellectual honesty, of the agnostic is indeed a lie. When all that it is, is an intellect expressing what should be obvious. That he admits he does not know is something apparently you have a big problem with. LOL And yet the fact is, he does not know. But he will evaluate any real evidence given that oppose his thinking.

 

Keep saying it, while you operate or most people do, in doing what is illogical to you.

So, I am accused of a murder. Yet I prove a negative, which says I did not do it, for I was on the other side of the world. This allows me a not guilty verdict. I blew the prosecution's case with hard evidence that as a murderer, it is nonexistent. I proved a negative, that I did not and could not have done it, the positive, which is the murder. Would you not prove a negative, and get executed because logic 101 says you cannot prove a negative? I doubt it.

And again, I never agreed with the logic of being impossible to prove non existence. I think it is not founded on a Big L, Logical foundation. It is more akin to Kipling's monkeys, their consensus. We prove non existence of something all of the time. You should at least admit that, even if you see it as illogical.

 

See how quickly your apologetic has developed.

 

I have only repeated in principle what I already posted. So, expend some critical thinking, and lay out for me, using logic, rationality and reason, why it is logical. For all you have done so far is to repeat what another brain came up with, which then developed a consensus, and is never questioned. But for me, it seems to lack logic, and therefore is absurd. Yet I could very well change my mind if only you take it step by step why proving a negative is illogical. And therefore a breakage of the rules of logic. I fully expect it has to involve intellectual gymnastics, something very complicated, which can yield confusion, which fuels acceptance. But if it is illogical, against the rules of logic, what I have written, it should be a relative simple thing to logically, rationally, reasonably, with no assumptions, to evidence why it is illogical to even consider proving or evidencing a negative. For as I said, we do it all of the time in daily existence. But to just parrot some authority, who exclaims you cannot prove a negative, or the non existence of something, is just an exclamation without proof. And this is basically all you have given me. Hey, I could be wrong, and if so, I will admit it. The problem is, no one has ever proven to me why it is illogical. Like you, they just state it, and heaven help one if he were to ever question the authority.

 

Theists do not recognise their special pleading either. Theists and agnostics are two sides of the same coin.

 

it's not a matter of saying it. It literally can not be done. You can't prove a negative, or non existence.

that isn't proving a negative. That's proving you were on the other side of the world, which is a positive.

no

no you didn't.

which is irrelevant to the fact that you can not, prove a negative or non existence.

we do no such thing, because it is not possible.

 

As is typical, this thread has reached the point of virtually every "God" thread and devolved to "You Can't Prove He's Fake". No one wants to do so but they do want people to stop yelling that it is. When asked to provide even a smidgeon of evidence to back their claim they quote a Bible. When asked which one is true they dodge into how bad Atheism is and when accused of distracting they revert to " You Can't Prove It".

Well guess what folks...neither can you.