So that is what you should have said. If you read my reply I am not implying a negative. I disbelieve the claims of theists without sufficient credible evidence to back up their claims. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. It is NOT a claim that a god or gods does not exist.
Some (a few ) atheists do make the claim that a particular (or even all) god or gods do not exist. Then they have to produce sufficient credible evidence to back their claim. .
I’m pretty sure that we can demonstrate unequivocally that the earth is not flat, and that it is not at the centre of the universe. So your claim would appear to be errant nonsense.
You’d need first to specify which god, and accurately define it, even if you present an unfalsifiable notion of deity, this is not evidence it is real. You can’t prove we aren’t surrounded by invisible unicorns, that are undetectable in any empirical way, but I still don’t believe we are.
Wait…what? Does this mean that everything
which we cannot prove the non-existence of, automatically assumes the mantle of possibility? Is that what the OP is claiming?
Hot damn! I have been under the delusion that possibility has to be demonstrated. Oh woe is me…
The argument from hard solecism. It makes no difference at all. We can not prove the brain is not in a vat and the world illusion. We can not prove the world did not pop into existence ten minutes ago with all memories intact. SO WHAT. This is the world we live in. We have no choice. I don’t believe for an instant you run about denying the laws of reality. You step out a windown and you are going to fall until you hit the ground. THAT IS A FACT. You do not get to pretend that your delusion of a god is on par with my facts of existence because we can’t know anything 100%. That is both ignorant and dishonest.
Do you even know what a law is? Do you know why they are not universal? Do you really think you scored a point here? Laws are “DESCRIPTIVE” not 'PRESCRIPTIVE." Scientists build models not laws. Laws are observations and nothing more. When new evidence comes to light, our ‘LAWS’ are altered to fit the new evidence. That is how science works. Laws are not, nor have they ever been, intended to be universal. You are chasing a red herring. Your argument simply shows your ignorance.
You are incorrect again. If I assert there is a dragon living in my backyard, are you going to accept the claim without evidence? Are you that slow? The person making the claim has the burden of proof. You would be completely justified asking for evidence of the claim and then evaluating that evidence. I am completely justified in questioning magical, spiritual, woo woo that has no evidence in the world in which we reside.
I can’t even imagine the ignorance of this comment. Half the world is starving and, you are sitting there plunking away on a thousand dollar computer. You probably had meat for dinner. Can you spell ‘Hypocrite.’ What would make more people happy is for you to give up your posessions and live like most people in the world. Follow Jesus and give everything to the poor and stop being the hypocrite you are.
One of us does not have to "PROVE’ (You actually mean demonstrate.) anything. One of us is asking questions and the other making claims. Claims carry a burden of proof.
The point of the debate, which you completely miss, is to drag you kicking and screaming into the light of rational thought and reason. Perhaps you will get it someday. In the mean time, enjoy the darkness.
The only one arguing they know things for certain is YOU. You have asserted we can not know anything 100%. Now, we all know a lot of shit. How do you demonstrate there is not one single fact, someplace, that can not be known 100%. Do you know that fact 100% You seem to know that I can not know anything for sure. How sure are you about that? You could be wrong.
How can we find out? We can stop pretending that we can’t know anything and therefore nothing is worth knowing, and we can examine the matter. We can actually look into it and do experiments and seek independent validation. (We can apply the scientific method. The best possible tool we have for understanding the world around us.) The tool that created the computer you are using. The computer you are going to give to some poor family because it will make as many humans happy as possible.
There’s an absence of evidence for deities just like there is for unicorns, mermaids, flying pigs, the tooth fairy, dragons, Loch Ness, and Big Foot. You Christians dismiss those things. You also dismiss the gods of the other religions and state those gods don’t exist. So excuse me if I don’ take you seriously when you argue that your god can’t be proven or disproven.
You’re just doing that so you can cop out on the Burden of Proof and talk about your god like he’s a fact. A deity has to be proven to exist to treat it like it’s a fact and right now I don’t see admissible evidence for the existence of one or more deities.
An absence of evidence is evidence against the claim. Hitchen’s Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. With that being said, I dismiss the Christian argument.
What I do see is that it’s just a story you Christians want to believe in. Until Christians can back up their claims with actual evidence, that’s all it is: wishful thinking and anecdotal bullshit.
Not to be argumentative or anything of that nature, BUT, it is the “Commander Apparent”
award which is being awarded today… evidently there are multiple contenders for Captain Obvious and the judges are in a quandary over whom is more qualified. Once a clear leader is identified the announcement will be made. Runners-up will compete for the new and prestigious “Colonel Canard” trophy and trip to “Fallacy Island”.
Edit (in the presence of greatness)
Well yes, that is the purported premise purposefully promulgated under the pretense of providing patronizing pandering…woven into the fabric of the silky smoothness of the dialog are the threads of constant fallacies which stretch credulity to the point of unraveling like an old sock. Not only are all logical fallacies tolerated, they are required, to decipher the intended purposes of conversational deceit and utterly cruel obfuscation of widely known premises.
Deliberate distractions include Mr Plato, the local china merchant, Mr So-crates, the orchardist, Mr and Mrs Epi-curious, inventors of the Epi pen, Mr Bentham, local pig farmer, Day-Cart transportation services and so many others which I Kant remember…
Edit to go fix a Bacon and Aurelius sandwich
No one knows where Pi ends, so it quite literally did not prove anything. All we can really say is that it seems to be.
And yet the triangles must be drawn infinitely smaller. What happens when we reach Planck Time? How do you draw anything at Planck Time? Try drawing a 3–4–5 right triangle accurate to 0.001 inches. (Hint - what do you draw the lies with?) If that’s too easy, repeat with a few more zeros. Pretty soon, you’re using a scanning tunneling microscope to move individual atoms around, and you’re still not even close to Planck scale.
Yes, yes, we think of these things as “Proof.” Proof occurs in mathematics but not in the real world. When we apply math to the real world, we must operationalize our data. The real world is not always math friendly. Even so, we have no better way of describing, measuring, manipulating, and offering explanations for all we see. Math is certainly King!
I see your points, and I acknowledge that my statements were not sufficiently thought out.
I know that the Universe seems to have a non-Euclidian geometry, and–indeed–we don’t know if length, width, depth, or volume has any meaning for anything “smaller” (if “smaller” has any meaning) than the Planck scale.
Indeed, we may never need to know Pi beyond about 35 digits, because if we know the exact diameter of the Universe, then calculating the circumfrence with Pi to about 35 digits will mean that we are “off” by less than the Planck scale (about 10^-35 meters).
If the Universe does have a non-Euclidian geometry, then the Pythagorean Theorem may not give the mathematical results that we think it will under certian circumstances . . . which I view as being similar to the difference between Newtonian (or “classical”) physics, and physics that take Relativity into account.
Even so, the theorem works on a flat surface . . . except that the Universe is not flat.
And we know that Pi has an infinite number of digits, so–by definition–it is unending.
Of course we can express Pi in other ways, but we can never know the number with perfect accuracy.
The most accurate value of Pi at the time of this writing is about 31.4 trillion places, which is probably more accuracy than anyone will ever need.