[QUOTE=davar55;390382]The fact that no one has ever proven that God exists is strong evidence that no god exists.[/QUOTE]

Evidence, but not anywhere near a "Proof". If you honestly believe that what you've posted even begins to prove that God is non-existent then you are beyond delusional.

If God has simply willed himself to be existent but not provably so, then no evidence of his existence can ever surface, but he is still there.

[QUOTE=only_human;390367]I think fain could be used as an adverb of partake but am not really sure; it sounded good to my ear but prepending "would" sounds like an improvement in a humble request. Forfeit is the biggest error; surfeit would have been better but the sentence needs more work. He did say [I][B]my[/B][/I] words so I tried to come up with something. I thought bereft and beneficent sounded good too but I decided to just stop fussing with it.[/QUOTE]

Merriam Webster Online offers:[INDENT]Definition of [I]FAIN
[/I]1
[I]archaic[/I] [B]:[/B] [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/happy"]happy[/URL], [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pleased"]pleased[/URL]

2
[I]archaic[/I] [B]:[/B] [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inclined"]inclined[/URL], [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/desirous"]desirous[/URL]

3
[I]a[/I] [B]:[/B] [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/willing"]willing[/URL] <he was very [I]fain[/I], for the young widow was “altogether fair and lovely…” — Amy Kelly>
[I]b[/I] [B]:[/B] being obliged or constrained [B]:[/B] [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compelled"]compelled[/URL] <Great Britain was [I]fain[/I] to devote its whole energy … to the business of slaying and being slain — G. M. Trevelyan>


[/INDENT]Dictionary.com has a number of meanings, mostly archaic-[INDENT] [LIST][*] [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/source-word-origin"] FAIN[/URL][/LIST]
adverb 1. gladly; willingly: He fain would accept.


adjective 2. content; willing: They were fain to go.


3. Archaic. constrained; obliged: He was fain to obey his Lord.


4. Archaic. glad; pleased.

5. Archaic. desirous; eager.

[/INDENT][QUOTE]Cute; it puts me in mind of an expression that I can't quite remember about someone not being notable in their native environs. As for puissant for powerful, that was in my humble effort to describe a god.[/QUOTE]I was only funning you, anyhow. I could not pass up the word play.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;390405]Evidence, but not anywhere near a "Proof". If you honestly believe that what you've posted even begins to prove that God is non-existent then you are beyond delusional.

If God has simply willed himself to be existent but not provably so, then no evidence of his existence can ever surface, but he is still there.[/QUOTE]

This statement already assumes the existence of God.

[QUOTE=chappy;390312]I used to have this bumper sticker on my work lunch box.[/QUOTE]

Love it.

[QUOTE=davar55;390416]This statement already assumes the existence of God.[/QUOTE]So now you can use the mathematical technique of proof by contradiction.

[size=1][color=grey]Although I am not really expecting you to do that because you don't really have any proof of non-existence.[/color][/size]

[QUOTE=kladner;390406]I was only funning you, anyhow. I could not pass up the word play.[/QUOTE]I understood. That's why I said cute.

[QUOTE=retina;390420]So now you can use the mathematical technique of proof by contradiction.

[SIZE=1][COLOR=grey]Although I am not really expecting you to do that because you don't really have any proof of non-existence.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

Sure I do. But it requires you to do some work, to flesh it out.
I've done that for myself, it depends on your own knowledge
and experience. No one can do it all for you. Nor would you
want them to, would you? Everyone comes from a different
starting point. But intellectual honesty must reject theism.
Hence also agnosticism. Only atheism remains.

[QUOTE=davar55;390422]Sure I do. But it requires you to do some work, to flesh it out.
I've done that for myself, it depends on your own knowledge
and experience. No one can do it all for you. Nor would you
want them to, would you? Everyone comes from a different
starting point. But intellectual honesty must reject theism.
Hence also agnosticism. Only atheism remains.[/QUOTE]Hmm, still you offer no proof of your claim.:yawn:

[QUOTE=retina;390423]Hmm, still you offer no proof of your claim.[/QUOTE]

Then you misunderstand the nature of proof. Sure I have.

I agree with everything you say in this quote below except for the last sentence which I have changed and bolded to show where the flaw is in your argument.[QUOTE=davar55;390382]The fact that no one has ever proven that God exists is strong evidence that no god exists. Then there are the disproofs of the various so-called proofs of existence. Then there's the reasonable acknowledgment that the bible was humanly written. Then too there is the absence of any incontrovertible positive evidence of existence. And then there's a proof by challenge, where you challenge everyone and anyone to explain (briefly) why they believe, and when the result is nothing additional, one concludes there is [b]currently[/b] no [b]incontrovertible supporting evidence to prove the existence of a[/b] god.[/QUOTE]But that says absolutely nothing about the non-existence of a god. It is strongly argued, but not even close to begin proven.

Well, Davar, I must say that I misjudged the potency of your argument. While I stand by the fact that your points do not constitute proof, your argument is certainly more interesting than I had expected. (You've also ceased beating around the bush :smile:)

You suggest that anything EXPLAINING the lack of evidence of any God first assumes the existence of one, and this is quite interesting.

We have no evidence because:[LIST=1][*]There isn't a God to leave evidence[*]God left evidence but we haven't found it[*]God exists but doesn't leave evidence[/LIST]
Case 1: Atheists win; there is no God.
Case 2: Not bleeding likely; some nut would have found the evidence if it was there
Case 3: Atheists lose: there is a God.

Your argument is that Case 3 is invalid because it first assumes the existence of a God, but I [B][I]am[/I][/B] allowed to make this assumption. Proof by contradiction requires that you arrive to a contradiction which proves that one of your assumptions (if you're smart, you only [B][I]made[/I][/B] one) is wrong.

If the assumption is that God exists, the conclusion that he doesn't leave evidence HAS to be the contradiction if proof by contradiction is going to work. And by its definition, Case 3 is un-dis-provable.