[QUOTE=TheMawn;390430]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.[/QUOTE]

Alright, since there is no God, let's see where your error is (no beating around the bush, right?):

You claim it's POSSIBLE there is a God? First define God.
This God leaves no evidence AT ALL of its existence? Anywhere? Any time? In any manner?
Then this "God" does absolutely nothing, it is non-moving, non-acting, non-doing, non-effective.
In a word, non-existent. Your "God" is non-existent? Sure, that's fine.

Mine is not simply a proof by contradiction. I don't start by assuming there is a God, and then
show that leads to there is no God, hence a contradiction, HENCE again there is no God, as
that methodology requires. The concept of God itself is contradictory. As I said earlier.

[QUOTE=retina;390427]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.But that says absolutely nothing about the non-existence of a god. It is strongly argued, but not even close to begin proven.[/QUOTE]

In what sense is it strongly argued (as opposed to fully proven, given all my other posts in this thread)?

[QUOTE=davar55;390432]You claim it's POSSIBLE there is a God? First define God.
This God leaves no evidence AT ALL of its existence? Anywhere? Any time? In any manner?[/QUOTE]We've only been looking on this planet (and perhaps a smattering of other places) for a very brief period of time. That is not proof that at other times, or other places, or both, there is also no evidence. The universe is a big place you have to prove god is nowhere within it, and at no time either past or present. So far your "proof" is merely a restatement that we haven't find god yet. There is no guarantee that we will never find the necessary evidence.

[QUOTE=retina;390435]We've only been looking on this planet (and perhaps a smattering of other places) for a very brief period of time. That is not proof that at other times, or other places, or both, there is also no evidence. The universe is a big place you have to prove god is nowhere within it, and at no time either past or present. So far your "proof" is merely a restatement that we haven't find god yet. There is no guarantee that we will never find the necessary evidence.[/QUOTE]

Necessary evidence for the existence of what? Define your god.

(We've discussed this before, earlier in this thread.)

[QUOTE=davar55;390436]Necessary evidence for the existence of what? Define your god.

(We've discussed this before, earlier in this thread.)[/QUOTE]So you want to change the focus and pretend the definition is not robust enough? If that were true then how can you say that god does not exist when the definition has not been defined well enough for your liking? I think you are really clutching at straws here if you feel the need to resort to these "arguments". Follow your intellectual honestly statements above and just admit that you can't prove the non-existence of god.

[QUOTE=retina;390439]So you want to change the focus and pretend the definition is not robust enough? If that were true then how can you say that god does not exist when [B]the[/B] definition has not been defined well enough for your liking? I think you are really clutching at straws here if you feel the need to resort to these "arguments". Follow your intellectual honestly statements above and just admit that you can't prove the non-existence of god.[/QUOTE]

(My bolding above.)

Hold on. Define YOUR god. Mine is non-existent, because there is no God. It just
hasn't been proved TO YOU yet. But don't give up hope.

So, the trick is that God as you defined it does not exist?

That would be like cheating except that you [B][I]still[/I][/B] lose.

Let's invent a creature, shall we?

Skin? Purple.

Scales? Yes.

Eyes? Seven. Teeth?

Twelve Thousand.

Beard? Yes.

Tail? Yes, three.

It spits poisonous fire. Yes. Poisonous. Fire.

This creature is something I have just invented moments ago. But my definition of it has no bearing on whether I can [B][I]prove[/I][/B] its non-existence. It VERY PROBABLY does not exist. What are the odds that I happened to have exactly described a creature that I've never seen or heard of before? Yet I am still nowhere near [B][I]proving[/I][/B] that it doesn't exist.

You can't just say that your God as defined doesn't exist because you haven't searched everywhere.

@TheMawn: That sounds a lot like the representation of the father of Jesus who shows up in one episode of South Park.
[QUOTE]godthefather: How did you expect me to look, my child?
Mr Garrison: Well not like THAYUT![/QUOTE]

(One needs to know how Mr Garrison talks to interpret his last word, above.)

[QUOTE=TheMawn;390459]So, the trick is that God as you defined it does not exist?
That would be like cheating except that you [B][I]still[/I][/B] lose.
Let's invent a creature, shall we?
Skin? Purple.
Scales? Yes.
Eyes? Seven. Teeth?
Twelve Thousand.
Beard? Yes.
Tail? Yes, three.
It spits poisonous fire. Yes. Poisonous. Fire.
This creature is something I have just invented moments ago. But my definition of it has no bearing on whether I can [B][I]prove[/I][/B] its non-existence. It VERY PROBABLY does not exist. What are the odds that I happened to have exactly described a creature that I've never seen or heard of before? Yet I am still nowhere near [B][I]proving[/I][/B] that it doesn't exist.

You can't just say that your God as defined doesn't exist because you haven't searched everywhere.[/QUOTE]

False.

The thing you described provably does not exist.
See the earlier posts about unicorns, fantasy, and arbitrariness.
I won't repeat them.here.
Do I sense a question coming, or are you just a militant agnostic? (See above.)

[QUOTE=davar55;390464]The thing you described provably does not exist.
[/QUOTE]

Have you personally visited every single corner of the universe, and brought along a magnifying glass capable of seeing the smallest possible instance of such a thing?

Your thing about the unicorns and fantastic creatures was more or less that their definition contained "Non-Existent". My thing was never defined as non-existent. It was defined as a creature with those characteristics. Any creature with those characteristics satisfies the definition. You cannot prove that such a creature does not exist because you haven't been everywhere to check.

[B][I]YOUR[/I][/B] God is defined as non-existent and therefore provably does not exist (by definition) but that doesn't mean everyone else believes in the same one. [STRIKE]I don't believe in any God.[/STRIKE] I believe in "No God", but I can't disprove the existence of any God presented to me by any religious person.

All of these assertions are unprovable, because the Noodly Appendage is always in there mucking up test results and thought processes. His Noodliness is presumably amused by the gyrations of both theologians and scientists as they attempt to justify their beliefs or unbeliefs.
Arrrg and rAmen!