[QUOTE=TheMawn;390465]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.[/QUOTE]

A creature which doesn't exist is non-existent.

And you can't? Well I have proved it. The non-existence of God, I mean.

Do you have a question?

[QUOTE=davar55;390487]A creature which doesn't exist is non-existent.

And you can't? [U][B]Well I have proved it.[/B][/U] The non-existence of God, I mean.

Do you have a question?[/QUOTE]

You are promoting a circular argument. Why? Insisting on a definition which pre-selects only your position, and then pointing to it as proof of anything, is totally inane.[INDENT][QUOTE][B]1inane[/B]

[I]adjective[/I] \i-ˈnān\ : very silly or stupid


[B]inan·er[/B][B]inan·est[/B]



[B][SIZE=3]Full Definition of [I]INANE[/I][/SIZE][/B]

1
[B]:[/B] [B][SIZE=3][U]**[/U][URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empty"]empty[/URL], [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insubstantial"]insubstantial**[/URL][/SIZE][/B]

2
[B]:[/B] lacking [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/significance"]significance[/URL], meaning, or point [B]:[/B] [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/silly"]silly[/URL] <[I]inane[/I] comments>
— [B]inane·ly[/B] [I]adverb[/I]
— [B]inane·ness[/B] [I]noun[/I]

[URL="http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/inane"][IMG]http://www.merriam-webster.com/styles/default/images/reference/external.jpg[/IMG] See [COLOR=#1122CC]inane[/COLOR] defined for English-language learners [COLOR=#1122CC]»[/COLOR][/URL]

[URL="http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Student&va=inane"]See [COLOR=#1122CC]inane[/COLOR] defined for kids [COLOR=#1122CC]»[/COLOR][/URL]

[B][SIZE=3]Examples of [I]INANE[/I][/SIZE][/B]

[LIST=1][*]I quickly tired of their [I]inane[/I] comments.[*]The film's plot is [I]inane[/I] and full of clichés.[*]All around us swirls the battering of gargantuan films, Styrofoam epics with megatons of special effects, gleefully inane adolescent films, horror films that really are horrible. —Stanley Kauffmann, [I]New Republic[/I], 15 Mar. 2004[/LIST][/QUOTE]
[/INDENT]**emphasis mine**

[QUOTE=kladner;390490]You are promoting a circular argument. Why? Insisting on a definition which pre-selects only your position, and then pointing to it as proof of anything, is totally inane.
**emphasis mine**[/QUOTE]

You misunderstood and misinterpreted my post.

I don't insist on my definition of "God", there is no such entity.

I simply insist that if you use the word, you provide a definition when asked.
And every such definition is self-contradictory.

[QUOTE=davar55;390498]You misunderstood and misinterpreted my post.

I don't insist on my definition of "God", there is no such entity.

I simply insist that if you use the word, you provide a definition when asked.
And every such definition is self-contradictory.[/QUOTE]
You may have covered this point already - I confess to being a bit bamboozled by the above discussion by now - but don't you equally have to provide a definition of "God" if you state that you can prove that God doesn't exist? If not, why not?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;390501]You may have covered this point already - I confess to being a bit bamboozled by the above discussion by now - but don't you equally have to provide a definition of "God" if you state that you can prove that God doesn't exist? If not, why not?[/QUOTE]

Check my post at #1089, my proof outline. This is the challenge proof part.

Post #1089 reads:
[QUOTE=davar55;390382](Nice of you to dress it up.)

Is there a God? No. There is no God. How do we know this is a fact?
It has been proven, numerous times in then past 2500 years.

I posted the following on the internet not too long ago:

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 no god.

That's the outline of my argument. I also posted a simple flowchart on this forum
which one is instructed to work through to complete this proof for themselves.
It's somewhere in Soapbox.[/QUOTE]
I see no justification there of why you don't need to define God before stating or proving that no god exists. What am I missing?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;390507]Post #1089 reads:
I see no justification there of why you don't need to define God before stating or proving that no god exists. What am I missing?[/QUOTE]

The fact that any definition of God is self-contradictory.
I don't need to define the non-existent.

[QUOTE=davar55;390509]The fact that any definition of God is self-contradictory.
I don't need to define the non-existent.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but I think you do. If you aren't making clear what you claim to be able to prove does not exist, then you aren't saying anything.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;390510]Sorry, but I think you do. If you aren't making clear what you claim to be able to prove does not exist, then you aren't saying anything.[/QUOTE]

It's not an atheist's job to define God.

[QUOTE=davar55;390432]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]

I didn't get an answer to this logic.

[QUOTE=davar55;390513][QUOTE=davar55;390432]Alright, since there is no God, <<... insert anything ...>>[/QUOTE]I didn't get an answer to this logic.[/QUOTE]

Because this is the oldest fallacy there is. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies"]Start with a faulty premise, prove anything[/URL] and nobody cares. Why? Because they stopped listening after the first false premise.