[QUOTE=Batalov;390519]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.[/QUOTE]

What faulty premise? My outlined proof rejects any definition of god, hence is
universally applicable to serve as proving the conclusion. The contradictoriness
of God is easy to show once the person who claims there is or may be s god
is challenged to provide a proof or evidence; theirs is the burden.

[QUOTE=Batalov;390519]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.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I agree that you've stopped listening.

Okay, so I can define "my" god and you will prove he/she/it doesn't exist, right?

Here goes:

My god: Is this plastic cup currently positioned in front of me on my desk. I use it mostly to temporarily hold liquids which I consume in the normal process most people would refer to as "drinking". It helps to sustain my life. Depending upon the liquid contained inside it, it can also bring me inspiration. It brings me comfort to know that life sustaining liquids will be held within for as long as I desire. It makes no demands of me, I don't need to pray to it to make it work, but I know that it will work anyway. Without it I would not be alive today.

So now you are going to tell me it doesn't exist and it is all in my head?

Let me try again.

This thread suggested avoidance of the pedantic position on atheism.

Turns out I'm practically the only atheist here now.
All the rest are agnostics or theists, whether they acknowledge this
or say they are atheist, always or sometime.

So I'll define, not God, but atheist: someone who knows there is no God.
Regardless of how God is (sincerely) defined.

And I provide the outline of a proof by challenge (post #1089).

This places the burden of evidence on the theist who claims there is
or may be a God,

Hence, since there is no such evidence, there is no God.

[QUOTE=retina;390526]Okay, so I can define "my" god and you will prove he/she/it doesn't exist, right?
Here goes:
My god: Is this plastic cup currently positioned in front of me on my desk. I use it mostly to temporarily hold liquids which I consume in the normal process most people would refer to as "drinking". It helps to sustain my life. Depending upon the liquid contained inside it, it can also bring me inspiration. It brings me comfort to know that life sustaining liquids will be held within for as long as I desire. It makes no demands of me, I don't need to pray to it to make it work, but I know that it will work anyway. Without it I would not be alive today.
So now you are going to tell me it doesn't exist and it is all in my head?[/QUOTE]

Like the god of obligate aerobacy or the flying spaghetti monster, is this your
sincere definition of a god applicable to everyone and anyone? A plastic cup?
Any plastic cup, or just the one you used? Defined to be God on a whim?
You would not be alive today if not for that particular cup? Silliness.
Like the unicorn. The cup may exist, but it is not a god,whatever you define
a god to be.

[QUOTE=davar55;390527]Let me try again.

This thread suggested avoidance of the pedantic position on atheism.

Turns out I'm practically the only atheist here now.
All the rest are agnostics or theists, whether they acknowledge this
or say they are atheist, always or sometime.

So I'll define, not God, but atheist: someone who knows there is no God.
Regardless of how God is (sincerely) defined.

And I provide the outline of a proof by challenge (post #1089).

This places the burden of evidence on the theist who claims there is
or may be a God,

Hence, since there is no such evidence, there is no God.[/QUOTE]
You are making the assertion that there is no God but then shifting the burden of proof
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies[/url]
[QUOTE](shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;390532]You are making the assertion that there is no God but then shifting the burden of proof
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies[/URL][/QUOTE]

No.

I am not asserting the non-existence of God in a vacuum.
I am responding to the agnostic claim that they don't know
whether there is a God, i.e. that it's possible there is a god.
It is the agnostic who is unsure. The atheist is sure.

Let's pretend for a moment that we are talking about simultaneous linear equations.

We are trying to determine the value G but have no equations containing G.

The agnostic is saying that the system is underdetermined.

[QUOTE=only_human;390536]Let's pretend for a moment that we are talking about simultaneous linear equations.
We are trying to determine the value G but have no equations containing G.
The agnostic is saying that the system is underdetermined.[/QUOTE]

Well, if the system is homegeneous, then it is satisfied by the solution G=0.

[QUOTE=davar55;390527]Hence, since there is no such evidence, there is no God.[/QUOTE]This seems to be the sticking point that you have yet to acknowledge: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[QUOTE=davar55;390538]Well, if the system is homegeneous, then it is satisfied by the solution G=0.[/QUOTE]
We have H = M + W and are trying to solve for G