As an atheist I have long since stopped asking my religious friends to prove that there is a God because we've all come to the conclusion at this point that there is no evidence. At least, I have.

Davar, you are getting two distinct notions confused. At this point I am not surprised that you miss the subtleties. You've become so attached to the ONE argument and all you're doing now is repeating it and not listening to US.

The two distinct notions are:
[LIST=1][*]The EXISTENCE of God.[*]The NON-EXISTENCE of God.[/LIST]
Case 1:

I walk into a room and proclaim "GOD EXISTS!" and the burden of proof is ON ME to prove his existence. Why? Because it's MY CLAIM to defend. I can't just say to someone sitting at a table: "Prove that he doesn't or it will constitute proof that he does." That would be bullshit. This guy has to do all the work to prove my random babblings? I can make all sorts of claims that are impossible to disprove and they would all be real?

If you'll get your head out from your arse you'll understand that I could have instead walked into the room and claimed the existence of a bearded purple-scaled being with 12,000 teeth, 3 tails and a breath of poisonous fire, and said to the guy at his table that "If you don't disprove my point right f*cking now I will have sufficiently proved the existence of my creature."

The burden needs to be ON ME to prove that it exists.


Case 2:

I walk into a room and proclaim "GOD DOES NOT EXIST!" and now the burden of proof is ON ME to prove his NON-EXISTENCE. Again, because it is MY CLAIM to defend. In the exact same way, I don't just walk up to someone and require them to prove his existence else his non-existence is forever confirmed. In the same way, it has to be MY JOB to prove my random babblings.

If you can't see the difference, then all discussion with you is hopeless.


The three-tailed monster example from our discussion is Case 1: [B][I]I[/I][/B] was the bumbling idiot who walked into the room and claimed the existence of it. The burden is on me to prove its existence and I failed to do so. All this means is that its EXISTENCE is not proved. This has NO bearing on the status of its NON-EXISTENCE.

That would be Case 2: YOU are saying:

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

This is YOUR CLAIM to defend. By failing to do so, you have left the status of NON-EXISTENT as not proved. This has NO bearing on the status of its EXISTENCE.


EDIT:

[I](I had an exercise here involving a cup, inspired by Retina. However, it was too complicated and I have since discovered a better way.)[/I]

I hope my thought exercise hasn't been too challenging for you.

To summarize, the main points are the following:

[LIST=1][*] Failure to prove the Yes-Existence of God is NOT sufficient proof of the Non-Existence of God[*] Failure to prove the Non-Existence of God is NOT sufficient proof of the Yes-Existence of God[/LIST]
You must realize that if you disagree with statement 1, then you must also disagree with statement 2 because they're the exact same freaking statement, with the two states reversed.

If one statement is false, so must be the other. If both statements are false, you will arrive at a contradiction. Therefore, both statements must be true.

[QUOTE=davar55;390464]See the earlier posts about unicorns, fantasy, and arbitrariness.
[/QUOTE]
Now you really freaked me out! Do you mean unicorns do not exists? :furious:

Try this instead.

I flip a coin. There are two possible states, Heads or Tails. Nobody knows if the coin is Heads or Tails.

The two statements again:
[LIST=1][*]Failure to prove Heads does not prove Tails[*]Failure to prove Tails does not prove Heads[/LIST]
Your argument is that if I can't prove Heads then it must be Tails. You must also agree then that if I can't prove Tails, then it must be Heads. This is the circular logic. Which one do you start with?

[I](And I'm sorry but Davar, you have no choice but to accept this as a parallel to your argument. Where you place the burden of proof of existence, I place the burden of proof of... well, that's the trick isn't it? Is proving the existence of God like proving Heads, or proving Tails?)[/I]


Room A has come to the conclusion that because nobody can prove Heads, they have proved Tails.

Room B has come to the conclusion that because nobody can prove Tails, they have proved Heads.


Room A approaches Room B with their proof of Tails, contradicting Room B's proof of Heads. Simultaneously, Room B approaches room A with their proof of Heads, contradicting Room B's proof of Tails.

You either accept that they have proven that the coin is BOTH Heads AND Tails, or that it is NEITHER Heads nor Tails.

In either case, you have arrived at the contradiction because the coin must be in one and only in one state.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;390561]... it is NEITHER Heads nor Tails.

In either case, you have arrived at the contradiction because the coin must be in one and only in one state.[/QUOTE]Yup. It landed in its edge. :razz:

[QUOTE=only_human;390554]Nothing about G can be determined from the equations that the agnostic possesses. An agnostic is acknowledging that.[/QUOTE]

There is no G about which to determine anything.
You are asking a true atheist to help you find God.
But he KNOWS there is no god.

As for "true rational atheist", true just means honest and does not intend to impugn
the honesty or integrity of anyone, theist or agnostic. Just their correctness in
matters of religion.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;390556]As an atheist I have long since stopped asking my religious friends to prove that there is a God because we've all come to the conclusion at this point that there is no evidence. At least, I have.
Davar, you are getting two distinct notions confused. At this point I am not surprised that you miss the subtleties. You've become so attached to the ONE argument and all you're doing now is repeating it and not listening to US.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, I am listening. Carefully.
[quote]
The two distinct notions are:
The EXISTENCE of God.
[/quote]Which is disproven.
[quote]
The NON-EXISTENCE of God.
[/quote]Which is proven.
[quote]
I walk into a room and proclaim "GOD EXISTS!" and the burden of proof is ON ME to prove his existence. Why? Because it's MY CLAIM to defend. I can't just say to someone sitting at a table: "Prove that he doesn't or it will constitute proof that he does." That would be b*llsh*t. This guy has to do all the work to prove my random babblings? I can make all sorts of claims that are impossible to disprove and they would all be real?
If you'll get your head out from your a*** you'll understand that I could have instead walked into the room and claimed the existence of a bearded purple-scaled being with 12,000 teeth, 3 tails and a breath of poisonous fire, and said to the guy at his table that "If you don't disprove my point right f****g now I will have sufficiently proved the existence of my creature."
The burden needs to be ON ME to prove that it exists.
[/quote]True enough.
[quote]
Case 2:
I walk into a room and proclaim "GOD DOES NOT EXIST!" and now the burden of proof is ON ME to prove his NON-EXISTENCE. Again, because it is MY CLAIM to defend. In the exact same way, I don't just walk up to someone and require them to prove his existence else his non-existence is forever confirmed. In the same way, it has to be MY JOB to prove my random babblings.
If you can't see the difference, then all discussion with you is hopeless.
[/quote]True again, the burden is on YOU, not me.
[quote]
The three-tailed monster example from our discussion is Case 1: [B][I]I[/I][/B] was the bumbling idiot who walked into the room and claimed the existence of it. The burden is on me to prove its existence and I failed to do so. All this means is that its EXISTENCE is not proved. This has NO bearing on the status of its NON-EXISTENCE.
That would be Case 2: YOU are saying:
This is YOUR CLAIM to defend. By failing to do so, you have left the status of NON-EXISTENT as not proved. This has NO bearing on the status of its EXISTENCE.
EDIT:
[I](I had an exercise here involving a cup, inspired by Retina. However, it was too complicated and I have since discovered a better way.)[/I][/quote][QUOTE=TheMawn;390559]I hope my thought exercise hasn't been too challenging for you.
To summarize, the main points are the following:
Failure to prove the Yes-Existence of God is NOT sufficient proof of the Non-Existence of God
Failure to prove the Non-Existence of God is NOT sufficient proof of the Yes-Existence of God
You must realize that if you disagree with statement 1, then you must also disagree with statement 2 because they're the exact same f**ing statement, with the two states reversed.
If one statement is false, so must be the other. If both statements are false, you will arrive at a contradiction. Therefore, both statements must be true.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=TheMawn;390561]Try this instead.
I flip a coin. There are two possible states, Heads or Tails. Nobody knows if the coin is Heads or Tails.
The two statements again:
Failure to prove Heads does not prove Tails
Failure to prove Tails does not prove Heads
Your argument is that if I can't prove Heads then it must be Tails. You must also agree then that if I can't prove Tails, then it must be Heads. This is the circular logic. Which one do you start with?
[I](And I'm sorry but Davar, you have no choice but to accept this as a parallel to your argument. Where you place the burden of proof of existence, I place the burden of proof of... well, that's the trick isn't it? Is proving the existence of God like proving Heads, or proving Tails?)[/I]
Room A has come to the conclusion that because nobody can prove Heads, they have proved Tails.
Room B has come to the conclusion that because nobody can prove Tails, they have proved Heads.
Room A approaches Room B with their proof of Tails, contradicting Room B's proof of Heads. Simultaneously, Room B approaches room A with their proof of Heads, contradicting Room B's proof of Tails.
You either accept that they have proven that the coin is BOTH Heads AND Tails, or that it is NEITHER Heads nor Tails.
In either case, you have arrived at the contradiction because the coin must be in one and only in one state.
[/QUOTE]

No. You still don't understand my proof.

[quote]
(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 the 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 didn't begin this thread, I joined it late too. But all that chatter about God led me to interact and involve.

An "agnostic" here called atheists intellectually dishonest. so I responded.

An agnostic believes in the POSSIBILITY of a God in spite of lack of evidence.

You attribute to me an argument I didn't make.

Please re-read all my posts.

Do you at least agree that failure to prove Heads does not prove Tails?

[QUOTE=davar55;390577]
No. You still don't understand my proof.

You attribute to me an argument I didn't make.

Please re-read all my posts.[/QUOTE]

Quoting yours posts now:


[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, w[B][I]here you challenge everyone and anyone to explain (briefly) why they believe, and when the result is nothing additional, one concludes there is no god[/I][/B].
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=davar55;390523]The contradictoriness
of God is easy to show [B][I]once the person who claims there is or may be s god
is challenged to provide a proof or evidence; theirs is the burden.[/I][/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=davar55;390527]
And I provide the outline of a proof by challenge (post #1089).

[B][I]This places the burden of evidence on the theist who claims there is
or may be a God,[/I][/B]

Hence, since there is no such evidence, there is no God.[/QUOTE]


Including your precious Post 1089, you are explicit at least three times that you place the burden of proof on the one trying to prove that there is a God. When they fail to prove it, YOUR proof is satisfied.


[QUOTE=davar55;390577]

True again, the burden is on YOU, not me.[/QUOTE]

So what the hell happened here? You made this comment to my example of ME walking into a room and proclaiming to YOU that there is no God. The burden is on ME, not YOU.

The problem is that really, YOU are the one walking into a room proclaiming to ME that you have proof. So the burden is on YOU, as you agreed.

Somewhere in the world right now is a person who places all the burden of proof on the one claiming that God does not exist, and after receiving no proof, is claiming proof that God does exist. Satisfying the proof by challenge.

You and this person have "Proved" mutually exclusive results.

Contradiction.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;390591]Quoting yours posts now:
...
Including your precious Post 1089, you are explicit at least three times that you place the burden of proof on the one trying to prove that there is a God. When they fail to prove it, YOUR proof is satisfied.
[/QUOTE]
When NO ONE proves it or can provide evidence.
[quote]
So what the hell happened here? You made this comment to my example of ME walking into a room and proclaiming to YOU that there is no God. The burden is on ME, not YOU.
The problem is that really, YOU are the one walking into a room proclaiming to ME that you have proof. So the burden is on YOU, as you agreed.[/quote]Actually and in fact, no. An atheist does not start with a negative claim, There Is No God.
He or she ignores the issue until someone claims there is a god.
Then he or she demand a definition, evidence, proof, none of which can be provided.

An atheist knows there is no God. You are an agnostic, not an atheist.