[QUOTE=retina;314517]It is not fair to shift the discussion. I already acknowledge that for a proper argument I would be the one to prove the existence. But here I am showing that you (or anyone) can't prove the non-existence of things. You seem to keep trying to say that how something being arbitrary somehow proves it does not exist. But you don't show how this proves non-existence. You appear to be stating it as some sort of accepted fact. I could define and arbitrarily shaped cup but that in no way affects whether such a cup exists or not. Just because something is arbitrary does not automatically imply that it does not exist.[/QUOTE]

If you design a cup, it's still a cup design. Part of the definition of a
cup includes a general characterization of the shape a cup might have;
it can't be completely arbitrary. But we've seen and used other cups
before, so your "arbitrarily shaped" cup design would still fall into the
concept of cup designs. Is there a cup with that design? Plausibly
we could examine all cups and check. But here it's the shape you're
calling "arbitrary", not the thing (cup, or unicorn) itself. A cup is a cup,
there are cups, that's not arbitrary. But unless you, the definer, also
provide evidence of existence, unicorn is arbitrary.
(Because you could define them without wings, or except for the name
have them have three horns, or look more like a lion than a pony, or
some ridiculously far from what I think their "paintings" look like, in which
case could you still call them unicorns?)
(Shape is a property that can be fairly arbitrary. But it's the existence
of things, not properties, that are defined arbitrarily, that can be ruled
out.)

We can't prove the non-existence of things? We can in math.
Also, in logic, what about: there are no all-blue all-red unicorns.
We can prove that, because of the contradiction, regardless of
the status of existence of unicorns.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;314518]That's fine. That was one of the interpretations of an object of fantasy which I indicated.

In that case, you are [I]begging the question[/I] if you call a unicorn an object of fantasy. If you want to prove that a unicorn does not exist (on the moon or universally), you cannot start from the premise that a unicorn is an object of fantasy if that in itself means that it does not exist.[/QUOTE]

Unicorn is an arbitrarily defined word with no instances provided or evidence for the existence of any. The way it's used it is a fantasy.
I wouldn't call this last a premise but a conclusion of a first step.

Let me suggest that proving or disproving is missing the point.

Rather, it is a matter of believing. And what methods we use to come to our beliefs, or to convince others.

Some believe there is no God. There are multiple reasons they may have this belief. Perhaps they have been given no good reason to believe in God in the first place. Perhaps their only interactions with believers have been negative. etc...

Some believe there is a God. They too may have multiple reasons for this belief. Perhaps they have had personal experiences with the divine. Perhaps they were raised to believe and just follow the traditions of their parents. etc...

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;314533]Let me suggest that proving or disproving is missing the point.[/QUOTE]

I don't entirely agree. But I understand and appreciate your argument.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;314533]Rather, it is a matter of believing. And what methods we use to come to our beliefs, or to convince others.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

What I have always found interesting is how some Atheists can be as close-minded, if not more so, that some Theists.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;314533]Some believe there is no God. There are multiple reasons they may have this belief. Perhaps they have been given no good reason to believe in God in the first place. Perhaps their only interactions with believers have been negative. etc...

Some believe there is a God. They too may have multiple reasons for this belief. Perhaps they have had personal experiences with the divine. [U]Perhaps they were raised to believe and just follow the traditions of their parents[/U]. etc...[/QUOTE]

With regards to the portion of your statement which I underlined...

I personally think that everyone should take personal, and serious, responsibility for what they believe, and why they do.

I believe that dogmatic belief is almost always unhealthy and unhelpful -- and often dangerous.

One should always be open to countering ideas and evidence. Accepting that one [I]might[/I] be wrong is an important internalization of a thinking being.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;314533]Let me suggest that proving or disproving is missing the point.
Rather, it is a matter of believing. And what methods we use to come to our beliefs, or to convince others.[/QUOTE]

Beliefs based on doubt, or lack of evidence, or contrary to evidence, are
not fully reasonable. If one can prove one's beliefs true, then one has
every reason to accept them and if one chooses try to convince others.
Reason and logic and evidence and proof are acceptable means, any
other means are not.

If you (the generic you) can prove existence, go ahead, most of the
world would welcome hearing a proof.

If you can prove that it's impossible to prove, one way or the other,
then all the world will accept an agnostic point of view. But not just
the claim, an actual proof.

And if you can prove non-existence, every disbeliever who couldn't
prove their view will celebrate. The believers probably won't accept
the proof, and the reasonable agnostics will have something to
think about.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;314533]
Some believe there is no God. There are multiple reasons they may have this belief. Perhaps they have been given no good reason to believe in God in the first place. Perhaps their only interactions with believers have been negative. etc...[/QUOTE]

Or perhaps they know better.

[quote]Some believe there is a God. They too may have multiple reasons for this belief. Perhaps they have had personal experiences with the divine. Perhaps they were raised to believe and just follow the traditions of their parents. etc...[/quote]The second point (upbringing), sure.
The first point (experience) I would question.

[QUOTE=davar55;314558]If you can prove that it's impossible to prove, one way or the other, then all the world will accept an agnostic point of view. But not just the claim, an actual proof.
[/QUOTE]

Let's try this from a [I]reductio ad absurdum[/I] angle...

Assume you're omniscient.

You would know everything, everywhere, all the time. A definition of god.

Let's assume you're not so presumptuous, and accept that you're not omniscient.

You must then accept the possibility that there might be things which you don't know about, and/or haven't observed.

[QUOTE=chalsall;314550]
I personally think that everyone should take personal, and serious, responsibility for what they believe, and why they do.

I believe that dogmatic belief is almost always unhealthy and unhelpful -- and often dangerous.

One should always be open to countering ideas and evidence. Accepting that one [I]might[/I] be wrong is an important internalization of a thinking being.[/QUOTE]

I agree with most of this, you're describing the opposite of intolerance.

However, accepting that you might be wrong doesn't apply in all cases.
I know with certainty that 2+3=5 and that the angles of any triangle
in the Euclidean plane sum to 180 degrees. There's no way I might be
wrong, and am not open to just any new evidence about these facts.
When it comes to arguments for god or for the possibility of god,
I may be willing to listen, but only a proof that I was wrong would sway
me, and (getting pedantic) no such proof is forthcoming.

[QUOTE=chalsall;314562]Let's try this from a [I]reductio ad absurdum[/I] angle...

Assume you're omniscient.

You would know everything, everywhere, all the time. A definition of god.

Let's assume you're not so presumptuous, and accept that you're not omniscient.

You must then accept the possibility that there might be things which you don't know about, and/or haven't observed.[/QUOTE]

OK. Goes without saying.

[QUOTE=davar55;314564]OK. Goes without saying.[/QUOTE]

Do you, then, accept this as an argument that god [I]might[/I] exist?

[QUOTE=davar55;314564]OK. Goes without saying.[/QUOTE]

What chalsall replied. If you say OK to that, then you said OK to "I can't prove there is no god". "I can't prove there is no god" is a direct consequence of the final statement. (I don't know everything => a god might exist and I wouldn't know => I can't prove god doesn't exist)