by EdenOne 284 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Hi eden , surely if there is no evidence either now or ever of a theistic god existing in reality, as opposed to the one as conjured in the brain then lack of presence is non applicable. Another way to convey lack of presence would simply be' there is no evidence of said being ever to have existed'.
Best wishes.
But that is precisely the pitfall I intend to avoid: to make any kind of statement regarding the existence or non-existence of a deity, because it ignites a debate where both sides will say: "Because you can't prove A, then B", which, in both cases, is a logical fallacy.
Eden
You're clinging to the notion that "absence" implies "existence". I have demonstrated that such isn't the case, as it accepts both the possibility or existence or non-existence. - Eden1
No you haven't and no it doesn't.
Absence always presupposes existence.
Even if we admit your strange definition of something like "lack of evidence of being present", that implies the person is either secretly present or they are elsewhere. It does not in any sense allow for non-existence.
I don't think you were clear in your own mind what it was you intended to say when you started this thread and now there is no way you will back down.
Why didn't you just say what you meant - that atheists should not make a blanket statement that no god of any sort can possibly exist. If you had said that nobody would have disagreed. You are remonstrating with an opponent who doesn't exist. You have used my name a number of times as typical of the sort of atheist you object to and yet I have never taken the position you are trying to object to.
You are trying to pretend - in imitation of Outlaw - that there is no evidence either way. This is nonsense. You either haven't been paying attention or you lack the courage to get off the fence. There is compelling evidence that every god that is now worshipped - or ever has been - does not exist.
If you decide to then remove all meaning from the word god and insist that this vacuous "god" might exist, then who can argue? On the other hand it is hardly worth saying.
You are trying to pretend that - in imitation of Outlaw - that there is no evidence either way. This is nonsense.....cofty
Then provide your proof without trying to engage people in pointless parlour games..
Having someone build you a strawman thats easily demolished,before you ceremoniously declare yourself the winner is beyond ridiculous..
Simply provide the proof..
No ones ever done it,you`ll be famous.....I`ll bet you`d like that.....LOL!!!!..
You're clinging to the notion that "absence" implies "existence".
The very defintion you chose, which is from the same source as the one I posted, states that something that is absent is non-existent.
What we are all pretty much saying here is that God is absent from the universe. Hence, God does not exist. I stopped posting because, especially after your chosen definition, I see you as agreeing with me. There is no God.
Simply provide the proof.. - Outlaw
Done so already many, many times.
The god of classic christian theism is a logical impossibility. A deity can't be "personal" while also being omniscient.
A creator god is proven to be non-existent by science.
A god who is all powerful and all loving is proven to be non-existent by natural evil.
A god who desires a relationship with humans is proven to be non-existent by 100 000 years of hiddenness.
A god who communicates through sacred texts is proven to be non-existent by the errors in those books.
A god of prophecy is proven to be non-existent by the total lack of fulfilled prophecy.
A god who answers prayers for healing is proven to be non-existent by amputees.
A god who is the absolute standard of morality is proven to be non-existent by the depraved morality of his holy books.
We could go on.
Go ahead and define any "god" you like and it's non-existence can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
With the exception of extremists like Perry, theists usually lack the courage to define what they mean by "god".
Well done for moving the thread forward with some definitions of your idea of God and the fact there is no empirical evidence.
But where does this leave us?
Absentheism is perhaps a new expression that I am now coining, but I posit that it's the truest expression of skepticism regarding the existence of deities, because it makes a positive claim ("God is absent") rather than a negative claim ("There's no evidence that supports the existence of deities"), and therefore, the burden of proof falls mainly on the negative claim rather than on the positive claim. I CAN prove that God is absent, but I CAN'T prove that God doesn't exist. Can you see the difference?
Eden
which can easily be changed to:
Absentheism is perhaps a new expression that I am now coining, but I posit that it's the truest expression of skepticism regarding the existence of fairies, because it makes a positive claim ("The tooth fairy is absent") rather than a negative claim ("There's no evidence that supports the existence of the tooth fairy"), and therefore, the burden of proof falls mainly on the negative claim rather than on the positive claim. I CAN prove that the tooth fairy is absent, but I CAN'T prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. Can you see the difference?
Eden
Do you see the problem? It's a pointless piece of pondering. It add no value.
That's why it's a bizarre position to take.
As the old maxim goes, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
We could go on.
Go ahead and define any "god" you like and it's non-existence can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
With the exception of extremists like Perry, theists usually lack the courage to define what they mean by "god".....cofty
I`m grateful you didn`t go on..LOL!!..
None of that is proof of whether God does or does not exist..
You`ve provided no proof and circled back to the parlour game..
Your never going to be famous if you can`t provide proof!......................LOL!!..
None of that is proof of whether God does or does not exist.. - Outlaw
There is no such single entity as "god".
It is a vague word that millions of people interpret in many different ways.
My post above did offer very brief statements that can be developed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that those particular popular versions of "god" do not exist.
"Gods" can be disproven one-by-one.
Each of them can be explained in far more detail. Many of those topics have been presented at length in this forum.
You are too busy drawing captions on pictures of the GB and dishing out vitriolic personal attacks, with liberal amounts of "LOLs" and exclamation marks, to engage with the evidence.
