You can't prove God doesn't exist
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
You haven't demolished my point?
Where did you do that? I've responded to the big long post you made.
(By the way 'demolished'? your use of language is very telling)
In this instance, where you argued that probability isn't effected by past events, yes I did. If you read the post you originally took offense to, you would notice that there are various scenarios where past events directly impact the probability of a future event.
So, where you wrong in saying that the probability of any event was not affected by past events at all?
WilfDisney - "Cry troll as much as you like, I am no longer listening."
WilfDisney - "A debate at this level is clearly beyond your capabilities"
WilfDisney - "you had plenty of chances to be a decent and reasonable human being but you chose dispense with intellectual, reasonable debate and bully or cajole me into giving up"
WilfDisney - "I'm done with you."
Why are you allowing what I've said in the past to influence your future decisions? I knew you didn't really believe that crap.
The issue with the rabbit argument is that science does have evidence that rabbits don't live in the center of Jupiter; science knows the temperature of Jupiter's center and knows rabbits can live in a small range of temperatures.
We could replicate whether rabbits live in Jupiter's center by modeling the Jupiter nucleus and putting a rabit in it though it would be unethical.
This is a poor argument for weak atheism.
Presuppositionalism is why theists have evidence that god is real; from a religious point, the bible, old school science and philosophy, outdated academic thinking is why God is real.
The assumption of God's existence is the driver for them to ask us to disprove his existence; however, you can't disprove God because he's real; theists look at atheists and laugh because we are trying to disprove what's real or believe no reason exists for God's existence.
To the theist, the bible is a case or evidence not the source of God's existence.
Atheism is so unnatural to theism because theists believe we reject what is real by claiming God isn't real.
The atheist claim of not having a reason to believe in God, to some theists, means we don't have a relationship with their very real God. The no reason to not believe argument from atheist is weak because it doesn't claim God is not real; this means theism still is presupposed or assumed, it may be challenged but it is still assumed.
The burden of proof on the atheist is legitimate from theist position because atheists claim something that is real is not real. At least, to the theist, the atheist is not disagreeing with the theist of whether God is real.
I say God is not real because science is fundamentally and implicitly claiming God is NOT real through the rigorous training science instills in their students to learn about the physical world and the human person; science is not antigod but understands that god like Zues and Thor, that's it.
To put a different angle on this, you would have to say that to prove that god doesn't exist, you would have to prove that no god exists. What I mean is that there are and always have been a multitude of gods, all of them different, or at least appearing different to their adherents. So it would be a case of going through the evidence for each and every god and finding out whether it is valid or not. I suppose you'd have to include the ancient Greek, Roman and Norse gods, along with the Aztecs and everyone else....
Now, I'm mortal like everyone else, so should I spend what years remain examining mountains of irrational beliefs that other people have come up with in the hope of proving something or nothing? No. No rational person would do that.
Look at it this way: only one of those gods could be true, and the rest are certainly false. That statement alone goes a long way to prove that no god exists.
As has been said before, the god-botherers need to prove their case, or else shut-up; and exceptional claims require exceptional proof so the data better be cast iron solid.