Five hundred eighty proofs of God's Existence

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

"God exists" isn't an educated guess, it's blind faith. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest the existence of god.

And like a broken record I will repeat it once more, having FAITH that it sticks this time:

And there's also no evidence for Schnookers, but there's also no evidence that god or Schnookers DON'T exist.
But clearly he never thought of Schnookers before you mentioned it. So he's not giving everything the same merit. So he's biased, and only believes in god because other people believe too.

[Slap Your Love]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I'm not demanding hard proof. That implies absolute certainty.
But he's not speaking about that. He thinks with absolutely no evidence he can make an absolutist claim. In fact, he just devolved from so-called agnostic, to just another believer by his own admission; only a believer in something that admittedly has no proof.
With absolutely no proof other than a lack of negative proof (which is sad peopel are stupid enough to demand), it does make sense to question that he would believe in exactly the same form of divinity as everyone else. Clearly it isn't just a coincidence.

I never said I was agnostic. I said, once again, that God can neither be disproved or proved. I just believe in one in a spiritual way that also cannot be proved or disproved and is only applicable to me. I'd rather believe in
something than nothing. Not blindly, but through a spiritual sense of feeling
and connection which again cannot be proved to you just as reason and
logic cannot prove or disprove.

[Slap Your Love]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

only believes in god because other people believe too.

I've explained my positioning. Unsuccessful claim is unsuccessful.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Slap Your Love

I never said I was agnostic.

Sorry, you were only appealing to agnosticism rather than being one. I actually understand that, so that's my bad.

I'd rather believe in something than nothing. Not blindly, but through a spiritual sense of feeling and connection which again cannot be proved to you just as reason and
logic cannot prove or disprove.

So then, blindly after all, only biased blind instead of anything goes blind.

[Slap Your Love]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Sorry, you were only appealing to agnosticism rather than being one. I actually understand that, so that's my bad.
So then, blindly after all, only biased blind instead of anything goes blind.

Not biased. The feeling and connection is definitely proof to me.
But you can call it what you want. We still remain equal that Atheism
and a belief in a faith are equal due to no definite proof on either side
and agnosticism in terms of God is the only thing that works and that's
still saying "I'm not sure there's not enough proof."

[Godslayer Jillian]

We don't remain equal. I perfectly proved why that claim is wrong in the first page. You simply don't acknowledge it.
Then again, you're not the first one to make an argument from ignorance.

And in case you get upset, that's not an attack; that's exactly the name of your type of argument, which is a logical fallacy.

[Slap Your Love]

I perfectly proved that the claim to disprove the existence of a God
is wrong. There's no proof. absence of evidence is absence of evidence.
You do not acknowledge me faith there is so why should I acknowledge your belief there isn't? You're argument is of ignorance on my point
as mine is on yours.

If my argument is a logical fallacy, yours is on the opposite perspective.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Dude, you really have no idea what you're talking about.

[Slap Your Love]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Dude, you really have no idea what you're talking about.

Amazing response. Bravo.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Ok, here's a longer response

Originally Posted by Slap Your Love

I perfectly proved that the claim to disprove the existence of a God is wrong.

How did you do that? I told you exactly why absence of evidence is evidence of absence in principle and practicality, and you merely resorted to saying "No it isn't"
Answer me this rather than trying to bullshit your way around it.

[Slap Your Love]

There is no material proof that there is or is not a God.
That is it. Faith plays the rest due to whatever reasoning.

[Slap Your Love]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Ok, here's a longer response
How did you do that? I told you exactly why absence of evidence is evidence of absence in principle and practicality, and you merely resorted to saying "No it isn't"
Answer me this rather than trying to bullshit your way around it.

"you can't disprove what is beyond the grasp of human knowledge. I can say there is a giant cookie in another dimension which cannot be seen by humans and I could neither prove it or you could not disprove it."

"One can never discover all information on anything. Ever. Therefore, again, no. absence of evidence is absence of evidence and that is all.
"

I can Ctrl+C Ctrl+V it for ya all night.

[dead_dreams]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I can proudly (or should I be ashamed?) say I have encountered and argued against over fifty of these arguments as if they were solid.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

I threw away my lunch hour reading that shit.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Slap Your Love

"you can't disprove what is beyond the grasp of human knowledge.

Having God beyond the grasp of human knowledge is arbitrary and therefore not logically defensible, therefore you lose in this one.

I can say there is a giant cookie in another dimension which cannot be seen by humans and I could neither prove it or you could not disprove it."

So why are you believing in god but not on this cookie?

"One can never discover all information on anything. Ever."

Which is why I also mentioned the practicality of atheism, so I ask you again:
Someone accuses you of stealing a diamond. There's no way to prove it or disprove it. What should the judge do?

[Slap Your Love]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Having God beyond the grasp of human knowledge is arbitrary and therefore not logically defensible, therefore you lose in this one.

EXACTLY. I LOOOSEEEE through faith on terms of reason and logic because they also fail. Got it? I'm not trying to prove there is a God to you. I can't. I'm saying that there is no material proof to say yay or nay. I've told you this at least 5 times.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

So why are you believing in god but not on this cookie?

Faith.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Which is why I also mentioned the practicality of atheism, so I ask you again:
Someone accuses you of stealing a diamond. There's no way to prove it or disprove it. What should the judge do?

I've answered this. Go read. I'm not proving God or else I'd be famous.
Again, there is no hard proof for or against.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Slap Your Love

I'm saying that there is no material proof to say yay or nay.

But you haven't proved wrong the rule that all law and all logic and all science follows, which is to start from a point zero.

Faith.

This is what I hate. You stab reason in the back when you can't use it anymore

I've answered this.

then forgive me, but say it again. You've said other things over five times, so answer me that question once more, because I only saw you changing the thing into being about the lottery.

[Slap Your Love]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

But you haven't proved wrong the rule that all law and all logic and all science follows, which is to start from a point zero.

I stated this was my intention?

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

This is what I hate. You stab reason in the back when you can't use it anymore

Where one fails another begins.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

then forgive me, but say it again. You've said other things over five times, so answer me that question once more, because I only saw you changing the thing into being about the lottery.

That completely answered it by countering it..

[Godslayer Jillian]

You win the lottery but someone steals your ticket.
"No one can concretely prove for certain that" he/she did "or didn't steal it."
"What are you hoping the court will decide about that?"

It doesn't counter it at all!
It's the same fucking problem.
So just answer the question.

[Slap Your Love]

Okay, let me break it down.

We're talking about the existence of God and whether or not
you can prove or disprove it. Therefore all things stated should be
applicable to God to fit the structure of the conversation.
Bringing Atheist ethical practicality doesn't fit. Neither problem can be decided due to no proof. However this situation cannot be related
to the theory of God because they are completely different
topics. Debate the fact that there is no proof for god's non-existence
if you wish to stick to the correct topic.

[Godslayer Jillian]

So says the guy that wanted to look smart by saying he's a structuralist.

I tell you why philosophically absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You tell me that's just an implausible scenario.
Yet you don't extend that same attitude to God. You're an idiot.

I tell you why in practical terms atheism, or more specifically skepticism, is the neutral position, and you say that that has nothing to do with god.
Practicality falls short of god? Logic falls short of god?
Then stop trying to fucking use them!

This is not an argument about god. It's an argument about your stupidity regarding logic. You have no idea how to go from A to B. Keep believing in your ridiculous god, but admit it is nowhere near reasonable.

[Slap Your Love]

I use them until they fail. I've said this. I believe there is no
proof there is or isn't a god through logic and reason but there
is through faith. Theistic existentialism. There's your logically
term that coincides with what I'm talking about. Educate yourself.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

This is not an argument about god. It's an argument about your stupidity regarding logic. You have no idea how to go from A to B. Keep believing in your ridiculous god, but admit it is nowhere near reasonable.

Nope. They're just used until failure. Will do and of course it isn't logically
reasonable. It's faith. Some Atheists cannot understand it. I'm hilarious.

[Godslayer Jillian]

So you admit that you actually only use reason and logic as tools for you to look right, but you'll discard them if they contradict you?

[Slap Your Love]

Incorrect. I use them to the point of failure. Which happens often
with a "Well we're not sure, this is just a theory.".

[Godslayer Jillian]

Logic doesn't fail. Logic simply means from A we can go to B without being wrong.
So what the fuck are you talking about?

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Slap Your Love

This is why Agnosticism>Atheism. There is not
enough proof to prove or disprove the existence of
a God. The rest is faith.

I think you're a little mixed up. Atheists don't look at the lack of evidence for the existence of God and say "There's no evidence, therefore God doesn't exist." They say "There's no evidence, therefore I have no reason to believe that He exists." (Well, to be fair, I'm sure that there are some of the former.)

EDIT: Sorry if that's been said before, I didn't really browse the whole topic.