Then why do you place faith in a religion where principle belief is proving a negative ?
Bible cant be true because of million year old fossils/carbon dating...right?
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
Then why do you place faith in a religion where principle belief is proving a negative ?
I don't need place faith in any religion and I don't need prove a negative.Quote from volente_00:
Then why do you place faith in a religion where principle belief is proving a negative ?
It's usually only the strangely religious like jem and you who would demand a negative be proved.
That's when I simply ask you to prove one too.
this is a more shit from Stu.
Stu has stated there is no God.
When a dipshit makes a statement like that - he has a burden of supporting it or being called a dipshit.
If Stu wishes to admit he can not prove there is no God, then the argument is over.
Now you watch... instead of making that very simple and very scientific statement... he will either change the subject, attack the messenger, write so much bullshit that you have no idea what he said...
or go with a combination.
Watch.... he is incapable of logic on this subject.
Stu has stated there is no God.
When a dipshit makes a statement like that - he has a burden of supporting it or being called a dipshit.
If Stu wishes to admit he can not prove there is no God, then the argument is over.
Now you watch... instead of making that very simple and very scientific statement... he will either change the subject, attack the messenger, write so much bullshit that you have no idea what he said...
or go with a combination.
Watch.... he is incapable of logic on this subject.
Is that some Christian thing, calling people a piece of shit over and over?
Or a separate serious psychological problem. Probably both.
But what you certainly don't have is an argument.
The ability for logical reasoning is another thing you don't have.
Do you want me to admit to your illogical statement so that you can imagine the statement will somehow become logical?
The only thing your logical fallacy deserves is another one.
Prove there is no God?
Prove I can't.
Prove that I don't.
just kiddingThe reality is that it's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist or that he does. One set of people going "prove that he doesn't" and another set saying "well prove that he does" or "prove that I cant prove that he does" etc is pointless, and not really intelligent discussion, rather than playground bickering. Now saying "prove that it's impossible" is just as futile. That line of argument goes further and further into a succession of "prove it's" and is not representative of philosophical / theological debate.
Of course, everyone is entitled to their position and opinion - but in my view a position defended by an infinite string of "prove it's" doesn't merit much attention.
Quote from Badoit:
Prove that I don't.
The reality is that it's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist or that he does. One set of people going "prove that he doesn't" and another set saying "well prove that he does" or "prove that I cant prove that he does" etc is pointless, and not really intelligent discussion, rather than playground bickering. Now saying "prove that it's impossible" is just as futile. That line of argument goes further and further into a succession of "prove it's" and is not representative of philosophical / theological debate.
Of course, everyone is entitled to their position and opinion - but in my view a position defended by an infinite string of "prove it's" doesn't merit much attention.
Lol, you beat me to it
I thought it would be obvious I totally agree with what you say above.
But what is it you don't think is clear about my response that you needed to explain to me?
I was initially informed by the ever sweet talking jem in words to the effect : " Youâre a piece of shit. You can not prove there is no God."
My response was to explain he is making a logical fallacy, which is what you have explained above. Isn't it?
Ignoring the piece of shit part, which I'm pleased to confirm is a misconception by him resulting from incorrect reasoning possibly due his psychological condition, I merely explained by way of the same logical fallacy why my response "prove I can't" is every bit as (non) valid as his own demand.
Did I miss something.
Or did you misconstrue my position as Barth did at first?