"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

[mannyamador]

---

And why does the hypothesis that the existence of god get a free pass? Why does it suddenly become the default choice.

It DOESN'T. Theists have to prove their position as well. Try reading what I posted earlier.

[bodie]

And please, please try and tie the discussion to something Dawkins said in the book. Just to keep the thread on topic.

[schmuck]

Like I said, that does not hold for propositions. That only holds for legal proceedings.

Sorry, but the atheist position is not a "default". There is no reason why it should be. It is as much a "positive" claim, -- depending on how one states it -- as the theist position. The atheist position must be proven just like the theist position. To deny this is to be dogmatic and to rely on an unproven assumption.

Are you afraid you cannot prove your position?

haynaku mannyamador, basin mas makasabot kag pictures sa?


now, I shall make a positive claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of the universe.
And since you cant disprove me, it must be true!!

[bodie]

Take note that I am not saying that theists do not have to prove their position. Of course they do. But even if theists fail to prove the existence of God, that does NOT prove that God doesn't exist. The atheist position must be proven as well. if both cannot be proven, then you can only justify the agnostic position (that we do not know whether God exists).

Manny, if someone claims something, there is a logical reason why the burden of proof is on them. The atheist position is automatically invalidated once the existence of god is proven.

One clear and concrete evidence to the existence of got makes the atheist position false. Whatever argument we give, no matter how many, fails in light of one single proof from the theist position.

If is logically impossible for the atheist the prove the non-existence of god. An atheist on the other hand can prove the existence of god.

EDIT: Thats why we engage in discussions like this. We are, in a sense, trying to prove the existence of a god. Our stated position hinges on finding (or continually not finding) that crucial peice(s) of evidence as well.

[bodie]

haynaku mannyamador, basin mas makasabot kag pictures sa?


now, I shall make a positive claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of the universe.
And since you cant disprove me, it must be true!!

Haha... did you make that yourself schmuck? You mind if I show it to some people?

[schmuck]

Haha... did you make that yourself schmuck? You mind if I show it to some people?

i take no credit for it. found from the internet. I do keep archives of gems like these for "special" occasions

[brownprose]

Not true. It does not hold when making logical proofs of a position. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

So you're appealing to Argumentum ad ignorantiam to making "logical proofs"? Now that's new...using a fallacy to prove a point.

Take note that I am not saying that theists do not have to prove their position. Of course they do. But even if theists fail to prove the existence of God, that does NOT prove that God doesn't exist.

And causality is an admissible proof?

The atheist position must be proven as well. if both cannot be proven, then you can only justify the agnostic position (that we do not know whether God exists).

As I have said atheists do not need to prove anything. Simply put it, when an atheist thinks that god is absent (by reason of lack of empirical evidence) he does not need to look it up where god is.

Agnosticism neither affirms nor denies the existence of a god.

[mannyamador]

So you're appealing to Argumentum ad ignorantiam to making "logical proofs"? Now that's new...using a fallacy to prove a point.

You can't seem to get the logic. I cite the fallacy to show your error.

As I have said atheists do not need to prove anything. Simply put it, when an atheist thinks that god is absent (by reason of lack of empirical evidence) he does not need to look it up where god is.

But that does not mean God doesn't exist. If an aeta living in the mountains all his life sees no evidence that the U.S. exists, that does not mean the U.S. does not exist. Your logic is wrong. It is the fallacy known as Argumenjtum ad ignorantiam. Look it up.

There is no reason why the non-existence of God should be the must-be "default" if the existence of God isn't proven. You still have to prove that God cannot or does not exist if you insist that he doesn't exist.

Agnosticism neither affirms nor denies the existence of a god.

That's right. And that is the position you can justify if all you do is refute all the arguments for the existence of God. The atheist position requires you prove that God does not exist.

The theist position also requires that one proves that God does exist. it is NOT a valid "default" either.

If is logically impossible for the atheist the prove the non-existence of god.

Many atheists disagree with you on that one. There have been several arguments against the existence of God put forward over the centuries. The form is usually to show the existence some condition that is incompatible with the existence of God (for example, the existence of evil). If the theists cannot explain how God and condition can co-exist, then that is taklen as a proof that God cannot exist. Many theists accept that this is a valid form for such an argument against the existence of God. They are, however, able to explain the co-existence, and so remain theists.

Now, just because atheist arguments have been refuted does not mean God exists. As I have said several times, theists must also prove God exists if their position is to be rational and with basis. If not, then they too are being dogmatic and unreasonable.

Fortunately, there have been such proofs. I cited one and so far you have not been able to refute it,

[bodie]

You can't seem to get the logic. I cite the fallacy to show your error.



But that does not mean God doesn't exist. If an aeta living in the mountains all his life sees no evidence that the U.S. exists, that does not mean the U.S. does not exist. Your logic is wrong. It is the fallacy known as Argumenjtum ad ignorantiam. Look it up.

Actually it is your logic thats wrong. Irrelivant Thesis.

There is no reason why the non-existence of God should be the must-be "default" if the existence of God isn't proven. You still have to prove that God cannot or does not exist if you insist that he doesn't exist.

Thats just it, if god does not exist, then you cannot prove that he does not exist. You must prove that he exists in order to disprove the hypothesis that he doest not exist. Logic.

That's right. And that is the position you can justify if all you do is refute all the arguments for the existence of God. The atheist position requires you prove that God does not exist.

The theist position also requires that one proves that God does exist. it is NOT a valid "default" either.

The LOGICAL position requires you to prove that god exists. Proving one invalidates the other.

Many atheists disagree with you on that one. There have been several arguments against the existence of God put forward over the centuries. The form is usually to show the existence some condition that is incompatible with the existence of God (for example, the existence of evil). If the theists cannot explain how God and condition can co-exist, then that is taklen as a proof that God cannot exist. Many theists accept that this is a valid form for such an argument against the existence of God. They are, however, able to explain the co-existence, and so remain theists.

They are able to explain co-existence to themselves. The atheists do not necessarily agree with their "proof".

The method you are describing is not necessarily universally accepted. While I concede the fact that I have in fact read several sources that attempts to prove the question using this method, they generally agree that they are able to explain the incompatibility, and so remain atheists.

Now, just because atheist arguments have been refuted does not mean God exists. As I have said several times, theists must also prove God exists if their position is to be rational and with basis. If not, then they too are being dogmatic and unreasonable.

Fortunately, there have been such proofs. I cited one and so far you have not been able to refute it,

The atheist position has not been refuted. We have yet to see clear evidence on the existence of god.

Your proof has already been refuted soundly. See smucks cartoon.

[mannyamador]

Actually it is your logic thats wrong. Irrelivant Thesis.

Just because you say so? You have to prove it. So far, you've failed to do so. MISERABLY, I might add.

So, why should the non-existence of God be the "default" position again?

Thats just it, if god does not exist, then you cannot prove that he does not exist.

Why not? Many have tried. You are making an a priori statement with no logical basis. No. if you maintain God does not exist, you must prove it.

You must prove that he exists in order to disprove the hypothesis that he doest not exist.

That's right. I have no objection to this. Theists must prove the existence of God.

They are able to explain co-existence to themselves. The atheists do not necessarily agree with their "proof".

So? That does not render the method (of proving God's non-existence) invalid.

Your proof has already been refuted soundly. See smucks cartoon.

Hilarious, yeah. But it does not address argument #7.

So far, you have only given the flimsiest objection (famously promoted by Hume), which claims the Necessary Being is not God. I replied that the Necessary Being, since it is effectively the Creator of the universe, is very much like the God theists believe in. In fact, the Necessary Being (Creator) is one of the most fundamental attributes of God accepted by theists. Without it, all other attributes of God are meaningless to theists.

Your objection has been refuted. The argument for the existence of God stands, demolishing the atheist position. But then I do not expect you to listen to reason. You never have.