Necessary requirements for not believing in God
- Thread starter VitalOne
- Start date
- Status
How?
Cloaking devices? Wtf? Then the existence is unverifiable, so its unknown
Again, this has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the existence of God...
Its not analogous, the concept of God is completley different from your teapots
How?
Show that each grain of sand arises in a unique way, just like how there aren't identical fingerprints...
No, not really, its pretty simple, since its unverifiable, its unknown whether or not its true...
Hardly...I don't know whtf you guys are going with this...redarmy1 said:
I mean you sound like fools...
Its like someone saying "Well you know I don't believe in the geocentric theory, so the theory of relativity must be false, it doesn't matter if it isn't analogous at all or if the geocentric theory has nothing to do with the theory of relativity"
Why do you keep changing the subject from the existence of God into something you choose in order to ridicule theism? It doesn't make any sense like I've repeatedly pointed out
So you're conceding defeat in your attempt to prove that my hi-tech, microscopic tea-pots don't exist? Shame. They make a lovely cuppa.
Here's the point again: It's impossible to prove that something, anything - God, Bigfoot, teapots - don't exist.
Therefore, since it's impossible to prove that God (or bigfoot, or teapots) don't exist - the onus is entirely on believers to prove that they do.
So here we are again.
Go.
Well ok, that's true, but it's only true if it's unverifiable
Sure, you can prove that bigfoot is unlikely to eixst if there is absence of fossil evidence when there should be evidence present, you can also show the existence of flying teapots is unlikelyredarmy11 said:
Again all yuo've managed to do is dodge out of the argument, I never said God exists since you cannot prove God doesn't exist, you escaped the entire argument
This post isn't about convincing people to believe in God, its about the requirements to not believe in GodAh. But I've never claimed that God doesn't exist.
I'm not an atheist - remember?
I am a cowardly fence-sitter, VitalOne. Yours to convince.
Go.
I don't believe in God. None of those arguments apply to me.
So what now? If they're 'necessary' requirements I think I'm all that's needed to disprove your thesis.
I don't believe in God - but it's not for any of the reasons you claim it is.
So, um... you're wrong.
So what now? If they're 'necessary' requirements I think I'm all that's needed to disprove your thesis.
I don't believe in God - but it's not for any of the reasons you claim it is.
So, um... you're wrong.
Well then you neither believe nor disbelieve, so you're agnostic
Well that's why I asked if you can think of any other requirements...
Wait I think I got it...
That reason is already listed, something is false until proven true
No it isn't.
Yes it is, also your case doesn't really apply, you neither believe nor disbelieve
Saying:No it isn't.
"You can't prove God exists, so God doesn't exist"
Isn't the same as saying:
"You can't prove God exists, so I'm reserving judgement until you or someone else does, or until I die."
Your reasoning - the first statement - doesn't apply to me (or to anyone with a brain, in fact).
And yet: I don't believe.
So: you're wrong.
That first statement isn't, contrary to your OP, "necessary" for not believing. Is it?
So: you're wrong.
- Status