Prove God Doesn't Exist

[MadMaxReborn]

Don't tell me how the world works, that is beyond the scope of this forum and beyond your ability. And thanks, but I did pay attention. And "on top of it" it is a criticism. A criticism is defined as "a critical comment or judgment." The critical comment is that the statement "prove to me that God exists" is in your very eloquent wording, "stupid." But the reply used as the criticism is not "you can't prove the non-existence of something," (which would be the better approach) but is in fact: "Oh, yeah, well you prove to me that [a pink unicorn] exists." I hope that you can see the difference. One is circular, while the other is not...stupid.

Because, had you paid close attention to my argument, you wouldn't have glossed over the very important statement of, "I'm not trying to shift the burden of proof."

 

[charles cure]

Don't tell me how the world works, that is beyond the scope of this forum and beyond your ability. And thanks, but I did pay attention. And "on top of it" it is a criticism. A criticism is defined as "a critical comment or judgment." The critical comment is that the statement "prove to me that God exists" is in your very eloquent wording, "stupid."

what are you talking about? nobody said it was stupid to try to prove that god exists. i said it was stupid to try to prove that something doesn't exist when there is already no indication that it would exist. so i reiterate...try paying attention to what is being said.
in addition to that, you have criticism and challenge mixed up. a criticism is exactly what you said it was, but the statement "prove that the invisible pink unicorn doesnt exist" isnt a criticism, its a challenge that ultimately demonstrates the futility of the entire proposition of proving a negative.

 

[MadMaxReborn]

pointing out of how utterly useless it is to try to prove that something doesnt exist if there is no evidence that it ever existed

This is not a challenge, but a direct criticism. You even use the proper wording for an analytical reader to become readily aware that you are making a statement of criticism: "utterly useless."

I made an inference that wasn't well supported on your usage of the word "stupid."

i said it was stupid to try to prove that something doesn't exist when there is already no indication that it would exist.

That isn't a challenge, it's a criticism. This is a recognition of your motive.

I still maintain that you are being critical of his method of argument. His method might be a challenge, and you might have responded with a challenge, but the fact remains that your motive is to be critical of his admittedly bad avenue of argument. A challenge can be used to criticize, and that was the intended usage.

Max

 

[charles cure]

This is not a challenge, but a direct criticism. You even use the proper wording for an analytical reader to become readily aware that you are making a statement of criticism: "utterly useless."

why dont you demonstrate how it is useful? how exactly do you go about trying to prove that something doesn't exist when there is no evidence for it? where do you come up with conclusive proof that something that doesn't exist really is not there? i'm pretty sure what im stating is less of an opinion and more of a fact.

 

[MadMaxReborn]

Now you're asking me to fight another man's battle. I never took that on.

I fail to remember making any distinction between fact and opinion. I was merely pointing out that it seems that the criticism of the thread's original statement is answered with a statement (challenge) that falls victim to its own criticism.

For what I think is the THIRD time now, I once again repeat, I am not trying to switch the burden of proof. It is most definitely the person claiming something exists to prove its existence. But I wouldn't tell them that it is their burden by asking them to do the exact same thing they are asking you to do.

In essence, he is asking you to do his work for him. He feels content until you have proven him wrong.

If he believes in God because you can't prove to him that God doesn't exist, then his belief is very weak. I think that is the proper response.

Max

 

[Darknight1996]

If he believes in God because you can't prove to him that God doesn't exist, then his belief is very weak. I think that is the proper response.


You can not prove evolution so you can not say it exists. The universe can be used to prove God as much as evolution.

 

[MadMaxReborn]

You can not prove evolution so you can not say it exists. The universe can be used to prove God as much as evolution.

Um?

And then...

No "and then!"

And then...

No "and then!"

And then...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You can not prove evolution so you can not say it exists. The universe can be used to prove God as much as evolution.

Actually, not true.

If you assume that your 5 senses actually report Reality.

And you assume that Other People are Real, and that THEIR 5 senses are at least as accurate as yours.

Then, using Science, you can pretty much take it as "given" that Evolution Happened.

Science and Scientific Method is based on the above (5 senses are real) and is only concerned with information obtained by the 5 senses. And, of course, any artificial extensions of the same (i.e. microscope, etc).

God, on the other hand is generally believed to be meta-physical or "super" natural. That is, composed up of "stuff" that is NOT percievable by any of your 5 senses.

Because of this, you can never prove God-as-being one way or another, as to my knowledge, there are NO methods currently to test ANYthing that is composed of meta-physical or supernatural "stuff". (whatever that is.)

So, your attempt at analogy is a false one: akin to comparing apples to rocks.

It IS a fact that Life [on Earth] evolved by some method or other (in that we have a very nice record of the slow progression of simple creatures up to the modern more complex ones). The only thing still up for debate, is the exact method of this change. The current "front runner" is the Theory of Evolution.

To Date, there are no facts supporting the existance of God (or the non-existance, either).