Disproofs of God.

[Outrider]

Again I see there has been absolutely zero reflection on why atheism rather than agnosticism is the default position.

Those are positions on two different questions - it's like asking why there's no reflection on whether the default for a Ford racing car is red or two-door...

You will note that that not unreasonable request does not shift any burden from the theist position.

But a theist position doesn't say anything about gnosticism - are you a gnostic theist or an agnostic one?

You will note that but your arseclenching fanaticism will probably prevent it from sinking in.

You will note that ad hominems fail to hide the fact that you fail to understand the terminology you're attempting to deploy.

O.

[SteveH]

Is anybody agnostic in practise? You either believe in God or you don't. Nobody says that they don't know.

[Roses]

Is anybody agnostic in practise? You either believe in God or you don't. Nobody says that they don't know.

One cannot know for sure that no god exists, however unlikely the existence of such an entity is.

[Enki]

Wow, in one sentence, Vlad demonstrates, yet again, that he doesn't understand the burden of proof, nor the fact the the unqualified word "God" is meaningless, and, in using it as a signature, apparently wants to advertise his ignorance in every post.

I've just noticed his signature.   Typical Vlad stereotyping!  For me, as an atheist, I would amend it as follows:

As an atheist I cannot disprove God but as I find no reason at all to believe there is a God and as the idea holds no particular meaning or significance for me, I quite naturally and sensibly act as if God does not exist.

[ekim]

I think the trouble with the word 'God' is that it has become a 'catch all' word and it has become anthropomorphised.  I believe there are about a dozen different Hebrew words in the Bible all translated as 'God'.  The word itself, I believe, has its origin associated with 'that which is to be invoked', which can invite people to have a variety of 'gods' according to what they desire to invoke, examples might be a god of good fortune, a god of power, a god of life, a god of love etc. The last words of Jesus on the cross was said to be "Eloi! Eloi! Lema sabachthani?" and translated as, "My God! My God! Why did Thou forsake Me?"  I believe that 'El' was 'Power' and it could be translated as 'My power, my power, why have you left me?'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Here we go again...

The default position, as has been explained to you endless times, is not to accept a proposition as true unless you are given reason to do so. That's about belief. If the proposition is unfalsifiable, then you have to accept that it might be true, then you can call that being agnostic if you want but that is about absolute knowledge, hence you can be an agnostic atheist.

If the proposition is meaningless, such as "God exists", without any qualification as to the meaning of the word "God", that leads ignosticism (I have no idea what you even mean).

The problem with the label agnostic is that it is often taken as a sort of 50/50 "don't know" position, which simply doesn't apply when you see no reason whatsoever to take an idea seriously. Although strictly it means that nothing is or can be known about the existence or nature of God, which is also not a default position, but an actual claim in itself.

Have you got all that?

I don’t think it’s meaningful saying God exists has no meaning then calling yourself an Atheist.

So to update the definition of atheist. Someone who doesn’t know the meaning of the existence of God, cannot prove the non existence of God but acts as though he has.

[Roses]

I don’t think it’s meaningful saying God exists has no meaning then calling yourself an Atheist.

So to update the definition of atheist. Someone who doesn’t know the meaning of the existence of God, cannot prove the non existence of God but acts as though he has.

You act as if you can prove the existence of god, which you can't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You act as if you can prove the existence of god, which you can't.

He has proved his existence to me since I am a natural sceptic, cannot pretend to an encounter, tried to dodge God and was conscious of being insufficiently open to Jesus prior to full commitment to him.

The atheist experience does not mirror this and I have  two decades experience of not being a Christian or theist of any sort.

[Roses]

He has proved his existence to me since I am a natural sceptic, cannot pretend to an encounter, tried to dodge God and was conscious of being insufficiently open to Jesus prior to full commitment to him.

The atheist experience does not mirror this and I have  two decades experience of not being a Christian or theist of any sort.

Just because you believe god exists doesn't mean it is so. People over the ages have claimed they have had experiences which have proved to them that many less than credible things are true. I have had many more  of those sort of experiences than most during my 70 years, I  think there is a natural explanation for them rather than a supernatural one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just because you believe god exists doesn't mean it is so. People over the ages have claimed they have had experiences which have proved to them that many less than credible things are true. I have had many more  of those sort of experiences than most during my 70 years, I  think there is a natural explanation for them rather than a supernatural one.

Atheism as argument from unbelief. There may be a natural explanation for all your experiences but not necessarily for other people.

[bluehillside Retd.]

enki,

I've just noticed his signature.   Typical Vlad stereotyping!  For me, as an atheist, I would amend it as follows:

As an atheist I cannot disprove God but as I find no reason at all to believe there is a God and as the idea holds no particular meaning or significance for me, I quite naturally and sensibly act as if God does not exist.

There's a simpler way of saying it: As an atheist I cannot disprove God, but I can disprove the arguments you attempt to justify your belief "God".

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop that Pigeon!

Atheism as argument from unbelief.

Wrong.

There may be a natural explanation for all your experiences but not necessarily for other people.

No-one says otherwise, including atheists. There may be anything. I'd be nice if you'd finally stop lying about that.

Oh, and I explained the rudiments of epistemology to you again a few posts ago. I see you've just ignored that though. Why is that - are the words too long, or can you simply not grasp the arguments no matter how simply they're put?   

[ippy]

Atheism as argument from unbelief. There may be a natural explanation for all your experiences but not necessarily for other people.

If you watch any Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Lawrence Krauss, content on YouYube Vlad, you'll find any one of them will define atheism for you, go on enjoy yourself Vlad, you know you will.

[Stranger]

Atheism as argument from unbelief.

False. Misunderstanding the burden of proof for about the 10,000th time.

There may be a natural explanation for all your experiences but not necessarily for other people.

Misunderstanding the burden of proof for about the 10,001st time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you watch any Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Lawrence Krauss, content on YouYube Vlad, you'll find any one of them will define atheism for you, go on enjoy yourself Vlad, you know you will.

That’s as may be though Lawrence Krauss strikes me that in many ways he is trying to grasp something.

[ippy]

That’s as may be though Lawrence Krauss strikes me that in many ways he is trying to grasp something.

Even if Lawrence is trying to grasp something that'll not prevent him from describing atheism to you Vlad.

[Owlswing]

There being no response from any of the Christians on this Forum I hereby withdraw my challenge as specified in #567 and claim victory by default there not being one single Christan with the guts to accept my challenge to

prove that their God is able to thwart the will of my Goddess!

Pagans 1 Christians 0

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There being no response from any of the Christians on this Forum I hereby withdraw my challenge as specified in #567 and claim victory by default there not being one single Christan with the guts to accept my challenge to

prove that their God is able to thwart the will of my Goddess!

I think people are just prioritising Owlswing. Toenails need to be clipped, ships need put into bottles, the tops of cereal boxes need to be folded in, etc, etc......

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Even if Lawrence is trying to grasp something that'll not prevent him from describing atheism to you Vlad.

I've heard he's a good multitasker.

[SteveH]

I think people are just prioritising Owlswing. Toenails need to be clipped, ships need put into bottles, the tops of cereal boxes need to be folded in, etc, etc......

Also Matthew 4:7, and Luke 4:12, both quoting Deuteronomy 6:16.

[Owlswing]

 I think people are just prioritising Owlswing. Toenails need to be clipped, ships need put into bottles, the tops of cereal boxes need to be folded in, etc, etc......

Your humour is on a par with your understanding of logic - i.e. abysmal and boring!

You lost! Man up and accept it!

[Outrider]

Is anybody agnostic in practise? You either believe in God or you don't. Nobody says that they don't know.

Agnosticism isn't about whether you believe in gods, it's about whether you think it's possible to definitively know about the existence of gods.

Given the lack of any meaningful definition of 'god', the philosophical difficulty of proving the non-existence of something and the inherent limitations of human cognition I am very much an agnostic atheist.  I really don't believe in God, but I don't think it's possible to 'prove' there aren't any.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your humour is on a par with your understanding of logic - i.e. abysmal and boring!

You lost! Man up and accept it!

Regarding putting God to the test.  Mr Micawber is quite right and we should not try to use God in that way.

Regarding my humour......Firstly, I find it funny, and secondly, you don’t......it’s a win win situation for me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Agnosticism isn't about whether you believe in gods, it's about whether you think it's possible to definitively know about the existence of gods.

Given the lack of any meaningful definition of 'god', the philosophical difficulty of proving the non-existence of something and the inherent limitations of human cognition I am very much an agnostic atheist.  I really don't believe in God, but I don't think it's possible to 'prove' there aren't any.

O.

Right since now meaningful definition seems to be the latest thing from atheist central you need to define what you mean by meaningful definition. Careful now.....because not making what you mean by meaningful might mean you undo your argument.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop that Pigeon,

Right since now meaningful definition seems to be the latest thing from atheist central you need to define what you mean by meaningful definition. Careful now.....because not making what you mean by meaningful might mean you undo your argument.

Right, so in the last few posts alone you’ve been educated in epistemology 101, corrected on your mistakes about the meanings of atheism and agnosticism, and schooled on the burden of proof. Yet you just ignore all that as if nothing had been said, and instead you slide sideway into yet another trolling effort. Is there perhaps some crab in your ancestry?

“Meaningful definition” is necessary for any discourse (you know, that thing you have no interest in) and as “God” is your claim, it’s your job to define the term. You’ve been asked this before, and (in one of the vanishingly rare times you actually tried to answer a question) the best you could do was to suggest a CV as if what your (supposed) god (supposedly) does would tell us what he (supposedly) is.

It’s your claim, you define it. And while you're about it, maybe too give some indication that you finally understand the various other matters in which you've been schooled.