Totalitarianist

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
First, I'll take it that you meant "and so it is illogical to deny God's existence," a contradiction since God's existence has never been established to a reasonable degree of certainty for you to "deny" or "affirm."

That is correct; and that's why it is illogical to deny or accept the existence of God.
Hence, it is illogical to be a strong atheist and a theist.

Second, whether or not his "existence" is personally incomprehensible to you has no bearing on whether or not his existence (as defined, or, in this case, impossible to define) is "unreasonable," in any relevant, logical sense in keeping with your conclusion of "illogical."

Wrong. The notion of God is equally incomprehensible to everyone.

None of this, however, has any bearing on the word "deny." That is simply the wrong term to use, since it would be possible for me to stand in front of you and still have you deny that I am standing in front of you.

I'm applying the word "deny" only to the especial atheists that deny God.

I'm sure we can all agree that belief in God is illogical, but you haven't explained how denial in God's existence is not illogical.

Thinking or saying "God does not exist" is illogial. Please explain how it is not; that is the argument; definitions are irrelevant when you understand the premise.

John Page

Here's my question again:

"Rather than point to lack of absolute proof and rigor in science, logic etc, where is the rigor in theistic doctrine?"

My point is that there is a difference between Strong Atheism and theism. Where is there evidence beyond belief that any god exists?

Cheers, John

John Page

Hahahaha - if you cannot comprehend the notion of god you are admitting you don't know what you're talking about!! LOL.

Cheers, John

Totalitarianist

Hahahaha - no one can comphrehend the notion of God, and therefore no one can deny or accept his existence!! LOL.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Pseudonym ]</p>

John Page

Koy:

Some people will do anything to get out of buying their round - here's the challenge you posted "Explain to me how you can technically (not colloquially) deny/reject the existence of something that does not exist and I'll buy the first round." Surely proof counts as denial/rejection.

Cheers, John

John Page

Pseud:

You assume knowledge you deny that you have in making a conclusion - bravo, nice try, 5.3 for artistic merit. At the same time you reveal your preconcieved male-centric notion of god.

Again, according to your own statement you cannot comprehend the notion of what you're talking about. Now that's really an argument from ignorance!

Cheers, John

Totalitarianist

Okay, "No one can comphrehend the notion of God, and therefore no one can deny or accept its existence."

Oh, and since no one can understand God, whether he's real or not, then assuming a gender is, yes, illogical--just like, say, assuming his non-existence.

Tah.

Koyaanisqatsi

My mistake, then, since I agree. The word "deny" is not applicable and no atheist should ever us it.

In short, it is a matter for semantics and proper usage of terms.

Autonemesis

Pseudonym, why are you posting here, if only to tell us there is no sense in posting here?

That is the logical outcome of your conclusion, that it is useless to discuss any of the topics related the existence of god. Might as well close down II.

Isn't that right?

Koyaanisqatsi

Perhaps, but it does not explain how one can deny/reject the existence of something that does not exist.

It only proves that something does not exist.

Beer's getting warm...