Newton Joseph

THE GRAND ILLUSION
By New 10.
What is all this nonsense, you can't prove that God does not exist? Any
fourteen-year-old (who has not been corrupted) can. I do it almost every day. One doesn't have to be a great intellect and engage in esoteric rhetoric as the ancient "church fathers" did to prove this consuming question.?
If God exists and believers cannot experience "Him" with their five senses,
what better proof can one have "He" exists only in their imagination, sans funny talk.

Starboy

The most these god advocates could honestly claim is that god is irrelevant.

Starboy

dado

when you get to college, you'll learn about Popper. it is a fundamental tenet of logic that the fact something hasn't been observed is in no way proof that it does not exist. if you wish to claim G-d does NOT exist, the burden on proof is on you - and lack of observation does not constitute proof.

Endymion83

if you wish to claim The Easter Bunny does NOT exist, the burden on proof is on you - and lack of observation does not constitute proof.

Ok, not the best argument, but I always see this burden of proof thing going both ways. Some claim that the burden of proof is on those making the positive claim, and others the opposite. So which one is it?

Newton Joseph

Friend, I think you are confused. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on those who make a claim. Does Santa Claus exist?

Magus55

You made the claim that God doesn't exist, so its up to you to support that. Unless atheists get to make there own rules, in which case they can say anything doesn't exist as much as they want, and never actually have to back it up.

breathilizer

Even as an atheist, I see "God does not exist" as a positive assertion. It provides an answer for the question, "How many God's exist?"

A polytheist would say: 2+
A monotheist would say: 1
A strong atheist would say: 0
A weak atheist would simply say: "?" which in their everyday lives would be equal to 0, but it does not eliminate the possibility of 1+

I think that the term "negative assertion" is a false description of what we atheists tend to argue.

mrmoderate

Can we prove that;

* love exists?

* pain exists?

* hate exists?

Valdemar

I think we can make a strong case for them, with a certain margin for error inherent.

Your argument is weak, however. I think what you're trying to say is that since we can't "prove" (100%) that those things exist, and that we can't prove (100%) that god exists, and that we KNOW that love, pain and hate exist, then god must exist.

You need to watch your concept of "proof." That's where your error lies.

Marduk

Carl Sagan said “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence�? or something like that.