19 Nov 12
Originally posted by RJHindsYou can click on "search forums" and then in the content search box, type "prove+negative" and you'll get a whole bunch of data.
It has been a good while. I can't remember exactly who and how many. It was probably someone like Proper Knob, Void Spirit, or googlefudge. But it doesn't matter if one of you can prove God does not exist.
19 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydidLooking around, I don't see any gods frolicking about...
Problems for you maybe. Not me. What gives you the right to shift the burden of your problems on to my shoulders?
A "sound argument" does not a fact make. A negative can't be proven, no matter how much you personally desire such an outcome.
But, since you seem to think you have solid, verifiable *proof* that God doesn't exist--please, let's see it. I'll get my popcorn ready.
Seems to me the burden of proof lies with you.
I'll get my weed and Cheetos ready.
19 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydidThe fist hit was Thread 129090 with a whole lot of people (myself included) stating categorically that the claim is untrue.
You can click on "search forums" and then in the content search box, type "prove+negative" and you'll get a whole bunch of data.
So, were you able to find any actual examples of people supporting your claim?
19 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydidThe key here is what is the particular negative. If we are talking about proving that god/gods do not exist, of course it can't be proven because the statement itself is so vague as to be practically meaningless.
Now, if you disagree with them all and insist that this particular negative can be verifiably proven, then have at it.
Once you define god/gods, then we can go about disproving his/their existence (or not). The more exact your definition, the more likely we can disprove its existence. However, you must accept from the beginning that changing the definition may render the proof invalid. So if you define God as 'an invisible pink unicorn in my fridge' and I prove it doesn't exist, then you say 'well maybe it isn't pink', then my proof is still valid but not for your new definition. This changing of the definition is the standard theist tactic for avoiding any proof against Gods existence. Simply manipulate the definition until it no longer fits the one that the proof was leveled against.
19 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydidI am not going to bother. I don't really care who said it. But if any did say it and their statement is wrong, then why don't they prove the God of the Holy Bible does not exist? The answer is because He does exist and has created the heavens and the earth and living things on the earth and has also manifested Himself in the flesh as Christ Jesus as proof of His existence. Therefore, no one has an excuse for not believing. Their judgment is as sure as their death to the body.
You can click on "search forums" and then in the content search box, type "prove+negative" and you'll get a whole bunch of data.
19 Nov 12
Originally posted by RJHindsIt has been proven many times that he doesn't exist. The problem though is that the very fact that 'the God of the Holy Bible' doesn't exist posses a major problem when trying to prove that God doesn't exist.
But if any did say it and their statement is wrong, then why don't they prove the God of the Holy Bible does not exist?
You see, when I say 'the God of the Holy Bible' doesn't exist, I mean that because the definition is unclear or changing, it cannot refer to an actual entity. The definition is dependant on your particular interpretation of the Bible and even then you will change your interpretation when it suits you - thus changing the definition. Thus it is my claim that the definition itself does not actually exist.
Originally posted by sumydidOne sure as hell can "verifiably prove" a negative. Here's a very informal little essay that will help dispel your ignorance on this:
I didn't say bbarr fits any description. I asked him a question. It's a perfectly logical, hypothetical question based on the pronounced beliefs of an Atheist vs. a believer.
His claim that he has proof that God doesn't exist quite obviously doesn't come in to play, as one cannot verifiably prove a negative. He has no absolute proof. You know it, I kn et back to reality....
Now if you'll excuse me, I asked bbarr a question...............
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf
Anyhow, bbarr didn't claim to have "absolute proof" that your god doesn't exist. He claimed he knows that your god doesn't exist and that he has the arguments to back it up. And, again, he's correct about all that.
You can keep on sticking your head in the sand (and I'm sure that's just what you'll keep doing, given your track record) and pretending that strong atheists with respect to your god don't have a justified position. But that of course depends on their evidence and arguments, etc.
Originally posted by sumydidAgain, you're just wrong about the whole "one cannot verifiably prove a negative" nonsense. Please educate yourself about such things before declaiming on them. This advice is for your own good, since you're making yourself look silly.
Problems for you maybe. Not me. What gives you the right to shift the burden of your problems on to my shoulders?
A "sound argument" does not a fact make. A negative can't be proven, no matter how much you personally desire such an outcome.
But, since you seem to think you have solid, verifiable *proof* that God doesn't exist--please, let's see it. I'll get my popcorn ready.
19 Nov 12
Originally posted by KellyJayDid I say that everyone who has an argument is thereby right? Of course not. So what on earth are you talking about? Arguments can be bad, sometimes outrageously bad. Others, though, are successful.
Evidence and arguments...so do you believe that people with both of those are
always right? Seriously there are many a court case where both side have
both evidence and arguments and even in our court system those we think win
the debate are NOT always right in the end....so why are you so sure about
anyone with evidence and arguments being a clear winner?
Kelly
Of course, you and sumydid won't know if bbarr's arguments against the existence of your god are successful or not unless you bother to study them on their merits. Sumydid apparently doesn't think he needs to study them on their merits because he thinks "one cannot verifiably prove a negative". Hence he basically claims there can be no sound argument that shows his god doesn't exist. What a jokester...how he does crack me up. 😵
19 Nov 12
Originally posted by RJHindsWell one thing I will say about you, you are no Romney, no flip flopping about, one story and you stick with it.
I am not going to bother. I don't really care who said it. But if any did say it and their statement is wrong, then why don't they prove the God of the Holy Bible does not exist? The answer is because He does exist and has created the heavens and the earth and living things on the earth and has also manifested Himself in the flesh as Christ Jesus as proof ...[text shortened]... no one has an excuse for not believing. Their judgment is as sure as their death to the body.