Is Anything wrong with my logic?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Your logic falters at "If god were a baseball player".

How so? If god could not play baseball, how much else could he do?

Originally posted by 667joe
Thomas Edison was an atheist. I agree with him that we know very little of the overall picture, but there is absolutely no proof of god. How people claim to know what god wants is even more amazing.

Once again your logic falters. You agree that you know very little, and right after that you categorically state that there is no proof of God. You should rather say that based on the limited knowledge YOU have, there is nothing that YOU will accept as proof of God.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Once again your logic falters. You agree that you know very little, and right after that you categorically state that there is no proof of God. You should rather say that based on the limited knowledge YOU have, there is nothing that YOU will accept as proof of God.

You are wrong. If there were real proof of god, I would believe it. So far though, no one has provided it. You, on the other hand are in a much weaker position. You apparently believe in something without proof!

Originally posted by 667joe
You are wrong. If there were real proof of god, I would believe it. So far though, no one has provided it. You, on the other hand are in a much weaker position. You apparently believe in something without proof!

Really? Putting aside the issue of proof of God, are you claiming the power to comprehend every proof?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Really? Putting aside the issue of proof of God, are you claiming the power to comprehend every proof?

Of course not. But, if there were absolute proof of the existence of god, it should be explainable even to some one as simple as I. I would like to believe in god and eternal life, but not without real proof. I am afraid this is the only life we have, and the only meaning of life is what we make it. I would rather face the cold hard truth than live a life in delusion.

Originally posted by 667joe
Of course not. But, if there were absolute proof of the existence of god, it should be explainable even to some one as simple as I. I would like to believe in god and eternal life, but not without real proof. I am afraid this is the only life we have, and the only meaning of life is what we make it. I would rather face the cold hard truth than live a life in delusion.

Why is that? Why should a proof for the existence of God be less complicated than any other proof? Godel's proof for the existence of God is possibly just as complicated as his proofs of consistency and completeness. If anything, because debates about the existence of God are so heavily interdisciplinary, drawing on philosophy, history and science too, any putative proof of the existence of God would likely be very difficult to understand.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Why is that? Why should a proof for the existence of God be less complicated than any other proof? Godel's proof for the existence of God is possibly just as complicated as his proofs of consistency and completeness. If anything, because debates about the existence of God are so heavily interdisciplinary, drawing on philosophy, history and science too, any putative proof of the existence of God would likely be very difficult to understand.

Rather like a house of cards! I will stack Christopher Hitchens against any snake oil salesman you might come up with.

Originally posted by 667joe
You are wrong. If there were real proof of god, I would believe it. So far though, no one has provided it. You, on the other hand are in a much weaker position. You apparently believe in something without proof!

You are begging the question. How could you possibly have examined all the proof with your limited knowledge?

On the other hand though, you are happy making conclusions about my beliefs with what proof?

Originally posted by dj2becker
You are begging the question. How could you possibly have examined all the proof with your limited knowledge?

On the other hand though, you are happy making conclusions about my beliefs with what proof?

You ,sir, have the bbburden of proof, not I!

Originally posted by 667joe
You ,sir, have the bbburden of proof, not I!

Actually, since you take the strong atheist stance that there is no god Reveal Hidden Content the burden of proof lies equally upon your shoulders as it does dj2becker's.


Similarly if I claim the tooth fairy does not exist, the burden is upon me (if challenged on it) to prove
a) All references to "tooth fairy" are merely representatives of one unique notion of "tooth fairy" (dealing with "the" in "the tooth fairy" )
b) this 'notion' has no physical or metaphysical manifestation. Reveal Hidden Content

Originally posted by 667joe
Rather like a house of cards! I will stack Christopher Hitchens against any snake oil salesman you might come up with.

I have no idea what you are talking about. What snake oil salesman? Kurt Godel? The most celebrated logician of the past century, next to Witgenstein and Russell? You really are crazy.

There was a serious point here, why the proof of God should be simple, but once again you fail to address the point. Logical argument is clearly beyond you.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I have no idea what you are talking about. What snake oil salesman? Kurt Godel? The most celebrated logician of the past century, next to Witgenstein and Russell? You really are crazy.

There was a serious point here, why the proof of God should be simple, but once again you fail to address the point. Logical argument is clearly beyond you.

Ad hominem attacks display the weakness of your position. Be quiet or prove to me there is a god! Thank you.

Originally posted by 667joe
You ,sir, have the bbburden of proof, not I!

You are the one making the claims. I am merely sceptical of your strong atheism, and since this thread is about YOUR logic (or lack thereof), I am simply pointing out your logical fallacies. I personally have made no claims for the existence of god on this thread. Hence the burden of proof is on you.

Originally posted by 667joe
Ad hominem attacks display the weakness of your position. Be quiet or prove to me there is a god! Thank you.

Firstly, I have not used any ad hominem. Secondly, I am not arguing that there is a proof for the existence of God. I do not believe that there actually is one. What I dispute here is your claim that any such proof would be immediately comprehensible and universally known. As I said, you clearly don't know how to argue a case. Logical argument is beyond you.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Firstly, I have not used any ad hominem. Secondly, I am not arguing that there is a proof for the existence of God. I do not believe that there actually is one. What I dispute here is your claim that any such proof would be immediately comprehensible and universally known. As I said, you clearly don't know how to argue a case. Logical argument is beyond you.

Finally you admit my position regarding the existence of god is correct. Thank you very much. I know it was hard for you to admit I am correct, and I want to thank you sincerely. I will overlook the petulant tone of your remarks.