How many atheists agree with this refute against my claims...?

Question

"pangloss" quoted me from an argument: " 'You state there is no evidence of a God/Creator, as a FACT. Therefore, you realize that you must now prove to me, that evidence is non-existent, and SINCE you cannot prove a negative, you lose.'

Refute:

"Then since you reject all other gods, I will wait with baited breath for you to prove they don't exist."

-------

I want to know how many atheists catch her unreasonable refute to my claim. If you see her as being reasonable, please explain why. If you see her as being unreasonable, please explain why. ALSO, depending on whether you believe it's reasonable or unreasonable, explain the implications of such belief. Ex: "This implication leads to apples being reasonable over bananas."

Most everyone should be familiar enough with me to assume that I will REFER BACK(Just emphasizing!) to this question, as I will respond back to everyone...

If you have any other questions regarding anything I've said previously, let me know. Thanks.

lazarus: Your entire argument rests on this assumption.

You said: "...facts are your single clue."

You assume that in order to have a clue, you must have facts. This is not a logical assumption. Let me give you a situation to give you an idea about what you're basically saying:

The Patriots are 6-0 this season.
The Rams are 0-7 this season.

Let's say they have a game to play this Sunday,

Is it fact that you know who will win this game? I'm sure we both cannot prove either team will win, since they haven't played yet.

Is it fact that we have a clue to who is going to win? Yes, the clue is the team's record. Patriots are 6-0, and the Rams are 0-7. Now, according to your reasoning, their is no clue. Explain to me, how there isn't.

Jersey Girl: You said: "I personally don't argue with religous people because you simply can't argue with people whose basis of belief is faith, not fact."

Truthfully, everyone's belief is based on faith, not fact. Do you imply beliefs are not supposed to be based on faith? I thought things you know are supposed to be based on facts?

You base your belief in no God, on what facts? Also, give support of these "facts" you have. I'm listening.

lulu, you must support evidence of the Bible as being a reasonable source. Your argument is based on the assumption that the Bible is reliable. (Which I believe it is, based on historical, archeological, and documented, evidence) Which I can provide for you, if you'd like.

Morey, will you answer my last question I posted, so that I may debate this matter with you there? I will refute your claim that it is highly unlikely that there is a God, in my question concerning evolution.

Mountain: You assume there is no evidence of a higher being that created the universe.

So you really believe there is equal reason to believe in God as pink unicorns?

Now I'd have to ask you to explain your reasoning for this.

Before I continue with everyone else, I need to point out Pangloss's irrational refute, even though I figured everyone would see it, I guess not. This was her flaw:

I said: 'You state there is no evidence of a God/Creator, as a FACT. Therefore, you realize that you must now prove to me, that evidence is non-existent, and SINCE you cannot prove a negative, you lose.'

Refute:

"Then since you reject all other gods, I will wait with baited breath for you to prove they don't exist."

She assumes that since I reject all other gods, I must know they don't exist, SINCE, she wants me to prove they don't. Actually, I have never claimed to know they don't. To me it would be illogical for me to assume to KNOW that no other gods exist, or that if the Bible's God does not exist, that I would know for a fact that others wouldn't. She assumes this, therefore she assumes that I must be required to prove they don't exist.

One more comment on that: I do however, claim to reasonably BELIEVE that not only does the Bible's God exist, but that pink unicorns, or Zeus, reasonably don't exist. I admit that because I must support every one of my beliefs with reason, I must support my belief that the Bible's God exists, and that Zeus or pink unicorns do not. That is why I DO support all of my claims. When I refute anyone's argument, do I not back it up with support for why I believe their argument is flawed? Would you not agree that this should be required? Why do I often have to tell others to support their beliefs?

I have to eat lunch now, I'll be back to this question as soon as I can.

Answer 1

Given that the last "debate" question that I saw from you made the same exact mistake, either you're learning from your mistakes or you are trying to twist the rules to work for you - this is a judgment call you will have to make about yourself.

Granted the appropriate wording is "I have not seen any creditable evidence for any gods/creators, if you assert that there is please provide it." Essentially "evidence for god(s)" falls into the same category as god in that until it is shown to exist it is still up to the claimant to prove or provide.

This should be fairly apparent to you as both god and evidence for god are essentially the same claim as are "god doesn't exist" and "there is evidence for god doesn't exist"

Edit:
In re-reading the question, I see your flaw, i.e. you as a claimant that god exists state that she loses because she can not proof that there is no evidence; this is not the case, she would only lose if you could produce creditable evidence for god. Granted, her refute was not the best but it still works in that any assertion you make to disprove any other god also works for yours.

Answer 2

How can you prove or disprove the existence of an undetectable entity? Plato said that we know what we can prove, the rest we merely believe. That is the basis for rigorous testing, as well as reproducibility and peer review requirements in the Scientific Method. If you apply these methods to spiritual matters then the existence of Deity(ies) would rank in the neither proved or disproved category. The fact we cannot at present prove/disprove something does not mean that we will never be able so to do. Since the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion you cannot offer as proof the fact that you cannot be proved wrong, we cannot prove or disprove whether there is life on other planets, that neither proves or disproves that there is not. Logically, the same principle would apply the existence/non-existence of God.

Answer 3

I think you're just stuck in the mire with this one. pangloss is kinda' right, in that you cannot prove that there is no evidence. She'll just look at a banana and claim that it is evidence of a god.

We also get into the definition of 'proving' something. Many theists still believe that evolution is still just an unproved theory. So, even though there is 150 of peer reviewed articles, millions of artifacts and a combination of multiple fields of study that all come together and universally support evolution, all a true scientist can say is that it's highly likely. So, by that definition you can't ever prove anything.

So- as an atheist- I'll just admit that I cannot prove that god does not exist... only that it's highly unlikely.

Answer 4

She's playing by your 'logic' and using it to mock you, it's not a refute.

Basically you're saying that a positive claim is the default position and that everything exists until proven otherwise. Obviously this is extremely flawed logic when it comes to defending your god because you leave anything other deity open to existence.

In reality, the absence of any evidence whatsoever does in fact disprove an outrageous claim such as the existence of gods or a god. Changing the 'goalposts' by claiming your god lives in another dimension just proves how desperate you are to cling to your beliefs.

Answer 5

It is simple fact that we can't prove a negative. Therefore you cannot prove that the Greek Gods, the Roman Gods, and the Norse Gods do not exist.

They exist just as much as a Christian God does based upon the fact that they can't be disproven.

Science can present enough evidence to show that a God was not necessary for creation, human life, and the universe that we see around us. Taking this evidence and evaluating it shows that there is a high probability that none of these Gods exist (we can't say they don't because of the fact that we can't prove a negative).

So I challenge you to prove that the Norse, Greek and Roman Gods do not exist.

Answer 6

She's being reasonable. The burden of proof is on your shoulders. You're the one proclaiming the teapot from the rafters. We're only illustrating that all data conclusively points against the teapot.
You do not believe in Zeus, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, Astarte, Amaterasu, or Inari, obviously. Right?
If you don't and expect us to disprove your God, you must at least prove that your God is right, and those of all the others are wrong so we can make a reasonable scientific inquiry into the right God, right?

Answer 7

You are still so full of yourself it is difficult to understand how you could fit through the door to get lunch.

Reasonable arguments or evidence for the existence (or non-existence) of a god versus pink unicorns? We've seen nothing of the kind from you other than just a lot of wasted bandwidth and vaporous doubletalk.

I will be waiting with unbated breath (bait to lure fish) for your non-reply.

ADDENDUM

lulu: Read the book of Action in the DC Comics. Mxyzptlk knows that there is Superman, he has heard the voice of Superman and he actually quotes his words to Supergirl in the book of Action.

Answer 8

If you are claiming that your non-existence of YOUR god requires evidence/proof, and the existence of any other god requires proof, it is a double standard. Either your god's existence would require proof/evidence or the non-existence of other gods would require proof/evidence. You cannot have it both ways.

If you claim that the non-existence of your god requires evidence then you could equally well argue that the non-existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, leprechauns, gnomes and elves requires evidence as well.

Answer 9

What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!

refer back when you have facts please-lol-smile and enjoy the day
If it can’t be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.

Answer 10

Her response is not unreasonable. She is pointing out that just because you can't disprove something, it doesn't mean it must exist. I assume you don't believe in Zeus or Thor, but you can't prove it- does that lead us to the conclusion that they exist? No, because our reason tells us that it is very likely that they don't exist. Substitute your God in and come to the same conclusion.