Is it true that you can't prove a negative? Does it means that atheism is some sort of believe, and not rational or even just logical position to hold?!
>>909121
No, it's not true because positive and negatives are interchangeable (X = ~~X).
However it's irrelevant to arguments about god. Atheists understand the existence of god as something to be investigated scientifically, and science doesn't prove anything. Scientists can't "prove" that the moon exists, nor that unicorns don't exist. But our best theories, supported by the weight of evidence, let us reach very confident conclusions about both questions.
>>909121
Alright, taking the bait here.
First of all, you need proof and evidence to prove a positive claim. If you say you have a baseball, then you need to show me the baseball to prove that it exists.
Second, most atheists are empiricists, which means you don't believe anything until you have evidence for it.
Finally, atheism is not about disproving god. Its simply about not having any proof for god.
>>909121
>Does it means that atheism is some sort of believe, and not rational or even just logical position to hold?!
No OP, it means atheism is the correct default position and "God exists, prove me wrong!" is retarded.
>>909131
Can't prove that themoon exists? So the gravitational pull is not taking into account? The existence of tidal waves is not considered at all? The fucking thing up in the sky which can be measured and it's movement analyzed is all a lie?
What the fuck are you sniffing?
>>909150
calm down. theorems can be proven in formal systems. for example, I can prove that a triangle's internal angles add to 180 degrees in Euclidean geometry, or I can prove that a king and a knight cannot checkmate an opponent's king. These are *provable* because if you deny them, I can show that you are violating one of the rules of the formal system. science draws on formal system heavily, like math and logic, but it is not itself a formal system. philosophical skepticism has abundantly shwon that you can coherently doubt any scientific statement. But you will be violating good epistemological/scientific principles in doing so, principles which are not themselves formal
>>909141
> correct default position
Only correct default position is uncertainty. If you doesn't know something just admit it.
The great flaw of the human mind is that "bad arguments usually work", so we are subjected to a never-ending litany of self-serving arguments, even after being debunked.
>>909165
This is actually what most atheism is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
>>909165
This.
>>909172
100x this.
>>909121
To "Prove" a negative claim you must disprove every falsifiable hypothesis (A conceivable test that would yield differing results depending on the truth value of the claim) that contradicts that negative claim.
This is not rationally and skeptically possible.
For that reason the burden of proof rests on the person making the positive claim.
They provide a falsifiable hypothesis for their claim and if it can't be disproven (beyond a statistical margin for error) then the positive claim is held as correct until disproven.
If the falsifiable hypothesis is disproven (beyond a statistical margin of error) then the positive claim must be discarded or revised.
If the hypothesis is unfalsifiable then it does not ever matter because the results have no bearing on the claim, being equal evidence for and against it.
If no hypothesis is ever provided then the argument is essentially conceded since a hypothesis must be provided to prove or disprove the positive claim.
>>909165
The end result of that reasoning is "You can't kno nuffin".
My reasoning as posted above is basically my reasoning for atheism and it's still agnosticism lite.
Uncertainty can have structure.
>>909177
Is it useful to conflate terms like this?
I ask this genuinely. I see this a lot in linguistics/philosophy. Terms that seemingly mean one thing but then overlap into a different category, so that people can be refuted after the fact by "actually I was talking about this."
>>909121
To know that there is no God would require infinite knowledge.
To say there is no God requires nothing but a fool.
>>909196
So because you cannot prove your claim, I have to prove mine.
Is there a term or category for "Practical Athiesm" which removes the caveat "you can't rilly know nuthin" and replace it with "you can be pretty sure"?
It's like taking a very useful step back from the Pure Reason and it allows you to make useful distinctions between ideas.
>>909204
If you are not here to discuss logic or reason then get the fuck out.
>>909204
To know that there is God would also require infinite knowledge. Just imagine how hard is to test if God is really omnipotent or there is some really obscure act that even implied God can't do and same to other absolute divine properties.
>>909219
My statements are both logical and reasonable.
To say that one has absolute knowledge that there absolutely is no God would require that person to have infinite knowledge of the multiverse.
A fool who never traveled further than 100 miles from home can say "There is no God."
For the former to be true, and the case, I would have a person with infinite knowledge telling me that there exists no being with infinite knowledge.
Atheism is not only foolish, but self-refuting.
>>909222
It would not. It would require God to reveal Himself, which He has. A cursory reading of the bible will demonstrate that God revealed Himself to mankind on several occasions, and will again in the future, and then on for eternity.
>>909209
Rather essentially yes.
If you are the one positing the positive claim and I'm defending the negative claim then you have to provide the hypothesis for someone to prove or disprove.
The alternative is basically ridiculous.
I would have to provide possibly endless falsifiable hypotheses that would prove your point and then disprove them until you concede your position.
That is not a method that can produce any results.
Hence the burden of proof resting on the positive claim to provide the falsifiable hypothesis initially. Innocent until proven guilty.
>>909229
Lol this shit again.
Do you come here every day like it's your job?
>>909224
You're really looking at this from the opposite of the proper perspective. In order to say there is a God, you have to have proof of God.
>>909233
The universe is evidence of God, the Universe Maker, Who made the universe.
Ball's in your court.
>>909235
I come to my job every day, and post here in a somewhat vain effort to redeem the time, for the days are evil, yes. Thank you for concerning yourself with my employment situation. It's fine.
>>909196
> To prove a negative claim you must disprove every falsifiable hypothesis
Why can't you just prove it directly? If I say that there are no dinosaur in your house do you really can't prove this empirically? Check all the rooms for example.
>>909236
My position is as stated above. God has already revealed Himself to mankind, claimed to be God, and proved it.
Unbelief does not make things disappear.
>>909246
Alright, we're getting somewhere. You believe that you have proof. Can you show me the proof that God has revealed himself?
>>909241
The statement "There is no God" must be absolutely true in order to be true at all. There cannot exist kind of a God, part of a God, a sliver of God, or any other sort of nonsense you can conjecture regarding mankind's inability to deal with absolutes.
It's an absolute universe, and there absolutely is a God, with Whom you absolutely need to reconcile yourself.
>>909165
You can be uncertain about whether something is true or false and still not believe it to be true.
>>909249
Of course. It's contained in the bible, the Word of God. From the creation of the world, from the creation of mankind, to its final judgment, God has laid out the end from the beginning, which is something only God can do.
I don't know if you've wrapped your head around this topic very much, or ever, but God is not like Tinkerbell. He does not require your assent, consent, belief, or obedience in order to exist.
>>909229
If God revealed himself there would be no atheists. How hard is to God is to personally met everyone? In practice that would be enough to believe in him.
>>909254
And your belief still has no impact on the thing whatsoever.
>>909196
> For that reason the burden of proof rests on the person making the positive claim.
Holocaust didn't happened and Hitler did nothing wrong. The burden of proof on you, my friend.
>>909256
So, do you believe the Apocrypha? Which parts of the bible are accurate or inaccurate? Why that canon? Are you Catholic, because the current canon established in the Bible was set up by a Catholic council?
>>909258
I don't agree with your premise, because it assumes men are rational, just, reasonable, unbiased, and unbroken, when in fact quite the opposite is true. People do not go about tabla rasa seeking evidence from which they draw conclusions; they have things they want to be true, and go out seeking anything they can do validate their presuppositions.
>>909250
>There cannot exist kind of a God, part of a God, a sliver of God, or any other sort of nonsense you can conjecture regarding mankind's inability to deal with absolutes.
That doesn't seem to be a problem. So far no God anywhere except in the imagination.
How long until we must firmly conclude God is a product of the imagination based on evidence?
>>909263
I believe only the 66 books of the bible written by about 40 men over 1500 years comprise the Word of God, not uninspired historical books written between Malachi and the NT, or after the completion of the Revelation near the end of the first century.
>>909245
If I check every room then I am disproving several falsifiable hypotheses that I set up in a probably informal manner to confirm the negative that there are no dinosaurs in my house.
I concede my point when I find no sensory information of dinosaurs in my house but there are quasi infinite other hypotheses I could try if I felt like it.
Why stop at "If there is a dinosaur in my house then opening one of my doors will reveal visual evidence of one"?
Endless possibilities if I want to bullshit hard enough.
>>909239
I'd argue that this is both unfalsifiable and not really a hypothesis.
>>909268
God created the universe, and the universe is not contained in your imagination. Nor can you imagine it, or Him, with any clarity.
>>909269
Why only those books specifically? What makes them inherently superior to the other books that you have discounted?
>>909271
And I'd ask you why you believe mankind capable of understanding God, and the creation of the universe that proceeded from the mouth of God.
>>909233
Wasn't positive claims can also require infinities of falsifiable hypotheses? If you say that gravity exist then you must test claim in literally every place or any time in the world to be certainly sure because there can be anomalies and limits to extrapolation of finite numbers of science experiments.
>>909260
Of course. You're point being?
>>909272
There's no evidence the universe being created by a God.
You only think so because: "they have things they want to be true, and go out seeking anything they can do validate their presuppositions".
>>909273
All of them, but for Esther, and even then, you can see the hand of God working. God told His prophets what to write, and when they were all killed, manifested as Christ Jesus and laid out the New Covenant. All of the NT is about the New Covenant, the implementation of it, and the carrying forth of the age old question, how then shall we live?
The bible is about 30% prophecy, and by studying prophecy, you can see that the bible tells the future as though it were the past. This is a thing only God can do; only God can see the end from the beginning.
>>909283
*Your! Doh!
>>909283
That there are objective realities that must be dealt with that are not subject to subjective beliefs.
The person who believes there is no God is wrong, not just seeking more evidence. Eventually, all will know there is a God, and all will meet Him face to face.
I just want people to have a good day that day, and not the worst day of their eternal existence.
Creation infers a Creator.
Entire thread is
>Yuo cant kno!!!
Im fucking dying lmao
>>909287
It's literally the definition of God. Universe Maker. Creator.
You must believe, if you do not believe in God, that the universe is uncaused, or self-caused. Both positions are untenable.
>>909288
Well, as a counterpoint, Mormons believe in the Book of Mormon. They claim that it also acts as a record and proof of God because you can see the hand of God in its writing. In fact, Joseph Smith predicted the Civil War with surprising accuracy some thirty years before it began.
While I do respect that you aren't being foolish for your belief in God, there are many, many types of faith. The Hindu believe in hundreds of god, none of whom need your proof.
So if you are relying on faith or your belief in a book to justify your God, what makes your belief better than theirs? Why should I believe you to be correct over any of the hundreds of religions that can offer the same level of prophecy?
>>909296
Hey, you're welcome to believe that son, but this is all assertion without evidence and, as you have just pointed out, you believing that does not make it true.
>>909298
Why does the universe have to have a beginning,it may be infinitly compressing and expanding.
>>909121
>Is it true that you can't prove a negative?
Depends what you mean by prove and truth, but yes as it is impossible to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.
>Does it means that atheism is some sort of believe, and not rational or even just logical position to hold?!
Depends what you mean by belief and rational/logical, but yes atheism is a kind of belief as everything is a kind of belief. Under normal assumptions atheism is arguably more rational of a position sure.
>>909298
To hear complaints about untenable positions from you is the height of irony.
>>909265
My promise doesn't assume that men are rational, just, reasonable or unbiased. My idea is that God can prove himself to any human despite of all this natural human irrationality. He has understanding and abilities necessary to do this. That act could be a real reveal. Met every atheist and give them well defined formal theory of divinity if they would believe in that, point to factual evidence if they in need of this, etc. Instead of this God kind of give us a vague hints and clues at best. It isn't reveal.
>>909239
>The universe is evidence of Ilmatar, the Universe Maker, Who made the universe.
FTFY
>>909298
> It's literally the definition of God.
Creator is different from the God. For example in pantheism Universe is God so there is no creator.
>>909301
He knew the Civil War was coming because he was a Freemason.
Read 'Letter to a CES Director' if you find yourself agreeing with TBMs.
>>909245
>Why can't you just prove it directly? If I say that there are no dinosaur in your house do you really can't prove this empirically? Check all the rooms for example.
What if the dinosaurs are both invisible and intangible, or just REALLY GOOD at knowing when I'm about to check a room and therefore capable of avoiding detection? At best, you can prove that there are no observable dinosaurs in the house.
>>909298
Obviously the Universe has a cause, I don't recognise "self-caused" as even a point as the Universe has no "self". It doesn't mean the cause is a super-powerful being with agency and a personality.
>>909279
Saying "gravity exists" is different from saying "the laws of physics are the same in every part of the universe." To prove that gravity exists you only have to prove it in ONE place. You're right in that claims such as "gravity exists everywhere" or "gravity is an inherent property of all matter" are equally improvable as negative claims such as "gravity doesn't exist", since all of them would require observing the entire universe. But in general, to prove a positive you only have to prove it in a single instance - unless, of course, you're making claims about things such as universality of an attribute.
>>909301
After reading the CES letter, I'm not impressed with Joseph Smith in any way possible. That he figured out there would be a civil war is not prophecy. It's a prediction. Mohammad, the starter of a very similar religion, also made warlord type predictions. That's not prophecy. Prophecy is hearing from God, and telling people what God said, and it has to be 100% accurate and true, or the prophet dies. The Book of Mormon does not do that. Only the bible, which the Mormons give lip service to, does that. The qu'ran similarly has no prophecy but for what Mohammad plagiarized from the bible.
Hearing from God that 483 years after one event, another event would happen, and that prophecy happening to the day, is prophecy. Daniel, a prophet of God, did that, and Jesus fulfilled it, to the day.
The Hindus have hundreds of millions of gods, none of whom are Jesus in any way, shape or form. I do not believe many of them even hold their vedas to be sacred, inerrant, and authoritative. They cannot seem to all agree on the nature of Brahma, for instance.
If you actually study the matter, you will find that only the bible contains prophecy; only the bible is a holy text, inspired by God, inerrant and authoritative. Buddha, for instance, did not hold the Hindu vedas to be true, and left Hinduism to start his own system of living that had nothing to do with God whatsoever.
I don't know how you will come to God. You may not. You might. I would only urge you to seek Jesus with an open heart, and find Him, because He's the only redemption known to mankind. He's the only savior there is. There is no reincarnation. There is no becoming inhabited planets. There is only the living and the dead.
>>909303
God said it; therefore it is true. God is not wrong; God is not a liar; God is not misinformed.
You do not get a vote.
>>909328
I try to deal with objective reality; you make everything subjective, and you are the hero of your own story.
This has been around for centuries; it's not surprising you are unaware of what other people have already thought before you.
The universe exists.
It is either uncaused, self-caused, or caused by another. There is no fourth choice. Only fractions of those three.
>>909336
I have found mankind to be neither rational nor unbiased.
The depravity of mankind is at once the most empirically proven, and intellectually resisted, fact known to mankind.
>>909427
>God said it; therefore it is true. God is not wrong; God is not a liar; God is not misinformed.
No, a MAN said that god said it. And people lie all the time.
>>909351
That would be fine, if we all used the title "llmatar" instead of the more common title "God".
>>909427
Is this trolling?
>>909355
That's why pantheism is wrong, not the definition of God.
That would be the self-caused universe, which is illogical in the extreme.
>>909363
We need to print out 500,000 copies of the CES letter and bomb SLC with them. The bleeding would turn into arterial spurting within days.
>>909131
this
>>909393
I do not understand how a being with no power could make this universe.
You're not at the personality stage yet; you need to re-think how powerful a being must be in order to create everything.
>>909395
Does gravity exist in a singularity?
>>909427
In reality it's all in your head, its YOU assuming it, so basically someone tricked you into acting like an idiot by convincing you that it's OK to spout off retarded nonsense as long as you don't admit to personally being responsible. To everyone else you come across as a deranged cultist with zero critical thinking skills, but I'm sure you welcome this because it just makes you an underdog martyr or whatever.
You are an object lesson why religion is harmful to people because it stunts their intellectual honesty.
I'd feel bad for you if you weren't so unlikable. No matter how often you are told how your "reasoning" is invalid you come back every day with the same bullshit.
>>909366
What if there is a simple way to check existence of dinosaurs in the entire universe? You can't just made fictional assumptions like this and call that speculation a basis of rational logic, isn't it? Your invisible dinosaurs are as fictional as mine perfect dinosaur detector. It is retarded to base logic from either assumption.
>>909443
God said it. The Holy Spirit is God, and the scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit lived in the men who wrote the bible, and brought all things to their remembrance.
The Holy Spirit Who gave us life knows how to write a book.
Most of the authors tried to diminish themselves to the maximum extent possible, just so that people like you would not get caught up in who they were as people, but to receive the Word of God, the bible, as coming from God to you.
>>909446
No. But yes. But no. But yes. No.
Yes.
>>909463
All of these things pre-exist me, and are independent of me.
>>909468
Are you aware of what circular reasoning is?
>>909463
>You are an object lesson why religion is harmful to people because it stunts their intellectual honesty.
That you think God does not exist, or is wrong, or is a liar, or is misinformed, says volumes about your "intellectual honesty".
>>909395
> To prove that gravity exists you only have to prove it in ONE place.
You can't prove gravity in one place. Apple fallen from the tree? Wow! All objects moving here and there. How you can prove gravity from single one observation? This is simply unrealistic.
> But in general, to prove a positive you only have to prove it in a single instance
By this logic the real statement should be not that you can't prove a negative but that you can't prove an absolute. It is kinda bad logic to leap from how hard to prove universal statement to how hart is it to prove negative ones.
>>909481
Yes. There is no circle there. It is a straight line.
God said it. It is true.
>>909465
Exactly, but it is required for "absolute certainty." Which is why most people have abandoned absolute knowledge and instead are content with "reasonable" or practical certainty.
>>909447
Well... Self-caused God is literally the same being very illogical and shit. I guess theism is wrong too.
>>909177
>Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity
why?
>not holding a belief in the existence of any deity
that's agnosticism! atheism is defined as
>the rejection of belief in the existence of deities
so these are just agnosticists who call themselves atheists who call themselves atheists because it's trendy or it's atheists who want to be agnosticists but can't swear off their fate so they keep the name
>>909486
>God said God exists therefore God exists.
Dude, really? There are enough problems being caused by religion in the world without you doing your tiny bit to add to them by pretending to be religious on 4chan, fun though it may be.
>>909483
>That you think God does not exist, or is wrong, or is a liar, or is misinformed, says volumes about your "intellectual honesty".
Yeah, it says I am honest enough to dismiss impossible assertions from mythical books sold by biased emotional cultists.
I also don't bumble into logic threats and start issuing fatwahs and hellfire against people.
>>909488
That is true for people who hold empirical evidence to be relevant in all spheres of life.
It is not true for people who rely on revealed knowledge from God. God deals in absolutes that empiricism cannot. Empiricism cannot empirically demonstrate that it leads to the truth. God can.
>>909492
God has no cause. He is eternal. He has always been, is, and always will be. He is uncreated.
I find it astonishing you have not come across this information prior to today.
>>909447
>That would be the self-caused universe, which is illogical in the extreme.
The universe is just a word we use to describe everything that exists.
Given that IF the universe had a cause (it might) than by defination it would have be contained within the universe.
"Existing outside the universe" is synonymous for not existing
This also means God cannot exist outside the universe, he would have to be inside the universe. This means if there is a cause, than God himself was created.
>>909495
God exists.
Whether you heard it on 4chan or elsewhere.
>>909497
>Yeah, it says I am honest enough to dismiss impossible assertions from mythical books sold by biased emotional cultists.
Yes, that's not biased at all. That just screams intellectual honesty.
>>909500
This is just another way of saying God doesn't exist.
>>909501
By definition, it would have to be OUTSIDE the universe.
Read more Aristotle.
>>909506
God exists is not another way of saying that God does not exist.
Do you see, dear reader, why the bible says only the fool claims there is no God?
>>909453
SLC is already considered a den of sin by most TBMs. You wouldn't accomplish much. You'd make more progress in the rural areas of Utah. But don't try, anon. The mormon mafia is real, and they are mostly masons...
>>909509
Well that's certainly a riddle. Hmmm let me see, could it be because it was written by a bunch of ancient got herders who thought that Yahweh was real?
>>909150
okay, prove it
>>909505
I'm biased against irrational emotional appeals, special pleading, and unwarranted superiority complexes, which is how Christianity tries to convince desperate people to join up. I consider that very manipulative, I don't want to enable manipulative cults to undermine society.
>>909500
You can just say that Universe has no cause. God is unnecessary here.
>>909165
This.
>>909516
Weird how they picked out China's military colors and the ability to field a 200,000,000 man army then, huh.
Oh, wait, you don't know that's in the bible, because you just ignore the bible.
Because ignoring things makes them go away.
>>909520
The very type of society Christianity caused to exist, and which society cannot exist without Christianity.
Ponderous.
>>909508
Outside of the universe is like being a bigger than biggest number. At best you just come to idea of meta-universe that contains everything inside and outside of the universe. Problem is still here. You can't just say that cause of meta-universe should be outside of meta-universe.
>>909525
That is one of the three choices, yes. That the universe is eternal. Uncaused. Always been here.
In heat death right now.
>>909539
The Creator exists before the universe exists.
The Creator therefore does not exist within the universe, that He has not yet created.
He exists in a different place, with different rules, and different laws.
>>909538
Lol theocracy.
Fits well with your word games and your insistence-based "arguments".
>>909548
Time is a universal property so there is no before if universe doesn't exist.
>>909366
> What if the dinosaurs are both invisible and intangible,
Then they aren't actually dinosaurs are they m8?
>>909557
There are no Christian theocracies in existence today.
You are quite the dimwitted fellow, aren't you.
>>909561
Time is a perceptual hallucination, and is not constant, and dilates with gravitational fields.
>>909583
> There are no Christian theocracies in existence today
>>909535
>Weird how they picked out China's military colors and the ability to field a 200,000,000 man army then, huh.
I'm fascinated to hear what the heck you are on about.
>>909509
>God exists is not another way of saying that God does not exist
I disagree with this actually but not for atheistic reasons. God transcends existence as He is the font from which the very concept of existence springs.
Before there was even the concept of nonexistence, there was God.
Before there was even the concept of before, there was God.
So God does not exist.
>>909784
(you)
What the fuck man.
Soon we will hit one million posts.
On that cold night of /his/ there will be countless threads
>Alt history
>what if
>/his/ memes xd
>my vision of an abstract concept should be the most relevant
>Your abstract concept is not physical!
>WE
and finally the one millionth post
>[spoiler]YUO CANTT KNOOO1!1!!!1!![/spoiler]
>>909204
>To know that there is no God would require infinite knowledge.
>To say there is no God requires nothing but a fool.
To say something can be spoken easily does not suggest that thing is false. It's very easy to say there's no god. However, that doesn't mean that the claim is wrong; you haven't provided an argument here.
The rest of your posts are just empty claims. "God is real." Why? "Because the bible is trustworthy." Says who? "Because I claimed so!"
That's all there is to it.
If you want to prove a concept, you need to begin without that concept being assumed. If my square 1 is "god is real," all the logical paths I take are going to lead back to my "god is real" statement given that it's my square 1. However, that's not providing any justification for picking it as your square 1 axiom in the first place.
>>909538
>Christianity caused the modern day, better be thankful!
And training wheels helped me learn to ride a bike anon, but they aren't too useful when you're an adult.
>>909297
>implying you can't know if there's a god = can't know nuffin
>>909602
Revelation 9
Now the number of the army of the horsemen was two hundred million; I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision: those who sat on them had breastplates of fiery red, hyacinth blue, and sulfur yellow; and the heads of the horses were like the heads of lions; and out of their mouths came fire, smoke, and brimstone.
This was written in 95 AD, when the entire population of the world was likely @ 200M.
Google the colors, and the chinese army. They fit to a tee.
>>909588
It's run by satan. satan is not God, no matter how much he wants to be.
>>909615
There is no concept of nonexistence with an eternal God. Neither is there the concept of before everything.
There was never nothing.
There was never a time before Jesus.
>>910604
Pick it as axiom 1 anyways.
>>910647
but that's assuming it to be true
if you were to attempt to provide evidence for it from that assumption, you'd just be begging the question
>>910666
Yes.
Nice trips.
Assume it to be true.
>>910641
>What is B.C.?
>>909121
> you can't prove a negative
Prove it.
/thread
>>909150
>muh senses
>>909262
Sure. Google "holocaust", open up a textbook or read a memoir from it. There's a good one called "Forest of Gods" if you can read Lithuanian.
>>909201
>conflate
Knowledge is a subset of belief, every moron who's calling himself an "agnostic" in terms of anything is conflating shit.
Learn into basic set theory.
Most atheists don't simply assert:
"there is no god"
but rather they reject the notion of a god, and that god that is being sold is typically the god of the Abrahamic religions.
There is a very clear difference between the two postions: one claims to know without evidence the other simply rejects the characteristics that are given to god by most theists but still keeps a small portion of their mind open to the possibility of a god.
But just like you can't 'prove' that there is a pink elephant at the centre of the earth, or that superman actually exists in somewhere in the universe. It doesn't make it irrational to reject the notions of those possibilities.
>>909544
>In heat death right now.
Yes, the small part of it we're privy to seeing.
>>910634
Show us how exactly these inane ramblings fit. Please, I'm dying here.
>>909121
you can't empirically prove a negative
you can logically prove a negative
it is proven logically that 2+1 does not equal 5
the common position of atheism is that god is logically contradictory and/or so highly unlikely that they are technically agnostic but atheist is more descriptive.
>>912330
Ayyy
