Can one proof that god DOESN'T exist?

Bill, you naughty guy, you are trying to slip out of it.

fishin...your slight twist actually ends up being a 180 turn. And though at first glance it seems to be true, I don't think it is. It's rather like the teacher coming into the middle of a playground fight where both are swinging with equal vigor, although little Ralphy began it all with a mudball to Irving's noggin.

blatham, I am a staunch advocate of a "Higher Power of your own understanding". This is whatever that association may be. Many people use pink elephants as higher powers. I once again say, if it is losing some of its strength, try a purple donkey. Just a suggestion mind you. Not squirming, very definitely entrenched.

Bill said...and I want him to remember forever and a day that he did say it...

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha - I think mine is closer to Santa Claus!

You know, I would have to say that the possibility that there is a creator of some sort seems a more possible and reasonable sort of possibly possible possibility than an invisible pink elephant (or purple ass)sitting on your head.

There is, after all, or we agree to act as though there is, an observable universe swirling about and, apparently, obeying all sorts of amazing laws - given that we create odd things that do stuff, it seems reasonable to us to postulate the existence of a creative genius/es of some description, and then to argue about it/them.

The existence of pink or purple whatsits - invisible, and, apparently, having no mass because they are not squashing you - seems a priori unlikely - where there DOES seem an arguable a priori case for positing a creator.

I am not sure these pink whatsits are a fair example to argue about who has to prove what from...

Philosophy of religion is FUN.

I like to think it is.....

Philosophecles, a famous Greek satirist?

dlowan

That's a tempting argument. Plausibility of a proposition or hypothesis certainly makes it more compelling. But I'm not certain it effects the burden of proof, rather, it just makes that task easier.

Not much I can add but to second Craven and the rest who agree with him.

It is a nice point, isn't it Blatham?

I think we could both make a case either way.... but, I confess I do think more outlandish assertions tend, in practice, to need more evidence pointing towards them than do less outlandish ones.

Is practice as important as logic? Is my assertion logical in logic, as well as practice?

Or is it logically and practically illogical?

There IS meat in my madness - I am seriously debating this stuff - I just like to do so in a diverting manner....

(You know, I sometimes DO get bullied children and suchlike to use pink elephants, purple asses and other chimarae as higher powers! If they visualise such beasties above the heads of their tormentors - doing what herbivores do in abundance - it can tend to interrupt their
habitual "victim" body language, and, as a first line of attack, sometimes works miracles in turning things around - so stand tall, Bill!)

Not too tall though Bill, or you'll bump his privates, and then we are all in for it.

There is 'meat in your madness', dlowan? Augustine, a far smarter man than I, but a fruitcake, held that there was madness in his meat. And then we were all in for it.

Ahhhhh .... Augustine ... And who can forget Aquinas, whose esteemed treatise on the matter proved conclusively, by exquisite logic, that God did indeed exist. Provided, of course, that a god existed, a concept taken as a given in his debate ... perhaps the only logical flaw in the thing.



timber

And quite a flaw at that!

Sure, a flawed argument it is, but notice how nicely it balances given one supposes that God is himself flawed.

Woody Allen..."I...um...I believe in God. I just think he's something of an underachiever."

LOL!

Well, back to square one. There is no deity. Anyone purporting that there is has a burden of proof the like of which does not devolve upon me. I absolutely do not care what anyone else believes except with regard to beliefs about what i believe or do or will do--those are the only topics of belief upon which i can speak with authority. So, based on Fishins' criterion, i am relieved of any accusation of religion. In stating that there is no deity, i do not indulge in faith--faith being a belief in that which is asserted to be but cannot be demonstrated. I am not asserting a positive, i'm am negating a proposition of faith.

But we all do have a lot of fun with god: "If god had not existed, it would have been necessary to create him." "God created man, and, man being a gentleman, he returned the compliment." "Einstein should stop telling god what to do."

Round and round and round we spin
To weave a web to hem us in
It won't be long . . .

And, on that note from the good Mr. Young, i wish you all a happy holiday, and will be with you again soon, if all goes well . . .

God willing, eh Setanta? Heeeheeeee.....

Have a good midwinter festival!!!

I agree with those who say that there is no need to prove that something does NOT exist. Whenever someone is hell bent to convince me that there is a God, I usually ask them who created THAT God. Naturally there is no answer for that., at which point I say that I have just cut out the middleman.

In point of fact, it is not so much that I am an atheist, which some might place in the category of a religion. I don't care. The entire concept has very little meaning for me. The problem is, I am constantly faced with great groups of people who think that I don't know what I am talking about. Besides, it is good intellectual exercise. Keeps those old neurons firing.