Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Excuse me. I don't claim that's what it is. That's the dictionary definition of what it is.
Oh, all right! Then let's start providing overwhelming evidence.
"God exists" is equivalent to "Everything that doesn't exist is not God."
Unicorns don't exist. They are not God.
Bigfoot doesn't exist. He is not God.
Leprechauns don't exist. They are not God.
Santa Claus doesn't exist. He is not God.
The Tooth Fairy doesn't exist. She is not God.
Therefore, God's existence is very highly confirmed. I guess there really is evidence for God.
But why stop there?
=======================
"Richard Dawkins doesn't exist" is the same as "Everything that exists isn't Richard Dawkins."
I went to the beach yesterday and saw millions of grains of sand. Each one of them was not Richard Dawkins.
I have gazed into the sky at night and seen millions of stars. Each one of them was not Richard Dawkins.
I have met thousands of people in my life. Each person was not Richard Dawkins.
So the theory "Richard Dawkins doesn't exist" is very highly confirmed. There is overwhelming evidence in support of it. Anyone who claims he does exist is a fact denier.
I'm glad that you posted a headslap as you must surely be sarcastic in your latest post
"God doesn't (on all evidence) exist" is equivalent to "Everything that does exist is not demonstrated to be God."
Unicorns don't (on all evidence) exist. That they are not God is neither here nor there.
Bigfoot doesn't exist (or so the evidence suggests to me). That He is not God, is nothing to the point.
Leprechauns don't exist (except as mythology). They are not God, but so what?
Santa Claus doesn't exist (or so I tell any kid who asks me). He is not God. Nobody said he was.
The Tooth Fairy doesn't exist (or I'd bet my back teeth on it). She is not God. No gender equality in the divine.
Therefore, none of this is anything whatsoever to do with God's existence It is very highly confirmed that there is little or no decent evidence for god or any other god. You guess wrong if you think there really is evidence for God.
But why stop there?
=======================
"Richard Dawkins doesn't exist" is the same as "Everything that exists isn't Richard Dawkins." Except of course, Richard Dawkins who, on all evidence, Does exist.
I went to the beach yesterday and saw millions of grains of sand. Each one of them was not Richard Dawkins, because Richard Dawkins is Richard Dawkins and not a grain of sand.
I have gazed into the sky at night and seen millions of stars. Each one of them was not Richard Dawkins, because Richard Dawkins is Richard Dawkins and not a star, planet or asteroid.
I have met thousands of people in my life. Each person was not Richard Dawkins, because only Richard Dawkins is The Richard Dawkins.
Thee is convincing evidence for the existence of Richard Dawkins; there is no really convincing evidence for the existence of any god.
I am at a loss to know what your post was supposed to demonstrate.
Imagine that two atheist scientists are assigned to investigate a drawer. They know that there are three items in the drawer, but they cannot see into the drawer. They can only draw items out one at a time and examine them.
The first item is drawn. It is a pair of blue socks. The scientists draw different conclusions:
S1: The drawer contains only blue socks.
S2: All socks in the drawer are blue.
Each of these theories is consistent with the evidence. A second item is drawn and it is also a pair of blue socks. Each scientist feels that his theory has been strengthened. Then a third item is pulled and it is a brown tie.
S2 claims that the third pull (a brown tie) is definitive proof that all socks in the drawer are blue. S1 concurs and junks his theory.
So we are left with Hempel's Paradox. To what extent does finding a brown tie confirm the hypothesis that all socks are blue?
Let us further imagine that the scientists move on to drawer 2, quite similar to drawer 1. This drawer, however, contains 100 items. The first ten items are drawn and all of them are brown ties. Both scientists exclaim:
"These ten brown ties are excellent evidence that all the socks in the drawer are blue."
"If you do not have evidence for the existence of X, you are probably wrong."
But you have provided no evidence for this claim.
Yes I have. You quoted it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zosimus
What you have provided is a logical argument — an appeal to rationality. "If we sit and think logically," you say, "we can realize that we need evidence."
No, it is simple mathematics. The days of the year when I can have my birthday are 365, but only one of them is my birthday. So if you make a claim about when my birthday is without any evidence, you will probably be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zosimus
But if a simple appeal to "Hey this makes sense" is good enough to justify your claim that you need evidence, then why couldn't a simple "Hey this makes sense" argument be good enough for many other claims that are evidence free?
Oh, all right! Then let's start providing overwhelming evidence.
"God exists" is equivalent to "Everything that doesn't exist is not God."
Unicorns don't exist. They are not God.
Bigfoot doesn't exist. He is not God.
Leprechauns don't exist. They are not God.
Santa Claus doesn't exist. He is not God.
The Tooth Fairy doesn't exist. She is not God.
Therefore, God's existence is very highly confirmed. I guess there really is evidence for God.
Your attempt at logic is not based on valid grounds, as 1) it's premise is false and 2) it also applies to the none existence of God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zosimus
But why stop there?
Please do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zosimus
=======================
"Richard Dawkins doesn't exist" is the same as "Everything that exists isn't Richard Dawkins."
I went to the beach yesterday and saw millions of grains of sand. Each one of them was not Richard Dawkins.
I have gazed into the sky at night and seen millions of stars. Each one of them was not Richard Dawkins.
I have met thousands of people in my life. Each person was not Richard Dawkins.
So the theory "Richard Dawkins doesn't exist" is very highly confirmed. There is overwhelming evidence in support of it. Anyone who claims he does exist is a fact denier.
No, it is simple mathematics. The days of the year when I can have my birthday are 365, but only one of them is my birthday. So if you make a claim about when my birthday is without any evidence, you will probably be wrong.
Mathematics is not evidence based. One start with Peano's axioms and proceeds to develop a system of arithmetic.
Similarly, we can determine that if Craig is taller than Susan and Susan is taller than Janice then Craig is taller than Janice. We do not need to scour the globe for Craigs, Susans, and Janices to conduct experiments to determine the truth of the statement.
Suppose we think that all ravens are black. We can state this as:
If X is a raven then X is black.
The corollary to this is:
If X is NOT black then X is NOT a raven.
We then find a green apple. A green apple is NOT black and a green apple is NOT a raven.
Logically, therefore, finding a green apple confirms the idea that all ravens are black.
If we found ALL non-black things in the universe and confirmed that ALL non-black things were not ravens, then we would have conclusively proved that all ravens are black.
We assume that you agree. If not, state why.
==============================
The theory "Vishnu exists" is the same as
if X is Vishnu then X exists.
The corollary is
if X does NOT exist then X is not Vishnu.
Accordingly, every thing that doesn't exist and isn't Vishnu is, logically, support for the idea that Vishnu exists. If we could verify that everything that does NOT exist was NOT Vishnu, then we would know that Vishnu existed.
Suppose we think that all ravens are black. We can state this as:
If X is a raven then X is black.
The corollary to this is:
If X is NOT black then X is NOT a raven.
We then find a green apple. A green apple is NOT black and a green apple is NOT a raven.
Logically, therefore, finding a green apple confirms the idea that all ravens are black.
If we found ALL non-black things in the universe and confirmed that ALL non-black things were not ravens, then we would have conclusively proved that all ravens are black.
We assume that you agree. If not, state why.
==============================
The theory "Vishnu exists" is the same as
if X is Vishnu then X exists.
The corollary is
if X does NOT exist then X is not Vishnu.
Accordingly, every thing that doesn't exist and isn't Vishnu is, logically, support for the idea that Vishnu exists. If we could verify that everything that does NOT exist was NOT Vishnu, then we would know that Vishnu existed.
Are you with me so far?
So when you can not answer a question, you start another irrelevant problem in logic?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
