To deny the existence of anything or anyone is to assume the possibility of its existence in the first place. Therefore, you must believe that the God of the Bible exists.
82 comments
Okay let's split things up:
Richard Dawkins: See Richard Dawkins exists, we know this, it's quite obvious from his books and interviews that the man exists. Now, I can deny that he exists, but I'd look like an idiot
Superman: Superman does not exist, but I am not denying him, becasue no-one has offered up any conclusive evidence that a guy in blue spandex is flying around saving people. Now if photo's started appearing, and there were actual video evidence of a man-shaped birdplane, then okay sure after that if I claim he doesn't exist I'm denying him. But only after evidence has been provided
God (and specifically the Biblical god) is clearly more analogous to Superman than Richard Dawkins. Thus I am not denying God. I just don't believe he exists.
No, because it's not me who's doing the assuming of the "Grown-up-Santa's", aka God of the Bible's, existence (doesn't that sound a bit like Geeorge of the Jungle?)in the first place.
Leprechauns, pixies, fairies, goblins ("That's hobb goblin..."), the Loch Ness monster, big foot/yetis, Golum, the Balrog, Katie Couric, Dracula, werewolves, wookies, wampums...
Yeah, they all exist because I deny they exist.
There's no shortage of fictional characters throughout the history of literature who do not -- and never did -- exist outside of the authors' imaginations.
I think we can safely argue that they don't exist without first assuming that they do.
That's not fundie, just ridiculously convoluted logic.
@emau99
I don't believe in Vectron... but I miss him though :(
Oh it's fundie. The direct claim for God using faulty logic, this claim's huge amoungst them despite it being utter bullshit. They don't believe in Zeus but you can't apply this formula to him, only their God
Well, I guess I'd deny the existence of someone as stupid as you, Agabus, but you do apparently exist. However, you exist despite my denial, not because of it.
I deny the existence of things which cannot exist.
According to your imbecilic attempt at logic, that means those things which cannot exist somehow do.
Can you see how stupid you have been yet?
Not necessarily. Lots of fictional characters exist, but they're not real . They only exist on paper, or on animation cels, or what-have-you. Outside of the work(s) that they are in, they do not exist.
Gods, if you strip away the veneer, are an abstract concept that humans have come up with for various reasons. But at their core, they are just ideas. That would be the only way that they - including yours - exist at all: as ideas, nothing more.
Ideas can be changed or discarded at will, once you realize that's all you're dealing with. >_>
What kind of fuckin' logic is that?
I have one word, maybe two or three... Santa Claus, tooth fairy, easter bunny...hahahahah!!!
Just so I am clear on this: there is then no point in having a definition of "not existing", since in order for something to not exist it would have to exist meaning everything therefore has to exist.
Don't tell me Darth Vader isn't real then.
"To deny the existence of anything or anyone is to assume the possibility of its existence in the first place. Therefore, you must believe that the God of the Bible exists."
So then the Flying Spaghetti Monster really does exist since you don't believe he does, is that it? Apparently you must also believe in every other god and goddess that has ever been thought up.
I'll never understand this line of reasoning nor why you people can't see how screwed up it is.
> To deny the existence of anything or anyone is to assume the possibility of its existence in the first place. Therefore, you must believe that the God of the Bible exists.
To deny the nonexistence of anything or anyone is to assume the possibility of its nonexistence in the first place. Therefore, you must believe that the God of the Bible does not exist.
You found a nice piece of logic! It's just as ridiculous both ways!
There's a big difference between "assume the possibility of X existence" and "must believe that X exists", stupid!
Sure, there is a possibility that there is a god with a hammer and a big goat-drawn carriage who produces lightning. As long as you don't have the science and technology to understand lightning, that is. This does not mean that I must believe that Thor exists.
Actually, I don't deny the existence of God of the Bible, I just see no evidence for that existence. Does that free me from "must believer"?
To deny the existence of anything or anyone is to assume the possibility of its existence in the first place. Therefore, you must believe that the God of the Bible exists.
Fail. Fail so hard. The reason that someone would deny the existence of something is because they contemplate the "possibility of its existence in the first place" and find that, no, it actually ISN'T possible. Or, at very least, the possibility is found to be so remote that it is effectively not possible. In other words, they entertain your assumption and discard it once they have a reason to. Which makes sense, given that the alternative is that everyone believes that the things they deny the existence of actually exist. If such an idiotic conclusion doesn't draw the logic into question, I don't know what would.
But the same goes for gods, Bigfoot, extraterrestrial aliens, dragons, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, etc. By the (il)logic demonstrated here, before you disbelieve in something you have to believe in it first. But this is flawed because the people who express disbelief are just responding to the nutjobs who believe in them.
And by the way, I really am fascinated by the belief that theists have that nobody really doesn't believe in God. What a weak way to try to affirm your faith.
You really think so? I think it's just a matter of someone like me believing that God exists and people like Bob Smith disagreeing with that idea.
There that was simple, wasn't it?
Sure, Superman and God and Santa Claus and Mary Poppins all have possibility of existing due to being thought of and therefore deniable.
In, you know, some other universe with different laws. Out there somewhere with the me that's an internationally renowned lyric poet, and gas for ten cents a gallon.
So you admit to the existence of Zeus, Odin, Ra, Brahman, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
It cuts both ways retard.
"To deny the existence of anything or anyone is to assume the possibility of its existence in the first place. Therefore, you must believe that the God of the Bible exists."
To deny the existence of anything or anyone is to assume the possibility of its existence in the first place. Therefore, you must believe that Hild, the 'Daimakaicho' (or 'Leader of Hell') in the manga/anime "Ah! My Goddess" exists:
image
At least we can see her. Can you say the same of your 'God' Agabus? No? Thought not...
I love the smell of destroyed arguments in the morning. Smells like... victory.
To deny the existence of anything or anyone is to assume the possibility of its existence in the first place.
Uhh, no. I can deny the existence of the Easter Bunny, that doesn't PRESUME the possibility that it exists.
Oh anselm.
Also: Poes law.
Aga, here's your bus:
image
To believe the existence of anything or anyone is to assume you've actually seen and/or met it/them. Therefore, you must accept that the God of the Bible doesn't exist.
See? Works both ways, pal.
@David F Mayer
"Have you ever thought of getting a brain transplant? You obviously need one badly. Call 1 800 FRANKENSTEIN and ask for Igor."
Or Dr. Hfuhruhurr.
@#1185620
"Apply it to VIRTUALLY everything. Including red dogs."
Arf (the Red Wolf 'familiar' of Fate T. Harlaown, in the anime series "Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha/A's/StrikerS"):
image
Now let's see Agabus show us his 'God'. In physical form that can be seen, heard and touched.
I'm waiting...
image
Do you deny the existence of Princess Celestia ? If your answer is 'No', then:
1- Welcome to the Herd.
2- You've just done far worse than destroyed your own argument: You're admitting that Amun-Ra/The Aten exists, and therefore are superior to your 'Abrahamic' God; the latter ancient Egyptian deity - 'The Light of the World' - is as a result of Akhenaten, the pioneer of Monotheism; no 'Trinity' required, neither.
"MLP:FiM"'s Princess Celestia is merely an equine analogue of the Aten, with her sister Princess Luna being the equivalent of ancient Rome/Greece's Diana/Artemis.
If you answer 'Yes' - you deny the existence of Princess Celestia - then you've still destroyed your own argument, regardless. At least Celestia - an immortal Alicorn God - appears to her subjects in Equestria. Omnibenevolent is she, too.
A great idea by her 'Mother', Lauren Faust icorn [/Katie5000] A rainbow doesn't exist, yet it can be seen. Are you denying it wasn't as a result of a certain blue pegasus who is 20% cooler...?!
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.