I didn’t read what you’ve said in this forum cause I’m sure that it is all non-sense. Could anyone prove that there is no God, could you? NEVER.
[9/1/2003 12:00:00 ]
Fundie Index: 5
Could you prove there IS a God, could you? NEVER.
12/23/2006 6:50:12 PM
Shifting the burden is so @#*!%ing hard!
5/14/2007 3:45:16 PM
No, YOU'RE a doodyhead.
Answers in Genesis has a do-not-use list for YEC arguments that miss the mark even by their standards. Perhaps I should compose one for arguing the existence of a higher power. This quote would be the first thing on that list.
5/15/2007 12:15:18 PM
@Salvador: \"Shifting the burden is so @#*!%ing hard!\"
And so unchristian...
Originally posted by Genesis 49:15
When he sees how good is his resting place and how pleasant is his land, he will bend his shoulder to the burden and submit to forced labor.
5/15/2007 12:56:36 PM
A: Existence is defined as being made of matter or energy (same thing, really). God is neither, otherwise he would- sorry, He would be detectable. As he is, by definition, not, he is also, by definition, nonexistent.
B: Your concept of God (assumedly the Christian God based on the demographic of most of these quotes) is horridly internally inconsistent.
C: All explanations of where God might fit in have naturalistic explanations, whether you're willing to accept them or not for religious convictions.
Have a nice day. :3
10/18/2008 8:34:17 PM
oh yeah..well..can god prove that he doesnt exist, could he? NEVER!
LOL..that was stoopid.
10/20/2008 9:33:16 PM
The Brilliant Wheatley Core
Aaaaand that's theism in a nutshell.
Often someone will present a concept and say that it must be accepted because it cannot be disproved. This is insufficient because without evidence there is no reason to accept an idea, even if there is no contrary evidence.
If one is making an exceptionally bold claim then exceptional evidence is expected in its support. Or as Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Could anyone prove that there is no Zeus, could you? NEVER.
You are not wrong, Sonic, it IS very hard to prove that something does not exist. Which is why we usually restrict ourselves to proving things that DO exist. The one producing the claim is the one responsible for proving its correctness. It's called Burden of Proof. That is why you don't have to prove your innocence in a trial, but it's the work of the prosecutor to prove your guilt. Your lawyer only has to present reasonable doubt. Which is also what we are doing here; if you can't disprove God, then you can't disprove Brahman or Quetzalcoatl, either.
First, I want you to prove that there is no invisible pink unicorn, and that invisible pink unicorns can't create universes by farting.
Our ability or inability to invalidate your hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true.
Proposal: From now on, we call this argument the Desmond Pfeiffer Argument. After all, we can't prove Lincoln DIDN'T have a snarky black butler!
1/27/2013 2:43:20 PM