Teacher Demands Her Students Deny the Existence of God

[Skylar]

The Human conceptualization of God is not God.... we do not have the neural capacity to contain God in our conceptualization....

Another argument that Man cannot disprove the existence of God.

Nor can man disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny. But that doesn't make it likely to actually exist either.

Skylar is a master of the fallacy of false equivalency. Study mythology and fable, the purpose and wherefor, please. Or disprove God.

More accurately, I recognize that your conception of god is indistinguishable from imagination. And every standard of 'disproving the existence' you apply to your conception of god will work just as well the any product of your imagination. Like say, the Easter Bunny. Or Optimus Prime. Or Voldemort.

Notice you don't actually disagree with me. Or offer a counter argument. Nor can you. As we both know I'm right.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yeah, but on the scale of likely or unlikely...its not dead center.

Absolutely. The odds on their being a God, especially on the Personal God of the Christians, Jews, and Muslims, is off the charts. A million to one, one a good day.

This world works exactly as one would expect it to if there was no God...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Human conceptualization of God is not God.... we do not have the neural capacity to contain God in our conceptualization....

Another argument that Man cannot disprove the existence of God.

Nor can man disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny. But that doesn't make it likely to actually exist either.

Skylar is a master of the fallacy of false equivalency. Study mythology and fable, the purpose and wherefor, please. Or disprove God.

More accurately, I recognize that your conception of god is indistinguishable from imagination. And every standard of 'disproving the existence' you apply to your conception of god will work just as well the any product of your imagination. Like say, the Easter Bunny. Or Optimus Prime. Or Voldemort.

Notice you don't actually disagree with me. Or offer a counter argument. Nor can you. As we both know I'm right.

We both know that you cannot disprove God, thus you come up with fallacies and false arguments.

Anti-Godists have been doing that for a long time.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Human conceptualization of God is not God.... we do not have the neural capacity to contain God in our conceptualization....

Another argument that Man cannot disprove the existence of God.

Nor can man disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny. But that doesn't make it likely to actually exist either.

Skylar is a master of the fallacy of false equivalency. Study mythology and fable, the purpose and wherefor, please. Or disprove God.

There is no reason to have to disprove what no one knows to exist. If you want to tell me to have faith in blue teapots that dance on the moon, you'd better have proof that they exist because it's on you to prove that they do not me to prove that they don't...

 

[Skylar]

The Human conceptualization of God is not God.... we do not have the neural capacity to contain God in our conceptualization....

Another argument that Man cannot disprove the existence of God.

Nor can man disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny. But that doesn't make it likely to actually exist either.

Skylar is a master of the fallacy of false equivalency. Study mythology and fable, the purpose and wherefor, please. Or disprove God.

More accurately, I recognize that your conception of god is indistinguishable from imagination. And every standard of 'disproving the existence' you apply to your conception of god will work just as well the any product of your imagination. Like say, the Easter Bunny. Or Optimus Prime. Or Voldemort.

Notice you don't actually disagree with me. Or offer a counter argument. Nor can you. As we both know I'm right.

We both know that you cannot disprove God, thus you come up with fallacies and false arguments.

And how is my argument false? Merely dismissing my claims isn't a counter argument. Its an excuse for one.

Demonstrate that my claims are false or fallacies. Or admit that you have no counter argument.

Show us. Don't tell us.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Human conceptualization of God is not God.... we do not have the neural capacity to contain God in our conceptualization....

Another argument that Man cannot disprove the existence of God.

Nor can man disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny. But that doesn't make it likely to actually exist either.

Skylar is a master of the fallacy of false equivalency. Study mythology and fable, the purpose and wherefor, please. Or disprove God.

More accurately, I recognize that your conception of god is indistinguishable from imagination. And every standard of 'disproving the existence' you apply to your conception of god will work just as well the any product of your imagination. Like say, the Easter Bunny. Or Optimus Prime. Or Voldemort.

Notice you don't actually disagree with me. Or offer a counter argument. Nor can you. As we both know I'm right.

We both know that you cannot disprove God, thus you come up with fallacies and false arguments.

Anti-Godists have been doing that for a long time.

No one, not a single soul on earth is required to prove God one way or another unless they say one way or another. That is why only agnostics are rational.

 

[Skylar]

The Human conceptualization of God is not God.... we do not have the neural capacity to contain God in our conceptualization....

Another argument that Man cannot disprove the existence of God.

Nor can man disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny. But that doesn't make it likely to actually exist either.

Skylar is a master of the fallacy of false equivalency. Study mythology and fable, the purpose and wherefor, please. Or disprove God.

There is no reason to have to disprove what no one knows to exist. If you want to tell me to have faith in blue teapots that dance on the moon, you'd better have proof that they exist because it's on you to prove that they do not me to prove that they don't...

Exactly. 'Disprove whatever I can possibly imagine' is the reasoning of conspiracy theorists and flat earthers.

They know they can't factually establish their conception of god. Or even a need for it. With Occam's razor widdling away the unnecessary bits.

So we're left with uselessly vague and utterly unsupported claims of 'false claims' and 'fallacies'. But no actual demonstration of either.

Apparently the 'fallacies' are just like their conception of god. You just have to 'believe'....and not ask for evidence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In other words, you can't disprove the existence of God.

Skylar, come here: my mouth to your ear ~ the world knows that.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The Scientific Method is useless as far as proving or disproving the Existence of God...The Scientific method Requires measurements, quantification, observation and rational logical explanations [thesis , hypothesis, theories etc] for what one is observing and measuring ...it also requires experimentation to prove and or disprove explanations and that is not happening when what is being studied is God...

 

[Skylar]

In other words, you can't disprove the existence of God.

Skylar, come here: my mouth to your ear ~ the world knows that.

Again, demonstrate my claims are false or fallacies. If you can't, admit you have no counter argument.

You're stuck with 'disprove whatever I can imagine'. Also known as the 'Appeal to Ignorance' or 'Negative Proof' fallacy. Which is both logically and factually nonsense. You'll need to factually establish your assertions before there is anything to 'disprove'.

And you can't.

 

[Skylar]

The Scientific Method is useless as far as proving or disproving the Existence of God...The Scientific method Requires measurements, quantification, observation and rational logical explanations [thesis , hypothesis, theories etc] for what one is observing and measuring ...it also requires experimentation to prove and or disprove explanations and that is not happening when what is being studied is God...

I've yet to talk to a theist that will actually explore the logical and factual problems with their conception of God.

Nor do I press too hard. Faith is a fragile thing. And I take no joy in damaging the faith of anyone.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Skylar, your claims lack merit. I don't have to prove God to a hard head. That's your problem.

Don't believe in God if you wish not to.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The Zen Buddhist use Koans or paradoxical riddles to try to give a sense of God stuff

This is a Koan

If Jesus died for my sins do I commit a sin by not sinning thus wasting the death of Jesus...

I just thought of something...If Jesus comes again he may be crushed by folks wanting to take "selfies"...oh great something else to worry about...you know how pissed God will be if we kill him again...

 

[Skylar]

Skylar, your claims lack merit.

So you tell me. But when I ask you to *show* me, using logic and reason.......you've got nothing. You can find no specific flaw, can't define the use of any fallacy. You can't even come up with a rational retort.

Your argument consists of 'uh-uh'. Which as I've pointed out is an excuse for an argument.

I don't have to prove God to a hard head. That's your problem.

And by 'hard head', you mean someone who uses actual facts and evidence rather than merely accepting your claims without either?

You can't factually establish any of your claims. Or even the need for your conception of god. So even logically, Occam's Razor cuts your claims to ribbons. As your argument is not only factually baseless...its needlessly complicated and elaborate.

Like insisting that invisible shoe making elves cause gravity.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't have to show you anything. That's on your road, son, not mine.

TyroneSlothrop pointed out above the tools of proof don't work. Since they don't work, then you can't get a correct answer for either or.

Your problem, not mine.

But you can begin With Thomas Aquinas 5 Ways, and see where it leads you.

 

[Skylar]

I don't have to show you anything. That's on your road, son, not mine.

More accurately, you *can't* show me anything. You can't demonstrate your claims. Nor find any specific flaw in mine.

As I said, you have no rational retort. As your conception of god is objectively indistinguishable from imagination.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I don't have to show you anything. That's on your road, son, not mine.

TyroneSlothrop pointed out above the tools of proof don't work. Since they don't work, then you can't get a correct answer for either or.

Your problem, not mine.

But you can begin With Thomas Aquinas 5 Ways, and see where it leads you.

Tell us, can you accept that your belief in God is irrational, an act of faith not of a rational mind?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't have to show you anything. That's on your road, son, not mine.

More accurately, you *can't* show me anything. You can't demonstrate your claims. Nor find any specific flaw in mine.

As I said, you have no rational retort. As your conception of god is objectively indistinguishable from imagination.

You can't show me that God does not exist is more to the point.

 

[Dr Grump]

The anti-Godists are simply so desperate to disprove the existence of God, but they can't.

false analogy. The burden of proof is on the believer. If I believe in Santa Claus it's up to me to prove it, not you to prove he doesn't exist. You're the one making the claim, it's yours to prove....

It's up to you to determine whether you believe me. You cannot disprove that God exists. The original affirmations have been that He does not. Your problem, not mine.

Wrong. It is up to the believer to prove their point, not the non-believer...

 

[Dr Grump]

You can't show me that God does not exist is more to the point.

And you can't prove he or she does either...