Why are you your Religion?

[Big Jim P]

That's not a logical fallacy, that's called science. You know, the thing that gave you the magical box that you're using to post your nonsense on this forum.

So, you're saying that the "logical fallacy" of "argument of existence" is a science? You're so confusing coupled with the fact that you're just repeating the line "So, God dosen't exists" makes you a little bit funny.

Until evidence of existence is shown, god DOES not exist.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

To "assume" anything is unscientific. One should focus on finding the truth in what has been proven, and leave unproven hypotheses as merely unproven.

then trying to prove or disprove them.

The main point is a thing without evidence but no evidence that disproves it is still valid.

[Mavorpen]

So, you're saying that the "logical fallacy" of "argument of existence" is a science? You're so confusing coupled with the fact that you're just repeating the line "So, God dosen't exists" makes you a little bit funny.

No. There is no such thing as the "argument of existence" fallacy. Don't make up your own fallacies just because you cannot argue.

So far you've refused to provide ANY evidence, so we can indeed conclude that God doesn't exist. You don't deserve any more than such a response.

[Seperates]

But it is not disproven and the possible validity of its existence still stands.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, one can only assume that something is not true.
It's only logical.

(And conversely, to believe in something when there is no evidence to support that belief is illogical.)

Ah, no. We do not assume it is not true. It is just that an effective counter-arguement can be made for it's lack of existence without evidence, until such time that evidence for the positive claim of existence is found. And that time, one must either show that the evidence is faulty/lacking, or propose an alternative hypthesis that better explains the outcome of the data.

This is the way in which you deal with claims of existence.

[Great Nepal]

then trying to prove or disprove them.

The main point is a thing without evidence but no evidence that disproves it is still valid.

As valid as fluorine teacup orbiting sun two miles off sun's surface.

[Conscentia]

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, one can only assume that something is not true.
It's only logical.
(And conversely, to believe in something when there is no evidence to support that belief is illogical.)

To "assume" anything is unscientific. One should focus on finding the truth in what has been proven, and leave unproven hypotheses as merely unproven.

There is no middle ground between belief & not belief.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

So, you're saying that the "logical fallacy" of "argument of existence" is a science? You're so confusing coupled with the fact that you're just repeating the line "So, God dosen't exists" makes you a little bit funny.

No. There is no such thing as the "argument of existence" fallacy. Don't make up your own fallacies just because you cannot argue.

So far you've refused to provide ANY evidence, so we can indeed conclude that God doesn't exist. You don't deserve any more than such a response.

Oh, sorry, I stand corrected, what I was saying is the "argument of ignorance" where you argue from "nothing". Trying to disprove a thing just because it has no evidence is an "argument of ignorance".

[Big Jim P]

then trying to prove or disprove them.

The main point is a thing without evidence but no evidence that disproves it is still valid.

No....Until there is evidence, something does not exist.

Show me evidence that Tika Walyan-Majere does not exist.

[Conscentia]

then trying to prove or disprove them.

The main point is a thing without evidence but no evidence that disproves it is still valid.

Except Christianity has plenty of evidence against it.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

The main point is a thing without evidence but no evidence that disproves it is still valid.

As valid as fluorine teacup orbiting sun two miles off sun's surface.

We have seen spacecraft take pictures of the Sun and we have seen telescopes observe the Sun's orbits and we have never seen a flourine teacup. There is evidence that disproves your flourine teacup.

[Seperates]

Then why - according to the Old Testament - did God freak out when the people of Babel attempted to build a tower that was tall enough to supposedly reach Heaven? That would imply that heaven is indeed vertically upward and in the same physical universe/dimension/plane/etc. as our Earth.

The point is the pride of Man. Man became so proud and thought they could do everything. And, with the fact that they have the same language and the same race, if their pride goes too high, they could become get so dicks.

Also, their assumption that God is up there high so they can build a tower so high that they can go to God reveals of their stupidity and being dick.

So, God punished them because of their endless pride and there need a way to divide them so they will not help together as to go against God.

It's not that Heaven is up there.

If God was not worried, then why strike them down? Can humans not be proud of their accomphishments, if they haven't come to the detriment of others?

[Mavorpen]

Oh, sorry, I stand corrected, what I was saying is the "argument of ignorance" where you argue from "nothing". Trying to disprove a thing just because it has no evidence is an "argument of ignorance".

No it isn't.

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.

Stop pretending like you have any idea what you're talking about.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

The main point is a thing without evidence but no evidence that disproves it is still valid.

Except Christianity has plenty of evidence against it.

No, Christianity has none. But, it's God we're talking about about. There is no evidence against God. You're getting my point.

[Seperates]

No. There is no such thing as the "argument of existence" fallacy. Don't make up your own fallacies just because you cannot argue.

So far you've refused to provide ANY evidence, so we can indeed conclude that God doesn't exist. You don't deserve any more than such a response.

Oh, sorry, I stand corrected, what I was saying is the "argument of ignorance" where you argue from "nothing". Trying to disprove a thing just because it has no evidence is an "argument of ignorance".

And trying to argue that there is something without evidence is also an arguement from ignorance.

[Big Jim P]

As valid as fluorine teacup orbiting sun two miles off sun's surface.

We have seen spacecraft take pictures of the Sun and we have seen telescopes observe the Sun's orbits and we have never seen a flourine teacup. There is evidence that disproves your flourine teacup.

Your argument also disproves you god.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Oh, sorry, I stand corrected, what I was saying is the "argument of ignorance" where you argue from "nothing". Trying to disprove a thing just because it has no evidence is an "argument of ignorance".

No it isn't.

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.

Stop pretending like you have any idea what you're talking about.

The definition exactly fits what I am saying.

[Conscentia]

Except Christianity has plenty of evidence against it.

No, Christianity has none. But, it's God we're talking about about. There is no evidence against God. You're getting my point.

Which deity? The Christian one? Plenty of evidence against the Christian God, there is.

[Seperates]

Except Christianity has plenty of evidence against it.

No, Christianity has none. But, it's God we're talking about about. There is no evidence against God. You're getting my point.

There is no evidence for God either.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Except Christianity has plenty of evidence against it.

No, Christianity has none. But, it's God we're talking about about. There is no evidence against God. You're getting my point.

Yes, there is evidence against god.

Has anyone ever observed any 'god'?

[Grave_n_idle]

As valid as fluorine teacup orbiting sun two miles off sun's surface.

We have seen spacecraft take pictures of the Sun and we have seen telescopes observe the Sun's orbits and we have never seen a flourine teacup. There is evidence that disproves your flourine teacup.

Teacups are pretty small. There's no evidence for the teacup, but it's possible we just haven't seen something a few inches across at a distance of 93 million miles. Which wouldn't be that unlikely.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Oh, sorry, I stand corrected, what I was saying is the "argument of ignorance" where you argue from "nothing". Trying to disprove a thing just because it has no evidence is an "argument of ignorance".

And trying to argue that there is something without evidence is also an arguement from ignorance.

An argument asserting that a proposition is true without evidence disproving it is false.

But God has an argument proving Him.

[Mavorpen]

The definition exactly fits what I am saying.

No, it doesn't. Not at all.

[Big Jim P]

And trying to argue that there is something without evidence is also an arguement from ignorance.

An argument asserting that a proposition is true without evidence disproving it is false.

But God has an argument proving Him.

Show me one shred of evidence.

[Seperates]

And trying to argue that there is something without evidence is also an arguement from ignorance.

An argument asserting that a proposition is true without evidence disproving it is false.

But God has an argument proving Him.

Show me.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

We have seen spacecraft take pictures of the Sun and we have seen telescopes observe the Sun's orbits and we have never seen a flourine teacup. There is evidence that disproves your flourine teacup.

Teacups are pretty small. There's no evidence for the teacup, but it's possible we just haven't seen something a few inches across at a distance of 93 million miles. Which wouldn't be that unlikely.

Maybe it's just an argument that will not be disproven forever. When will you expect someone come across a teacup orbiting the Sun?