JayFK:

you obviously don't know the definition of faith or atheist.
Define those two here then post your argument and see if it makes sense

Here is the formula:

If there were no God, there will be no atheists, since there are atheists therefore God is, was and is to come. QED

OLAADEGBU:

Here is the formula:

If there were no God, there will be no atheists, since there are atheists therefore God is, was and is to come. QED

Ha ha ha ha.

imhotep:

@JayFK
Let me post FIVE philosophical proofs for the existence of God

first, those weren't proofs, they were arguments. I already provided rebuttals to the arguments. You generaly resorted to hand-waving.

Now (without reference to the five proofs above) give me ONE proof for the non-existence of God.

Proof is for maths and alcohol. The lack of any tangible evidence for something metaphysical coupled parsimony and logic has often sufficed for disbelieving tales and utterances.

KAG:

first, those weren't proofs, they were arguments. I already provided rebuttals to the arguments. You generaly resorted to hand-waving.

Those rebuttals are not proofs. They are cop outs.

KAG:

Proof is for maths and alcohol.

Proof is also for [good] philosophy.

KAG:

The lack of any tangible evidence for something metaphysical coupled parsimony and logic has often sufficed for disbelieving tales and utterances.

Good. What tangible evidence is there for thought? Does the fact that you cannot see or feel thought mean that people do not think?

imhotep:

Those rebuttals are not proofs. They are cop outs.

I don't think you know what a cop out means. Rebuttals aren't meant to be "proofs" (in fact, I'm not sure I can understand why you'd mention anything of the sort); they are proffered to show the flaws and inaccuracy in an argument.

Proof is also for [good] philosophy.

Only in a mathematical capacity.

Good. What tangible evidence is there for thought? Does the fact that you cannot see or feel thought mean that people do not think?

You mean other than the fact that you had to in fact be thinking to ask "what tangible evidence is there for thought"? Well, if you don't value the evidence that is present in deducing thought through repeatedly testing numerous humans externally, what about neurological evidence. measuring and testing brain waves indicate processes of thought.

Your turn. Tangible evidence for your assertion.

KAG:

I don't think you know what a cop out means. Rebuttals aren't meant to be "proofs" (in fact, I'm not sure I can understand why you'd mention anything of the sort); they are proffered to show the flaws and inaccuracy in an argument.

An original proof for the non-existence of God will be very welcome. Hiding behind rebuttals is unsatisfactory.

KAG:

You mean other than the fact that you had to in fact be thinking to ask "what tangible evidence is there for thought"?

What tangible evidence do you have to prove that I was thinking?

KAG:

Well, if you don't value the evidence that is present in deducing thought through repeatedly testing numerous humans externally, what about neurological evidence. measuring and testing brain waves indicate processes of thought.

Is neurological evidence thought? Or the effects of thought? Or a combination of both?


====
Your turn. Tangible evidence for your assertion.

imhotep:

An original proof for the non-existence of God will be very welcome. Hiding behind rebuttals is unsatisfactory.

Again, proof is for maths and alcohol. The lack of tangible evidence is, imo, the most basic answer to a call for evidence of gods not existing. It is simple and highly effective. Giving rebuttal to an argument isn't hiding, it is the opposite of hiding: it is, in fact, the attempt to squarely address an issue.

What tangible evidence do you have to prove that I was thinking?

The ubiquity of the process described and its repeatability. While it's possible that you alone are the exception to the norm, it's highly improbable and thereby unparsimonious.

Is neurological evidence thought? Or the effects of thought? Or a combination of both?

Depends. For the most part the evidence is often a physical representation of the processes of thought.

Your turn. Tangible evidence for your assertion.

When you're ready.

KAG:

Again, proof is for maths and alcohol. The lack of tangible evidence is, imo, the most basic answer to a call for evidence of gods not existing. It is simple and highly effective. Giving rebuttal to an argument isn't hiding, it is the opposite of hiding: it is, in fact, the attempt to squarely address an issue.

There is plenty of evidence in the universe. Just calm down and observe.

KAG:

The ubiquity of the process described and its repeatability. While it's possible that you alone are the exception to the norm, it's highly improbable and thereby unparsimonious.

Begining to sound like the [in]famous => "I think, therefore I exist"

KAG:

Depends. For the most part the evidence is often a physical representation of the processes of thought.

Good. In a similar vein, the physical universe is a pointer to the Creator God.

KAG:

When you're ready.

I'm ready.

imhotep:

There is plenty of evidence in the universe. Just calm down and observe.

Present it.

Begining to sound like the [in]famous => "I think, therefore I exist"

Or not.

Good. In a similar vein, the physical universe is a pointer to the Creator God.

Nope. You missed the causation part and the repeatability aspect. You also skipped the tangible thing.

I'm ready.

Then present it.