choice.A:

That has been the one weak excuse atheists give to the challenge of proving what they cannot sufficiently disprove. It is true that you cannot prove a negative, but only in a limited sense. In Mathematics, negative theorems can be proven, for when you state that (-1) + (-1) is not = +2, it is not sufficient to refute it; it is also necessary to both state and prove the opposite, which is, (-1) + (-1) = -2.

That's all well and good in mathematics, that's why it's often said "proof is for maths and alcohol". Tell me, how would you disprove the claim that a tiny teacup orbits the Sun? Remember, the teacup is too small to be picked up by even our most powerful telescopes*.

You'd recall my argument has always been along the lines that atheism cannot sufficiently disprove the existence of God; or, 'atheism cannot sufficiently prove the non-existence of God.'

/that's probably because neither atheism nor most atheists, have attempted to do either.

I've heard it countless times said that 'it is not the intended aim of atheism to prove' its refutations. Even then, for one to refute the claims of another requires logical proof: refutations or rebuttals alone will not be sufficient.

There are a lot of rebuttals and refutations to the deieties that have already been presented for examination, when a new one arises, there will be new refutations and rebuttals, but to ask atheists to disprove the existence of a generic, indescript God, is an impossibility in itself.

I'll give you another example:
As a Mathematician,
1 + 1 = 2 is always true in heaven, on earth and beneath the earth.

Can you prove that it's true in heaven?

But someone will come up and say that is not true. It will not be sufficient to refute the statement that '1 + 1 = 2 is always true,' but we want him to tell us why this claim cannot be true. I hope you see sense in that. Now, my answer will be something along these lines (depending on what ideology I ensconce):

1 + 1 = 1 is true; if as a philosopher I add a jug of water to another jug of water, what I get is not 2 jugs of water[b]s[/b], but 1 jug. For my answer to hold true, the question must be asked, in what sense could it ever be true that my answer is not '2 jugs' but rather, '1 jug'? I go on to provide the veracity of my claim that on the grounds of adding both jugs of water in a bigger single jug, then my claim is true. In this sense, I have not only 'refuted' the positive statement that '1 + 1 = 2 is always true'; but also adduced my own reasons for my own position. QED.

Actually, you didn't refute 1+1 = 2, because the jugs did not turn into one, the water in the two jugs were put into one jug, so the water in new jug increases in twofold, so you still get two jugs of water thereby still showing 1+1=2. However, I do see what you mean, the english language can be used to attempt an invalidation of mathematical constants I keed, I keed.

Again, different ideologies might come up and make their own positive postulations:

'1 + 1 = 1 is a biological truth' because 1 spermatozoon + 1 ovule = 1 baby.

the baby is merely a container that contains the fused parts of the parents ergo, it is two (see; chromosome, gene etc.)

'1 + 1 = 1 is a matrimonial truth' as 1 man + 1 woman = 1 couple.

"Couple" shows that it is still two.

But the above basic postulations (simplistic as they are) might be refuted by those who disagree. It will not be sufficient to refute them, but we want an equal and logical proof or deduction for the refutation to hold true.

I don't understand what you mean here, and I obviously didn't understand the purpose of the above exercise, well all I got out of it was that linguistic sleight of hands (for lack of a better word) can make any constant look wrong.

Now that sounds simplistic, but patiently apply that to your postulations and see if the mirror is opaque. What atheism says is that 'God does not exist,' and if that is a refutation, it requires a follow-up logical proof for it to hold true.

Perhaps I should expand a little, atheists say I've seen no evidence for a God, they are then presented with the Greek, Roman, Jewish, Egyptian etc Gods, and upon examining them are further convinced thatthey still lack any belief in any God(s). If unrefutable evidence for a God, any God is presented, then you can bet atheists would either convert to the religion of that God, or become deists.

It is this simple: one cannot prove the non-existence of 'God' by mere refutation: by merely 'refuting,' you have not 'proven' anything. I suppose if refutation alone carries any substance, then the statement is also true that "exu does not exist", and I don't need to prove it. _{which, of course, is not true and as meaningless}

One cannot prove the existence of any God(s) either, so,

I still believe that atheism does not sufficiently disprove the affirmations of theism; and if that statement does not hold true, I wait for equal logical inducements that can be subjected to the same tests atheism requires of theism.

Nor does atheism attempt to disprove the affirmations theism.

whats all this crap you people are saying, please forgive my english, you're all just going round in circles. GOD exists simple
he created the heavens and in the heavens he created angels, and an angel called lucifer revolted,

because he thot he was the most beautiful and should be praised the way God was praised.

God threw him down. And then he created the world.

And in the world he created every single life form there is including man.

And in man he created a being that he could love and be loved.In the garden gave man instructions

lucifer deceived man into disobeying and according to God disobedience brings forth degeneration and death.

but God so loved the world (and that includes you) that he gave his only begotten son that who ever believes in him will not perish.

man degenerated to a state of pure evil as a result of sin

God sent his son Jesus to die in place of man, because evil cannot abide w ith him, it must die.
jesus was wounded for our transgression, he was bruised for our inquities, the chastisement for our peace was placed upon him and by his stripes we are healed and made acceptable to God.

If lucifer had known he would not have inspired the death of Jesus.

Jesus died on calvary in israel , unfortunately for satan , Jesus only carried mans sin , he himself was sinless , a little piont lucifer
failed to realise. And as a result hell couldn't hold his spirit, on the third day he ressurrected and gave power to his disciples
He told them they would be hated, killed and persecuted but he would be with them  through it all, he would love them and answer their prayers.,And that when they died they would come to be with them.

Lucifer was in rage,  he persecuted christians, he did every thing he could to silence them, but the word grew .

and many people came to believe even skeptical Jews.
and i came to believe and i was saved and i was healed in the name of Jesus in my room of my sickness.

so i don't need logical arguments to prove the existence of God, because i know beyond any reasonable doubt that my sickness is gone cause i'm here typing and i've even gotten a great Job .

nightrider:

whats all this crap you people are saying, please forgive my english, you're all just going round in circles. GOD exists simple
he created the heavens and in the heavens he created angels, and an angel called lucifer revolted,

Evidence?

because he thot he was the most beautiful and should be praised the way God was praised.

God threw him down. And then he created the world.

And in the world he created every single life form there is including man.

And in man he created a being that he could love and be loved.In the garden gave man instructions

evidence?

lucifer deceived man into disobeying and according to God disobedience brings forth degeneration and death.

Lucifer didn't do any deceiving.

but God so loved the world (and that includes you) that he gave his only begotten son that who ever believes in him will not perish.

Couldn't God have found a better way? And perish in what, or by whose order?

man degenerated to a state of pure evil as a result of sin

God sent his son Jesus to die in place of man, because evil cannot abide w ith him, it must die.
jesus was wounded for our transgression, he was bruised for our inquities, the chastisement for our peace was placed upon him and by his stripes we are healed and made acceptable to God.

If lucifer had known he would not have inspired the death of Jesus.

Jesus died on calvary in israel , unfortunately for satan , Jesus only carried mans sin , he himself was sinless , a little piont lucifer
failed to realise. And as a result hell couldn't hold his spirit, on the third day he ressurrected and gave power to his disciples
He told them they would be hated, killed and persecuted but he would be with them through it all, he would love them and answer their prayers.,And that when they died they would come to be with them.

Lucifer was in rage, he persecuted christians, he did every thing he could to silence them, but the word grew .

Sounds like a very interesting myth, ever heard/read any of the Greek myths? Fascinating stuff too.

and many people came to believe even skeptical Jews.
and i came to believe and i was saved and i was healed in the name of Jesus in my room of my sickness.

What sickness did you have, and did modern medicine have any part to paly in your "healing"? Also, what about the many that were not healed, or will never be healed, are they proof of no God?

so i don't need logical arguments to prove the existence of God, because i know beyond any reasonable doubt that my sickness is gone cause i'm here typing and i've even gotten a great Job .

I'm happy for you, no really I am. Anyway gotta run (pun intended), here's to hoping I don't get my arse handed to me.

KAG:

Evidence?

evidence?

I wonder what type of evidence you're asking for.

KAG:

Lucifer didn't do any deceiving.

Now may I ask you to provide evidence for that?

Refuting a belief system will simply not do - and that is all I've seen so far.

KAG:
Tell me, how would you disprove the claim that a tiny teacup orbits the Sun? Remember, the teacup is too small to be picked up by even our most powerful telescopes*

Well, that's news to me since I haven't heard about that until today. Tell me, is there really a teacup orb___ing the Sun, and is anyone believing that as a religion, ideology or worldview?

KAG:

There are a lot of rebuttals and refutations to the deieties that have already been presented for examination, when a new one arises, there will be new refutations and rebuttals, but to ask atheists to disprove the existence of a generic, indescript God, is an impossibility in itself.

That all the more amplifies what I've said before - atheism has nothing else to present than refutation and rebuttals in statements; and I've said that will not do. In the same way atheists seek evidence from theists, they should themselves prove with 'evidence' beyond mere rebuttals that there's no God.

KAG:

but to ask atheists to disprove the existence of a generic, indescript God, is an impossibility in itself.

I do not see why it is an impossibility in so far as atheism makes an assertion, viz: 'God does not exist.' It is rather an escapist theory that negatives cannot be proven - and to rebut that idea is what I attempted to mathematically demonstrate earlier in my simplistic analogy.

KAG:

the baby is merely a container ,,,

I should not be hard on you for that, but it makes me wonder how uncouth some ideas can be if a human being should be refered to as a mere container. _{unless my sense of humour happens to be on vacation at the moment.}

KAG:

"Couple" shows that it is still two.

In the illustration, you could not be correct if you call 1 man + 1 woman = 2 couple. A couple is a group: it takes two people to make a single couple, isn't it?

KAG:

I  don't understand what you mean here, and I obviously didn't understand the purpose of the above exercise, well all I got out of it was that linguistic sleight of hands (for lack of a better word) can make any constant look wrong.

I wasn't engaging in sleight of hand by any stretch.

KAG:

Perhaps I should expand a little, atheists say I've seen no evidence for a God

Atheism goes beyond that to assert that 'there is no God' (afterall, is that not the meaning usually vendored - that 'there is no God'?). Contrary to your statement, atheism says: 'I have not seen proof of the existence of a God, therefore God does not exist!' It is the last clause of that statement that makes atheism what it is.

KAG:

If unrefutable evidence for a God, any God is presented, then you can bet atheists would either convert to the religion of that God, or become deists.

And what kind of evidence are you asking for? Remember, it did not take a religious belief in the sense of "unrefutable evidence for a God" for Antony Flew to become a deist.

To take a hard-nosed position of asserting that God does not exist is what atheism is all about; and that is a claim that cannot be sustained merely by refutation without evidence, or the claim has not substance.

nightrider:

whats all this crap you people are saying, please forgive my english, you're all just going round in circles. GOD exists simple
he created the heavens and in the heavens he created angels,,,

My crap is that atheism does not accept simplistic statements like what you spent several paragraphs presenting. I'm a Christian who believes in rationally engaging people who ask for a basis for my convictions. Questions will be asked, and we are to be always ready to gently give answers about the hope we have (I Pet.3:15). God created the heavens and the earth, and all in them. But the atheist says, 'Give me proof, or there is no god.' I don't yet understand what sort of proof I'm asked to present, and therefore my approach; albeit that's not the only way I can present the little of what I understand about theism.

choice.A:

I wonder what type of evidence you're asking for.

Now may I ask you to provide evidence for that?

Any kind of evidence that can be verified by a number of impartial and various observers should do.

Refuting a belief system will simply not do - and that is all I've seen so far.

Why not?

choice.A:

Well, that's news to me since I haven't heard about that until today. Tell me, is there really a teacup orb___ing the Sun, and is anyone believing that as a religion, ideology or worldview?

there could be, but the point was, if you came across a dogmatic "teacup orbiting the sun" believer, how would you disprove his/her claim?

That all the more amplifies what I've said before - atheism has nothing else to present than refutation and rebuttals in statements; and I've said that will not do. In the same way atheists seek evidence from theists, they should themselves prove with 'evidence' beyond mere rebuttals that there's no God.

Why aren't refutations and rebuttals enough? Once again, not only are you asking for a logical impossibility, you are also ignoring the fact that theists/deists can't prove the existence of God.

I do not see why it is an impossibility in so far as atheism makes an assertion, viz: 'God does not exist.'

Neither do Leprecons, Orcs, or Zeus. Zeus does not exist, translates to I have been presented with no reasonable/logical/unrefuted evidence for his existence, ergo, I'll say he doesn't exist. It is not an assertation per se.

It is rather an escapist theory that negatives cannot be proven - and to rebut that idea is what I attempted to mathematically demonstrate earlier in my simplistic analogy.

I totally missed the point then.

I should not be hard on you for that, but it makes me wonder how uncouth some ideas can be if a human being should be refered to as a mere container. _{unless my sense of humour happens to be on vacation at the moment.}

Don't dwell too much on it, it was intentionally used to convey a point.

In the illustration, you could not be correct if you call 1 man + 1 woman = 2 couple. A couple is a group: it takes two people to make a single couple, isn't it?

Couple equals two, that's the definition of a couple, so 1 man + 1 woman = 2 people in a relationship.

I wasn't engaging in sleight of hand by any stretch.

I couldn't think of a better word at the time, but I hope you got the point I was trying to make.

Atheism goes beyond that to assert that 'there is no God' (afterall, is that not the meaning usually vendored - that 'there is no God'?). Contrary to your statement, atheism says: 'I have not seen proof of the existence of a God, therefore God does not exist!' It is the last clause of that statement that makes atheism what it is.

, but it is the first clause that counts, although like I made clear before before I can't remember running into any atheists that have explictly stated that no deities exist (actually I just remembered this one guy who explictly stated that no God exists, so one). On the other hand I've run into many who have explictly stated, "the chistian God (also known as God, by far too many people), cannot possibly exist", and run into many that have stated that the muslim God (also know as Allah, or the great Satan if you are anti-islam), does not exist.

And what kind of evidence are you asking for? Remember, it did not take a religious belief in the sense of "unrefutable evidence for a God" for Antony Flew to become a deist.

A pillar of fire, walking on a sea, talking ass, etc. Those are always handy.

To take a hard-nosed position of asserting that God does not exist is what atheism is all about;

The christian God, or generic God? And no, atheism isn't the hard nosed assertation that no gods exist.

and that is a claim that cannot be sustained merely by refutation without evidence, or the claim has not substance.

Refutation without evidence? Is that plausible?