Atheists claim to be logical, yet they don't provide proof for the claim that God doesn't exist

Atheists claim to be logical, yet they don't provide proof for the claim that God doesn't exist.

Why do atheists act so illogically?

Atheists are shit. Christians are worse!

So original, never seen this post before

These fucking threads get made daily so that faggot chink can get more traffic and more ad revenue.
Fucking sage.

...

Typical atheists response.

>mfw I see a big holy dik

This is literally a fucking bot. or someone with a lot of patience. Either way, fucking sage this bullshit.

Read Blaise Pascal (he was christian and a philosopher), then read Nietzsche, then read Saint Augustin
Go back to plebbit while you hit puberty, and then come back
Only shit tier posts nowadays

Yeah, it's bait. Oh well...

The utter lack of any proof of the existence of gods ends up being positive proof of the nonexistence of gods. It's called Evidence of Absence.

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.
—Copi, Introduction to Logic

Since we have had literally millions of qualified investigators (religious figures who sought this out) over thousands of years (maybe far more) and they have provided absolutely zero empirical evidence, it can therefore be safely (and logically) assumed that there are no gods.

There you go OP, you raging faggot. Positive proof of the nonexistence of gods, presented in a logical manner.

Or i just got baited nevertheless good advice

Prove that there are atheists

fag

Because there is no "proof". Both atheism and belief in God are positions of faith in what one deems to be sufficient evidence. Neither side has logical proof.

I am one with the Force. The Force is with me.

Bravo!

...

Fuckin LOVELY! Goddess!!

see

Proof that there IS a God!

Fuck atheists, man.
Holy father is my husband, desu. Desu.

XDDDDDDD

>The utter lack of any proof of the existence of gods ends up being positive proof of the nonexistence of gods. It's called Evidence of Absence.
Sorry but "Evidence of Absence" is not analogous to Absence of Evidence"
>In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.
...therefore the absence of evidence that there is no God could likewise satisfy that position. You conflate what is "provable" from what is not provable.

>Since we have had literally millions of qualified investigators (religious figures who sought this out) over thousands of years (maybe far more) and they have provided absolutely zero empirical evidence, it can therefore be safely (and logically) assumed that there are no gods.
...and in the equal span of time, there has been no conclusive empirical proof that there is not a God. Check...
There YOU go you raging faggot! Positive proof that raging fools like you can present tripe in a logical sounding manner.

Haha good one

>LOGical

>In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.
Where your argument utterly fails is what constitutes a "qualified investigator, for you also conflate spiritual leaders with scientists. Additionally there is no consensus as to the empirical scientific method that could be used to prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of a supernatural being. By the very definition, a spiritual or metaphysical phenomenon may not lend itself to being understood by our current science. Just as radio waves escaped scientists for centuries.

>consensus
>scientific method
pick one.

Logic =/= evidence

sage go fuck yourself attention whore.

So we are left with both atheist and deists being unable to offer any credible empirical proof of their philosophical/scientific position, nor credible credible empirical refutation of the other side's position. Which is why the argument still rages. e.g. We think we can prove our current theses of cosmology but we cannot prove that the physics involved were not decreed by an eternal creator calling the shots.

>pick one.
Why have to choose? Have you never heard of consensus by scientists? All published widely accepted scientific papers must pass peer review decided by...what? Consensus.

True. In some cases the logical argument is essentially the evidence.

>All published widely accepted scientific papers must pass peer review decided by...what? Consensus.
No, their results must be replicate, you giant faggot. Peer review is not about consensus. It is about replication. Jesus Christ, what the fuck kind of education did you receive?

Just proved that God is goat fucker.

Sorry, but for the experiment to be replicated, fool, the method used to replicate must be accepted. Many a paper has been refuted [or the refutation annulled] because the method used to replicate the data was faulty and not accepted [lacked consensus of the scientific community.] So who is the benighted faggot? I shall proffer it is thou for now.

assertion...
burden of proof...
flying spaghetti monster to ridicule this line of thinking...
etc...
sigh...

>method used to replicate the data
>replicate
Yeah, the process is about replication. If they can't, the paper is refuted. Consensus has nothing to do with it. It only takes one person to refute a paper, or one to prove it.

Consensus is the death of science.

Also, you sound like pic related.

my true false digits

>Peer review is not about consensus
That is purely stupid. A consensus among peer-reviewed papers/experiments/data is the foundational element of a theory becoming accepted or rejected. Who "accepts"? Who "rejects"? And by what factor is acceptance reached? Oh...shit...yeah...that...consensus of the scientific community. Damn, you are truly dumb.

...

Yes, but the acceptance has to take place among the body of the scientific community. A proof or refutation is only validated when it is accepted by consensus by the sci comm. Are you that much a shit for brains that you do not accept this to be true? Probably. unless or until a theory gains wide acceptance, it is merely fringe science no matter how compelling is the "proof'. The history of science is rife with cutting edge science being rejected by...consensus..of the scientific community. Checkmate.

>That is purely stupid.
not orig user but you should stop
you amply demonstrate that you have no concept what 'peer review' is or involves. why not get off /b and learn something?
>by what factor
more blatant ignorance
and the original user already answered this
learn some constructive humility and then learn how peer review works

God's existence has no falsifiability, you cant prove wether he is real or not. Agnosticism is the correct way, although not the most exciting one for sure.

You have no experience in the real world of academia and science or you are a quack. Here is a great treatise of how consensus works in the real world of scientific politics: Check out "Peer Review and Scientific Consensus" by
Dr Robert Higgs. Without consensus even the best science can be [and has been] relegated to the fringe. To say that consensus has nothing to do with peer review is sophomoric at best and moronic in reality. Moreover, the politics of science dictate what verily makes it to peer review. Negative consensus can kill a sound idea before it gets granted the attention of the sci comm.

Nowcked up folly vis-avis peer review... getting back on track, there is no peer-reviewed work of works that prove or disprove the existence of a deity. Any moot to the contrary is pure bullshit no matter how logical sounding it may be and not matter what peers review it; the moot is probably the spewing of a brain-damaged son of a crack whore who should have taken better care of her foetus.

Now that we have refuted your fucked up folly vis-avis peer review and consensus... and getting back on track: there is no peer-reviewed work or works that prove or disprove the existence of a deity. Any moot to the contrary is pure bullshit no matter how logical sounding it may be and not matter what peers review it; the moot is probably the spewing of a brain-damaged son of a crack whore who should have taken better care of her foetus.

>Negative consensus can kill a sound idea
a treatise on the realities of how consensus derails effective peer review doesn't prove your point, dr. octagon

you haven't refuted anything
you've only misconstrued a treatise

>God's existence has no falsifiability; [therefore] you cant prove whether he is real or not.
Absolutely true; but try to convince the shit-for-brains babblers here who proffer bullshit like "lack of empirical evidence" as being a refutation of the existence of a god.

What point would that be? That you are spewing bullshit about tbeing able to refute the existence of a god? It is bullshit. And you are a fool to even try to proffer that moot.

So far all your pseudo-logic and tripe has utterly failed to offer one shred of evidence that one can either refute or prove the existence of a deity. To the contrary, it proves only that you are a fool. What bullshit will you deflect with next, moron?

I shall proffer that it is you, fool, who has misconstrued the treatise. Nice deflection; nice fail. Nor have you effectively refuted any of my concepts. So what is your proof that one can either prove or disprove the existence of a deity? Oh...shit...thatm eh, fool? Back to reality. A bitch, eh, moron?

nope
idgaf about your pathetic god/nogod debate- it's absolutely puerile and cannot elucidated by intellectual discourse
just jumped in to call you a fucking moron re:peer review

...

No, you have not refured the fact that the politics of science introduces a substantial amount of subjectivity and consensus in the peer -review process. You have failed elucidate anything except your own arrogant ignorance...but then that was illuminated from the get go.

My no-god debate? Who ASSumed that I do not believe in a God?

As much as your infantile belief system might like to try to spew that the peer-review process is ethical and purely scientific, adults know better and that politics, subjectivity and consensus is a significant part of the mix. Perhaps it should not be, but that is not my point, and thus far you have failed to disprove that point, child. You may stomp your little feet and hold your little breath until your little face turn blue, but you know this to be try...or maybe not because you are a benighted shit-for-brains.

Getting back to basics: there is no scientific nor logical process whereby one may prove or disprove the existence of a god. Both atheists and deists ultimately rely on faith in the foundatinal evidence of their respective belief systems.

...

>qualified investigators
So you are saying that 'religious figures" are "qualified investigators' into the science of the existence of a deity? That's pretty fucked up and inconsistent bullshit if you ask me.

Because there is no point disproving something if there is no proof for it. And no, a 2000 year-old fantasy book does not count as proof (Several of the events depicted in the bible as well as its creation myth have already been disproven by historians and archaeologists btw.) If someone tells you there's a tiny teapot flying around in the solar system, but it's too small to be seen with a telescope and we're unable to reach its supposed location, would you believe him? If not, would you try to find proof that there is no teapot or simply dismiss it as the ramblings of a moron? The scientific approach is to consider a theory false if there is neither any proof nor disproof. Also, science usually focusses more on empiricism rather than rationalism, though both of them often go hand-in-hand. Pure Rationalism may be true 100% of the time but you can't make any progress with it, it may only serve as verification of the empirical data.

>We think we can prove our current theses of cosmology but we cannot prove that the physics involved were not decreed by an eternal creator calling the shots.
Reasonable and not refutable using our current body of science.

Please explain the role of the 'referee' in a peer review.

>Consensus is the death of science.
Really fool? When you open a university text book in a certain scientific discipline and peruse the contents, you are looking at a portion of the consensus science that has formed over the lifetime of that field. Far from being "the death of science" as you postulate, consensus is the catalyst by which science is allowed to propagate.

On closer scrutiny, the Principle of Falsifiability absolutely negates your logi-babble. One cannot produce an experiment or data set, nor a logical construct that can negate the belief in the existence of a supreme being. Once you have your GED, you may know this to be true. Until then, stifle it.

Provide the proof that Odin, sues, Neptune, and kek and the thousands of other gods don’t exist. That’s what you should do since you expect people to disprove your imaginary friend. Go on. We can wait. Please, take as much time as you need.

if i claim to have a ball behind my back its up to me to prove that i do, not for you to prove that i dont

To further confound the infantile logi-baby's little brain: One could expound on the inexorable link between philosophy and science. For the former lends validity to the latter. A philosopher may ponder and expound on the merits or lack thereof regarding the belief in a deity; however should a scientist set out to tackle the question, "Does God exist?" it is not science because it concerns a theory that cannot be disproved. For an amusing conundrum on the issue of consensus and science: Which theory of gravity is supported in your subset of science: Einstein or Newton? Why?

Simplistic, but not a great analogy because one side you may theorize that "There is a ball there" and another side may hold the theory that "There is no ball there". The other side may not wait for your proof and may go about collecting data to refute your assertion. The proof will be in the pudding, so to speak. Your analogy illustrates where philosophy meets science. Logic is a foundation of science; however, logic is rooted in philosophy.

>you expect people to disprove your imaginary friend. Go on. We can wait. Please, take as much time as you need
Your moot is silly. I should not expect anyone to 'disprove' [not prove] my belief in God since that is not possible to do from a scientific standpoint. You are kinda headed in the right direction, infant, but way off track with your concept of science. Speaking of proof, child: How shall you 'prove' that you did or didn't eat breakfast this morning? [Careful: Your understanding--or lack thereof--of the concept of 'proof' will be important lest you 'prove' yourself to be a fool.]

>Because there is no point disproving something if there is no proof for it.
That is convoluted reasoning and the mark of a fool: If there is "proof" for it, then how will one "disprove" the theory? Mightn't you be conflating 'proof' with 'evidence'?
>The scientific approach is to consider a theory false if there is neither any proof nor disproof.
That is stupid. The 'scientific approach' is to reason regarding an observation on available evidence then to test the observation and create a theory and then further refine [or reject] the theory as more investigation is done and more evidence is revealed.

Atheists weren't breast fed as babies, that's why they are stoopid

>politics of science
Hence user's statement of "Consensus is the death of science". user's point was that the scientific method itself does not involve consensus. But as you pointed out, politics do. And that is the fucking problem.

Any time you involve politics in determining science, you pervert science.

I believe in a God; however, am not convinced that atheists are so much stupid as simply off on a different course. But their course is also one of faith, no less nor more than mine. Humans are faith based creatures and we base almost every conscious action on faith. From a philosophical standpoint, much of what we "know" is based on faith in the evidence by which we acquired that knowledge.

>Any time you involve politics in determining science, you pervert science.
If what you say is true, then by the broader definition of "politics", all science is perverted. Or, more accurately, is not even "science" in the purest sense of the concept.

Nice try deflecting. But I said prove those pantheons and gods don’t exist. You demand atheists disprove god and that shifts the burden of proof. My rebuttal is that you have a lot of work to do disproving the gods you don’t believe in. Your attempt to sound intellectual failed.

>user's point was that the scientific method itself does not involve consensus
user's 'point' is idealistic hogwash in the real world of academia and "science". While the infantile simplistic idealist's mind may fantasize of the "scientific method" as being devoid of human consensus and politics; in the real world, such is not the case. Only the most fundamental theories are widely accepted [consensus] and all are subject to varying degrees of controversy instigated by some faction or another. [Politics]

Nice try but you make no sense: I could not care less if the pantheon exists or not. In any case, fool, such an excursion is not science and such a moot is not "prove-able'. There is not "deflection" and I doubt you even know the meaning of that word. Here is the deflection-free fact from a basic and well-accepted scientific AND philosophical tenet: Only a fucking shit-for-brains moronic fucking fool would ask for fucking proof of that which cannot be fucking proven [or dis-proven] So you have 'proven' yourself to be a fucking fool of amazing fucking magnitude in asking for that fucking proof.

prove that god does exist.

for that matter prove that you exist.

...

Moreover....
You have made a fucking stupid fucking ASSumption that I would be like you and fucking fool enough to try to prove the existence [or non-existence] of God or a purple-spotted fucking dino-deity-lizard or what-fucking-ever you fucking need to be proven or dis-proven. I do not give one fuck about convincing shit-for-brains people about God. People who require an excursion into pseudo-logic for their "convincing" are fucking morons since such "convincing" is beyond the realm of science. Why do you make the ASSumption that I am out to prove or disprove God's existence? What is your evidence that I have fucking degenerated to your infantile fucking level? [Sorry, I had to get in at least one last fucking.

Fuck off

you don't prove a negative, numbnutz

Christians demand proof from atheists that god doesn’t exist all the time, what’re you even talking about because you’re sure as hell not responding to my suggestion that Christians do the same with other gods. Anyway, you can’t follow for some reason and I see no reason to continue posting. Religion is an addiction, and regardless of what anyone says, they will continue to believe.

Lol. Someone hit a nerve, christfag?

Kys

>then read Nietzsche
Nietzsche was hoping some rational system would replace religion since religion is existentially nihilistic and its morality is highly subjective.

Not possible; nor is it possible to prove that God does not exist. So I guess we are back to square one: that the debate about the existence or non-existence of a God is the battleground of morons and fools because both are positions of faith and philosophy. Speaking of philosophy, a good answer has already been offered: Cogito ergo sum: however, that may not be meant to be accepted from your observational plane but suffices for moi.

...

>Christians demand proof from atheists that god doesn’t exist all the time
It's their way of rationalizing the irrational. They can't prove their gods exist, so the atheists have nothing to disprove.

Do you ASSUME that I am in the subset that you term "Christians"? I can follow that you are in way over your little head and so it is best that you go to bed and hug teddy real tight and leave this topic for adults to discuss.

Do you ASSUME that I am in the subset that you term "Christian"? Really? That is a stupid ASSumption. Do you really believe that all who believe in God are adherents of Christ? Damn! News to all the sensible people of the world. Globally, most believers in a 'God' are NOT "Christians, you fucking moron amd most of those would be insulted to be regarded as such, but wel allow that you mean no insult but simply speak as a benighted fool.

>They can't prove their gods exist, so the atheists have nothing to disprove
Again the rambling s of a fool: If there was "proof" [as opposed to credible 'evidence' or a theory] that God exists, then would not an actual "proof" be conclusive? Just askin'...

^ this. Exactly this.

I am god I totally exist and I hate you all.

>Christians posit the claim that a god exists, so therein lues the burden of proof.
But, fool, you lose to my moot that it is not possible to disprove or prove the existence of God. Of course you cannot refute my moot because it is correct in both the logic and the science. You are too used to arguing against lower life forms like yourself who like children must have it one way or another. In truth, neither side can be proven and thus to ask for proof is a fool;s game. I await your answer child.

LOVE IT!!! LMAO

>I am god I totally exist and I hate you all
Really? PROVE IT! [Just kidding!] LOL

there was a god but then he died, and no longer exists. solved the issue for all you godfags and athiestfags.

that's a good ass fuckin graphic my man