There is no God.

[rex]

You need evidence for non existance of gods?
In this case no evidence will satisfy you for anything which doesn't exist.
You can come up with billions unfalsifiable bullshits.

[Plu]

You need evidence for non existance of gods?

I need evidence to actively believe something doesn't exist. I don't need evidence to passively not believe it exists.

But you'd have to wonder how you can conclusively prove something isn't real when you can't come up with a definition for it. That doesn't make any sense.

[rex]

Which is precisely why I can say it does not exist. Because it doesn't make sense. It means nothing.

[josephpalazzo]

Which is precisely why I can say it does not exist. Because it doesn't make sense. It means nothing.

Many theists will say that what you are saying is an appeal to incredulity.

[Plu]

Which is precisely why I can say it does not exist. Because it doesn't make sense. It means nothing.

What does not exist? You can't even define the thing that you claim isn't real. That's weird. Like you say; it means nothing, so how can you make any claims about it?

[rex]

Many theists will say that what you are saying is an appeal to incredulity.

Same can be said about believing in asdfhaskdlgfkladsgfkujgewfkuyasgdfjhsdf.

What does not exist? You can't even define the thing that you claim isn't real. That's weird. Like you say; it means nothing, so how can you make any claims about it?

I can say kasdhflkshdfuiyrfuygsdfykuagwf doesn't exist until they will tell me what it is. Because until they do it is nothing.

[Plu]

Sure you can say it doesn't exist. But you can't prove it doesn't exist, because you don't know what it is. Things aren't nothing if you don't know what they are. That makes no sense. You simply don't know what they are.

It's not like I had proof you didn't exist until you started posting here today. I just didn't know who you are, but that's not proof of anything.

[rex]

Sure you can say it doesn't exist. But you can't prove it doesn't exist, because you don't know what it is. Things aren't nothing if you don't know what they are. That makes no sense. You simply don't know what they are.

It's not like I had proof you didn't exist until you started posting here today. I just didn't know who you are, but that's not proof of anything.

Until somebody tells me what god is it's like a square circle. It makes no sense.
Square has 4 angles. Circle has no angles. If it has angles it's not a circle. If it doesn't have angles it's not a square.
It does not exist.
Same with Gods. It's an incoherent bunch of bullshit.

[Plu]

A square circle is very strongly defined, though. It can easily be proven to not exist. That's very different from "god", which has no coherent definition at all.

I mean I totally agree gods are a bunch of incoherent bullshit, but that doesn't mean I agree we can objectively claim they aren't real. Before I'm willing to claim that, I'd need to see a definition. Anything that cannot be defined, can be discarded as irrelevant, but not discarded as "not real". One of the key requirements of being a thing is having some sort of definition.

[rex]

A square circle is very strongly defined, though. It can easily be proven to not exist. That's very different from "god", which has no coherent definition at all.

I mean I totally agree gods are a bunch of incoherent bullshit, but that doesn't mean I agree we can objectively claim they aren't real. Before I'm willing to claim that, I'd need to see a definition. Anything that cannot be defined, can be discarded as irrelevant, but not discarded as "not real". One of the key requirements of being a thing is having some sort of definition.

You are part of the problem. This way of thinking encourages people to create bullshit definitions and say they exist and we can't prove they don't exist. Improve yourself.

[josephpalazzo]

A square circle is very strongly defined, though. It can easily be proven to not exist. That's very different from "god", which has no coherent definition at all.

I mean I totally agree gods are a bunch of incoherent bullshit, but that doesn't mean I agree we can objectively claim they aren't real. Before I'm willing to claim that, I'd need to see a definition. Anything that cannot be defined, can be discarded as irrelevant, but not discarded as "not real". One of the key requirements of being a thing is having some sort of definition.

For most christians, God is the creator of the universe and the basis for objective morality. If you follow Wliiam Lane Craig in his debates, those have been his arguments.

[Plu]

You sound very angry. Maybe you should look into that, because it sounds like more of an issue to me.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I make no claims about any god or gods, I just ask anyone making such a claim to prove it. Then I tell them to fuck off.

[SGOS]

Indeed, many theists conflate believing and knowing. When they are questioned and they realize their justification/evidence do not hold, then they often resort that they know withing their hearts that their beliefs are true. In that case, they take that know=believe.

When I was first introduced to simple logical arguments, I recognized it as a way to distinguish what I believed from what I could know.  I found it fascinating, and started applying it to everything, my own beliefs and beliefs of others.  It was just kind of fun recognizing that which I believed and that which I could know. 

I'm no whiz bang at logic.  I'm pretty much limited to making simple syllogisms out of more complex arguments.  When people start throwing in arcane symbols and math like equations, I can get lost in a hurry. 

I probably didn't cherish my belief in God to the extent that it damaged my ego to admit that I didn't actually know he existed, but it was a startling recognition for me to realize I couldn't assign a confidence level to my knowledge of God that other people in my family quite cavalierly did.

For me, the intellectual surprise in my introduction to simple logic was that it was not intuitive.  I actually had to learn to do it.  Not that it was a huge learning event.  It's actually quite simple, but it was not my default way to process information.

I recently had a discussion with a religious friend, and I pointed out a couple of logical inconsistencies about his God beliefs.  He could actually accept that, but when I took it to the next step and said, "Therefore, a belief in God is not logical," he began to protest strongly, but his protest was limited to, "No!  God is very logical," and he offered no demonstration of why it was logical; His argument was limited only to the claim that believing in God was very logical.  I suspect, the word "logical" was in his working vocabulary, but he didn't actually know the definition, and had never learned to apply a logical process to test his claims.  Otherwise, he would have said something like, "Yeah, it's not logical, but I believe it anyway."

[rex]

You sound very angry. Maybe you should look into that, because it sounds like more of an issue to me.

I know the cause of my anger very clearly.