To Cofty
Towerwatchman You
have discovered a forum where you can frenetically reiterate all your carefully
rehearsed apologetics and copy-paste your favourite apologists.
Nothing
rehearsed. Copy and paste yes. Either my work or if someone else, cited.
The thing is we
have heard all of this a thousand times year after year. Some of us used to
preach exactly the same stuff. You have a style that makes conversation
impossible and unfruitful. I don't believe you are as incapable of following a
simple argument as you appear. I think you are trying to do far too much at
once. You totally miss the point of every single thing people say to you and
come back with smart-arse comments that are totally irrelevant to the topic. Is
it possible for you to stop that and actually engage in a meaningful
conversation?
Yet to this point
no rebuttal with substance. Read the responses, most responses to my OP are rude. Why engage that,
I will just go for the jugular in the argument and capitalize. All my post
respond to some point made. Now if you find dishonesty, don’t tell me about it,
point it out.
Let's go back to
your OP. You claimed that in order to assert that god does not exist an atheist
would need perfect knowledge. Lots of people have explained why you are wrong.
Anyone who is
affirming a negative absolute would need unlimited knowledge.
1 - To be an
atheist simply means to not be persuaded that god exists. Literally means
"without god". It is not necessary to make a positive claim that god
does not exist. Some atheists would go that far - I do - but not all atheists
do. If you are going to have a useful conversation with people who disagree
with you, you need to try hard to properly represent their actual views.
When it comes to
the deity question there are only three positions one can take. 1 Theist, 2
Atheist, 3 Agnostic. Position 1 and 2 either affirms or deny the existence of
deity and has to provide support. Position three is the only one that gets to
sit on the fence. Amazing how many want to be identified as atheist but then
want to change the definition. What it
comes down to is that many want to deny the existence of deity based on
irrationality, but want to continue ontologically with theistic ideas.
Following Atheism to a logical conclusion there is no meaning or purpose in
life, no objective morality. Basically want to sit on the fence with the
Agnostic and reap the benefits of both sides of the debate. I say ‘man up’. If
Atheist embrace everything that is Atheist. Cut the umbilical cord from Theism,
and go happily into oblivion with fear and despair to which only a Nietzsche or
a Jean Paul Sartre can do full justice.
2 - You have
failed to define what you mean by god. If you leave god undefined so that it
might include a very vague version of deism then of course nobody can prove you
are wrong. But we both know that is not your position. Once you are honest
enough to define god then it does become perfectly possible for atheists to
show that the specific god you are preaching does not, or cannot, exist.
Again a
supernatural being with intelligence.
I am willing to
assert that I can prove god does not exist but with two conditions...
1 - By
"god" I mean the god and father of Jesus, the god of christian
theism. I mean an all-powerful being who made all things, who is the epitome of
goodness and love, who is active in the physical world and who desires a
relationship with humans.
2- By "prove"
I mean establish beyond all reasonable doubt.
This god does not
exist. I am more than willing to back that claim up but in the context of this
thread my only aim to show that your assertion about atheism being
self-refuting is wrong.
Atheism is not
the denial of the Judeo Christian God but any deity. So follow the Atheist
worldview and prove that no deity can exist.
Sadly I doubt
that you will take the time to read this carefully and reflect on it.
But since you are
so eager to disprove the Judeo Christian God, who am I to spoil your joy. Go
ahead I will play your game.