Deity Existence

[Jikanu]

I'm not saying that you're running out of arguments. You just don't respond to some points for whatever reason, and when I bring them up again, you feel like we're treading old ground.


For example, right now I've raised the point as to why "god is a special example" is a logical fallacy, that isn't something we've raised before.

I simply said I think I know why you want to stop posting.

He's a special case because he's the first creator.

[Ralath]

:/

That's that not really an argument. That's a cop-out.

[Jikanu]

No, it's simply theory on his nature. there's no scientific way of proving it, so it's only explainable that it has to be his nature.

Do you have scientific proof of LACK of an existence of a deity?

[Ralath]

No, it's simply theory on his nature. there's no scientific way of proving it, so it's only explainable that it has to be his nature.

Well, sure. We can theorize that that animals live off oxygen because they're special. We can theorize that the sun revolves around the earth because it's special. We can theorize that the earth is flat because it's special. Thankfully, we didn't.

Do you have scientific proof of LACK of an existence of a deity?

This was explained a long time ago. Re: Proving a negative.

[Jikanu]

Perhaps there is a scientific way of proving it, but we have no sample. with all of those examples, there's a way to test your theories, but there's no way to examine God till after you're dead.

[Vasu]

So why do you believe it even though there's no proof, and no way of arriving at such a proof?

All these arguments you've put in are cop outs. I could say I was the first creator, and say that examinations on me will yield no result because I can do anything and will change the test result to my benefit.

[Jikanu]

there is proof, but nothing that is testable.