Youíre the one arguing against the existence of God while presupposing He exists, not me. You made an appeal to people making decisions and yet if your atheism were true peopleís decisions would be already pre-determined in accordance to natural law. So you were appealing to something that can only be true if God existed and trying to use it to argue against Godís existence.
You are presenting trap arguments or you are trying to turn debates into traps. Your requirement to presuppose the existence of god before I can argue that he does not exist is a completely wrong use of a presupposition.
No, I was pointing out that you trapped yourself by your own argument. You made an appeal to something that could not be true if atheism were true and yet you were using it to argue for atheism; thatís called a self-refuting argument, I merely pointed out you were using it.
Let's make it easier for the insane. My opinion is that God does not exist, nor has he ever existed, nor will he ever exist. Now you can plaster your version of 'presuppose' where the sun does not shine (presupposition: The sun shines).
Well you are free to have the opinion that God does not exist just as much as someone is free to have the opinion that air doesnít exist, opinions do not prove anything though. As soon as you try arguing that God in fact does not exist you begin to resort to self-refutation exactly like someone who begins trying to argue that air doesnít exist. That is where I must step in and point the self-refutation out.
Sadly you are quite long on assertions and rather short on argumentation, I already gave an example of how Phins_4_Ever was appealing to something that could not be true if his atheism were true, that in itself is an inconsistency, but couple that with the fact that he was appealing to that very thing in order to try and prove his atheism were true and we have ourselves a self-refuting argument. If youíre an atheist you cannot appeal to human decision or choice because there is no room for it in a purely natural universe.
Not exactly, his problem was that he merely made an assertion (only the Universe exists), which doesnít prove anything. So he can either make an assertion which doesnít prove anything either way, or he can try to form an actual argument. The only problem is that logical argumentation relies on presuppositions that can only be true if God exists, so we see the atheist is really in a bind, prove nothing or refute his own position.
ďThe posts this guy comes up with ARE such utter drivel.Ē
Fixed that for you.
Again, you just made another assertion, you can try to make an argument to support your position and I can show you how you presuppose God in the argument or you can continue to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend I am the one ignoring the facts, itís up to you.
Perseverance of the Saints
All your self delusional nonsense are the by product of one of mans failings, hubris.
I presupposed that he exist? Are you kidding me?Youíre the one arguing against the existence of God while presupposing He exists, not me.
You are using presupposition in a contradictory format which does not exist at all.
I.e. You say that Irish said that the Universe exists and you continue on to say that it doesn't prove anything because it is just an opinion and to make it true he has to presuppose that God exists. This is only true to those who believe that God exists.
In Irish's case:
The Universe exists. God does not exist.
a) The Universe exists.
Presupposition: The Universe was created.
b) God does not exist.
Presupposition: He has never met God, nor has he spoken to God, nor are there any eyewitnesses to God's existence.
The Universe exists. God does not exist.
Presupposition: The Universe was created but not by God.
A presupposition is a precondition which has to exist to make a statement true. A presupposition is not an additional statement which contradicts the original statement in order to prove it. That's what you are doing. You can never prove a statement with a contradictory preconditional statement because if the contradictory statement would be true what is the point of making another statement.
What you don't understand is that the burden of proof that God exists or existed lies with you. You have to proof that he existed. You cannot turn around and make us use contradictory preconditions to prove our point because of your inability and lack of evidence to prove his existence.
Everything you have posted in this thread is based on this premise "I, Statler, throw some **** up against the wall and you scratch it of and proof to me that it was whipped cream". And when we scratch it off and prove too you that it was **** you come up with the notion: "To prove that it was **** you have to presuppose that it was whipped cream in the first place because I said so."
"You may think that you are some kind of god to these people. But we both know what you really are."
"What's that? A criminal?"
"Worse. A politician."
Source: Under The Dome
What page(s) is that on/ did someone actually make the earth is 6000 years old argument?
I can't think of any religious leaders who will seriously deny evolution or other scientific facts, but their sheep usually don't get the memo
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
Henry Wheeler Shaw
Wait...if Im understanding Statler here, and admittedly I only skimmed the post, God exists because you have to assume he exists to disprove God? What?
Nobody can prove God doesnt exist anyway. Just like how you cant prove he does exist. I know you think you can, but you cant.