posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:04 PM
reply to post by MrXYZ
proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g.,
prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a
box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove
something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.
This argument from ignorance is the whole pretense to why Theists are at fault with their logic, and perhaps Deists. They make claims based on no
evidence, this is a lewd irrational guess, blind belief should not be considered a virtue.
If i was to say infinity is the the reality we live in, a closed-loop Matrix, you would not believe me, because i can't make that claim to truth.
I ask any Theist to answer;
Which is the more superior position in regards to the question "Does God exist"?:-
- "I don't currently have the knowledge to assert a belief."
- "I don't currently have the knowledge to say for sure but i have faith to assert a belief."
- "I know for certain there is a God"
- "I know for certain there is no God."
Which position is the more honest? Which position is the more courageous? (and before anyone argues Agnostic Theism - is blind belief really a
I'm an agnostic atheist in regards to a creator/deity but i'm a gnostic
atheist in regards to religion's claims to know the deities desires
because i know that no human can know this deities desires or whether it exists in the first place.
edit on 16/1/11 by awake_and_aware because:
(no reason given)