Seems these days the current atheist arguments are boring and pretty lame excusses.

Oh? So the total lack of evidence for the existance of a God is a "lame excuse"?  

Basicly there is little challange for me in them.


Does this mean you find no challenge in proving your particular God exists? Wow.  

please do not hold me responsible for any demonic attack that may occur because of my posting.

LOL!  Now that's comedy! *Whew* my sides hurt, stop it you're killing me! LOL oh lawdy lawdy.........
Ok fella, no problem. I promise I won't hold you responsible if any "demons" happen to attack me while reading your posts.

(*snicker snicker*  hehehe... oh boy oh boy)

Harry lkes to throw the word 'prove' around.  Despite the fact that he requires 'proof' of very little else in his existence (including his existence, mind you), he requires it for God and religious claims, and anything else that threatens his outlook, I reckon.

Actually, it could be argued to Harry that he has been 'woken' up.  

But you are sharing in his equivocating- proof and evidence are not the same things.  Sure, with mortars or all sorts of other things, varying levels of evidence are satisfactory.  But with God etc, 'varying levels of evidence' are NOT satisfactory.  Its proof, and nothing but the proof.  Its epistemologically inconsistent.

I'm reminded I need to return to his special thread.

Has anyone noticed that I have not been given any material to determine what exactly necessary proof is?        

It's a white elephant statement. A silly rasberry at the end of a childs sentence. Honestly, drop the proof thing, it's as silly as a thiest saying prove God doesnt exist.

Funny, before the hack Johnny had a thread going with exactly this as the starting challenge. I wish that thread were still around so I could quote the first post.

DT. You asked what nessasary proof is needed. I replied and stated empirical.  Then you go on to say proof isn't possible. What gives?  


So if you are going to cry about no empirical proof required then how about a mountain of evidence? Please dont say existance is proof.  It's not.

Dooface, welcome.

Its a common fallacy to merely assert that a negative can't be proven.  That is not true.  There are some negatives we can 'prove.'

The real problem here is that in denying the affirmation that 'there is a God' you are not only making a negative assertion.  You are also affirming a positive assertion:  the universe is all there is.

The whole 'you can't prove a negative' is a red herring itself, because both sides have positive assertions of their own to defend, so we may as well just work together to sort out the issue.

'Burden of proof' arguments have limited applicability to such conversations.

You have too much going on there, much of which is a misrepresentation.  Perhaps you have rejected Christianity too soon.  Perhaps the Christianity you had was ill-informed.   So, let's stick to your initial point by asking a question:

Do you think coins have at least two sides?

"Good Job, Avoiding direct questions is Christianity 101."

Your question is not being avoided.  I now do not believe that you were ever a Christian at all.  You obviously are well versed in skeptic tactics of declaring the opposite of what ever is going on.   I answer a question, which is rebutted with the whine, "Why won't you answer the question."  ad nauseum.  This tactic requires years of training.  

"A coin having 2 sides does not mean that 2 opposing ideas can co-exist always."

What we need to focus on here is the idea of 'opposing ideas.'  Indeed, two MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY statements can not both be true.  Saying, 'there is no God' is mutually contradictory to 'there is a God.'

But me saying 'there is a God' is like me saying, "the universe is NOT all there is."

That is a negative statement, isn't it?  The flip side to "the universe is NOT all there is" is "the universe IS all there is."  And that is a positive statement.

Thus it follows that saying 'there is no God' is simultaneously saying "the universe is all there is" which itself is a positve assertion.  In this case, the mutually exclusive options create a situation for both parties where they have their own unique packages of 'positive assertions' to defend.

For that reason, it is incosquential to argue about who has to prove anything.  In fact, 'proof' is an impossible standard, anyway.  Our mutual goal is to find out the true nature of reality, and exploring both positive and negative claims TOGETHER is part of that process.