Is god all-knowing? (creation, experience, scriptures, worship, point of view)

[methylatedghosts]

If there is no evidence for god's existence, then the following can be concluded:

God exists
God does not exist

[logician]

Originally Posted by Storm

Pathetic cop-out and logical fallacy both. Surprise, surprise.


From Wiki:
The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a logical fallacy of the following form:
"X is true because there is no proof that X is false." It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:

• "A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist".

However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:
"A supernatural force does not exist, because there is no proof that it does exist.".

You're simply wrong, I'm not the one making extraordinary claims.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If you say unicorns exist, it's not my requisite to prove they don't, it's yours to prove they do. The same goes in spades with god claims, which are the ultimate in the fantastic/absurd.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by logician

You're simply wrong, I'm not the one making extraordinary claims.

That's entirely subjective.

If you say unicorns exist, it's not my requisite to prove they don't, it's yours to prove they do. The same goes in spades with god claims, which are the ultimate in the fantastic/absurd.

The problem with that reasoning is that in saying "there is no God" you've made positive claim. Positive claim bears burden of proof, so meet it or admit that you can't. It's not as if your pathetic posturing is fooling anybody.

[logician]

Originally Posted by Storm

That's entirely subjective.



The problem with that reasoning is that in saying "there is no God" you've made positive claim. Positive claim bears burden of proof, so meet it or admit that you can't. It's not as if your pathetic posturing is fooling anybody.

You don't seem to get it, denying the plausiblity of various god concepts is not a positive claim, it is a claim that nobody has presented necessary and sufficient evidence to support their god concept. There's certainly plenty of scientific evidence to put the hurt on most mainstream religious belief, but is it really worth the time to
try to disprove something that has not been proven?

[Storm]

Originally Posted by logician

You don't seem to get it, denying the plausiblity of various god concepts is not a positive claim, it is a claim that nobody has presented necessary and sufficient evidence to support their god concept.

No. That's not what you said. You said "there is no God." Repeatedly. That's a positive claim. Back it up.

There's certainly plenty of scientific evidence to put the hurt on most mainstream religious belief,

No, not really.

but is it really worth the time to try to disprove something that has not been proven?

You're the one making the claim. Or were you just trolling?

[logician]

Originally Posted by Storm

No. That's not what you said. You said "there is no God." 1. Repeatedly. That's a positive claim. Back it up.


2. No, not really.

1. Simple enough, there is no evidence of a god, it has not presented convincing evidence if its existence.

2. Yes, really. Virgin births among homo sapiens are impossible, raising the dead is impossible. The multiverse doesn't need a creator.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by logician

1. Simple enough, there is no evidence of a god,

YOU are the best evidence that God exists. Are you saying that you don't exist?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by methylatedghosts

If there is no evidence for god's existence, then the following can be concluded:

God exists
God does not exist

Depends on what you consider to be evidence.