Positive proof?

[Seth]

You can't prove that a supernatural god doesn't exist. That's what BG is properly referring to.

but there's no evidence of it existing either

Is there "no evidence" or are you perhaps simply ignorant of the evidence?

[pErvinalia]

You can't prove that a supernatural god doesn't exist. That's what BG is properly referring to.

Begging the question fallacy. Your argument fails on the premise that "god" is "supernatural," a claim for which you have absolutely zero evidence in support of but which you assume is true as a premise of your argument. That's pure tautology.

Um no, actually your rebuttal is begging the question. I don't claim god is anything as I don't contend that god exists. But God in almost all religions is defined as a supernatural being. Most certainly so in Christianity, Islam and Judaism. BG is clearly referring to those. There's no begging the question. He's referring to a pre-defined god.

[JimC]

An interesting question would be to analyse the possible differences between a supernatural god and a non-supernatural god. Presumably the latter would be involved in a deistic world view, and the former in a theistic world view...

[rainbow]

You can't prove that a supernatural god doesn't exist. That's what BG is properly referring to.

You can't prove Atheists exist.

[pErvinalia]

Of course you can. You just need to find one. According to Seth, there's millions of them in the world.

[rainbow]

Rubbish.
There are people who *claim* to be "Atheists"
They are either deluded or lying.

[pErvinalia]

Lol, what the fuck are you on about?

[rainbow]

Lol, what the fuck are you on about?

Would you accept as evidence for God the testimony of people that have "felt the power of the Holy Spirit"?

If not, why not?

[Svartalf]

Rubbish.
There are people who *claim* to be "Atheists"
They are either deluded or lying.

you been in a foxhole too many? and what's the difference between Atheist and atheist already?

[Svartalf]

Lol, what the fuck are you on about?

Would you accept as evidence for God the testimony of people that have "felt the power of the Holy Spirit"?

If not, why not?

Does the testimony of the deluded and the insane carry weight in court?

[rainbow]

Rubbish.
There are people who *claim* to be "Atheists"
They are either deluded or lying.

you been in a foxhole too many? and what's the difference between Atheist and atheist already?

Atheists don't exist whereas atheists listen to Black Sabbath and eat babies

[rainbow]

Lol, what the fuck are you on about?

Would you accept as evidence for God the testimony of people that have "felt the power of the Holy Spirit"?

If not, why not?

Does the testimony of the deluded and the insane carry weight in court?

Can do. Is that why the courts have Bibles?
To keep out nutter "Atheists"?

[Svartalf]

point to you

[pErvinalia]

Lol, what the fuck are you on about?

Would you accept as evidence for God the testimony of people that have "felt the power of the Holy Spirit"?

If not, why not?

What does this have to do the logical inability to prove a supernatural god doesn't exist, or that you logically can prove that something exists?

[Brian Peacock]

... which is the Atheist's Fallacy in a nutshell...

Already debunked.

You've debunked nothing. The Atheist's Fallacy exists because it is simply irrational to draw a conclusion about the existence or non-existence of God based on what theists have to say about it. The logic should be obvious to one of your evident intelligence: If the claims of theists are misguided, inaccurate or just flatly wrong, then drawing a conclusion as to the non-existence (or indeed the existence) of God based upon those claims is completely irrational. I really don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.

You always resort to impugning my cognitive abilities when you don't like what I have to say. Have you noticed that?

See here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1614279
And here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1614517