Personally I think that regardless if there is a God or not and regardless as to which religion is the right one, the belief system has to do with your peoples history and their current culture and is only slightly influenced beyond that point. I am an American living in a Chrisitian family and question the existance of God. Even in this questioning I do consider the possibility that the Christian God may exist but it never even creeps into my mind that Allah may exist or Buddah or Zeus. Had the Muslim world ended up becoming the most advanced and taken over Europe back in the days of the crusades I'm sure my thinking would be completely different today and even die hard Christians may be able to admit to agreeing with this. Faith is given to you not by God but by other worldly influences. That in itself proves to be such an unsuccessful system that it throws into complete doubt that God exists at all at least in my view.
Poll - Belief in God
- Thread starter lVloonLite
- Start date
babie_blu1984
New member
To put your faith in something, and state it to be a 100% fact, when you can't prove it to be so, is ILLOGICAL. I think that 2 + 2 = 22, I can't prove it, but I believe 100% that I'm right. Is that a logical stance?
Balk all you will, but this is the stuff of a first year elementary logic course.
The simple fact remains -
1. You can't prove a negative
2. The absence of evidence is not proof of the abscence of existance.
Ultimately yes, we are all agnostics by default, we are limited in our understanding to that of the physical realm. Anything beyond that is based on faith, not knowledge, as bootfitter has repeatedly pointed out. (and yet he's been ignored)
People are theists/atheists by choice. That choice is based on belief and faith, not knowledge or logic.
You can deride this notion as stupid all you like, it doesn't change the reality of it. It only undermines your own credibility and points out your lack of understanding of the basic principles of logic.
Waxy
Balk all you will, but this is the stuff of a first year elementary logic course.
The simple fact remains -
1. You can't prove a negative
2. The absence of evidence is not proof of the abscence of existance.
Ultimately yes, we are all agnostics by default, we are limited in our understanding to that of the physical realm. Anything beyond that is based on faith, not knowledge, as bootfitter has repeatedly pointed out. (and yet he's been ignored)
People are theists/atheists by choice. That choice is based on belief and faith, not knowledge or logic.
You can deride this notion as stupid all you like, it doesn't change the reality of it. It only undermines your own credibility and points out your lack of understanding of the basic principles of logic.
Waxy
Waxy,
It wouldn't be rational or logical to believe any of your statements up above except 'innocent until proven guilty' because it is a double edged blade that proves my point that until there is proof, you are presumed innocent. That is simply how logic works. If you can't prove it, it has no premise. As far as bigfoot, it depenRAB whether you believe the pictures are real or not. In either case, there is more proof for bigfoot than there is for God.
It is very logical to say that because there is no proof, it doesn't exist. That is why we have logic and that is what logic stanRAB for. Your confusing logic with belief. Logic is a right and wrong standard. Logic is the standard for testing facts. If you can't provide facts then your only stating your theory.
When you don't have evidence, all you have is conjecture or theory, be it right or wrong. Until you have evidence for your theory, it is without premise and shouldn't even be considered.
We can play mind games all you want. If I say there is a little blue troll that hides under your bed when your sleeping, I can't prove it but we should assume that it could be true? At what point are you willing to draw the line that your accusations are ludicrous, absurd, and unfounded? This is stupid. Logic doesn't bend that way.
It wouldn't be rational or logical to believe any of your statements up above except 'innocent until proven guilty' because it is a double edged blade that proves my point that until there is proof, you are presumed innocent. That is simply how logic works. If you can't prove it, it has no premise. As far as bigfoot, it depenRAB whether you believe the pictures are real or not. In either case, there is more proof for bigfoot than there is for God.
It is very logical to say that because there is no proof, it doesn't exist. That is why we have logic and that is what logic stanRAB for. Your confusing logic with belief. Logic is a right and wrong standard. Logic is the standard for testing facts. If you can't provide facts then your only stating your theory.
When you don't have evidence, all you have is conjecture or theory, be it right or wrong. Until you have evidence for your theory, it is without premise and shouldn't even be considered.
We can play mind games all you want. If I say there is a little blue troll that hides under your bed when your sleeping, I can't prove it but we should assume that it could be true? At what point are you willing to draw the line that your accusations are ludicrous, absurd, and unfounded? This is stupid. Logic doesn't bend that way.
Tenshi!!!!!!!!!!
New member
I wasn't aware that agnostics elected Madalyn Murray O'Hair their official spokeswoman.
JP, you can present all the quotes you like, that's an easy thing to do. If I don't like GWB, I can go to any one of a thousand biased websites and pull off a quote (infidels.org? and a nice editing job on your part as well.), flip the coin, and I can go find a thousand quotes on Kerry. Do any of them represent reality? Do any of them represent the view of the majority of Americans?
I think the quote from Huxley, the mann who coined the term, -
represents agnostics rather well. It's certainly not derisive of the stance as you would like to make it out to be. On the contrary, it shows the thoughts of a highly intellectual man who has done extensive research on the issue and has ultimately realized that he is not capable of finding the answers in the physical realm. He states that he has "neither art nor part with any of these denominations", so it's pretty clear he isn't hedging his bet on getting into heaven through the back door. Therefore, rather than taking an unsupportable stance for or against, as a freethinker, he admitted that he cannot know the ultimate answers, and accepted that.
What a gutless, morally vacuuous loser right?
Or, a realist.
Waxy
JP, you can present all the quotes you like, that's an easy thing to do. If I don't like GWB, I can go to any one of a thousand biased websites and pull off a quote (infidels.org? and a nice editing job on your part as well.), flip the coin, and I can go find a thousand quotes on Kerry. Do any of them represent reality? Do any of them represent the view of the majority of Americans?
I think the quote from Huxley, the mann who coined the term, -
represents agnostics rather well. It's certainly not derisive of the stance as you would like to make it out to be. On the contrary, it shows the thoughts of a highly intellectual man who has done extensive research on the issue and has ultimately realized that he is not capable of finding the answers in the physical realm. He states that he has "neither art nor part with any of these denominations", so it's pretty clear he isn't hedging his bet on getting into heaven through the back door. Therefore, rather than taking an unsupportable stance for or against, as a freethinker, he admitted that he cannot know the ultimate answers, and accepted that.
What a gutless, morally vacuuous loser right?
Or, a realist.
Waxy
Religion? Yes. Too many emotions are utilized in religion. But to live according to a belief is another thing altogether. It is thought that a belief system requires religion, but it does not. Religion, however, requires a belief system. Big difference.
Knowing and proving are two different things.
Not at all.
What is your definition of a fool?
And, how do you know that I don’t know that God exists?
Knowing and proving are two different things.
Not at all.
What is your definition of a fool?
And, how do you know that I don’t know that God exists?
i never offered any examples. i never said that a lack of faith causes agnosticism/atheism. i never set out to prove anything. i certainly did not claim that God exists.
i have shown that all three positions are illogical. take the blinders off and go read my post again. your conclusion and counterargument are totally off the points i originally made. seems youre the only one that missed it too...
i have shown that all three positions are illogical. take the blinders off and go read my post again. your conclusion and counterargument are totally off the points i originally made. seems youre the only one that missed it too...
there is nothing wrong with stating that atheism or theism is illogical, because they are. from a completely logical standpoint there has never been found one bit of logical evidence that supports the existence or non-existence of God, a supernatural realm, a soul, etc. the belief that these things exist or dont exist are entirely based on faith.
actually we have found that there is actually a better probability of finding evidence for God's existence than finding evidence of God's non-existence.
example, if a man with glowing skin was walking around healing physically deformed people, then walked across the surface of the atlantic (or maybe drove, since that would be faster) and caused food to rain from the sky in africa, then said he got his power from God, then this would be strong evidence that God exists, or at the very least, evidence that supernatural power exists.
however, even in the absence of such a man, we still have no evidence that such a phenomenon cannot ever exist, and therefore atheism cannot be proven, which would imply that theism is more logical
strange enough, since such a phenomenon has never hapened, the position of theism is actually less logical. so far, the phenomenon is only imaginary, whereas the lack of such phenomenon is real. therefore the atheist position is based on current reality, and is therefore more logical
thus we have 2 positions that are equally logical and at the same time illogical.
agnostics regonise this and therefore have no inclination to either position. some resign to the position that no choice can be made, while others still have a hope that one position will eventually become more logical
this whole belief enigma enRAB up being pointless because all positions are based on illogical premises and the lack of proof...
...and yet it seems that as humans we still yearn to believe in something...
actually we have found that there is actually a better probability of finding evidence for God's existence than finding evidence of God's non-existence.
example, if a man with glowing skin was walking around healing physically deformed people, then walked across the surface of the atlantic (or maybe drove, since that would be faster) and caused food to rain from the sky in africa, then said he got his power from God, then this would be strong evidence that God exists, or at the very least, evidence that supernatural power exists.
however, even in the absence of such a man, we still have no evidence that such a phenomenon cannot ever exist, and therefore atheism cannot be proven, which would imply that theism is more logical
strange enough, since such a phenomenon has never hapened, the position of theism is actually less logical. so far, the phenomenon is only imaginary, whereas the lack of such phenomenon is real. therefore the atheist position is based on current reality, and is therefore more logical
thus we have 2 positions that are equally logical and at the same time illogical.
agnostics regonise this and therefore have no inclination to either position. some resign to the position that no choice can be made, while others still have a hope that one position will eventually become more logical
this whole belief enigma enRAB up being pointless because all positions are based on illogical premises and the lack of proof...
...and yet it seems that as humans we still yearn to believe in something...
Libbles1233
New member
I forgot about this thread, I meant to reply ages ago. It kinda P'd me off at the time so I left it.
I think this is a completely unfounded attack.
As a scientist, it's really the only position you can take. There is a total lack of evidence to prove God exists, and this lack of evidence is sufficient for many to conclude that God doesn't exist. Belief in God despite the lack of any physical evidence requires faith. HOWEVER, at the same time, science, and our current understanding of the universe, cannot prove that God doesn't exist. Science will NEVER be able to prove that.
You could replace God with aliens or bigfoot and the above statement still holRAB true.
Faced with these realities, I feel that ultimately, being agnostic is the only LOGICAL position. I fail to see how that position is morally or intellectually "vacuuous". I don't even see how it can be considered "fence sitting".
Furthermore, being agnostic means you accept the possibility of ANY FORM of higher power. That higher power does NOT have to be the God of Abraham, it could be a higher power that has yet to even be defined.
Waxy
I think this is a completely unfounded attack.
As a scientist, it's really the only position you can take. There is a total lack of evidence to prove God exists, and this lack of evidence is sufficient for many to conclude that God doesn't exist. Belief in God despite the lack of any physical evidence requires faith. HOWEVER, at the same time, science, and our current understanding of the universe, cannot prove that God doesn't exist. Science will NEVER be able to prove that.
You could replace God with aliens or bigfoot and the above statement still holRAB true.
Faced with these realities, I feel that ultimately, being agnostic is the only LOGICAL position. I fail to see how that position is morally or intellectually "vacuuous". I don't even see how it can be considered "fence sitting".
Furthermore, being agnostic means you accept the possibility of ANY FORM of higher power. That higher power does NOT have to be the God of Abraham, it could be a higher power that has yet to even be defined.
Waxy
Ladiie_Tempah
New member
I'm done fighting on your ground. Your arguments contain no substance. Now it is my turn.
How logical is it to contemplate an idea or entity that has absolutely no evidence or premise whatsoever in the physical world? It is not possible or logical for anything to exist that has no observable evidence. It is more likely that a winged horse existed than God because it is conceivable that because there are horses and because there are birRAB that a flying horse may have existed. There is no premise whatsoever for God. Nothing observable. And nothing to work with.
When I say observable, I mean an object as a whole and its counterparts. A human body is made up of flesh, bone, organs, atoms, quarks, and any other metaphysical parts. But regardless, it is an observable entity from which we can draw other conclusions about. We cannot draw any conclusions from or about God.
Through our experiences we have premises to conceive that other planets exist and could contain life. We can concieve that numbers go on forever. We can even concieve that a winged horse could have existed. But we cannot conceive God. There is nothing observable or even conceivable to work with, therefore, the idea of God is faulty and has no premise for existence. God is simply a made up thing.
Someone gave the example that 2+2=22. I am assuming this would be an example of a negative, since no one has really given me a definition or an example. Logic dictates that this is wrong or faulty because it can be disproven rather than proven. So I am not sure where that arguement is going.
How logical is it to contemplate an idea or entity that has absolutely no evidence or premise whatsoever in the physical world? It is not possible or logical for anything to exist that has no observable evidence. It is more likely that a winged horse existed than God because it is conceivable that because there are horses and because there are birRAB that a flying horse may have existed. There is no premise whatsoever for God. Nothing observable. And nothing to work with.
When I say observable, I mean an object as a whole and its counterparts. A human body is made up of flesh, bone, organs, atoms, quarks, and any other metaphysical parts. But regardless, it is an observable entity from which we can draw other conclusions about. We cannot draw any conclusions from or about God.
Through our experiences we have premises to conceive that other planets exist and could contain life. We can concieve that numbers go on forever. We can even concieve that a winged horse could have existed. But we cannot conceive God. There is nothing observable or even conceivable to work with, therefore, the idea of God is faulty and has no premise for existence. God is simply a made up thing.
Someone gave the example that 2+2=22. I am assuming this would be an example of a negative, since no one has really given me a definition or an example. Logic dictates that this is wrong or faulty because it can be disproven rather than proven. So I am not sure where that arguement is going.
queenhenide776
New member
This I would agree with. And for the record Allah is the same "God of Abraham" as the God of both Christians and Jews. Further, Buddha is not a god at all.
blue eyed baby
New member
Heh, see, I'm not educated at all in Allah or Buddah hence the reason I just don't ever consider them worthy of worship. I'm sure the same would be true if I were not at all educated in the Christian faith. That is the failing of God if there is a God. He is unable to really reach his people. Somehow Christians will interpret this as free will to believe what you want to believe. I would interpret it as a massive failure on the side of God as peoples eternal souls are at stake and God refuses to let people who were born into the wrong culture even know that he exists. To hell you go just for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I'm not talking about the idea of X. I'm talking about factual evidence for X. As far as I'm aware, no one has 'discovered' any such evidence for a winged horse in this physical realm. And that can lead us to suggest that it is unlikely that a winged horse exists in this physical realm. But, logically, a negative can not be proven. (And if you ask me to prove that statement... well, I can't... because it is a negative statement.)
Consider: It is possible that other life exists on other planets somewhere in the physical realm of this universe. Just because we have no [widely accepted] evidence to suggest that it is true does not prove that it is not true. The fact is, we don't know.
Consider: It is possible that a realm exists other than the physical realm in which we have physical mass. By the very nature of such a realm, there could be no physical evidence for such a realm. In reality, it may exist. It may not. We do not know. And we cannot know within this physical realm.
In your example of a pegasus, consider another alternative conclusion: Based on the lack of physical evidence, it is quite unlikely that an actual winged horse ever existed in this physical realm. However, it is possible that one day we will discover the fossils of such a creature which would then support the fact whether or not a winged horse did exist.
No one is playing mind games here, as far as I'm aware. It is a fact that logic textbooks state that a negative statement cannot be proven. This is the point that it seems that you are not catching. If you disagree with the statement, I would ask you to offer evidence that a negative statement can be proven. It may be reasonable to conclude the negative statement is true, but proof isn't a reasonable conclusion. Proof is unequivocable evidence that the statement is true.
In the case of your troll, again, your worRAB suggest that either we should believe the troll exists or not. Based on prior knowledge of the physical world, it is reasonable to conclude that the troll does not exist. But it is within the realm of possibilities that the troll does exist, however unlikely it may be.
Consider some as-of-yet undiscovered species that DOES EXIST in the natural world. Because there is no known evidence that this species exists, do we have proof that it does not exist? No... of course not. To conclude so, we would be incorrect, because the species does exist.
In the universe of knowledge, consider the following distinctions:
-> that which we know -- and we know that we know it.
-> (arguably, that which we know -- and we don't know that we know it.)
-> that which we don't know -- and we know that we don't know it.
-> that which we don't know -- and we don't even know that we don't know it, because it is outside the framework of our knowledge.
I would suggest that for most, if not all, human beings, the final category is the largest.
I find this opinion quite humorous in this context. By what standarRAB need an argument be 'convincing'?
Consider: It is possible that other life exists on other planets somewhere in the physical realm of this universe. Just because we have no [widely accepted] evidence to suggest that it is true does not prove that it is not true. The fact is, we don't know.
Consider: It is possible that a realm exists other than the physical realm in which we have physical mass. By the very nature of such a realm, there could be no physical evidence for such a realm. In reality, it may exist. It may not. We do not know. And we cannot know within this physical realm.
In your example of a pegasus, consider another alternative conclusion: Based on the lack of physical evidence, it is quite unlikely that an actual winged horse ever existed in this physical realm. However, it is possible that one day we will discover the fossils of such a creature which would then support the fact whether or not a winged horse did exist.
No one is playing mind games here, as far as I'm aware. It is a fact that logic textbooks state that a negative statement cannot be proven. This is the point that it seems that you are not catching. If you disagree with the statement, I would ask you to offer evidence that a negative statement can be proven. It may be reasonable to conclude the negative statement is true, but proof isn't a reasonable conclusion. Proof is unequivocable evidence that the statement is true.
In the case of your troll, again, your worRAB suggest that either we should believe the troll exists or not. Based on prior knowledge of the physical world, it is reasonable to conclude that the troll does not exist. But it is within the realm of possibilities that the troll does exist, however unlikely it may be.
Consider some as-of-yet undiscovered species that DOES EXIST in the natural world. Because there is no known evidence that this species exists, do we have proof that it does not exist? No... of course not. To conclude so, we would be incorrect, because the species does exist.
In the universe of knowledge, consider the following distinctions:
-> that which we know -- and we know that we know it.
-> (arguably, that which we know -- and we don't know that we know it.)
-> that which we don't know -- and we know that we don't know it.
-> that which we don't know -- and we don't even know that we don't know it, because it is outside the framework of our knowledge.
I would suggest that for most, if not all, human beings, the final category is the largest.
I find this opinion quite humorous in this context. By what standarRAB need an argument be 'convincing'?
I applaud their intellectual honesty. When presented with a cliff, they either jump or turn around, they don't teeter on the edge. (IMO, they jump off, but I'm a theist.)
I think that you haven't been paying attention. I've posted examples of what is considered "general agnostic beliefs" and dealt with them. I can't be expected to know what is in EVERY agnostic's mind, so I'll concede that there may be one or two out there who's position isn't intellectually vacuous. Will that help?
I also quoted text that differentiated agnostics into "agnostic theists" and "agnostic atheists". Doesn't that address those who think that a deity MIGHT exist? To me, it just reinforces my fencesitter analogy, except that in one case, the feet dangle towarRAB theism and in the other case, atheism.
I think that you haven't been paying attention. I've posted examples of what is considered "general agnostic beliefs" and dealt with them. I can't be expected to know what is in EVERY agnostic's mind, so I'll concede that there may be one or two out there who's position isn't intellectually vacuous. Will that help?
I also quoted text that differentiated agnostics into "agnostic theists" and "agnostic atheists". Doesn't that address those who think that a deity MIGHT exist? To me, it just reinforces my fencesitter analogy, except that in one case, the feet dangle towarRAB theism and in the other case, atheism.
there are agnostics that are undecided because they are in the process of finding the truth about whether God exists or not. then there are agnostics that are decided that the truth cannot be found, so they are no longer seeking. both are agnostics, but an undecided agnostic cannot be considered a fence-sitter at all.
I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
If my assertions contained no substance you could easily refute them with a little research. The fact that you won't, or can't, do that, points to where the substance actually lies. Choosing to bury your head in the sand is hardly a substantiative, or dare I say "logical", approach to the issue at hand.
It may surprise you that I agree with you with for the most part. I also prefer to live in the physical, observable world, though I do ultimately believe in some higher power, not in a omnipotent being, but in a natural energy of sorts. I can't define it succinctly.
However, the very fact that we're talking about God is proof enough that we can in fact conceive of God. Whether or not we can prove God's existance, or even define God, is another matter.
I'm sure a believer could give you a much more detailed response as to the reasons for belief in God than I could muster.
The difference is, I don't claim my BELIEFS to be FACT, when I can't prove them to be so.
Waxy
If my assertions contained no substance you could easily refute them with a little research. The fact that you won't, or can't, do that, points to where the substance actually lies. Choosing to bury your head in the sand is hardly a substantiative, or dare I say "logical", approach to the issue at hand.
It may surprise you that I agree with you with for the most part. I also prefer to live in the physical, observable world, though I do ultimately believe in some higher power, not in a omnipotent being, but in a natural energy of sorts. I can't define it succinctly.
However, the very fact that we're talking about God is proof enough that we can in fact conceive of God. Whether or not we can prove God's existance, or even define God, is another matter.
I'm sure a believer could give you a much more detailed response as to the reasons for belief in God than I could muster.
The difference is, I don't claim my BELIEFS to be FACT, when I can't prove them to be so.
Waxy
DJ Warp Shadow
New member
I am arguing from an empirical viewpoint. So the deepest thoughts of rationality concern me very little. We can invent an infinate number of ideas, but that doesn't make them existent or factual. Just because I think of something, does not mean that is exists (unless you want to argue that because you can think of an idea that it exists in your mind) The idea of a winged horse has a little premise, not enough for conviction. God has no premise whatsoever.
There was a man during the medieval ages named St. Anselm who said that because we can concieve of the idea of God (a most perfect being), that he must exist. His refutation came from a man name Guanilo (I believe) that this is incorrect. Guanilo used the example that if you can imagine God exists, than you could also imagine that a 'most perfect island' exists as well. An island that is better than every other where everything is flawless. He also takes into account that everyone has a different idea of what a perfect island is so that no matter what anybody believes is the perfect island, it must exist. A island of gold, a tropical island, an island utopia, the island of perfection, whatever, it must exist (which of course is sarcasm). A Scottish philosopher by the name of David Hume also refuted Anselm. His belief was that if you can imagine a world without Dogs than you can imagine a world without God. So because you can concieve of a world without God than he must not exist, right?
Now, lets tie this back to agnosticism. Because you can concieve of a world with God and because you could concieve of a world without God. Which side of the fence does one sit. The world with God has no evidence of such a God outside of an idea. The world without God simply presents itself by observable means. Which one is more logical?
There was a man during the medieval ages named St. Anselm who said that because we can concieve of the idea of God (a most perfect being), that he must exist. His refutation came from a man name Guanilo (I believe) that this is incorrect. Guanilo used the example that if you can imagine God exists, than you could also imagine that a 'most perfect island' exists as well. An island that is better than every other where everything is flawless. He also takes into account that everyone has a different idea of what a perfect island is so that no matter what anybody believes is the perfect island, it must exist. A island of gold, a tropical island, an island utopia, the island of perfection, whatever, it must exist (which of course is sarcasm). A Scottish philosopher by the name of David Hume also refuted Anselm. His belief was that if you can imagine a world without Dogs than you can imagine a world without God. So because you can concieve of a world without God than he must not exist, right?
Now, lets tie this back to agnosticism. Because you can concieve of a world with God and because you could concieve of a world without God. Which side of the fence does one sit. The world with God has no evidence of such a God outside of an idea. The world without God simply presents itself by observable means. Which one is more logical?
I don't remember your point in this debate being innocent until proven guilty? 
Anyhoo, your reply basically just proves my point. I'll highlight for you.
We started this exchange because I stated that 100% belief in the existance or non-existance of God is illogical as it cannot be proven to be true or fact either way. Based on your statements highlighted above, it would seem my assertion was correct in your judgement.
It is you Leviathan that is confusing logic with belief, not I.
This statement is false, and in fact, very illogical, even if it does provide reasonable grounRAB for belief in non-existance.
Thebootfitter has done an excellent job of pointing out why it's false.
You are still confusing rational and reasonable with the laws of logic. Trolls, Pegasys, etc... are all rather ridiculous, it doesn't change the logic of the situation.
I do understand why you're unwilling to accept this simple point. It's partly due to wanting your beliefs to be "logical" and partly due to the widespread misunderstanding of what "logical" actually means. I got called on it a couple weeks ago myself in a very similar debate, and I had to do the homework to convince myself of it's validity.
However, I'm not your university professor. If you want to better understand the rules of logic and their subtleties, and you are not willing to take my word, or that of the two others posting here, as legitimate, then Google it or take a course. I don't feel as though I should have to spend my time referencing elementary logic because you don't "think" it's right.
Waxy
Anyhoo, your reply basically just proves my point. I'll highlight for you.
We started this exchange because I stated that 100% belief in the existance or non-existance of God is illogical as it cannot be proven to be true or fact either way. Based on your statements highlighted above, it would seem my assertion was correct in your judgement.
It is you Leviathan that is confusing logic with belief, not I.
This statement is false, and in fact, very illogical, even if it does provide reasonable grounRAB for belief in non-existance.
Thebootfitter has done an excellent job of pointing out why it's false.
You are still confusing rational and reasonable with the laws of logic. Trolls, Pegasys, etc... are all rather ridiculous, it doesn't change the logic of the situation.
I do understand why you're unwilling to accept this simple point. It's partly due to wanting your beliefs to be "logical" and partly due to the widespread misunderstanding of what "logical" actually means. I got called on it a couple weeks ago myself in a very similar debate, and I had to do the homework to convince myself of it's validity.
However, I'm not your university professor. If you want to better understand the rules of logic and their subtleties, and you are not willing to take my word, or that of the two others posting here, as legitimate, then Google it or take a course. I don't feel as though I should have to spend my time referencing elementary logic because you don't "think" it's right.
Waxy
Ke (R.I.P. MJ)
New member
Speaking of Bigfoot, I thought this was interesting:
http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/MJM/whatrtha.asp
http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/MJM/whatrtha.asp
CHRISTIAN 1
New member
God was, then time, then stuff.