Pavilion Posted:

And so you object due to lack of basis? Since they can claim faith anytime, wouldn’t the burden of proof lie upon the objectors instead of the believers?

Not necessarily. It’s really a conflict of what’s “acceptable” or not. Where people who adhere strictly to what they were taught in philosophy 101 will cry “fallacy!”, people who have a faith will shrug. The two sides on this particular issue can’t possibly see eye to eye, and debate in this manner is pointless.

No, what we’re trying to debate here is the claim that God 100% doesn’t exist, which is exactly the same as trying to argue that God does exist, only from the other side. Whats even more ridiculous is OverclockedJesus is trying to do it within a logical framework. It’s really been very amusing to watch him dodge for 5 straight pages now, but actually looking at his argument is even better.

To summarize, saying that the notion of “God” is impossible because its very definition contradicts itself begs the question of knowing the exact definition of “God”. I’ve already demonstrated how the square circle analogy fails in this respect. Furthermore, saying that God’s definition contradicts itself completely destroys his theological noncognitive argument. Saying God’s definition is both self-contradictory and too vague to bear any meaning is, well, also devoid of any meaning.

This is why I’ve been asking, for 4 pages now, for clarification. If you want to cry and call my attempts to get you to talk “childish” and “immature” that’s your prerogative Oj. I’m sure you know that I’m the only one attempting to hold a conversation, and you’re just barrel rolling in hopes that you can still somehow cling to your bull**** long enough for people to leave.