---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote :
Richard, That's exactly right. Erm, that statement agrees with me. It's you who has to prove your god, you who has made the metaphysical assumption. Therefore, the atheist's position is very weak and absurd. You can see this weakness when they try to make arguments against the Kalam Cosmological Argument. IMO, their arguments become absurd and nonsensical. The KCA is a crock, how can there be an uncaused creator god when you've already decided the reason he has to exist is because things can't exist without a cause? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote : On 11/4/2014 12:00 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: The federal government recognizes secular humanism as a religion. That means atheists have faith in the nonexistence of a god. But can they prove that God is nonexistent? > It's almost impossible to prove a negative, even if your include in your argument the Law of the Excluded Middle. By the mere mention of a entity in their argument they have already postulated a metaphysical assumption. Without definitions, the argument is circular ending with a reductio ad absurdum. Any statement, when taken to extremes, will be found to be self-contradictory. " Zeno has argued that if as the pluralists say things are many, then they will be both like and unlike; but this is an impossible situation, for unlike things cannot be like, nor like things unlike." Plato's Parmenides: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides_%28dialogue%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides_%28dialogue%29 > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/03/atheist-religion-oregon-court_n_6095776.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/03/atheist-religion-oregon-court_n_6095776.html
