Thread: A proof for the non-existence of God

1+2=3

Therefore

3=2+1

It's the same. I've tried to explain that, what, nine times?

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

1+2=3

Therefore

3=2+1

It's the same. I've tried to explain that, what, nine times?

Good for you, is my opinion changing because of it? no.

Opinion < Fact

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Opinon < Fact

Lack of belief is different.

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

Care to explain how lack of belief is different from not having a belief?

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Lack of belief is different.

Well, there you have it.

Care to explain how lack of belief is different from not having a belief?

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

Care to explain how lack of belief is different from not having a belief?

.

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

Care to explain how lack of belief is different from not having a belief?

Did you not just read what i was saying the difference was? and i already know what he means because i used "lack", but i am not talking about what they are talking about. To not believe is different then not knowing period. How is that so unsimple to understand?

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Did you not just read what i was saying the difference was? and i already know what he means because i used "lack", but i am not talking about what they are talking about. To not believe is different then not knowing period. How is that so unsimple to understand?

So "lack" implies not knowing...I always thought "to lack" simply meant "to not have"...how'd you develop this "not knowing" meaning for "lack of belief"?

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

So "lack" implies not knowing...

I'm talking about animals can't be atheists because they can't know, atheists today don't believe because they don't want to know, it's not a "lack" per se, it's a choice to "not believe" Not knowing and knowing but not believing are not the same.

"Atheist" just means "not theist". An animal doesn't know if there is a god (as far as we know anyway), so is not theist...so is atheist.

^ Prove that animals cannot know.

And it is a non-argument as it stands. The definintion of Atheist is the lack of belief in theology. Animals do not believe in theology; thus are atheists.

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Did you not just read what i was saying the difference was? and i already know what he means because i used "lack", but i am not talking about what they are talking about. To not believe is different then not knowing period. How is that so unsimple to understand?

Uh, no.

It has nothing to do with knowledge or informed opinions.

Just a logical conclusion.

To "Not believe" is to "Lack Belief". Simple as.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Uh, no.

It has nothing to do with knowledge or informed opinions.

Just a logical conclusion.

To "Not believe" is to "Lack Belief". Simple as.

Obviously you guys are not getting what i am saying. I know "lack" means to not know, everyone knows what lack means, listen to what i am saying. Not knowing compared to knowing but not believing is NOT the same.

No...

"Lack" means without.

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Obviously you guys are not getting what i am saying. I know "lack" means to not know, everyone knows what lack means, listen to what i am saying. Not knowing compared to knowing but not believing is NOT the same.

er...to lack knowledge would be to not know

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Not knowing compared to knowing but not believing is NOT the same.

Someone who knows something and doesn't believe it is in quite some denial.