>>15350300 (/lb)

>First of all, you are twisting my words to say that I say God is impossible, even though I was very clear in my last reply that that was in fact not what I said.

You can't logically arrive at a belief of what doesn't exist without first making a conclusion of what does exist. Knowledge does not exist in a vacuum.

I never said YOU directly said that God is an impossibility.

I only referred to your repeatedly stated belief about the specific nature of the universe to be what you say it is, and not what I say it is.

You're describing the universe as 'only' containing that which is not God.

>Second, if no one (ever) had mentioned God.

No one would have this debate and no one would believe in God,

This claim is easily disproved by logically deducing that 'mention of God' MUST have historically occurred a FIRST time, whereby before that time 'nobody mentioned God'.

By your 'logic', there should never have been any mention of God in the entire history of humanity, because any mention of it must have been predated by a previous mention, and again that previous mention must have been predated by a previous mention to that, and so on…

It's an infinite regress argument.

>how could they no one had ever talked about him.

But how could it ever have been mentioned in the first place if all mentions require a previous mention?

>Hence the default state is "no God"

Given the logical flaw noted above, your 'hence' statement is a fallacious leap. The default you say is the 'correct' default is logically flawed.

>then someone came along and said "hey there is a God" - that's the original claim. I reject that claim.

You're trying to shift the burden away from you again.

I can do the same thing.

"At some point in the past someone came along and said "There exists a universe without a creator God and we're living in that one!"

I just reject that 'original claim'.

>>Your belief is that the universe has a definite particular nature, which just so happens to be incompatible with an existence of a God.

>Read my post again. And stop twisting what I say to defend you fragile beliefs.

You're twisting the position of theists, you're attempting to absolve yourself of burden of proof, your 'default' position is in fact a derived position.

All I am saying is that I just reject your claim about what the universe is about. That's all. Someone came along and described the universe in a particular way, and you are now repeating it.

Burden is NOT just with me.

>>15350487

>Someone can't be logic'ed into believing God

Someone can't be logic'ed into believing Godless universe.

>>15350618

1/2

>But I'm in fact not describing any universe. You are, and I reject your description without adding my own.

You are, you're describing it thus far as totally and everywhere having no God. You said repeatedly that you 'reject' the view there is a God. That's you describing what the universe is positively about.

>I reject your description without adding my own.

You are communicating your own, your own is that which does not include God.

You are describing a Godless 'physical only' universe.

In just reject that belief.

>You disagree with me and then repeat my point.

No I showed how your point was inconsistent with the rest of your points. That does not necessarily imply I have to personally believe in any of them.

>Did anyone believe in God before the "first mention"?

Of course, a person has to think about God before making a statement about God.

>>By your 'logic', there should never have been any mention of God in the entire history of humanity

>No? Someone obviously did. Not just one but many. With many different ideas of what a God is. Humans are creative like that.

Someone obviously first mentioned a Godless Universe. Not just one but many. With many different ideas of what the history and future of the Universe is 'really' about. Humans are creative like that.

>And as you or some other anon described earlier - the feeling of there "needing" to be something bigger than one self is natural in humans so it's only logical that we came up with a God.

The feeling of there "needing" to be nothing bigger than oneself occurs in some humans so it's only logical that people came up with the idea of a Godless universe.

>I never had the burden.

That's just you being so used to your own framing that is the only 'approved' default is a solely 'physical' universe.

>What do you want me to prove? That God doesn't exist?

No, I am only rejecting your description of the universe. If you want to continue describing it to me then that's fine, I'll just continue to ask that you prove your description, for it is not mine and I do not agree with it, so from my perspective the burden of proof is with you.

>>That is not my position so why would I try and prove that?

I never asked you to prove anything that 'doesn't exist'. I never asked you to prove God exists. I do not even see you as having a 'burden of of proof' that God does not exist.

No, what I am saying is that your description of the universe is not mine, it differs from mine, so from my perspective I cannot prove your beliefs, that burden is with you.

>>If I could prove that I would say that I know God doesn't exist - not that I don't believe in your claim of a God.

I don't believe your claim I live in a Godless world. The burden of proof is with you to prove to me that the universe isn't what I believe it is, and is what you believe it is.

Even if you try to imagine your position as 'I just reject your claim God exists', you're still referring ultimately to your own positive belief about the nature of reality. It just gets communicated over and over in a negative way, with my beliefs as your anchor, to which you attempt to shift the burden of proof of your belief about the universe, to me, where you do not need to prove the universe IS what you believe it is, and where I do need to prove the universe is what I believe it is.

>>15350618

2/2

>>All I am saying is that I just reject your claim about what the universe is about

>And what claim is that?

The description of the universe as you believe it that contradicts the description of the universe as I believe it. You're trying to absolve yourself of the burden of proof attached to your belief by continually referring to my beliefs and the burden of proof attached to me about those beliefs.

I am not here nor am I trying to 'change your mind'. I am not asking you to prove that anything in particular exists. I am not asking you to prove that anything in particular does not exist.

All I am saying is that if you want to communicate to me a description of the universe that contradicts the description I believe is correct, then again it is not just me who has to answer to you, you have to also answer to me. For you are describing a universe to me without showing any proof.

>You are free to reject it, I'm just genuinely curious what you think I am claiming. Because I've told you now 4 times that I am not making any claims, only rejecting yours.

That's again just you using the same framing that absolves you of what you're continually trying to pass off onto those who have a different view.

By claiming repeatedly what you 'reject', you're at the same time describing the nature of the universe.

I never said "I believe in God". But see how you inferred that by me 'merely rejecting' your view?

All I am saying is that I reject your description of the universe. Your description of the universe as containing that which just so happens to not contain God, which you have described repeatedly, is just a belief I reject.

I just reject your description of the universe that's all.

What you're trying to characterize as your view of being merely a 'negation' or 'rejection' of my belief/claim about what the universe is about, to me with my 'default' belief, your description of the universe as being a Godless reality is simply a view I reject.

>>Burden is NOT just with me.

>I know you don't like it - but it is

You're just projecting your own disliking of having a burden of proof on your belief of what the universe is about.

I never rejected the burden of proof on me, every time you said the burden is on me, I was just seeing you as trying to shift the burden of proof of the description communicated, away from you and doubling up on the burden of proof I already have with my belief of the universe.

All I am saying is I reject your description of a Godless universe. That's your logic used to address your own statements.

If you 'feel' like 'someone' should not like anything, you're really talking about you not liking having a burden to prove your belief.

>Only you have the power to end this slide. I will keep defending my position as long as you twist it. Kek

You're projecting again. You have the power to end this slide by ceasing to twist the meaning of burden of proof.

>>15351153

You dislike sunlight that much dontcha?

>>15351199

Breaking news: Ignore the content and smesr the GOP instead. Sincerely, CNN