Which brings me right back to the question I asked in an earlier post: why would Alzael (or anyone else for that matter) argue against something that requires proof before it can even be argued against?
Precisely because people BELIEVE it does even in the absence of that proof. When people do that, you have 2 choices. Either you step into their belief system and argue it from the inside out, or stand there all day saying "God is not real, prove it or get out." The second does not promote any conversation at all, nor does it make you see how stupid your belief system is.
Let me give you an example. Many years ago, people believed in something called phlogiston. Here is a quick excerpt about it from http://web.fccj.org/~ethall/phlogist/phlogist.htm
Johann Becher (1625-1682) and Georg Stahl (1660-1734) had much in common: Both were German, physicians, university professors, and contributors to the phlogiston theory. Phlogiston explained how air initially supports combustion and then does not. It also addressed some of the shortcoming of Aristotle's theory, particularly its vague notions of chemical change. Becher proposed that terra pinguis (fatty earth) was present in all flammable materials; this substance was given off during burning and the resulting ash was the true material. Coining the term phlogiston from the Greek word phlogistos (burning), Stahl believed living matter contained a soul that differed in composition from nonliving matter (vitalism theory). Stahl outlined his medical theories in The True Theory of Medicine (1708) and the book had great influences throughout Europe. The Becher/Stahl theory explained burning, oxidation, calcination (metal residue after combustion), and breathing in the following way:
Flames extinguish because air becomes saturated with phlogiston.
Charcoal leaves little residue upon burning because it is nearly pure phlogiston.
Mice die in airtight space because air saturates with phlogiston.
When heated, metals are restored because phlogiston transferred from charcoal to calx.
Anyway, it turned out that this theory was entirely false. Now, is it logical to comment on or argue against pholgiston, even though it is not real? Yes, but only because people actually believed it was real first. The first people who debunked the theory of phlogiston HAD to argue against it, did they not? They had to prove, using evidence and reason, why phlogiston was not real. We do the same stuff all the time with you Christians.
Do you see the dilemma now in arguing that it is somehow logical to comment on and/or accuse what is either or neither fictional or real? It has to be or the other in this case or it is non-contradictory.
No. There is no dilemma. I would like to also ask you how you would go about arguing against believers in Thor, Vishnu or Allah without first stepping inside what they believe is true?
The process you described for deciding that God does not exists is based on the same type of logic and reason that I am accused of using to demonstrate that He does exist. Ultimately, you are using a form of 'faith' to reach that conclusion.
No, that's simply not true. You START with the belief that God is real and you cram everything about reality into that hole. We don't start with the notion it's real and work backwards, nor do we start with the notion that it's completely false either. We let the observations we make about the world lead our mind toward a logical conclusion. And one massive problem for you is this... if you take away the bible; take away the history of the church; take away every believer in the world and then work toward a conclusion given everything that our world presents to us on a daily basis, there is no possible way in hell that ANYONE would come to the conclusion that the Christian God is real. It's just not possible. There is no evidence. Now, I am not adverse to the possibility that some form of deity exists, but the Christian God? Fuck no. Not even close. That's mental retardation.
Therefore, for me to offer my proof, which is going to be similar in type and nature to yours, the logical conclusion would be that I am relying on an element of faith just the same as you.
Horseshit. What you could offer to us is solid evidence of events that could not otherwise be explained. Events like people growing arms and legs back. Like people praying to fly and wings suddenly sprouting out of their back. Like people who are going to commit murder suddenly have the gun taken out of their hand and are slapped into handcuffs and brought to the local jail by an invisible force. Those types of events would lead our minds toward the rational conclusion that some sort of God may be real. But don't get mad at us just because you can't provide that. And don't try to project the weakness of your own argument against ours. The fact that the universe acts as if there is no supernatural entity pulling the strings leads our mind toward the logical conclusion that there is no supernatural entity. Again, the difference is that you START with the belief in God, and make excuses for what the universe acts as if there is no supernatural entity. Get it?
Since I contend that you have disproven God's existence to yourself by faith, I cannot provide the type of proof you seek without using my faith.....and that would be talking out both sides of my mouth now, wouldn't it?
God's non-existence is a logical conclusion based on the various flaws in the theory that God exists. Just like phlogiston. Does it take faith to disbelieve in phlogiston?