Quote Originally Posted by Pass That Shit

You shouldn't rule out God, cause you can't disprove his existence. How can you? If you could, he would be a liar. imp:
NO HE WOULDN'T. God is not a "liar" for not existing, because if he never existed in the first place, he never could have lied in the first place. Your criteria even for the non-existence of god requires the assumption that god directly made a claim, though he didn't exist... you see how this goes around and around.

And once again, for the billionth time, you can't disprove the existence of god; not because he's so real you can't disprove him, but because you can't disprove something that doesn't exist. The flying spagetti monster, the invisible trans-dimensional space jelly fish, the microscopic teacup floating around some random sun somewhere, NONE of these can ever be disproven. and, once again, the only way god can be "disproven" is in negative terms where every claim for his existence is shown to be logically fallable. This has been done to every creationist claim out there, but as expected nobody already devoted to their faith will listen, that's just the way the human mind works unfortunately.
mrdevious Reviewed by mrdevious on . My thoughts on athiesm I believe that Athiesm, in itself, is hypocritical. To Acknowledge one possability over another on something that as of now, we can not fully understand, over another is hypocritical. I believe in being agnostic. If you are going to have a belief in something that no one, as of now, has the ability to learn the exact truth of, you need to consider every possability. Discuss :) Rating: 5