Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only on dcum would multiple people pretend they know with certainty there is or isn’t a God or gods.

I know with certainly that a pink elephant - or an elephant of any color - did NOT set the world in motion. How about you?

How do you know that for certain?

Because that falls outside the realm of the natural world.

People fabricated “supernatural forces” in their mind as a way to explain unknown things before science.

Yes it certainly appears that way - but if you can’t show evidence of a claim, how can you “know with certainty”?

How does one “show evidence” of something that doesn’t exist?

Show evidence that we aren’t living in a computer simulation.

You don’t, you can’t, and that is the point: you should not claim certainty without evidence. If you do, you give the theists the right to do so as well. That is what they want most, a level playing field for their illogical position.

In your second sentence you are asking the question of hard solipsism. Totally different one and not relevant to the god question in any way except as a distraction. Short answer: all debates have to start with some presuppositions. The laws of logic are generally considered the most basic ones. If we can’t agree on the premise that this is reality we experience, no discussion about the nature of that experience can be had so let’s not even bother. If someone’s presupposition is that a god exists (which a large percentage of theist arguments do) then also there is no way to have a discussion about it.

Claiming that something exists is a lot different than claiming something doesn’t. You can’t prove a negative.

Prove that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak your house at night to hide the scissors.

Prove that the god isn’t an invisible space monkey running a computer simulation.

Did you even read what you are responding to?

I did. It's bunk. Did you read my comment?

You could try replying to it with some substance instead of nonsense. When did I make any of the claims you ask me to prove? I don’t believe those things, nor do I believe in a god. I am just not going to claim certainty without evidence, nor will I accept it when theists do that, or when others do.

Claims require evidence. It’s basic logic.

So you are not certain if invisible space monkeys sneak your house at night to hide the scissors - or not?

No, I am not certain. But I also do not believe it. It’s a preposterous concept, and not worth considering. Just like a god.

I will tell you this: I don’t make any claim I can’t back up with evidence, because I am not an idiot.

So flying spaghetti monsters might exist?

If you are asking this question, even facetiously, you have missed so many points.

The question is not whether or not they might exist. The question is that it is a silly question to consider without evidence, so don’t make a claim either way… unless you are an idiot.

You don’t realize the irony of the point you think you are making.

So you would never say with 100% absolute certainty that flying spaghetti monsters don’t exist?

I would never make any claim about the existence of such. Stupid and meaningless to do sol. That is the point of the FSM. You know this. You are a fricking troll.

Do flying spaghetti monsters exist? Are you certain of your answer?

Not hard questions.

I do not believe they exist, no. But I cannot demonstrate that fact so I don’t claim it to be absolutely true. A burden of proof is on someone making a claim.

What is so hard about this to understand that you keep repeating the same question over and over?

You were evading a clear answer.

I just wanted you to confirm that you aren’t 100% certain that flying spaghetti monsters don’t exist.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

I make NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER that FSMs do or do not exist.

“ I do not believe they exist, no. But I cannot demonstrate that fact so I don’t claim it to be absolutely true. ”

So you can’t say you’re 100% certain.

I don’t claim to be 100% certain, or any degree certain. I make no claim regarding their existence whatsoever. Which is what I keep repeating OVER AND OVER AND YOU CAN’T SEEM TO COMPREHEND.

I do not believe they exist because I have seen no evidence of it. This is a simple concept for most people to understand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone thinks they know but they don't. If there is a god/s, maybe its not about control over our lives, but just the existence of spiritual energy/force.

You are correct, no one can say with 100% absolute certainty that god does or does not exist.

However, I can use reason and logic to evaluate the information we do have available to make a decision.

Upon review, in my opinion, god does not exist.

I would also say that if you have reduced god down to the bare minimum possible for belief of "spiritual energ/force", why bother believing at all?

We have reasonable, natural ideas for many of life's big questions. They are not 100% complete, and odds are likely we may never have full knowledge.

Seeking out new information to help understand our place in the universe does not require god in any shape or form, however you may want to define it or call it.

Just like no one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys sneak your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Incorrect. This is a bad anology.

I could put cameras with multiple sensors around my house to check if they were only invisible in the visual spectrum or in all frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. The cameras would directly record the scissors in the house. One could also tie them down and/or put an alarm around them.

This is testable which means we can gather data to help make a determination one way or another.

No, they could alter camera footage. Space monkeys are very sneaky.

No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Failed logic once again. You are making a falsifiable claim. It can be disputed as you can establish valid experiments to collect data.

So yes, I can say with 100% certainty that invisible space monkeys are NOT undertaking the actions you are claiming.

Also, we have reduced god(s) to such an inconsequential role, why would believing change anything?

We have natural explanations that are backed up by logic, experiment, and evidence. There is no need for god(s).

No, there is no evidence. No experiment that will 100% rule it out.

Wrong again.

Really, try working on your critical thinking skills. Your invisible space monkeys is a disprovable claim. Yes, it can be ruled out. A single experiment may not be enough data, but running enough trials will result in data that is statistically significant. Which, it will rule them out.

Also, moving the goalposts does not change the facts. This is exactly what theists try to do in the face of science, reason, and evidence.

The claim was “100% absolute certainty”, not “statistically significant”.

No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Wrong again. You are conflating two posts.

I can say with 100% certainty that your invisible space monkeys do not sneak into my house at night to hide all my scissors.

You seem to not comprehend how evidence and logical conclusions work.

You are making a falsefiable claim. A method of proving that has been presented and you are the one that cannot accept it.

You can’t claim falsity from lack of proof.

You have modified the scenario with very specific conditions/assumptions designed to fail your test.

That doesn’t prove they don’t exist outside of those specific conditions. You would have to observe all scissors all of the time and the monkeys couldn’t be invisible.

It’s unfalsifiable.

No one modified sh!t. You are trying to move the goalposts.

PP said, quote "No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒"

This quoted claim was disputed. A poster asserted yes, they can say 100% with absolute certainty that their scissors in their house are not being hidden by invisible space monkeys.

You are continuing to ignore valid debunking of your ridiculous claim.

And, as also indicated previously, you dont seem to understand how a claim, evidence, logic, and reason work together.

No, the PP can’t claim falsity from lack of proof. The test doesn’t cover all possible scenarios. Any “evidence” would be incomplete.

It’s unfalsifiable.

A test does not have to cover all scenarios.

The burden of proof lies with the assertion.

Until you present evidence FOR the existence of said monkeys and their antics, it is 100% certain they dont exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only on dcum would multiple people pretend they know with certainty there is or isn’t a God or gods.

I know with certainly that a pink elephant - or an elephant of any color - did NOT set the world in motion. How about you?

How do you know that for certain?

Because that falls outside the realm of the natural world.

People fabricated “supernatural forces” in their mind as a way to explain unknown things before science.

Yes it certainly appears that way - but if you can’t show evidence of a claim, how can you “know with certainty”?

How does one “show evidence” of something that doesn’t exist?

Show evidence that we aren’t living in a computer simulation.

You don’t, you can’t, and that is the point: you should not claim certainty without evidence. If you do, you give the theists the right to do so as well. That is what they want most, a level playing field for their illogical position.

In your second sentence you are asking the question of hard solipsism. Totally different one and not relevant to the god question in any way except as a distraction. Short answer: all debates have to start with some presuppositions. The laws of logic are generally considered the most basic ones. If we can’t agree on the premise that this is reality we experience, no discussion about the nature of that experience can be had so let’s not even bother. If someone’s presupposition is that a god exists (which a large percentage of theist arguments do) then also there is no way to have a discussion about it.

Claiming that something exists is a lot different than claiming something doesn’t. You can’t prove a negative.

Prove that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak your house at night to hide the scissors.

Prove that the god isn’t an invisible space monkey running a computer simulation.

Did you even read what you are responding to?

I did. It's bunk. Did you read my comment?

You could try replying to it with some substance instead of nonsense. When did I make any of the claims you ask me to prove? I don’t believe those things, nor do I believe in a god. I am just not going to claim certainty without evidence, nor will I accept it when theists do that, or when others do.

Claims require evidence. It’s basic logic.

So you are not certain if invisible space monkeys sneak your house at night to hide the scissors - or not?

No, I am not certain. But I also do not believe it. It’s a preposterous concept, and not worth considering. Just like a god.

I will tell you this: I don’t make any claim I can’t back up with evidence, because I am not an idiot.

So flying spaghetti monsters might exist?

If you are asking this question, even facetiously, you have missed so many points.

The question is not whether or not they might exist. The question is that it is a silly question to consider without evidence, so don’t make a claim either way… unless you are an idiot.

You don’t realize the irony of the point you think you are making.

So you would never say with 100% absolute certainty that flying spaghetti monsters don’t exist?

I would never make any claim about the existence of such. Stupid and meaningless to do sol. That is the point of the FSM. You know this. You are a fricking troll.

Do flying spaghetti monsters exist? Are you certain of your answer?

Not hard questions.

I do not believe they exist, no. But I cannot demonstrate that fact so I don’t claim it to be absolutely true. A burden of proof is on someone making a claim.

What is so hard about this to understand that you keep repeating the same question over and over?

You were evading a clear answer.

I just wanted you to confirm that you aren’t 100% certain that flying spaghetti monsters don’t exist.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

I make NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER that FSMs do or do not exist.

“ I do not believe they exist, no. But I cannot demonstrate that fact so I don’t claim it to be absolutely true. ”

So you can’t say you’re 100% certain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone thinks they know but they don't. If there is a god/s, maybe its not about control over our lives, but just the existence of spiritual energy/force.

You are correct, no one can say with 100% absolute certainty that god does or does not exist.

However, I can use reason and logic to evaluate the information we do have available to make a decision.

Upon review, in my opinion, god does not exist.

I would also say that if you have reduced god down to the bare minimum possible for belief of "spiritual energ/force", why bother believing at all?

We have reasonable, natural ideas for many of life's big questions. They are not 100% complete, and odds are likely we may never have full knowledge.

Seeking out new information to help understand our place in the universe does not require god in any shape or form, however you may want to define it or call it.

Just like no one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys sneak your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Incorrect. This is a bad anology.

I could put cameras with multiple sensors around my house to check if they were only invisible in the visual spectrum or in all frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. The cameras would directly record the scissors in the house. One could also tie them down and/or put an alarm around them.

This is testable which means we can gather data to help make a determination one way or another.

No, they could alter camera footage. Space monkeys are very sneaky.

No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Failed logic once again. You are making a falsifiable claim. It can be disputed as you can establish valid experiments to collect data.

So yes, I can say with 100% certainty that invisible space monkeys are NOT undertaking the actions you are claiming.

Also, we have reduced god(s) to such an inconsequential role, why would believing change anything?

We have natural explanations that are backed up by logic, experiment, and evidence. There is no need for god(s).

No, there is no evidence. No experiment that will 100% rule it out.

Wrong again.

Really, try working on your critical thinking skills. Your invisible space monkeys is a disprovable claim. Yes, it can be ruled out. A single experiment may not be enough data, but running enough trials will result in data that is statistically significant. Which, it will rule them out.

Also, moving the goalposts does not change the facts. This is exactly what theists try to do in the face of science, reason, and evidence.

The claim was “100% absolute certainty”, not “statistically significant”.

No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Wrong again. You are conflating two posts.

I can say with 100% certainty that your invisible space monkeys do not sneak into my house at night to hide all my scissors.

You seem to not comprehend how evidence and logical conclusions work.

You are making a falsefiable claim. A method of proving that has been presented and you are the one that cannot accept it.

You can’t claim falsity from lack of proof.

You have modified the scenario with very specific conditions/assumptions designed to fail your test.

That doesn’t prove they don’t exist outside of those specific conditions. You would have to observe all scissors all of the time and the monkeys couldn’t be invisible.

It’s unfalsifiable.

No one modified sh!t. You are trying to move the goalposts.

PP said, quote "No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒"

This quoted claim was disputed. A poster asserted yes, they can say 100% with absolute certainty that their scissors in their house are not being hidden by invisible space monkeys.

You are continuing to ignore valid debunking of your ridiculous claim.

And, as also indicated previously, you dont seem to understand how a claim, evidence, logic, and reason work together.

No, the PP can’t claim falsity from lack of proof. The test doesn’t cover all possible scenarios. Any “evidence” would be incomplete.

It’s unfalsifiable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone thinks they know but they don't. If there is a god/s, maybe its not about control over our lives, but just the existence of spiritual energy/force.

You are correct, no one can say with 100% absolute certainty that god does or does not exist.

However, I can use reason and logic to evaluate the information we do have available to make a decision.

Upon review, in my opinion, god does not exist.

I would also say that if you have reduced god down to the bare minimum possible for belief of "spiritual energ/force", why bother believing at all?

We have reasonable, natural ideas for many of life's big questions. They are not 100% complete, and odds are likely we may never have full knowledge.

Seeking out new information to help understand our place in the universe does not require god in any shape or form, however you may want to define it or call it.

Just like no one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys sneak your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Incorrect. This is a bad anology.

I could put cameras with multiple sensors around my house to check if they were only invisible in the visual spectrum or in all frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. The cameras would directly record the scissors in the house. One could also tie them down and/or put an alarm around them.

This is testable which means we can gather data to help make a determination one way or another.

No, they could alter camera footage. Space monkeys are very sneaky.

No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Failed logic once again. You are making a falsifiable claim. It can be disputed as you can establish valid experiments to collect data.

So yes, I can say with 100% certainty that invisible space monkeys are NOT undertaking the actions you are claiming.

Also, we have reduced god(s) to such an inconsequential role, why would believing change anything?

We have natural explanations that are backed up by logic, experiment, and evidence. There is no need for god(s).

No, there is no evidence. No experiment that will 100% rule it out.

Wrong again.

Really, try working on your critical thinking skills. Your invisible space monkeys is a disprovable claim. Yes, it can be ruled out. A single experiment may not be enough data, but running enough trials will result in data that is statistically significant. Which, it will rule them out.

Also, moving the goalposts does not change the facts. This is exactly what theists try to do in the face of science, reason, and evidence.

The claim was “100% absolute certainty”, not “statistically significant”.

No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Wrong again. You are conflating two posts.

I can say with 100% certainty that your invisible space monkeys do not sneak into my house at night to hide all my scissors.

You seem to not comprehend how evidence and logical conclusions work.

You are making a falsefiable claim. A method of proving that has been presented and you are the one that cannot accept it.

You can’t claim falsity from lack of proof.

You have modified the scenario with very specific conditions/assumptions designed to fail your test.

That doesn’t prove they don’t exist outside of those specific conditions. You would have to observe all scissors all of the time and the monkeys couldn’t be invisible.

It’s unfalsifiable.

No one modified sh!t. You are trying to move the goalposts.

PP said, quote "No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒"

This quoted claim was disputed. A poster asserted yes, they can say 100% with absolute certainty that their scissors in their house are not being hidden by invisible space monkeys.

You are continuing to ignore valid debunking of your ridiculous claim.

And, as also indicated previously, you dont seem to understand how a claim, evidence, logic, and reason work together.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only on dcum would multiple people pretend they know with certainty there is or isn’t a God or gods.

I know with certainly that a pink elephant - or an elephant of any color - did NOT set the world in motion. How about you?

How do you know that for certain?

Because that falls outside the realm of the natural world.

People fabricated “supernatural forces” in their mind as a way to explain unknown things before science.

Yes it certainly appears that way - but if you can’t show evidence of a claim, how can you “know with certainty”?

How does one “show evidence” of something that doesn’t exist?

Show evidence that we aren’t living in a computer simulation.

You don’t, you can’t, and that is the point: you should not claim certainty without evidence. If you do, you give the theists the right to do so as well. That is what they want most, a level playing field for their illogical position.

In your second sentence you are asking the question of hard solipsism. Totally different one and not relevant to the god question in any way except as a distraction. Short answer: all debates have to start with some presuppositions. The laws of logic are generally considered the most basic ones. If we can’t agree on the premise that this is reality we experience, no discussion about the nature of that experience can be had so let’s not even bother. If someone’s presupposition is that a god exists (which a large percentage of theist arguments do) then also there is no way to have a discussion about it.

Claiming that something exists is a lot different than claiming something doesn’t. You can’t prove a negative.

Prove that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak your house at night to hide the scissors.

Prove that the god isn’t an invisible space monkey running a computer simulation.

Did you even read what you are responding to?

I did. It's bunk. Did you read my comment?

You could try replying to it with some substance instead of nonsense. When did I make any of the claims you ask me to prove? I don’t believe those things, nor do I believe in a god. I am just not going to claim certainty without evidence, nor will I accept it when theists do that, or when others do.

Claims require evidence. It’s basic logic.

So you are not certain if invisible space monkeys sneak your house at night to hide the scissors - or not?

No, I am not certain. But I also do not believe it. It’s a preposterous concept, and not worth considering. Just like a god.

I will tell you this: I don’t make any claim I can’t back up with evidence, because I am not an idiot.

So flying spaghetti monsters might exist?

If you are asking this question, even facetiously, you have missed so many points.

The question is not whether or not they might exist. The question is that it is a silly question to consider without evidence, so don’t make a claim either way… unless you are an idiot.

You don’t realize the irony of the point you think you are making.

So you would never say with 100% absolute certainty that flying spaghetti monsters don’t exist?

I would never make any claim about the existence of such. Stupid and meaningless to do sol. That is the point of the FSM. You know this. You are a fricking troll.

Do flying spaghetti monsters exist? Are you certain of your answer?

Not hard questions.

I do not believe they exist, no. But I cannot demonstrate that fact so I don’t claim it to be absolutely true. A burden of proof is on someone making a claim.

What is so hard about this to understand that you keep repeating the same question over and over?

You were evading a clear answer.

I just wanted you to confirm that you aren’t 100% certain that flying spaghetti monsters don’t exist.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

I make NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER that FSMs do or do not exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only on dcum would multiple people pretend they know with certainty there is or isn’t a God or gods.

I know with certainly that a pink elephant - or an elephant of any color - did NOT set the world in motion. How about you?

How do you know that for certain?

Because that falls outside the realm of the natural world.

People fabricated “supernatural forces” in their mind as a way to explain unknown things before science.

Yes it certainly appears that way - but if you can’t show evidence of a claim, how can you “know with certainty”?

How does one “show evidence” of something that doesn’t exist?

Show evidence that we aren’t living in a computer simulation.

You don’t, you can’t, and that is the point: you should not claim certainty without evidence. If you do, you give the theists the right to do so as well. That is what they want most, a level playing field for their illogical position.

In your second sentence you are asking the question of hard solipsism. Totally different one and not relevant to the god question in any way except as a distraction. Short answer: all debates have to start with some presuppositions. The laws of logic are generally considered the most basic ones. If we can’t agree on the premise that this is reality we experience, no discussion about the nature of that experience can be had so let’s not even bother. If someone’s presupposition is that a god exists (which a large percentage of theist arguments do) then also there is no way to have a discussion about it.

Claiming that something exists is a lot different than claiming something doesn’t. You can’t prove a negative.

Prove that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak your house at night to hide the scissors.

Prove that the god isn’t an invisible space monkey running a computer simulation.

Did you even read what you are responding to?

I did. It's bunk. Did you read my comment?

You could try replying to it with some substance instead of nonsense. When did I make any of the claims you ask me to prove? I don’t believe those things, nor do I believe in a god. I am just not going to claim certainty without evidence, nor will I accept it when theists do that, or when others do.

Claims require evidence. It’s basic logic.

So you are not certain if invisible space monkeys sneak your house at night to hide the scissors - or not?

No, I am not certain. But I also do not believe it. It’s a preposterous concept, and not worth considering. Just like a god.

I will tell you this: I don’t make any claim I can’t back up with evidence, because I am not an idiot.

So flying spaghetti monsters might exist?

If you are asking this question, even facetiously, you have missed so many points.

The question is not whether or not they might exist. The question is that it is a silly question to consider without evidence, so don’t make a claim either way… unless you are an idiot.

You don’t realize the irony of the point you think you are making.

So you would never say with 100% absolute certainty that flying spaghetti monsters don’t exist?

I would never make any claim about the existence of such. Stupid and meaningless to do sol. That is the point of the FSM. You know this. You are a fricking troll.

Do flying spaghetti monsters exist? Are you certain of your answer?

Not hard questions.

I do not believe they exist, no. But I cannot demonstrate that fact so I don’t claim it to be absolutely true. A burden of proof is on someone making a claim.

What is so hard about this to understand that you keep repeating the same question over and over?

You were evading a clear answer.

I just wanted you to confirm that you aren’t 100% certain that flying spaghetti monsters don’t exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only on dcum would multiple people pretend they know with certainty there is or isn’t a God or gods.

I know with certainly that a pink elephant - or an elephant of any color - did NOT set the world in motion. How about you?

How do you know that for certain?

Because that falls outside the realm of the natural world.

People fabricated “supernatural forces” in their mind as a way to explain unknown things before science.

Yes it certainly appears that way - but if you can’t show evidence of a claim, how can you “know with certainty”?

How does one “show evidence” of something that doesn’t exist?

Show evidence that we aren’t living in a computer simulation.

You don’t, you can’t, and that is the point: you should not claim certainty without evidence. If you do, you give the theists the right to do so as well. That is what they want most, a level playing field for their illogical position.

In your second sentence you are asking the question of hard solipsism. Totally different one and not relevant to the god question in any way except as a distraction. Short answer: all debates have to start with some presuppositions. The laws of logic are generally considered the most basic ones. If we can’t agree on the premise that this is reality we experience, no discussion about the nature of that experience can be had so let’s not even bother. If someone’s presupposition is that a god exists (which a large percentage of theist arguments do) then also there is no way to have a discussion about it.

Claiming that something exists is a lot different than claiming something doesn’t. You can’t prove a negative.

Prove that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak your house at night to hide the scissors.

Prove that the god isn’t an invisible space monkey running a computer simulation.

Did you even read what you are responding to?

I did. It's bunk. Did you read my comment?

You could try replying to it with some substance instead of nonsense. When did I make any of the claims you ask me to prove? I don’t believe those things, nor do I believe in a god. I am just not going to claim certainty without evidence, nor will I accept it when theists do that, or when others do.

Claims require evidence. It’s basic logic.

So you are not certain if invisible space monkeys sneak your house at night to hide the scissors - or not?

No, I am not certain. But I also do not believe it. It’s a preposterous concept, and not worth considering. Just like a god.

I will tell you this: I don’t make any claim I can’t back up with evidence, because I am not an idiot.

So flying spaghetti monsters might exist?

If you are asking this question, even facetiously, you have missed so many points.

The question is not whether or not they might exist. The question is that it is a silly question to consider without evidence, so don’t make a claim either way… unless you are an idiot.

You don’t realize the irony of the point you think you are making.

So you would never say with 100% absolute certainty that flying spaghetti monsters don’t exist?

I would never make any claim about the existence of such. Stupid and meaningless to do sol. That is the point of the FSM. You know this. You are a fricking troll.

Do flying spaghetti monsters exist? Are you certain of your answer?

Not hard questions.

I do not believe they exist, no. But I cannot demonstrate that fact so I don’t claim it to be absolutely true. A burden of proof is on someone making a claim.

What is so hard about this to understand that you keep repeating the same question over and over?

You were evading a clear answer.

I just wanted you to confirm that you aren’t 100% certain that flying spaghetti monsters don’t exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone thinks they know but they don't. If there is a god/s, maybe its not about control over our lives, but just the existence of spiritual energy/force.

You are correct, no one can say with 100% absolute certainty that god does or does not exist.

However, I can use reason and logic to evaluate the information we do have available to make a decision.

Upon review, in my opinion, god does not exist.

I would also say that if you have reduced god down to the bare minimum possible for belief of "spiritual energ/force", why bother believing at all?

We have reasonable, natural ideas for many of life's big questions. They are not 100% complete, and odds are likely we may never have full knowledge.

Seeking out new information to help understand our place in the universe does not require god in any shape or form, however you may want to define it or call it.

Just like no one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys sneak your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Incorrect. This is a bad anology.

I could put cameras with multiple sensors around my house to check if they were only invisible in the visual spectrum or in all frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. The cameras would directly record the scissors in the house. One could also tie them down and/or put an alarm around them.

This is testable which means we can gather data to help make a determination one way or another.

No, they could alter camera footage. Space monkeys are very sneaky.

No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Failed logic once again. You are making a falsifiable claim. It can be disputed as you can establish valid experiments to collect data.

So yes, I can say with 100% certainty that invisible space monkeys are NOT undertaking the actions you are claiming.

Also, we have reduced god(s) to such an inconsequential role, why would believing change anything?

We have natural explanations that are backed up by logic, experiment, and evidence. There is no need for god(s).

No, there is no evidence. No experiment that will 100% rule it out.

Wrong again.

Really, try working on your critical thinking skills. Your invisible space monkeys is a disprovable claim. Yes, it can be ruled out. A single experiment may not be enough data, but running enough trials will result in data that is statistically significant. Which, it will rule them out.

Also, moving the goalposts does not change the facts. This is exactly what theists try to do in the face of science, reason, and evidence.

The claim was “100% absolute certainty”, not “statistically significant”.

No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Wrong again. You are conflating two posts.

I can say with 100% certainty that your invisible space monkeys do not sneak into my house at night to hide all my scissors.

You seem to not comprehend how evidence and logical conclusions work.

You are making a falsefiable claim. A method of proving that has been presented and you are the one that cannot accept it.

You can’t claim falsity from lack of proof.

You have modified the scenario with very specific conditions/assumptions designed to fail your test.

That doesn’t prove they don’t exist outside of those specific conditions. You would have to observe all scissors all of the time and the monkeys couldn’t be invisible.

It’s unfalsifiable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only on dcum would multiple people pretend they know with certainty there is or isn’t a God or gods.

I know with certainly that a pink elephant - or an elephant of any color - did NOT set the world in motion. How about you?

How do you know that for certain?

Because that falls outside the realm of the natural world.

People fabricated “supernatural forces” in their mind as a way to explain unknown things before science.

Yes it certainly appears that way - but if you can’t show evidence of a claim, how can you “know with certainty”?

How does one “show evidence” of something that doesn’t exist?

Show evidence that we aren’t living in a computer simulation.

You don’t, you can’t, and that is the point: you should not claim certainty without evidence. If you do, you give the theists the right to do so as well. That is what they want most, a level playing field for their illogical position.

In your second sentence you are asking the question of hard solipsism. Totally different one and not relevant to the god question in any way except as a distraction. Short answer: all debates have to start with some presuppositions. The laws of logic are generally considered the most basic ones. If we can’t agree on the premise that this is reality we experience, no discussion about the nature of that experience can be had so let’s not even bother. If someone’s presupposition is that a god exists (which a large percentage of theist arguments do) then also there is no way to have a discussion about it.

Claiming that something exists is a lot different than claiming something doesn’t. You can’t prove a negative.

Prove that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak your house at night to hide the scissors.

Prove that the god isn’t an invisible space monkey running a computer simulation.

Did you even read what you are responding to?

I did. It's bunk. Did you read my comment?

You could try replying to it with some substance instead of nonsense. When did I make any of the claims you ask me to prove? I don’t believe those things, nor do I believe in a god. I am just not going to claim certainty without evidence, nor will I accept it when theists do that, or when others do.

Claims require evidence. It’s basic logic.

So you are not certain if invisible space monkeys sneak your house at night to hide the scissors - or not?

No, I am not certain. But I also do not believe it. It’s a preposterous concept, and not worth considering. Just like a god.

I will tell you this: I don’t make any claim I can’t back up with evidence, because I am not an idiot.

So flying spaghetti monsters might exist?

If you are asking this question, even facetiously, you have missed so many points.

The question is not whether or not they might exist. The question is that it is a silly question to consider without evidence, so don’t make a claim either way… unless you are an idiot.

You don’t realize the irony of the point you think you are making.

So you would never say with 100% absolute certainty that flying spaghetti monsters don’t exist?

I would never make any claim about the existence of such. Stupid and meaningless to do sol. That is the point of the FSM. You know this. You are a fricking troll.

Do flying spaghetti monsters exist? Are you certain of your answer?

Not hard questions.

I do not believe they exist, no. But I cannot demonstrate that fact so I don’t claim it to be absolutely true. A burden of proof is on someone making a claim.

What is so hard about this to understand that you keep repeating the same question over and over?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only on dcum would multiple people pretend they know with certainty there is or isn’t a God or gods.

I know with certainly that a pink elephant - or an elephant of any color - did NOT set the world in motion. How about you?

How do you know that for certain?

Because that falls outside the realm of the natural world.

People fabricated “supernatural forces” in their mind as a way to explain unknown things before science.

Yes it certainly appears that way - but if you can’t show evidence of a claim, how can you “know with certainty”?

How does one “show evidence” of something that doesn’t exist?

Show evidence that we aren’t living in a computer simulation.

You don’t, you can’t, and that is the point: you should not claim certainty without evidence. If you do, you give the theists the right to do so as well. That is what they want most, a level playing field for their illogical position.

In your second sentence you are asking the question of hard solipsism. Totally different one and not relevant to the god question in any way except as a distraction. Short answer: all debates have to start with some presuppositions. The laws of logic are generally considered the most basic ones. If we can’t agree on the premise that this is reality we experience, no discussion about the nature of that experience can be had so let’s not even bother. If someone’s presupposition is that a god exists (which a large percentage of theist arguments do) then also there is no way to have a discussion about it.

Claiming that something exists is a lot different than claiming something doesn’t. You can’t prove a negative.

Prove that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak your house at night to hide the scissors.

Prove that the god isn’t an invisible space monkey running a computer simulation.

Did you even read what you are responding to?

I did. It's bunk. Did you read my comment?

You could try replying to it with some substance instead of nonsense. When did I make any of the claims you ask me to prove? I don’t believe those things, nor do I believe in a god. I am just not going to claim certainty without evidence, nor will I accept it when theists do that, or when others do.

Claims require evidence. It’s basic logic.

So you are not certain if invisible space monkeys sneak your house at night to hide the scissors - or not?

No, I am not certain. But I also do not believe it. It’s a preposterous concept, and not worth considering. Just like a god.

I will tell you this: I don’t make any claim I can’t back up with evidence, because I am not an idiot.

So flying spaghetti monsters might exist?

If you are asking this question, even facetiously, you have missed so many points.

The question is not whether or not they might exist. The question is that it is a silly question to consider without evidence, so don’t make a claim either way… unless you are an idiot.

You don’t realize the irony of the point you think you are making.

So you would never say with 100% absolute certainty that flying spaghetti monsters don’t exist?

I would never make any claim about the existence of such. Stupid and meaningless to do sol. That is the point of the FSM. You know this. You are a fricking troll.

Do flying spaghetti monsters exist? Are you certain of your answer?

Not hard questions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone thinks they know but they don't. If there is a god/s, maybe its not about control over our lives, but just the existence of spiritual energy/force.

You are correct, no one can say with 100% absolute certainty that god does or does not exist.

However, I can use reason and logic to evaluate the information we do have available to make a decision.

Upon review, in my opinion, god does not exist.

I would also say that if you have reduced god down to the bare minimum possible for belief of "spiritual energ/force", why bother believing at all?

We have reasonable, natural ideas for many of life's big questions. They are not 100% complete, and odds are likely we may never have full knowledge.

Seeking out new information to help understand our place in the universe does not require god in any shape or form, however you may want to define it or call it.

Just like no one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys sneak your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Incorrect. This is a bad anology.

I could put cameras with multiple sensors around my house to check if they were only invisible in the visual spectrum or in all frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. The cameras would directly record the scissors in the house. One could also tie them down and/or put an alarm around them.

This is testable which means we can gather data to help make a determination one way or another.

No, they could alter camera footage. Space monkeys are very sneaky.

No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Failed logic once again. You are making a falsifiable claim. It can be disputed as you can establish valid experiments to collect data.

So yes, I can say with 100% certainty that invisible space monkeys are NOT undertaking the actions you are claiming.

Also, we have reduced god(s) to such an inconsequential role, why would believing change anything?

We have natural explanations that are backed up by logic, experiment, and evidence. There is no need for god(s).

No, there is no evidence. No experiment that will 100% rule it out.

Wrong again.

Really, try working on your critical thinking skills. Your invisible space monkeys is a disprovable claim. Yes, it can be ruled out. A single experiment may not be enough data, but running enough trials will result in data that is statistically significant. Which, it will rule them out.

Also, moving the goalposts does not change the facts. This is exactly what theists try to do in the face of science, reason, and evidence.

The claim was “100% absolute certainty”, not “statistically significant”.

No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Wrong again. You are conflating two posts.

I can say with 100% certainty that your invisible space monkeys do not sneak into my house at night to hide all my scissors.

You seem to not comprehend how evidence and logical conclusions work.

You are making a falsefiable claim. A method of proving that has been presented and you are the one that cannot accept it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only on dcum would multiple people pretend they know with certainty there is or isn’t a God or gods.

I know with certainly that a pink elephant - or an elephant of any color - did NOT set the world in motion. How about you?

How do you know that for certain?

Because that falls outside the realm of the natural world.

People fabricated “supernatural forces” in their mind as a way to explain unknown things before science.

Yes it certainly appears that way - but if you can’t show evidence of a claim, how can you “know with certainty”?

How does one “show evidence” of something that doesn’t exist?

Show evidence that we aren’t living in a computer simulation.

You don’t, you can’t, and that is the point: you should not claim certainty without evidence. If you do, you give the theists the right to do so as well. That is what they want most, a level playing field for their illogical position.

In your second sentence you are asking the question of hard solipsism. Totally different one and not relevant to the god question in any way except as a distraction. Short answer: all debates have to start with some presuppositions. The laws of logic are generally considered the most basic ones. If we can’t agree on the premise that this is reality we experience, no discussion about the nature of that experience can be had so let’s not even bother. If someone’s presupposition is that a god exists (which a large percentage of theist arguments do) then also there is no way to have a discussion about it.

Claiming that something exists is a lot different than claiming something doesn’t. You can’t prove a negative.

Prove that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak your house at night to hide the scissors.

Prove that the god isn’t an invisible space monkey running a computer simulation.

Did you even read what you are responding to?

I did. It's bunk. Did you read my comment?

You could try replying to it with some substance instead of nonsense. When did I make any of the claims you ask me to prove? I don’t believe those things, nor do I believe in a god. I am just not going to claim certainty without evidence, nor will I accept it when theists do that, or when others do.

Claims require evidence. It’s basic logic.

So you are not certain if invisible space monkeys sneak your house at night to hide the scissors - or not?

No, I am not certain. But I also do not believe it. It’s a preposterous concept, and not worth considering. Just like a god.

I will tell you this: I don’t make any claim I can’t back up with evidence, because I am not an idiot.

So flying spaghetti monsters might exist?

If you are asking this question, even facetiously, you have missed so many points.

The question is not whether or not they might exist. The question is that it is a silly question to consider without evidence, so don’t make a claim either way… unless you are an idiot.

You don’t realize the irony of the point you think you are making.

So you would never say with 100% absolute certainty that flying spaghetti monsters don’t exist?

I would never make any claim about the existence of such. Stupid and meaningless to do sol. That is the point of the FSM. You know this. You are a fricking troll.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone thinks they know but they don't. If there is a god/s, maybe its not about control over our lives, but just the existence of spiritual energy/force.

You are correct, no one can say with 100% absolute certainty that god does or does not exist.

However, I can use reason and logic to evaluate the information we do have available to make a decision.

Upon review, in my opinion, god does not exist.

I would also say that if you have reduced god down to the bare minimum possible for belief of "spiritual energ/force", why bother believing at all?

We have reasonable, natural ideas for many of life's big questions. They are not 100% complete, and odds are likely we may never have full knowledge.

Seeking out new information to help understand our place in the universe does not require god in any shape or form, however you may want to define it or call it.

Just like no one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys sneak your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Incorrect. This is a bad anology.

I could put cameras with multiple sensors around my house to check if they were only invisible in the visual spectrum or in all frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. The cameras would directly record the scissors in the house. One could also tie them down and/or put an alarm around them.

This is testable which means we can gather data to help make a determination one way or another.

No, they could alter camera footage. Space monkeys are very sneaky.

No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Failed logic once again. You are making a falsifiable claim. It can be disputed as you can establish valid experiments to collect data.

So yes, I can say with 100% certainty that invisible space monkeys are NOT undertaking the actions you are claiming.

Also, we have reduced god(s) to such an inconsequential role, why would believing change anything?

We have natural explanations that are backed up by logic, experiment, and evidence. There is no need for god(s).

No, there is no evidence. No experiment that will 100% rule it out.

Wrong again.

Really, try working on your critical thinking skills. Your invisible space monkeys is a disprovable claim. Yes, it can be ruled out. A single experiment may not be enough data, but running enough trials will result in data that is statistically significant. Which, it will rule them out.

Also, moving the goalposts does not change the facts. This is exactly what theists try to do in the face of science, reason, and evidence.

The claim was “100% absolute certainty”, not “statistically significant”.

No one can say with 100% absolute certainty that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak into your house at night to hide all of the scissors. ✂️ 🐒

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only on dcum would multiple people pretend they know with certainty there is or isn’t a God or gods.

I know with certainly that a pink elephant - or an elephant of any color - did NOT set the world in motion. How about you?

How do you know that for certain?

Because that falls outside the realm of the natural world.

People fabricated “supernatural forces” in their mind as a way to explain unknown things before science.

Yes it certainly appears that way - but if you can’t show evidence of a claim, how can you “know with certainty”?

How does one “show evidence” of something that doesn’t exist?

Show evidence that we aren’t living in a computer simulation.

You don’t, you can’t, and that is the point: you should not claim certainty without evidence. If you do, you give the theists the right to do so as well. That is what they want most, a level playing field for their illogical position.

In your second sentence you are asking the question of hard solipsism. Totally different one and not relevant to the god question in any way except as a distraction. Short answer: all debates have to start with some presuppositions. The laws of logic are generally considered the most basic ones. If we can’t agree on the premise that this is reality we experience, no discussion about the nature of that experience can be had so let’s not even bother. If someone’s presupposition is that a god exists (which a large percentage of theist arguments do) then also there is no way to have a discussion about it.

Claiming that something exists is a lot different than claiming something doesn’t. You can’t prove a negative.

Prove that invisible space monkeys don’t sneak your house at night to hide the scissors.

Prove that the god isn’t an invisible space monkey running a computer simulation.

Did you even read what you are responding to?

I did. It's bunk. Did you read my comment?

You could try replying to it with some substance instead of nonsense. When did I make any of the claims you ask me to prove? I don’t believe those things, nor do I believe in a god. I am just not going to claim certainty without evidence, nor will I accept it when theists do that, or when others do.

Claims require evidence. It’s basic logic.

So you are not certain if invisible space monkeys sneak your house at night to hide the scissors - or not?

No, I am not certain. But I also do not believe it. It’s a preposterous concept, and not worth considering. Just like a god.

I will tell you this: I don’t make any claim I can’t back up with evidence, because I am not an idiot.

So flying spaghetti monsters might exist?

If you are asking this question, even facetiously, you have missed so many points.

The question is not whether or not they might exist. The question is that it is a silly question to consider without evidence, so don’t make a claim either way… unless you are an idiot.

You don’t realize the irony of the point you think you are making.

So you would never say with 100% absolute certainty that flying spaghetti monsters don’t exist?