Then you also have no proof of you perceiving the world.

Then I could say the same thing with you -- all the things you post here are just your illusion and I'm under no obligation to respond to an illusion or delusion. — L'éléphant

Exactly! Get my point?

We could keep talking to each other and accuse each other of illusion or delusion.

Exactly! Get my point? — EugeneW

WTF is this? What are you responding to? To my claim that we accept certain things without proof? Then we're in agreement. Thank you very much.

.

What the fuck is this? — L'éléphant

So we can't proof to others we dream, perceive and are alive. So what?

So we can't proof to others we dream, perceive and are alive. So what? — EugeneW

lol. So what? So, why does belief in god require proof of god then?

So, why does belief in god require proof of god then — L'éléphant

Why it requires proof?

Why it requires proof? — EugeneW

The belief in god. Those who say god does not exist because there's no proof of god's existence.

Are you even asking these questions in good faith or you're just bored? I'm responding to your questions in good faith. But it looks like we're going in circles.

The belief in god. Those who say god does not exist because there's no proof of god's existence — L'éléphant

And they can't proof that they're alive either?

And they can't proof that they're alive either? — EugeneW

To me this is a stupid question, no offense. Why would you ask someone a proof if he's alive?

But it looks like we're going in circles — L'éléphant

We agree! Proving god or proving dreams are two different things though.

To me this is a stupid question, no offense. Why would you ask someone if he's alive — L'éléphant

Because they can't prove it either.

Why would you ask a theist proof of god? Like dreams you can't proof god.

We agree! Proving god or proving dreams are two different things though. — EugeneW

Okay, so now we're back to the pesky question of difference. In a logical argument, do you agree that god exists and claims that dreams exist are two different logical argument. One does not need it.

God exists is a logical argument? No, one does not need that.

Okay. Are we done now?

Yes. I just don't see the point you're making.

belief in god — L'éléphant

I don't know if it helps your case but belief isn't knowledge, it's just one of three conditions for knowledge (JTB theory) and that being so, proof isn't necessary. You can believe anything you want; fairies, Tinker Bell, Rocs, anything's game when it comes to just belief.

However, when one believes something, one invariably assumes it to be true. That, for some, can't be done sans some evidence/proof.

Have you come across non-justificationism? It's a theory of knowledge and from what I hear, truth doesn't need justification. If you're up for it, we could discuss.

Yes. I just don't see the point you're making. — EugeneW

Neither do I see your point. So, are we good?

I don't know if it helps your case but belief isn't knowledge, it's just one of three conditions for knowledge (JTB theory) and that being so, proof isn't necessary. You can believe anything you want; fairies, Tinker Bell, Rocs, anything's game when it comes to just belief. — Agent Smith

Yes, one could argue like this as well. That's why I've been saying all along, why require proof of existence of god from believers? Why is there a special standard for this kind of belief that we don't see in others. And again, I've already mentioned the big bang, which no one here has countered. There's no proof of the big bang. Just some "testable evidence".

Yes, one could argue like this as well. That's why I've been saying all along, why require proof of existence of god from believers? Why is there a special standard for this kind of belief that we don't see in others. And again, I've already mentioned the big bang, which no one here has countered. There's no proof of the big bang. Just some "testable evidence". — L'éléphant

I'm not sure how to respond to that.

The Big Bang is a scientific hypothesis, God too, whether theists like it or not, is a scientific hypothesis, hypotheses being explanatory frameworks for observable phenomena.

The bottom line is hypotheses can be tested via the predictions they make: What do the hypotheses entail? Can we observe them? If no, the hypothesis in question is false. If yes, it's still in the game so to speak.

Perhaps this is an issue of lazy science. All established scientific theories even Einstein's should be stated with qualifications e.g. it seems the theory of relativity is "true" or that the theory of relativity is the best theory we have at the moment ($best \neq true$).

Is God the/one of the best thoeries we have?

:broken:

:broken: — Agent Smith

What's this broken heart? Did someone break your heart?

Did someone break your heart? — L'éléphant

I think I broke someone's :sad:

I think I broke someone's :sad: — Agent Smith

You broke someone's heart? Were you in a position to do that?

You broke someone's heart? Were you in a position to do that? — L'éléphant

I'll say no more.

I'll say no more. — Agent Smith

:yikes: Like, it's you who brought it up. Okay.

Like, it's you who brought it up. Okay. — L'éléphant

:zip: Some things better left unsaid.

I agree. :chin: