Then to say that a square circle is impossible is absurd.
You fail at basic logic concepts.
You beg the question that humans have observed god and have even coherently defined god without fallacies and/or logical impossibilities. Stop using fallacies! STOP!
If human observation can be evidence then what people observe and experience can not simply be unilaterally regarded as false, no matter how fantastic it may seem to you. I have stated that humans can make mistakes. Science can make mistakes and develop false conclusions does that mean all science is false?
The rationality of a position is not a function of its merits or faults, but of the attitude with which it is held. Positions, such as atheism and theism, cannot be irrational, and can be held by either rationalists and irrationalists alike. That is, positions aren’t irrational, people are, and therefore, there are both rational atheists and theists. Of course, both cannot be correct simultanouesly, but to be rational does not entail never being mistaken.
I find no logical fallacies with the existence of God. Maybe you would care to actually contribute something to the discussion rather than your usual incoherent babble.
What is it that you define as logically contradictory about God?
Please, tell me more about this “atheist ideology”. You seem to know a great deal about it. I have never heard of it before. Atheist simply means “without theism” or “without a belief in god”. It is not an ideology. There are atheists who disagree on just about everything EXCEPT this. Have you ever heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? There are lots of people who have reportedly seen it. The existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is no different than the existence of anything else. The same logic and reason must be followed and the same open examination of evidence as well. This includes human observation and experiences. You can learn more about it here: http://www.venganza.org/
I explained this in a post you have yet to respond to:
The jc god created the universe, right? Ontological garbage. Begs the question that existence means something apart from the universe.
It is said to be omnimax. Yet omni- attributes are merely an end-run around what a definition is: delimiting what something is. The jc god is merely a tribal phallic symbol exaggerated to the nth degree. “Your god is what? Well my god is like a billion times as huge as that, man! It’s infinite!” Yet infinity applies nowhere outside mathematics.
Maybe you would care to actually contribute something to the discussion rather than your usual incoherent and fallacious babble.
There are numerous problems with the theory of God, for example, let us assume that God is the creator of everything. However, can anything create everything?
Before something can be created, the situation must be that creation is possible. However, God created everything, and therefore, must have created the situation in which creation is possible. However, this cannot be, because this situation cannot be created unless it already exists, so nothing could have created it. In consequence, a creator of everything cannot exist, since not everything could have been created by anything.
Of course, this does not preclude the existence of a God who created almost everything, and perhaps that is enough. Ordinarily, the creator of an artifact is not expected to have been its creator in every regard, so perhaps the difference between ‘everything’ and ‘almost everything’ is not that important. Nonetheless, these contradictions do pose difficulties for more naive theories of God.
Absurd claims can be disregarded a-priori. For instance, water can’t be turned into wine no matter how many ‘books’ say otherwise.
I really do not get why atheists are so adamant that there is no god. There is no way to prove that there is no god.
For all we know there are unicorns, dragons, and flying spaghetti monsters, but there really is no point in claiming that there are not.
Of course there is no proof that any of them do exist either. So living your life as if they do exist is just ludicrous, but there is no way to prove that these figures do not exist.
I really do not get why theists are so adamant that there is a god.
Just like there’s no way to prove there are no square circles, right?
And no point in claiming that there are.
The beauty is that we don’t have to; the onus of proof is on the existentially positive claimant.
Cryptozoologists at least do people the favor of describing what it is that they think exists. If one day someone finds a unicorn I will be thrilled at this discovery. I will be fascinated and I will be thankful to the people who kept up the hunt. In Cryptozoology you need to know what it is you think you are looking for. With God it is different. God is an entity that is all knowing, all powerful who works in mysterious ways and is just and loving yet flooded the entire Earth rather than use his power to solve whatever problem he was upset about in a less lethal manner. How is a Cryptozoologist supposed to look for such an animal? How will he know when he has found it?
I completely agree that there is no proof that there is a god. But there is no way to know that there is no god. Proving a negative is impossible.
So here you can understand that the burden of proof is on them to prove there is a god, yet you cannot understand it is on you to prove that my analogy is false. Amazing.
Bull! I can prove that square circles do not exist. I can prove that there is no largest prime number. Heck–Euclid did that over 2,000 years ago!
Because you are the positive claimant. Amazing that you can’t grasp that.
Is there no argument or claim so absurd or outlandish that you could reject it out of hand? If I claimed that unicorns on Pluto were manipulating the stock market for the benefit of their allies, the Lizard people who ran the United Nations would you shrug and say “Hmm, its possible.” Or would you reject it out of hand as absurd and demand some shred of proof before accepting it as even possible?
I knew it! That’s why lehman and co. are going bankrupt!