I'd argue 2 is a mistake, not a falsehood.

It is amazing how many people will tell me that god exists because I can not PROVE that he doesn't exist.

I would think that people would have figured out the failure in that one a long time ago.

However, I still encounter theists that seem to think that Pascal's wager works.

I think the one that irritates me the most as of late, (they all irritate me but it seems that this one is the most common one that is thrown around lately on some forums) is the long paragraph assertion that states that science has "proven" (I hate it when theists use the science has proven crap as well) but science has proven that if the sun were slightly further away or if the moon was a smidget of an inch off, then there would be zero chance that the Earth would be here. What these dumbasses fail to realize, is that the sun is NOT in the perfect place nor is the moon, nor is the rest of their long rambling paragraphs that are a pathetic attempt at bunk science.

I see your point.

I wanted to portray "faith" the way theists intend it when you speak to them. They always use the words "truth" in their discussions so that is why I used falsehood.

Besides, the churches are peddlers in the lie which started over 2500 years ago for jesus and over 3500 years ago with abraham.

That's the point I was trying to emphasize. The argument "you can't prove it" and "you can't disprove it" is a negation. It means their god(s) do not exist.

Pascal's wager is a failure. It is flawed.

Well here is the fun thing to remind the theists:

1) When the sun was not as bright and the solar system was forming, there was no life on earth.

2) The sun will continue to expand when it burns out the hydrogen and starts to burn heavier elements, thus destroying the earth.

3) The moon wasn't always where it is now. It was much closer and things were not favorable for life to exist here.

4) The moon is moving 3.8cm away each year, eventually it will be flung away at which time all tides and waves and a whole bunch of other shit will ruin the earth for all life.

Maybe wording it this way:

Any thing that does not exist, can not be proved or disproved.

That which can not be proved or disproved requires faith to believe in it.

All god(s) require faith to believe in them, there fore god(s) do not exist.

I'm not sure whether the first premise  'any thing that does not exist' can be disproved either?  But if we go along with it for now how about this one:-

Morals do not exist because they can not be  proved or disproved  (they are human constructs not objective truths).

That which can not be proved or disproved requires faith to believe in it.

All moral claims require faith to believe in them, therefore (technically) society does not exist.

Just because some one believes (or has faith) in something does not make it true.

The FSM is a good example of how you neither prove nor disprove a faith. Sure, every one knows the FMS isn't real, but it was only to show the absurdity of religions and how they need faith and not facts to exist.

Too many times I get in to discussions with theists who claim that their god is untestable or not of this dimension (etc etc), the list goes on and on. These absurdities are base on faith, yet they try to present "faith" as being factual.

The discussions usually end up with one side saying "You can't disprove my god" and the other side saying "You can't prove your god either".

This is the focal point of my argument.

If something can not be proved or disproved, then it does not exist.

If it does not exist you must have faith and not fact for it to be followed.

If it has faith and not fact to exist, then it must not exist at all.

You haven't proven this statement.  For added Irony I would contend that you can not prove it.

Furthermore, even if you can prove it, you still run into the fact that you can not prove that something can not be proven.  After all, when you fail to prove something you are not showing it can not, in a philosophical sense, be proven, merely that you personally with your current tools and techniques available to you, can not prove it.

Russel's Teapot is a good example of this.  Alternatively, take extra-galactic Planetary Objects.  We can not prove or disprove their existence using our current technology, does this mean they don't exist?

Your logic word-play may be useful when someone brings up something which they specifically claim is unprovable, but it isn't useful for much more than that, and when you get right down to it I doubt any believer actually considers their Gott to be Unproven.  Rather, they consider their faith to be proof enough.

That said, I am actually partial to a similar idea.  In my rendition however, I suppose a situation where an object or idea cannot be proven or dis-proven, and then wonder, since we cannot say whether or not the object or idea exists, or even what the differences would be between two hypothetical universes one with and the other without, why do we care?

Generally the thing I bring up is Free-Will.

"That which does not exist has no evidence" is a factual statement. I did not claim any thing existed or did not exist.

Let me word it this way:

That which does not exist has no evidence (to prove or disprove it).

Belief in that which has no evidence is faith.

Faith is a belief in that which does not exist.

Once evidence has been provided then it can be either proved or disproved.

If there is no evidence to be provided then it doesn't exist.

Yes, a teapot could exist in between Mars and Earth. Some one COULD launch one in to space. If one claims that there is a teapot in space then the burden of proof is on them to provide the evidence. Until then, there is no teapot in space.

If some one launched a teapot in to space and did not collect evidence to provide to the peers as proof, then the only person who actually knew was the one who launched it. Every one else would say, "Your nuts" but only you would know.

Even dark matter could exist. Evidence suggests that it is real. There is evidence to suggest that extra-galactic planetary objects exist.

Yet the teapot would exist regardless of whether or not anyone was capable of providing evidence of its existence. 

Your logical syllogism has the formal fallacy called illicit minor.

That which does not exist has no evidence (to prove or disprove it).

Belief in that which has no evidence is faith.

Faith is a belief in that which does not exist.

Rewritten as syllogism-

All A (things that do not exist) are B (things that have no evidence)

All C (faith) are B (things that have no evidence)

Therefore all C are A. 

Which is a clear logical fallacy, and incidentally in this case also makes your conclusion false even though both premises are correct. It is absurd to argue that faith doesn't get lucky sometimes.  

You have misunderstood my statement. What this boils down to is "Is the glass half empty or half full"?

You are thinking that every thing has a possibility to exist right before it is discovered? Even if science has yet to discover, XYZ proton, then it still exists out in space?

(edit)

The page you provided to support your claim is incorrect in their example that all terrorists are extremists.

It doesn't matter which premises you use. The statement is logically fallacious regardless of whether the premises are true or false. (Indeed, it is fallacious even if the conclusion happens to be true) 

All dogs are canines

All canines are mammals

Therefore all mammals are canines.

Same basic logical fallacy. Ironically, your argument against faith requires us to have faith that the conclusion is true. 

And yes, things have a possibility of existing before they are discovered. Whether you know if it exists or not is irrelevant. If I told you that I have a cup of coffee right now, obviously you have no way of getting evidence to determine if I actually have a cup of coffee or if I am lying. So you might just take my word on faith (belief that I have coffee with no evidence). Whether or not I actually have a cup of coffee is not dependent on whether or not you believe I do and it is not dependent on whether or not you have evidence that I have it. It is dependent only on reality. 

So you believe that god(s) might exist? The christian god too?

And as for the rest of your comments I've re-arranged the wording to make things easier to understand:

That which exists (a) has evidence (b).

That which has no evidence (b) is believed through faith (c).

Therefore, faith (c) is a belief in that which does not exist (a).

1. All A are B
2. No B are C
3. Therefore, no C are A

It is possible, just extremely improbable. When you narrow it to the Christian god it is even more improbable. If there suddenly was evidence discovered of the existence of a being with powers associated with god I am not going to ignore it, would you?

You have gotten around the syllogistic logical fallacy and replaced it with the informal fallacy of equivocation. There is a difference between evidence existing as in your first premise and evidence being known to exist, as in your second premise. Your first premise deals with whether or not evidence in fact exists, your second premise is based on whether or not the person believing knows that the evidence exists.

It is only true if it is assumed that humans know of the existence of all evidence, which clearly we do not. Is it so inconceivable to you that something can exist and have evidence, but the person who believes in it does not know that evidence and therefore believes through faith? Since we are not all knowing, and we have the practical reality of having to believe things without evidence in order to get through life, I suggest there are a great many things that we believe through faith (without evidence) which may in fact have evidence that we are unaware of.

It is impossible that the christian god exists. Any evidence current or in the future will be fabricated and falsehoods.

My first premise is still valid and my attempts to make you understand that "things do not exist" is just as valid as "things do exist" has failed.

As I said previously, there are things which do not exist, they are not possible. There is no evidence for or against their existence. They do not exist in some other galaxy on a different planet or in some other Universe, they simply do not exist.

I make no claims to know all things which exist or do not exist, I only claim that things that do not exist do not have evidence to support those who have faith in their belief. This is no different than saying, "things that do exist have evidence to support their existence".

Most likely such evidence would be fabricated, but it is foolish to dismiss anything as impossible even if evidence of its existence could be furnished. The form of communication me and you would have been dismissed as "impossible" by rational people a thousand years ago. I am not ready to dismiss anything as completely impossible, though many things are highly improbable. 

My pick isn't with your first premise, it is mostly with the second one and the conclusion. Things that do exist can and often are believed through faith. Faith only implies that the believer does not have evidence, it has no bearing on whether or not evidence actually exists somewhere and may be available in the future.  

it's impossible that you or i exist, or that anything exists.  everything both exists and doesn't exist on some level.  for someone who seems to identify himself as a buddhist on some level, i must say you're doing extreme violence to both the idea of anitya and the two truths doctrine.

I respect you choice, I however disagree.

I agree. There are some things which exist and are believed with faith, then some time later, through discovery those beliefs become validated with evidence. I was still saying that there are ideas or beliefs that will never have evidence to support them.

And we're saying you have no evidence to support this idea and/or belief.

Technically, when we speak of those levels of existence, yes, nothing exists, every thing exists. Permanence, impermanence spread out across levels of the realms of thought. Absolutes. Non-absolutes. Truths. Non-truths. Meh. I don't put too much thought in to it. I'm talking about something else now. I'm talking about "there is that which does not exist. Until that which does not exist has evidence that it exists, then it remains non-existent."

In the case of inter-galactic planetary objects, they don't exist until they are discovered. The scientists who first discover them find a wobble with a star. They do their calculations. Then make a conclusion. No one else has seen this wobble or made the calculations and until they confirm the findings, this IGPO does not exist.

Yes, those IGPO's do exist out there on their own with out human observation, but they (as a whole) have been discovered already. So it is the same as the "teapot" floating in space. Teapots exists so it is possible that some one put one in to orbit. Does it matter if there is one there? No. It doesn't matter. I already know it is possible.

What about the FSM? Does it exist? Where is the evidence that it exists? What about the "gods" (and I'm not talking about realm of gods). Where is their evidence that they exist?

OK - So they exist for them with faith, they believe that their god exists. All find and dandy, but as a whole they are not accepted just like the scientist who discovers the IGPO. Other scientists must confirm those findings and then it becomes widely accepted by the field because those involved in the findings are of solid reputation. Call it faith? I don't. It's a learned experienced from past observations. You have evidence that this scientist has constantly been correct. Their calculations have been without error. Could they make a mistake, yes, but this is the reason why the world of science confirms findings.

Where is the evidence of past leaders of the church? or other religions? Haven't they set the standard for all others who follow? Corruption? Child Molestations? Rape? Murder? Drugs? Money? Power? Control? All part of their ego. Greed. Failure after failure. The history speaks for itself and the mindless ignore it. They don't want to hear about it. Shhhh. You are ruining my bliss.

Yeah, there are some people who are good people and honestly want to make a difference. Yet, their belief system is based on faith. They are following a 3500 year old lie. No one challenges their faith because they are told not to, they are told to "keep the faith". They are mindless. They are blind. They do not question.

So am I not following the "Two Truths Doctrine"? I'm a seeker of truth. I believe I am seeking answers by asking questions and stating observations.

Which brings me back to my observations stated previously.

Actually I have, you just fail to see it.

And all of the Christian Preachers I have talked to have presented me with the incontrovertible absolute and perfectly truthful evidence of the existence of Gott, I just won't see it until I bow my head and accept the Messiah Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior.

Try again.

What you fail to see is that there are some ideas or theories (as an example) that just are not valid; they do not exist. Flying Spaghetti Monsters with meatballs and sauce do not exist even if we imagine they do for poking fun at other ideas and theories.

BTW - Gott? or do you mean "god"?

That's an impressive amount of Not-actually-providing-any-Evidence-whatsoever-to-support-your-assertions you're doing.

To actually somewhat approximate what an actual debate might look like; Why are they not valid?  Why do you get to decide what is and is not valid?  How do you decide this?  And if I or anyone else decides that something is Valid, since you have no evidence to support your assertion, how do you argue against us?

P.S. Gott = God in German

This is an issue of is the glass half full or empty.

Is any thing possible?

Is any thing impossible?

It isn't me saying specifically what X is just that X can equally be possible as much as it could be impossible.

...And?

Are you saying that Gott is more impossible than it is possible?  Because that still leaves me with the exact same criticism / question;

How

Do

You

PROVE

That

?

History shows that gods are flawed and inconsistent. The stories are fabricated to fill in the holes of the ignorant and uneducated.

God is not possible or I should say, "there is no creator of the Universe. It is impossible".

All religions are phoney.

Which brings me back to my original argument.

There are things which don't exist and gods are a perfect example of that which doesn't exist. There is no evidence for or against them. Therefore they do not exist.

You may only make coherent claims of certainty against a defined frame of reference.  Also the degree of certainty is indirectly proportional to the size of the frame of reference.  

For example, if your experience thus far has been of 99 red apples, you have a 99% degree of certainty that the next apple is red.  You may say with 99% certainty that all apples are red if your frame of reference is 100 apples.  If your frame of reference is 10,000 apples, then you have less then 1% degree of certainty.  

Of course, you can limit your frame of reference by expanding your epistemic paradigm and therefore "zooming" in on this on particular issue by eliminating unknowns.  For example you can read books on apples that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that all apples are red.  You can collect the DNA of an apple seed and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this particular strain of DNA will result in a red pigmentation.  

The point is, that you can never make an absolute claim unless you first define your frame of reference.  Any claim that lays beyond your current frame of reference is only an approximation.

So yes, within our frame of reference, god does not exist.  We, as atheists must, however, take into consideration the fact that our frames of reference can be limited or flawed, lest we fall for the same fallacies as theists.  We must, therefore allow for the possibility of god existing as paradoxical as that may sound. 

History shows that the Stories Mortals tell of Gotts are flawed and inconsistent, mortals have never observed an actual Gott in reality, and therefore cannot say anything definitive about them either way.

Prove it.

...And? Gott =/= Religion

So what you're saying is "I can't prove they don't exist, therefore they don't exist."

........................Ummm

Now if you instead wanted to say "There is no evidence for or against them and therefore they have no meaningful impact on reality and thus whether they exist

or not is a largely meaningless distinction and we should                                        

stop caring."             

Well

  That's a position me and my non-standard justifications could get behind.

I really like your post. Thanks for the input.

I think what people are missing is that there is a 100% chance things do not exist just like somethings are 100% do exist. And I don't mean the buddhist stuff about this world and impermanence. I'm talking about a, for example, a human being made from snow skis. It isn't going to happen. Maybe in a cartoon, but not in our world. Yeah, ok, someone could find a way to add some cyborg stuff to it, transfer thought or memories, then hydraulics, but you aren't going to have a witch or god or magic potion make a set of snow skis get up and dance.

So I can say, 100% proof, that there are things which DO NOT EXIST.

I sort of agree with this, but it is missing my point.

As I stated in my previous post. There are somethings which just do not exist. They are made up fabrications of our imagination and will never exist.

Buggs Bunny is not going to jump out of your television and start talking to you about how Elmer Fudd is a douche.

Snow skis aren't going to come alive because a witch put a spell on them.

There are some things which are 100% impossible. They will never happen. They will never exist.

Face it Bum, you're just too stupid to figure out basic logic.

Trolling turning out for you, btw?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

The retarded are always easily amused, even by their own stupidity.

Takes one to know one.

No actually it doesn't. That's a common refrain of the stupid in a hilarious attempt to feel better about themselves. But it really doesn't work that way. XD

Stupid as a stupid does?

Keep telling yourself that. Never understood the idea of embracing an insult just to return it. Even if you were right, you're still stupid.
*shrug* Guess it's a retard thing.

Nothing inspires me more than to see the intellectually elite have a difference in opinion.  It restores my faith in this forum and makes me want to contribute...  There was a time when I would have been proud to show anyone a thread with a well developed argument, now I would never even bring this forum up in a conversation.

That's just ridiculous. There's always been back and forth on this site. It hasn't changed since it started up. In point of fact there've been plenty of times where it was worse.

If the best content you can contribute is a smarmy troll comment once a month, then it's unlikely we'd want anyone you could bring anyway.

Retarded as a retarded does.

I was being serious and wanted to discuss my opinions but specific people aren't constructive. They insult other people just to build up their ego because it gives them a feeling of worthiness.

That explains you.

Hypocrisy is fun. I was trying to have a serious discussion when you decided to jump in and start trolling. I figure turn around is fair play. Guess you can dish it out, but you can't take it. Typical retard.

Yep. You are right. I was trolling on my own blog. Have another puff there Vastet.

No you trolled my topic, which is why I came to your blog. Snort some more crack retard. It's clearly doing you wonders.

Fool.

The butthurt is strong with you.