CP3S said:
This whole discussion is getting so very silly.
Science doesn't need to disprove the existence of gods or god-like creatures. No evidence exists for them, there is no reason to assume they exist or to feel the need to disprove they don't.
There are all sorts of things that don't exist, and thankfully, we don't waste a lot of time on proving they don't. If someday we discover mermaids or unicorns, I for one, think that would be super cool, and I'd be very excited about it. Until then, I am content to assume they are mythological (which I am sure you assume the same about them).
So now we have those who through faith believe in a deity (which I am perfectly cool with, if it brings you comfort, if it makes you happy, please, have at it), waving the burden of disproof in our faces for something we haven't the slightest good reason to suspect any possibility of. If you are going to make a claim, then the burden of proof is on your shoulders. "Period. End of sentence." As Warb would say.
If I make the claim I am a super awesome vigilante that makes Batman look extremely lame by comparison, whose job is it to verify this? Yours of course! No! Obviously it is mine. You have no way to prove I am not an amazingly awesome vigilante who fights crime every evening, but I am the one making the fantastic claim.
I cannot disprove your god. Me admitting this is no more of a victory in the name of theism than me admitting that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of centaurs. But ultimately, all evidence points away from their existence, we only know about centaurs thanks to ancient writings of fantastical tales that they are included in.
I know centaurs and Santa do not exist. If you can prove to me either one exists, then I will drop my defense of Leonardo's statement that, according to his belief system and world view, he knows god does not exist.
Barring proof of centaurs or Santa, I'm not going to reply to another word on Leo's claim, and my defense of his use of wording. It has just gotten absurd, and driven what was an interesting discussion into a pithy debate over semantics.
Leo feels he knows God does not exist. Many religious people are at least as certain that God does exist.
Why should either of these concern us to the point of discussing it with nearly as many words as we already have?
Oh, CP3S, don't be a party pooper ;) Quite honestly I've enjoyed this discussion and have found it very interesting. I'm saddens me you haven't gotten the same pleasure. If I may try to wrap things up on one thing: you and every other atheist of any brand may make any claim you like and I will not like you less for it. I just felt that the reasoning was inconsistent, and I simply wanted to make what I thought was an interesting point. I understand that the burden of proof would be on me to demonstrate that God exists, if that were my intent. But I too know that it is not a falsifiable experiment, and that the nature of the experiments which I have performed are only evidence to myself of his existence. It was not my purpose to prove anything, just to point out the different standards. And considering the extensive criticism the prominent scientific atheists level at believers for not using our brains enough and having no evidence of our point of view, I see nothing wrong with turning their logic back on them a bit. I certaintly respect your perspective and am not trying to persuade you to believe anything else.