[Agent Steel]

I need not respond since it is not the contention of mine that something does - but, rather, that you can't demonstrate it doesn't and, for that reason, your argument fails.

You are late to the party indeed. You demonstrate a complete lack of philosophical sophistication by demanding that I must demonstrate the non-existence of an unfalsifiable claim. Bertrund Russell, Karl Popper, and Carl Sagan have all written about this topic and have explained why the strength of a claim is greater if it is falsifiable, not if it is unfalsifiable. I suggest you go and read what they have written so you get yourself up to speed on this.

Atheism is falsifiable. There are plenty of ways that you could demonstrate that God exists. You could demonstrate the existence of miracles. If Christ were to return here today and perform miracles in front of the whole world, that would easily show that God exists.

Furthermore, I HAVE given a positive argument for atheism, and so I HAVE met my burden.

[One Degree]

You are late to the party indeed. You demonstrate a complete lack of philosophical sophistication by demanding that I must demonstrate the non-existence of an unfalsifiable claim. Bertrund Russell, Karl Popper, and Carl Sagan have all written about this topic and have explained why the strength of a claim is greater if it is falsifiable, not if it is unfalsifiable. I suggest you go and read what they have written so you get yourself up to speed on this.

Atheism is falsifiable. There are plenty of ways that you could demonstrate that God exists. You could demonstrate the existence of miracles. If Christ were to return here today and perform miracles in front of the whole world, that would easily show that God exists.

Furthermore, I HAVE given a positive argument for atheism, and so I HAVE met my burden.

Many believe miracles have been demonstrated and that Christ did return, so do you now acknowledge God's existence?

[Vlerchan]

Bertrund Russell, Karl Popper, and Carl Sagan have all written about this topic and have explained why the strength of a claim is greater if it is falsifiable, not if it is unfalsifiable.

That the universe is all that exists is a falsifiable claim. It's just not one that we are capable of falsifying at current. That it's also quite possible that we will never possess the capabilities to demonstrate it's non-existence is also irrelevant as to whether - as a subject of logic - it is falsifiable.

Eg: That economists don't have the tools and data to deal adaquetely with a host of macroeconomic questions does not mean that these questions are unfalsifiable - even if economists are never capable of tackling them. This is because such a characteristic is inherent to the question as opposed to our relationship with it.

(On an aside: I don't believe that falsifiability is a useful criterion since no claim is truly falsifiable insofar as can never be demonstrated to be untrue absent of some standard of error).

Atheism is falsifiable. There are plenty of ways that you could demonstrate that God exists. You could demonstrate the existence of miracles. If Christ were to return here today and perform miracles in front of the whole world, that would easily show that God exists.

I agree that both of them are falsifiable. I am not sure how this relates to the claims I made at all, though.

Its worth nothing that I also haven't claimed that god exists. I claimed that at no point was the burden of proof or reason met to support the conclusion that he doesn't.

Furthermore, I HAVE given a positive argument for atheism, and so I HAVE met my burden.

If such was made in this thread I would appreciate if it could be quoted. If it is in one of the other threads on this topic, I explained why they were illogical.

[Besoeker]

Many believe miracles have been demonstrated and that Christ did return, so do you now acknowledge God's existence?

Perhaps many do.
That doesn't make it so.

[XogGyux]

Using the same line of reasoning, your belief that only the physical universe exists is not evidence that only the physical universe exists.

---

N.B. Didn't read the whole thread.

You are making an assumption about what I believe and don't believe. What I believe is completely beside the point as the fact do not change. Belief is ultimately meaningless in the outcome of reality. Unless you want to play with philosophical meanings of the terms "Physical Universe" and what does it mean to "exist" you are 100% limited to the physical universe because that is the universe you can interact with, the universe you can measure, observe, etc. By definition, if you had the ability to measure, observe, etc an event, such event would be part of a physical universe. By definition, the kind of metaphysical universe/existence that you are inferring is could not possibly have evidence in its support. So if you cannot possibly even hope to ever get such evidence, I don't understand how people could venture to guess about the theoretical function/laws/characteristic of such hypothetical realm much less of the impact such universe could have on ours if any (presumably none).

Atheism is falsifiable. There are plenty of ways that you could demonstrate that God exists. You could demonstrate the existence of miracles. If Christ were to return here today and perform miracles in front of the whole world, that would easily show that God exists.

Actually, I understood the point you were trying to make and I realize I am perhaps not being fair to you taking this stance, however, I want to use your point to discuss further the issue. What you meant but what you said is not 100% accurate.
If "Christ" (or somone, claiming to be Christ) were to come here (or resurrect?) and perform "miracles" that would only be proof that someone, claiming to be Christ can make some tricks (presumably miracles). A miracle implies some kind of divine intervention and thus claiming something to be a miracle (as incredible and divine-like as such "miracle" might be) is problematic because of the assumption of divinity. For instance, if you were to travel back in time to the 1400's and show the locals your new iPhone, Penicillin (and other antibiotics), how you can fly (with the help of a small plane or some kind of jetpack perhaps ) or even your vast knowledge about how the world works you would certainly be considered some kind of supernatural figure. In fact, you don't have to dwell into hypotheticals, there have been human civilizations that have been isolated from the rest of the world, and when contact occurs the more civilized culture, for a short period of time (until the less civilized realizes of their mistake) is often mistaken by some kind of divine entity.
An absolute proof of God existence might ultimately be non-existent or at the very least it is very hard to imagine one at this point. This is illustrated very well when some of the most outspoken "atheists" are asked the question "what would it take for you to believe in god" and the answer often varies from "I don't know" to "If god exist, god would know what it takes for me to believe in him even if I don't".

Many believe miracles have been demonstrated and that Christ did return, so do you now acknowledge God's existence?

What kind of logic is that. Many believed the earth was flat, do you aknowledge the earth was flat?

[Besoeker]

God's law works for a few billion people.
God and gravity are both invisible, mysterious forces.

OK. Jump off a cliff. see if gravity works or your gad saves you.

[neopagan]

God is a word. The meaning of the word can only be communicated with more words. No certainty can be drawn on what another person sees in their mind as the meaning of the word. From what she said and did, my grandmother had an a typical old-time infantile concept of God. Male father figure that dishes out judgments, listened to your prayers and responds to rituals. That does not mean the way she envisioned God was any less valid than the pseudo-sophisticated, sensitive new age variety being bandied about today by those who consider themselves to be on a spiritual plane, whatever that means.

The Gods of Mankind are figments of our imagination. But that does not mean that some all powerful, invisible entity didn't create everything and itself. It just means that the ones people talk about, fulfill nothing more than our petty, childish, selfish, superstitious, tribal, and otherwise pathetically human interpretation of reality. If humans survive long enough to evolve beyond this dark age mentality, they may come up with some actually worth talking about, but it will still be words. It seems to me if people really want to believe something, they would be more convincing if they shut up and went away and believed it.