Originally Posted by Deadly-Dreamer-X
I don't see anything new in this old-hat post. Same ol' same.
Plus, when you say "There is no proofs of God; therefore, god does not exist" is invalid, as this is ad ignorantiam in its purest form.
It is valid in other cases, like in Science, law and the like.
This is from the vast libraries of the internet.
"At one time scientists concluded that DNA would not crystallize because after extensive testing, there was no proof that it would. This conclusion is not fallacious even though now it is known that DNA will crystallize"
Yes, I was revising the logical fallacies. And fallacy remains a fallacy, so you cannot really go "God does not exist because there is no proof of god's existence". Well, that doesn't change the fact that there is no God, because if you say "God do exist because no one has disproven god's existence", the same fallacy, you see.
If you're going to be like that, how about this:
We have a conundrum. We can't say there is a god because we have no proof, we cant say their isn't because we have no proof to prove otherwise.
Although the latter is astronomically more likely then a divine being forming our lives and the universe.