The atheist gods of 'Lack', the only true religion?

Lol I explained it to you several times.

Ah, I see. You're confused, but out of curiosity, do you believe in quantum mechanics?

 

and I rebutted it as many times.
I have several beliefs about quantum mechanics, and that does not apply to this.

 

No, you just said it was wrong.

So none of this explains how you would determine if anything is or isn't real

 

after rebuttal becomes a waste of font ink
no argument you have made explains anything, its all over th e top flim flam.

 

So, how would you determine if something is real or not?

 

I think therefore I am, what more do you need

 

What about something that you don't think exists?

 

depends on what kind of something you are talking about

 

Ok, how about an easy one like the easter bunny?

 

Sure. I'd have to look into it, and I havent, dont know **** about it, or unicorns or any of the other things you want me to dismiss out of hand with no formal knowledge.

 

Ok, what do you know doesn't exist?

 

I know for a fact no ice cubes exist in my tummy, beer on the other hand

 

Ok, how do you know that then?

 

evidence

 

As in no evidence that there are any ice cubes in your stomach?

 

as in I have not eaten any ice cubes and ice cubes cannot remain as ice in a 98.6 degree tummy

 

Ok, if you had, that would be evidence that one might be right?

 

but that was not the question, I answered your question

I know for a fact no ice cubes exist in my tummy, beer on the other hand

 

So, I think you see where I would go with this. Since you have 'not' eaten an ice cube that would be evidence, but we don't have that evidence, and since there is no evidence of an ice cube we should assume that there isn't one. So, that fits my model, is there a way that it fits your model? That is, that there is hard evidence that there isn't one there? Or maybe a different example?

 

my testimony that I did not eat an ice cube is evidence.
sure you take a scope and look
your 'presumption' model. lol

 

But, if I looked, then I would just claim absence of evidence since I didn't find anything. Is there a way that fits your model better?

 

the problem you have is that I am claiming that I did not eat and ice cube, which entirely different than claiming there is one and you dont find one therefore you presume there is none there based upon your inability to find one. two entirely unrelated problems that you are trying to shoehorn into your model, it dont work that way.

 

Ok, so the proof that it doesn't exist is your claim that you didn't put one there?

 

"The rock exists" is an example of a verb being used without a decision by that which (in this case) exists.

Well, I don't really care about any of that, you have presented the idea that things described by words have to be the result of a decision, and I have provided the counter example of a rock existing. Rocks can exist (which is described by a verb) without making the decision to. The clip you provided did not discuss the issue at hand.

It seems to me you not being able to explain it is because your logic has broken down. I don't think this is obtuse, I've given you an example (and there are many more) which is a direct counter example to a key point in your logic.

 

Don't have to prove god doesn't exist since god is an invention of man. You know just like unicorns. Almost by definition a fiction invented by man doesn't exist. There of course is a tiny possibility that a fictional creation might prove to exist but until evidence arrises it is logical to believe otherwise.

It is an interesting quest to try and find any creation of fiction that has later been proven to exist. So far I come up empty and thst of course includes god.