You can't actually prove god exists, therefore god doesn't exist

Tell me OP, how would you test either of those claims, and what would falsify them?

if all 300m citizens donated one penny, nasa would have 3 million dollars, effectively fucking worthless. Their budget sometimes exceeds over 100 billion dollars.

>Not sure if serious or trolling
Also Nasa has never had budget over 100 billion.

If you can't, why you should ponder about them?

>solipsism is a fantastic claim

I'm not a solipsist but content-wise, it isn't really a fantastic claim it's just really counter-intuitive.

Case closed, you should've come sooner

>what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in sock gnomes that inhabit another dimension. You can obfuscate as much as you want, but you can't get around the fact that there is zero evidence.

You can't 100% prove anything at all.

However since I am a conscious human it is a reasonable working assumption to infer that other humans are conscious particularly as I can discuss consciousness with them.

I have no reason to infer God exists.

...this......

...

atheism is equally flawed (when compared to theism) in terms of validity, with the only plus being that it generally isn't as indoctrinating and is more in tune with how the world/nature does seem to work.
The only true and right answer is agnosticism, we simply don't know.

Depends how you define agnosticism. A lot of religious people see it as being 50% certain God exists.

>>Solipsism is also a fantastic claim.

>solipsism is the most rational stance
>but I do not like it
>so I say it is retarded
>while claiming to be rational

fagget

>You can't actually prove God exists, therefore God exists
>I can't prove concious beings other than myself exist, but I'll believe in them anyway because feels over reals

Religicucks, everybody. The burden of proof is on you. Have you even heard of the flying spaghetti monster argument?

>dude things just exist lmao

>dude without magic nothing could exists lmao

Like God?

Are you talking about the universe itself or God?

Yes, both stances are equally falsifiable.

You theist and atheist cucks are all the same.

>You shitposting cucks are all the same

FTFY

What point are you trying to make? That you are indeed an atheist solipsist? This thread isn't directed at you, it's directed as a non-solipsist atheists.
That's the entire point that the OP is trying to make you idiots; both statements are equally unfalsifiable, so it's hypocritical for atheists to adhere to one but not the other when they both follow the same line of reasoning.

>That's the entire point that the OP is trying to make you idiots; both statements are equally unfalsifiable, so it's hypocritical for atheists to adhere to one but not the other when they both follow the same line of reasoning.

They may be ultimately unfalsifiable but they don't follow the same line of reasoning at all, it is a false equivalence.

The evidence that other humans have consciousness is that you know you have consciousness and you know that other humans are biologically similar to yourself so it is a reasonable inference that they do as well. You are also able to interact with other humans and recognise they perceive the world in a similar way to yourself, sight, smell, hearing etc i.e. qualia. I can even discuss the problem of consciousness with them, which would suggest other people are conscious since they are even considering the problem.

Does this 100% prove it? No I could be a brain in a vat or a computer simulation or everyone else could be a meat zombie, but clearly there is evidence.

There's no evidence for God.

>The only true and right answer is agnosticism, we simply don't know.
Atheism (also theism) and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, user. I would say that only a minor share of atheists actually spouts things like 'I KNOW God does not exist". Claiming to know something you literally can't possibly know is just insane.

There is no evidence. Nothing you stated supports the idea that other human beings have consciousness, because all of those same "evidence" points can also support the claim that everyone but yourself if a meat zombie. If evidence doesn't disqualify opposing viewpoints, then it's not evidence at all. And just as there's no evidence that other people are conscious, there's no evidence that god exists.
So once again I'll ask you: why do atheists support one conclusion but not the other?

>You can't actually prove god exists, therefore god doesn't exist
Yes, and there is not that much to point towards the existence of "God".
>You can't actually prove conscious beings other than yourself exist, therefore you're the only real conscious being
You know you are conscious. You see other beings that share many similarities with you and generally have the same reactions to stuff, so you assume they have similar capabilities to experience like you do. It's not "proof" but simply a more or less sensible deduction. Quite similar to the notion that you can't "prove" macroevolution and other science stuff, but if you look at the state of the world today and assume that the laws of physics did not change over time things pretty surely had to happen that certain way.

I'm not exactly an atheist btw.

By your point of view, literally every claim that doesn't have evidence supporting it is as likely to be true as it is to be false.
"Not being able to prove it false" doesn't make it equally possible to be true, hell, it doesn't even guarantee that it has ANY possibility of being true.

>Nothing you stated supports the idea that other human beings have consciousness,

Yes it does,

And no I didn't claim the evidence supports the claim that everyone else is a meat zombie. You should read the post more carefully. I said that is a possibility you couldn't 100% disprove, there's no evidence supporting it.

That's not my point of view at all. I'm defending a different point of view to show the contradiction within atheists' line of thinking.
>no I didn't claim the evidence supports the claim that everyone else is a meat zombie
I know you didn't, but the fact is none of the evidence you stated disproves such a claim, in fact it's entirely compatible with it. That means it's not really evidence that supports the idea of other conscious beings.

>I know you didn't, but the fact is none of the evidence you stated disproves such a claim, in fact it's entirely compatible with it. That means it's not really evidence that supports the idea of other conscious beings.

You clearly have no idea how evidence works.

If I found my window smashed a stone next to it there is a lot of evidence and a high probability the stone was used. I can't rule out that a pink elephant called Bob did it but I have no evidence of that.

Tell me, who are you attacking? Your self constucted image of an atheists aka strawman? Because there is barely anyone here who thinks that way.

Protip: Atheism is mostly about probability, and atheists are doing well at the probability game.

You literally said " both statements are equally unfalsifiable, so it's hypocritical for atheists to adhere to one but not the other when they both follow the same line of reasoning."
The thing is that your assumption is wrong in that (the majority) of atheists don't say that they KNOW no god exists, they just don't BELIEVE that a god exists because there's is no evidence for it. Religious people, on the other hand, do in fact more often than not, claim that they KNOW their god exists.

False equivalence.
Under those conditions you'd have enough evidence to suggest the crime was committed with a rock. Clearly your window is broken, and there's a rock next to it that wasn't there before, so the logical assumption is that the rock smashed it.
A more accurate analogy would be a murder crime scene with a blood trail leading down the side walk and ending in front of a building but not trailing into it. By your logic, you'd say that it's probable that the perpetrator entered the building because the blood leads up to it. However, it's equally likely that the perpetrator cleaned the blood off of himself and continued walking, so even though the evidence at first appears to support one claim it actually doesn't mean anything at all because there's a number of equally plausible explanations for why the blood trail ends at the building but does not continue into it.
I'm not attacking all atheists, only the ones who follow that line of thinking (that which can't be proven is automatically false).

They shouldn't believe in the past or the external world either then

that which can't be proven and falsified should simply not be taken into consideration when studying nature and other things. And also when trying to deal with the world (most of the time).

You could say this is equivalent of totally disregarding it which is practically the same as treating it as if it doesn't exist. That's all.

Also the people you are attacking are almost exlusively teenagers then.

>A more accurate analogy would be a murder crime scene with a blood trail leading down the side walk and ending in front of a building but not trailing into it. By your logic, you'd say that it's probable that the perpetrator entered the building because the blood leads up to it. However, it's equally likely that the perpetrator cleaned the blood off of himself and continued walking, so even though the evidence at first appears to support one claim it actually doesn't mean anything at all because there's a number of equally plausible explanations for why the blood trail ends at the building but does not continue into it.

Why is that more accurate? I gave you compelling evidence why other human's have consciousness and you failed to attack any of it. You just started making the false claim that it wasn't evidence if everything else couldn't be 100% ruled out.

It's no good just accusing me of making a false equivalence when I haven't just because I pointed out OP made one. In fact I didn't even make an equivalence, I just used an example of how evidence works to explain to you.

Your example was completely irrelevant is what I'm saying.
It's more accurate because your example presents a strong case that your window was smashed with a rock. No rock by your window before, window gets smashed, now there's a rock there. Sure, it's still possible that something else smashed the window, but the evidence actually points to the rocks usage in this case.
Your "evidence" that other human beings are conscious however doesn't actually point to anything. As with my blood trail analogy, the evidence may APPEAR to point one way upon casual observation, but the truth is other events are still equally likely to have occurred. Your evidence is meaningless and circumstantial at best, as with the blood trail that ends abruptly in front of a building.

>Your "evidence" that other human beings are conscious however doesn't actually point to anything.

You completely failed to give a single criticism of it and you still haven't.

I have to leave the thread as I am off to the pub to watch the footie, but it is very clear what is going in here.

The problem of "do other people have consciousness" and the problem of "does God exist" are two entirely different questions with different reasoning going into trying to answer them, there is no equivalence between the two.

All that is happening is you can't win the "God" debate so you want to make some cheap and ridiculous link to something unrelated and argue about that as if it is some kind of proxy.

Pathetic.

I'm not the guy you're discussing with, but I will say that: you seem to be mixing belief with knowledge (a very small number of people actually claim to know those things you pointed out), and you also seem to be making absurd exaggerations. You shouldn't make a thread like this and make reference to "atheists", at least say "gnostic atheists" or something like that, because if you don't do that you will just look like a fool throwing such a large strawman.

Not that guy, but, your biological argument doesn't make much sense if you suppose that your consciousness in the only one, because then the other people would be a construct of your mind, and so would be their biological structures. How would you go about showing that your own consciousness can't emulate their consciousness to a level that even you couldn't tell if they are a construct or not?

Define "consciousness".

You can empirically verify that people's brains are having the same reaction to similar stimuli that yours does.

You cannot empirically verify that there's any consciousness outside the brain+body.

So, within the scope of the empirical world, one must draw the conclusion that there are other conscious beings sharing similar experiences.

Outside of the empirical world, everything becomes solipsism, thus the line is drawn.

There's nothing to criticize about your evidence other than the fact that it can't prove or even help prove the fact that other conscious beings exist. It might appear to indicate it, but at the end of the day the possibility that everyone is conscious is as equally likely as the possibility that only you're conscious, regardless of wether you take your evidence into account or not.
That's all that I'm saying, I don't know why you're having such a hard time understanding it.

Except it's not "equally likely".

When you can verify it in 2 of 3 worlds, and can't say anything about it in a third, Popper and Occam kinda forces a positive conclusion.

It's certainly more likely than the idea that you're somehow imaging all of reality, and have somehow just extremely compartmentalized all your knowledge, and hallucinations of creatures very much like you are just giving you the missing bits now and again.

But hey, maybe we're all just like, living in a simulation in your head, man.