[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric LOL Ridiculous. "God exists" contradicts too much of what we already know to be true to be the other side of the coin as you've alleged. Assumptions are premises we take without evidence. The points in my post are evidenced or self-evidencing.

I have shown otherwise. Conveniently, you ignore the majority of my post's content.

Yes, this is where you invalidated your argument and everything you allege. According to you, claims can only be proven if we take certain things to be true without evidence. This is a stance that's supported absolutely nowhere in acadamia nor does it have any place in a rational debate. We know god doesn't exist for the reasons I've stated. If you're interested in un-disarming yourself and participating in the debate you're going to need to accept A) Nothing can be proven is a paradoxical statement and thus false and B) Premises which are self-evident or supported with evidence aren't "assumed".

premise: Information from Answers.com

In discourse, a premise (also "premiss" in British usage) is a claim which is part of a reason or objection. It is a statement presumed true within the context of the discourse for the purposes of arguing to a conclusion. Premises are sometimes stated explicitly by way of disambiguation or for emphasis, but more often they are left tacitly understood as being obvious or self-evident ("it goes without saying"), or not conducive to succinct discourse. The accuracy or truth of the conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the soundness of the reasoning from the premises to the conclusion.

Nothing can be proven unless a premise is assumed true. But that is a debate for a different thread, namely, Basic Logic V, which you dropped. If you want to recopy these later posts over there and continue, that's fine, but you created this thread to show that there is no god. You have failed.