Can't prove there is no God because one can't Prove a Negative. You know nothing of logic or the thinking process, "evidently".
If you can't offer proof that this is so, then the best you could say is that "there is no evidence of such a thing as an a priori assumption". But you are stating this with such certainty that it would seem that you must have proof of the negative, "there is no such thing as an a priori assumption". If you do have such proof, then you have proved a negative, meaning it is no longer a fallacy that a negative can be proven.
But if you do not have such proof and continue to insist that it is a fallacy that a negative can be proven (thereby requiring you to retract your statement that there is no such thing as an a priori assumption), then the irony is made even thicker in that your statement that there is no such thing as an a priori assumption is itself an a priori assumption.
Anyway, here's a definition:
A priori is a Latin phrase meaning "from the former" or less literally "before experience". In much of the modern Western tradition, the term a priori is considered to mean propositional knowledge that can be had without, or "prior to", experience. It is usually contrasted with a posteriori knowledge meaning "after experience", which requires experience.
For those within the mainstream of the tradition, mathematics and logic are generally considered a priori disciplines. Statements such as "2 + 2 = 4", for example, are considered to be "a priori", because they are thought to come out of reflection alone.
The natural and social sciences are usually considered a posteriori disciplines. Statements like "The sky is usually mostly blue", for instance, might be considered "a posteriori" knowledge.
Provide "one iota" of evidence of the existence of a higher being.
You won't accept anything but physical evidence, and even if I could provide some evidence that would fit your criteria, it is extremely doubtful that you would accept it. It would have to be a hoax. The Vatican or some other "spurring" religious authority would have to have fabricated it somehow. But I were miraculously somehow able to clear that hurdle to your satisfaction, you would convince yourself that you misunderstood what you heard or saw when I presented such evidence to you.
If God himself stood before you and told you who He was, told you everything about your life that not only had you not told anyone else but that you couldn't even remember until He brought it up, then proceeded to perform in front of you one miracle after another that defied all explanation, you would then do everything in your power both consciously and subconsciously to convince yourself that you were somehow hallucinating through the whole ordeal. And it is an all-but mathematical certainty that you would succeed.
Your mind is utterly closed to the possibility of God so there is nothing that either I or God himself could do to convince you, short of robbing you of your free will to believe or disbelieve. The criteria of what the hardcore skeptic would accept as proof of God's existence is always deliberately designed to be un-meetable.
"...therefore everything is meaningless."
Non-sequitur. Only for you. Not for a rational being.
Then tell me why anything has any inherent meaning beyond what we make up in our own heads from one microsecond to the next. I should believe there is meaning in a Godless universe just because LogicWings says so? That would be...irrational...
I can also positively assert there is no such thing as a square circle. When the terms of an abstract concept contain contradictory premises there is “no such thing”. There is no person who has lived a life without any experience which would be the predicate of an “a priori” concept. This is one of great fallacious mistakes of philosophy that still contaminates it.
" If you do have such proof, then you have proved a negative, meaning it is no longer a fallacy that a negative can be proven.
Sloppy Epistemology. Proving the existence of an assertion of a physical fact, which is what “Proving a Negative” is all about, as opposed to the proving of an abstract concept are not the same thing. The poverty of the arguments are pathetic.
But if you do not have such proof and continue to insist that it is a fallacy that a negative can be proven (thereby requiring you to retract your statement that there is no such thing as an a priori assumption), then the irony is made even thicker in that your statement that there is no such thing as an a priori assumption is itself an a priori assumption.
I don’t need to respond to this because your own response is too rich:
A priori is a Latin phrase meaning "from the former" or less literally "before experience". In much of the modern Western tradition, the term a priori is considered to mean propositional knowledge that can be had without, or "prior to", experience. It is usually contrasted with a posteriori knowledge meaning "after experience", which requires experience.
Yes, before experience.
For those within the mainstream of the tradition, mathematics and logic are generally considered a priori disciplines. Statements such as "2 + 2 = 4", for example, are considered to be "a priori", because they are thought to come out of reflection alone.
And this is the philosophical mistake. This is the self-contradicting definition: “they are thought to come out of reflection alone”. To restate this in the contra-positive – such knowledge could not have any dependence upon a posteriori knowledge. (That is the meaning of the word “alone”.)Prove That Negative !!! This is the fallacious mistake of philosophy that I referred to earlier. To prove the existence of the “a priori” one must Prove the Negative of “a posteriori” experience. All conceptualization is ultimately rooted in experience and it cannot be demonstrated otherwise. “A priori” knowledge is impossible, BY DEFINITION. It is an invalid definition.
You won't accept anything but physical evidence, and even if I could provide some evidence that would fit your criteria, it is extremely doubtful that you would accept it.
You cannot provide anything other than “physical evidence”. That is your problem, you want the acceptance of a scientific theory without the basis of any evidence at all.
But I were miraculously somehow able to clear that hurdle to your satisfaction, you would convince yourself that you misunderstood what you heard or saw when I presented such evidence to you.
This is where you guys always fall down. Having failed to make your case, you attack my psychology, telling me what I will and will not accept as evidence had you presented what you cannot present. This is where it always turns into personal attack.
If God himself stood before you and told you who He was, told you everything about your life that not only had you not told anyone else but that you couldn't even remember until He brought it up, then proceeded to perform in front of you one miracle after another that defied all explanation, you would then do everything in your power both consciously and subconsciously to convince yourself that you were somehow hallucinating through the whole ordeal.
This is where the whole fraud of ID falls apart for anyone who is willing to see. The issue here was supposed to be the validity of the theory of Intelligent Design and here we have a guy telling me what my reaction would be in the Presence of God. Think for a second how offensive the above statement is: “you would then do everything in your power both consciously and subconsciously to convince yourself that you were somehow hallucinating through the whole ordeal.”
What, you got a crystal ball? You think because of a handful of posts on a forum you have the right to judge me and tell me what I would do in a given situation? You have the slightest idea what I have actually experienced, what I have been through in my life and what I actually believe?
I thought ID didn’t have anything to do with “God” and “Creationism”. But what are you saying here? That is precisely what you are saying. “You must believe what I believe or God is going to Get Ya!”
And it is an all-but mathematical certainty that you would succeed.
How do you know?
Your mind is utterly closed to the possibility of God so there is nothing that either I or God himself could do to convince you, short of robbing you of your free will to believe or disbelieve.
How do you know? The sheer audacity of such statements floors me. The arrogance of thinking you know that somebody else’s mind is “closed” without even knowing that person is astounding. The Beam, buddy, The Beam.
The criteria of what the hardcore skeptic would accept as proof of God's existence is always deliberately designed to be un-meetable.
If this statement is true then Intelligent Design is “ deliberately un-meetable” and can never be science for that reason. And that, Parsifal, is THE POINT!!! That is the precisely the point you don’t want to admit, even though you clearly admit it here. Therefore, you are selling Creationism. Pure and simple.
Then tell me why anything has any inherent meaning beyond what we make up in our own heads from one microsecond to the next.
For you nothing. You don’t seem to understand life outside your own narrow definition of what meaning is. I can’t help that. That doesn’t mean that life doesn’t have meaning for those who believe differently than you do. (Although this is your arrogant inference.) Maybe just getting enough to eat and loving your wife and kids today is enough for some. Maybe making a billion dollars is sufficient for others.
I should believe there is meaning in a Godless universe just because LogicWings says so?
Never said this was a Godless Universe. In fact, I specifically said that this was impossible to prove and was an unwarranted assumption. But facts never get in the way of people like you.
That would be...irrational...
Haven’t convinced me you know what the term means.