Proving a negative

[Mr.Badham]

If 2 or more unfalsifiable beliefs contradict one another, all could be wrong. All but 1 must be wrong.

If there were 5 unfalsifiable competing beliefs that did not allow for the existence of the others, we would know for a fact that 4 of them must be incorrect.

If someone, then came along, and stated that their belief allows for the existence of some or all of the other beliefs, we would then have to state that there are 6 competing unfalsifiable beliefs, because the first 5 do not allow for the 6th, and if any of the first 5 are correct, the 6th belief would consequently be incorrect. If the 6th unfalsifiable belief were correct, than anyone believing in the first 5 would then be incorrect. Although the 6th allows for the existence of the first 5, only those believing in the 6th unfalsifiable belief would be correct.

I'm not so arrogant as to believe that I am 100% correct. But this is as close as I can come to proving a negative. Does anyone agree that this might be a good starting point?

[spoirier]

It all seems to amount to "God didn't give me something I wanted, therefore He must not exist."

No, the definition of the things that I report they have failed happening, was absolutely not "what I wanted". Instead, it is what I happened to infallibly find that it would have been morally necessary, for the evidence of their absolute moral necessity, has forced itself upon me, that have nothing to do with my own "will", "choices", illusion, any risk for me to be mistaken.

But it seems you are'nt able to conceive such a possibility. Well, this is a general problem with religious people, that they are not able to understand some kinds of things. I have described the situation in other words here:

In front of the ones (during sermons and when preaching to naive people), religious people are absolutists: they claim they have the absolute unshakable truth that nobody can refute.
But as soon a someone dares to come with a serious, strong opposite conviction and evidence against their views, they suddenly become absolute relativists, crying for tolerance towards the diversity of personal views and feelings, blindly but strongly denying any possible ability for any human (except themselves) to have any reliable evidence about any religious issue whatsoever.
Regularly I received requests of debates from Christians who, at the beginning of the discussion, claimed to have the indefectible light of God with them infinitely above my views, and the absolutely strongest evidence against my views; and at the end of the discussion, picture themselves as the kings of humility, with the moral superiority of admitting their lack of any clue of what might be the right replies to my arguments (where their conception of the "right reply" has somehow finally more to do with how powerfully it can delude me into being personally impressed or touched by God's grace, than with whether it would have anything to do with the truth); instead, they put forward their unshakable faith in the existence of better Christian apologetists, either with a deeper guidance from God's spirit in managing conversations and making favorable impressions, or stronger rational abilities, that should be able to refute whatever arguments I might have - or just that I must not being serious by not having read those apologetic books, no matter whether the reference is specified or not. But this is usual. It is the unquestionable dogma of religious people that they have the exclusivity of access to the Absolute Truth, and that the rest of the world outside their own faith, is ultimately the world of absolute relativism made up of vain arbitrary opinions with no legitime right to claim to discover any reliable truth whenever it contradicts dogmas. Eventually relying on the postmodernist gross misinterpretation of Popper's scientificity criteria as if it was saying that there is no reliable truth in science (while on the contrary it explains why and how science is the one way to trustworthy, reliable truths : that it is because science methodically adapts its claims to reality rather that holds them against it).

That, is, they have a sort of absolute confirmation bias, where the truth is called Jesus, so that, by definition, anything that confirms the Christian doctrine is the divine truth while anything that claims to refute it is human error. This attitude makes Christian faith absolutely unfalsifiable, but therefore also absolutely disconnected from reality, and thus no sign of truth at all.
See also the section "Examples of false reasonings" here.

[spoirier]

I don't understand what your conclusion amounts to.

It all seems to amount to "God didn't give me something I wanted, therefore He must not exist."

How could you fail to understand what is my conclusion ? Why did you invent something else ?
To understand what is my conclusion, no high degree in mathematics is needed. All you need is the ability to read, and the intelligence to not pretend that you are seeing a cow when a table is presented to you. In other words, the most elementary form of rationality, the one to understand the meaning of a simple word, as you defined yourself in the other thread, but that, again, you are brillantly demonstrating here your unability to exercise. So the conclusion of my argument here was not, as you pretended 3 times (that you seemed sure I meant, while I never wrote such a thing), that "God does not exist", but:

Theorem. Nobody on Earth was ever guided by God in the last decade.

Did you never hear about Deism, or do you just pretend that such a concept never existed ?

[AquinasD]

So the conclusion of my argument here was not, as you pretended 3 times (that you seemed sure I meant, while I never wrote such a thing), that "God does not exist", but:

Theorem. Nobody on Earth was ever guided by God in the last decade.

Did you never hear about Deism, or do you just pretend that such a concept never existed ?

So...

You weren't guided, therefore no one was?

Even assuming that is a theorem which the theist must hold.