Former: ' ' If who was a bourgeois said this, certainly is engodo' '. That ugly in Mr. Frder 2: Excuse but to corrijir I go you here, of new you generalized, some atheists until can AFFIRM that not it exists arguments nor facts of the god existence, to put what we make is to say that the person who wants that we we believe god, in them it does not bring such item, it can talvs exist you evidence yes, but it presented nobody me. IT DOES NOT GENERALIZE. 3: Again we see the generalization, but we go to evaluate this that it said.
First: which ' ' fatos' ' they are these? Second: I am unaware of duposta fallacy that you GENERALIZED affirming that atheistic we say this when we come across in them with ' ' fatos' ' on the god existence. I know the following fallacy: Ad Argumentum ignorantiam Tentar to prove something from the ignorance how much to its validity. Former: ' ' Nobody obtained to prove that God does not exist; soon, it existe.' ' this goes more beyond, this argument takes off concluzoes of the things for simplismente we not to understand something, or not to know as this happened, associating with god, then vocs summer this in ' ' teoria' ' of it. 4: It generalized, and it said excrement. He forgives the palavro but youngster searches on popperiana science in which we base in them on our theories, and is not pra everybody to leave creating its theory, you probably it must be speaking on the synthetic theory of the evolution or of the theory of big bang, yes these theories are not ours, but nor therefore they are you invalidate fallacy here in (ad Argumentum hominem). 5: Obiviamente this is a belief, but it particularly never does not generalize saying that the atheists believe this, I vi an atheist if it wants to cite this excrement that you spoke, forgiving then me of new the palavro, reviews its concepts! ' ' A philosopher said Joseph de Maistre: ' ' Nobody affirms: God not existe' without before having desired that It not exista' '.