Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Starting point = nothing exists

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 7:00:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I believe that the theists have the burden of proof over atheists in every case, for simple reasons.

True knowledge can only be obtained by starting off as "nothing exists". I mean, before we are born we know nothing, then when we are born we see light, the doctor, or whatever else they see but it all gets added on from thinking nothing exists and this is how knowledge is obtained. It's logical to believe nothing can exist without being shown adequate reasoning for it.

Imagine if that was flipped, and you were born believing every possible conceivable thing exists until shown otherwise...This person would believe every unfalsifiable claim imaginable. This person would believe there is a being next to me right now who can't interact with physical reality because it can't be disproven.

The second person being born would be drowning in 24/7 delusions because he believes everything until it's disproven.

If there is a God, even he agrees true knowledge can only be obtained in humans by assuming nothing exists or else we would all be born thinking everything exists until shown otherwise..

Basically, the burden of proof has to rest on the theist. God doesn't exist until you convince me, I don't have to convince you God doesn't exist because I already showed how absurd it would be to think something exists until it gets proven wrong.

In every debate, the atheist should sit back with folded arms and rebut and refute the theists case and not come up with any arguments on their own. Even though I come up with atheistic arguments for fun, in reality though, the BOP 100% rests on the theist to convince us.

The starting point is nothing exists until shown otherwise.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 4:13:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In every God exists debate the theist has the BOP I agree. I would just point out the atheist has the BOP in certain areas. For example if a theist uses the argument of design, the atheist will have the the burden of proof to prove evolution, assuming he uses that counter. Just an observation.

Also if your in an argument on which better explains objective morality, naturalism or God, I would say the BOP is relatively equal.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 5:49:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 4:52:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Like i told you before: learn some epistemology .....

Telling me to study something is not an argument I'm afraid. The base assumption is nothing exists until the reasoning and evidence for why it's plausible arises. In order for that evidence to arise, it must come from the theist, so they have the burden of proof.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 5:54:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 5:49:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 4:52:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Like i told you before: learn some epistemology .....

Telling me to study something is not an argument I'm afraid. The base assumption is nothing exists until the reasoning and evidence for why it's plausible arises. In order for that evidence to arise, it must come from the theist, so they have the burden of proof.

I mean, you didn't know about cars when you were born and only believe in them today because they couldn't be proven wrong, you started off not believing cars existed (like when you a baby) until you developed additional knowledge regarding the concept of a car.

The BOP rests with the one making the positive (is, are, does, was, will) claim. Delusion comes from believing something until it's get disproven, if people did that, everyone would be believe in the invisible being beside me who cannot interact with the physical world because he cannot be disproven.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 7:41:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 6:32:35 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Whoa, I am an unborn baby.

No, but when you were you didn't know anything and all additional knowledge started off from that point. Imagine if it was the opposite, and you believed every conceivable thing existed until evidence shown it was proven false, you would believe in a being who is not effected by the physical world who laughs at you 24/7 because there is no evidence against it.

This is why asking to show evidence against God makes no sense, because the base assumption already is he doesn't exist, the theist has to prove otherwise.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 12:11:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 4:52:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Like i told you before: learn some epistemology .....

The Fool: you need an education.. lol
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 12:21:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 5:49:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 4:52:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Like i told you before: learn some epistemology .....

Telling me to study something is not an argument I'm afraid. The base assumption is nothing exists until the reasoning and evidence for why it's plausible arises. In order for that evidence to arise, it must come from the theist, so they have the burden of proof.

We've already gone through the motions before; your argument wasn't good and I showed why. You just ignored the criticisms and went on some irrelevant rant about science.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 12:27:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
No kidding...lol

But The Fool will add even something more to that..

Case 1 God is non-existent
Then there is nothing to Prove because he EXIST.
To ask for proof is to ask for non-existence. But it does't exist. So that is non-sense.

Case 1 God exist
To prove God exist he must be demonstrated. DIRECTLY

My Favorite non-sense fallacy..lol

Absense of evidence is no evidence of absense: But it is. And clearly So.
Why? Absense=non-existence

Absense of evidence. is the non-existence of evidence. Thus non-existence

Evidence of absense. is evidence of non-existence . which is non-existence

Thus the fallacy has been exposed!!!! Fresh and Straight from the hill!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 12:41:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 6:32:35 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Whoa, I am an unborn baby.

Better watch out, you might get aborted
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 1:02:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
BOP 1.1
The lack of knowledge is ignorance. Therefore ignorance is the starting position.

Case 1 God is non-existent
Then there is nothing to Prove because NON-EXISTENCE=NON-EXISTENCE
To ask for proof is ask for proof of non-existence. But non-existence doesn't exist. So it's always a non-sense question.

That is Proof can only be positive, Why, because ~(Proof) is not proof. It doesn't help to Proof not X Why?

For let God=x Proof=P
Let's say someone says prove ~God. They are saying to show that ~God is in the framework of Proof.
Then:
P(~G) which means ~G is in the framework P
But oh oh! P(~G)= ~P(G)

Case 2 God exist
To proof that God exist God himself must be demonstrated.

P1. If the conclusion that a god exists is to be demonstratively certain, then these premises must be certain; for, as the conclusion of a deductive argument is already contained in the premises, any uncertainty there may be about the truth of the premises is necessarily shared by it.
P2. But we know that no empirical proposition can ever be anything more than probable.

But we cannot deduce the existence of a god from an a priori proposition.

My Favourite non-sense fallacy!

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: But it is. And clearly So,
Why? Absence=non-existence

Absence of evidence=non-existence of evidence, which doesn't exist.

Evidence of absence=evidence of non-existence, which of course doesn't exist.

Thus the fallacy has been exposed!!!! Fresh and straight from the hill!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 6:26:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 12:21:25 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/22/2012 5:49:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 4:52:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Like i told you before: learn some epistemology .....

Telling me to study something is not an argument I'm afraid. The base assumption is nothing exists until the reasoning and evidence for why it's plausible arises. In order for that evidence to arise, it must come from the theist, so they have the burden of proof.

We've already gone through the motions before; your argument wasn't good and I showed why. You just ignored the criticisms and went on some irrelevant rant about science.

My argument is still valid, because it's delusional to believe in something because it cannot be disproven. Also, naming off different types of philosophy isn't an argument. I guess with your logic, all I have to do is is say "determinism" and boom, no more brain-independent mind because I named off a philosophy...That's not how debating works.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 7:35:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 6:26:35 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/23/2012 12:21:25 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/22/2012 5:49:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 4:52:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Like i told you before: learn some epistemology .....

Telling me to study something is not an argument I'm afraid. The base assumption is nothing exists until the reasoning and evidence for why it's plausible arises. In order for that evidence to arise, it must come from the theist, so they have the burden of proof.

We've already gone through the motions before; your argument wasn't good and I showed why. You just ignored the criticisms and went on some irrelevant rant about science.

My argument is still valid, because it's delusional to believe in something because it cannot be disproven. Also, naming off different types of philosophy isn't an argument. I guess with your logic, all I have to do is is say "determinism" and boom, no more brain-independent mind because I named off a philosophy...That's not how debating works.

The Fool:popculturepooka is the worst for that. But he believes the philosophy like a bible. Where he just has faith in it. He is not able to produce anything from it..

But dude wheres my props. That was a amazing argument I just gave you. That is, I actually produced that. Its not reading from somebody else. That is as real philosopher, I produced that argument that. Bop has not been exposed like that ever before. You can't this. That is how you tell a philosopher from a theologin.
They don't actually produce anything. They havent had one advance in 2000 years since they began.. They have only started calling themselve philosohpers, in the last 20 or less years to get rid of there tarnished credability. They have no credibility in the rest of the world, Just some pockets in the US.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 4:13:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why do theists have to convince you of anything? And why do they have to convince you in the exact way you dictate?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 4:53:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 4:13:12 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Why do theists have to convince you of anything? And why do they have to convince you in the exact way you dictate?

The Fool: They do if we should care about anything they have to say regarding God or biblical reasons.

Kleptin: And why do they have to convince you in the exact way you dictate?

Straw man fallacy
Fool: No body said anything about about dictation

Fool: If you are referring to logic, it is because those are all we have that are universal. Can you run in both way at the same time and get some where?
I think responsibilit for most murders in the history of humanity is another good reason. I think for being responsible for most terrorism is another good reason. I think represing the progress of knowledge for 1500's and curruption for 2000';s are good reasons. I think trying to put supernatural in our science is a good reason. The list is never ending. you dont; think that is a good reason to require validation. You need not look any further then you Heart.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 5:00:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Mind you it not all religious people. Many Religions like buddism are not pushy. Its the ones that keep trying to take power, and tell other what to do and think. Its the one God one way type that is the problem. It is offensive nothing they guy beside thinks in his mind that you are going to hell. And feels pleasure from of it. These Religions breed hate for people who are not part of thiers and ignorance by not letting children learn and think for themselves.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 5:07:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/24/2012 5:00:42 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Many Religions like buddism are not pushy.

The Buddha: "Preach it, make it known, establish it, open it, minutely explain it, and make it clear-until they, when others start vain doctrines, shall be able to vanquish and refute them, and so to spread the wonderworking truth abroad. I shall not die until the pure religion of truth shall have become successful, prosperous, widespread, and popular in all its full extent-until, in a word, it shall have been well proclaimed among men!"
-- Mahaparinibbana Sutta
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2012 10:52:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/24/2012 5:07:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/24/2012 5:00:42 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Many Religions like buddism are not pushy.

The Buddha: "Preach it, make it known, establish it, open it, minutely explain it, and make it clear-until they, when others start vain doctrines, shall be able to vanquish and refute them, and so to spread the wonderworking truth abroad. I shall not die until the pure religion of truth shall have become successful, prosperous, widespread, and popular in all its full extent-until, in a word, it shall have been well proclaimed among men!"
-- Mahaparinibbana Sutta

The Fool: right notice there is not hell! No punishment. just words.. in fact philopophy. that is just a little more peacefull. I think. If I had to choose a religion I would choose that one for sure.

There is No war, and murder and slowing the progress of humanity, no Holocasts no pediphidia. No Crusades, No murderious campain, no Terrorist, no 9-eleven no, talaban.. no destory sacrate landmark no slavery, No dihonesly, No keeping the population ignorant. No force over others. and that is just on budda anyways.. Most importantly no this is the only way. .
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL