Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who assumes the burden of proof?

Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 2:43:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 10:25:49 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I think that the person making the positive claim assumes the burden of proof.

Any person making any claim positive or negative ought to assume the BOP or at least give a logical reason for their claim.
What's good for the goose is also good for the gander.
I do not think anyone ought to be exempt from providing proof of something if they have proof of it and someone else is asking for proof.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 4:57:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Whoever makes the claim.
If you make a claim that a claim is false or unwarranted, you have a burden of proof to provide reasoning as well.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 8:50:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 4:57:56 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Whoever makes the claim.
If you make a claim that a claim is false or unwarranted, you have a burden of proof to provide reasoning as well.

Oh yea, I remember how this goes...

Theist: "God exists"

Atheist: "You have no valid evidence to support that assertion"

Theist: "That's a claim so now you have to prove it!"
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 9:18:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 10:25:49 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I think that the person making the positive claim assumes the burden of proof.

Meh, that's just semantic trickery. All positive claims are just double negatives, and many "negative statements" are logically equivalent to "positive statements".

I.e. "There are no coincidences" = "Everything happens for a reason"

Plus I tihink many negative claims assume the BOP instead of the postive claim - i.e. "there exist no composite objects".
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 11:20:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 8:50:22 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:57:56 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Whoever makes the claim.
If you make a claim that a claim is false or unwarranted, you have a burden of proof to provide reasoning as well.

Oh yea, I remember how this goes...

Theist: "God exists"

Atheist: "You have no valid evidence to support that assertion"

Theist: "That's a claim so now you have to prove it!"

Interesting that the Atheist somehow knows that there is no evidence rather than ask for support first. TBH, the Theist is totally justified in calling out that fallacy.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 11:29:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 11:20:03 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/5/2014 8:50:22 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:57:56 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Whoever makes the claim.
If you make a claim that a claim is false or unwarranted, you have a burden of proof to provide reasoning as well.

Oh yea, I remember how this goes...

Theist: "God exists"

Atheist: "You have no valid evidence to support that assertion"

Theist: "That's a claim so now you have to prove it!"

Interesting that the Atheist somehow knows that there is no evidence rather than ask for support first. TBH, the Theist is totally justified in calling out that fallacy.

So in other words... You think that the theist is more justified by trying to saddle a BoP on the claim that they don't have evidence, rather then demonstrating that they actually do have evidence.

Wow.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 12:40:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 2:43:25 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/4/2014 10:25:49 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I think that the person making the positive claim assumes the burden of proof.

Any person making any claim positive or negative ought to assume the BOP or at least give a logical reason for their claim.
What's good for the goose is also good for the gander.
I do not think anyone ought to be exempt from providing proof of something if they have proof of it and someone else is asking for proof.
How can you prove a negative?
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 12:40:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 4:57:56 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Whoever makes the claim.
If you make a claim that a claim is false or unwarranted, you have a burden of proof to provide reasoning as well.

How can you prove a negative?
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 12:41:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 8:50:22 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:57:56 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Whoever makes the claim.
If you make a claim that a claim is false or unwarranted, you have a burden of proof to provide reasoning as well.

Oh yea, I remember how this goes...

Theist: "God exists"

Atheist: "You have no valid evidence to support that assertion"

Theist: "That's a claim so now you have to prove it!"

Ha, I know, right?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 3:00:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 12:40:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:57:56 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Whoever makes the claim.
If you make a claim that a claim is false or unwarranted, you have a burden of proof to provide reasoning as well.

How can you prove a negative?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Proving a negative:
When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the position "I do not believe that X is true" is different from the explicit denial "I believe that X is false". "
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 3:10:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 11:29:12 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/5/2014 11:20:03 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/5/2014 8:50:22 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:57:56 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Whoever makes the claim.
If you make a claim that a claim is false or unwarranted, you have a burden of proof to provide reasoning as well.

Oh yea, I remember how this goes...

Theist: "God exists"

Atheist: "You have no valid evidence to support that assertion"

Theist: "That's a claim so now you have to prove it!"

Interesting that the Atheist somehow knows that there is no evidence rather than ask for support first. TBH, the Theist is totally justified in calling out that fallacy.

So in other words... You think that the theist is more justified by trying to saddle a BoP on the claim that they don't have evidence, rather then demonstrating that they actually do have evidence.

Wow.

Not accepting an arrogant elitist attitude that announces a conclusion about an argument even before it is presented is justified. The Atheists in the convo claims that he has basis to reject any logical argument presented a priori even without hearing it, it would naturally be appealing to get to the point and know why the Atheist believes anything the Theist says in support for his claims is automatically wrong.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 3:12:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 12:40:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:57:56 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Whoever makes the claim.
If you make a claim that a claim is false or unwarranted, you have a burden of proof to provide reasoning as well.

How can you prove a negative?

The statement "You can't prove a negative" is itself a negative, therefore it is self-defeating and false regardless of whether we assume that it is true or false.

One of the principles of logic is "The law of NON-contradiction" (a negative). Furthermore, you can pretty much turn any statement into a negative with the rule of double negative; if I prove that a car exists, I have also proven that the car is not non-existent.
You can prove that square circles are impossible to exist, you can prove that the ball you are going to drop isn't going to fly to the ceiling, you can prove that the word "a'fdlkhsadk" doesn't exist in a dictionary.

Really, it is simply an amusing admission from Atheists that they cannot justify what they believe.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 4:16:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 3:10:59 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/5/2014 11:29:12 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/5/2014 11:20:03 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/5/2014 8:50:22 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:57:56 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Whoever makes the claim.
If you make a claim that a claim is false or unwarranted, you have a burden of proof to provide reasoning as well.

Oh yea, I remember how this goes...

Theist: "God exists"

Atheist: "You have no valid evidence to support that assertion"

Theist: "That's a claim so now you have to prove it!"

Interesting that the Atheist somehow knows that there is no evidence rather than ask for support first. TBH, the Theist is totally justified in calling out that fallacy.

So in other words... You think that the theist is more justified by trying to saddle a BoP on the claim that they don't have evidence, rather then demonstrating that they actually do have evidence.

Wow.

Not accepting an arrogant elitist attitude that announces a conclusion about an argument even before it is presented is justified. The Atheists in the convo claims that he has basis to reject any logical argument presented a priori even without hearing it, it would naturally be appealing to get to the point and know why the Atheist believes anything the Theist says in support for his claims is automatically wrong.

The atheist in the convo claimed none of that. You see whatever you want to see. The atheist may very well accept the argument presented by the theist, the way to get the atheist to do that is for the theist to uphold his own BoP and present his argument. That's how the BoP works. It's not an excuse to pretend you have no BoP or an equal BoP because the response to your claim is phrased as a claim itself. It's still a response and you still have the BoP as long as the topic is your claim. And assuming you are still a theist, "God exists" is your claim.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 4:44:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 3:12:51 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/5/2014 12:40:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:57:56 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Whoever makes the claim.
If you make a claim that a claim is false or unwarranted, you have a burden of proof to provide reasoning as well.

How can you prove a negative?

The statement "You can't prove a negative" is itself a negative, therefore it is self-defeating and false regardless of whether we assume that it is true or false.

One of the principles of logic is "The law of NON-contradiction" (a negative). Furthermore, you can pretty much turn any statement into a negative with the rule of double negative; if I prove that a car exists, I have also proven that the car is not non-existent.
You can prove that square circles are impossible to exist, you can prove that the ball you are going to drop isn't going to fly to the ceiling, you can prove that the word "a'fdlkhsadk" doesn't exist in a dictionary.

Really, it is simply an amusing admission from Atheists that they cannot justify what they believe.

All those are examples, however, are impossible by their inception, or absurd at the core, and even the most rational of those examples relies immediately on what is directly infront of the viewing audience to make its point, which is far from what religion does.

Many atheists easily justify what they believe: there is no compelling evidence in favor of the claim that God exists, hence, the BoP lay with the one that claims 'God exists', or they find the idea of a supernatural omnipotent creator to be absurd in favor of a more rational explanation, which thus far, science has been pretty good at providing as time marches on.

If one were to engage in turn about being fair play, elitist is simply your dismissal of those not interested in believing in what fairy tale you might believe in.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 8:27:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
@RR
What you are stating can be conveyed with a simple Why or How question. There is no excuse for an arrogant attitude combined with a double-meaning.

At 11/6/2014 4:44:45 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:12:51 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/5/2014 12:40:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:57:56 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Whoever makes the claim.
If you make a claim that a claim is false or unwarranted, you have a burden of proof to provide reasoning as well.

How can you prove a negative?

The statement "You can't prove a negative" is itself a negative, therefore it is self-defeating and false regardless of whether we assume that it is true or false.

One of the principles of logic is "The law of NON-contradiction" (a negative). Furthermore, you can pretty much turn any statement into a negative with the rule of double negative; if I prove that a car exists, I have also proven that the car is not non-existent.
You can prove that square circles are impossible to exist, you can prove that the ball you are going to drop isn't going to fly to the ceiling, you can prove that the word "a'fdlkhsadk" doesn't exist in a dictionary.

Really, it is simply an amusing admission from Atheists that they cannot justify what they believe.

All those are examples, however, are impossible by their inception, or absurd at the core, and even the most rational of those examples relies immediately on what is directly infront of the viewing audience to make its point, which is far from what religion does.

Many atheists easily justify what they believe: there is no compelling evidence in favor of the claim that God exists, hence, the BoP lay with the one that claims 'God exists', or they find the idea of a supernatural omnipotent creator to be absurd in favor of a more rational explanation, which thus far, science has been pretty good at providing as time marches on.

If one were to engage in turn about being fair play, elitist is simply your dismissal of those not interested in believing in what fairy tale you might believe in.

In other words, you admit that you are unable to provide reasons, justification, or reasons to believe God doesn't exist and you do it anyway for emotional reasons.

I find no compelling evidence in favor of the claim that God doesn't exist, does this mean that nobody have a BoP and nobody has to justify their claims?

Rational explanation like... "The universe came from nothing!".........

So if I hide behind special pleading fallacies, stop carrying my BoP while demanding that you carry your own, would I be eligible to join the "Thou shall not question" elitist union?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 8:46:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 8:27:18 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
@RR

In other words, you admit that you are unable to provide reasons, justification, or reasons to believe God doesn't exist and you do it anyway for emotional reasons.

In other words? You're not even responding to my post, hence the "@RR".

Why is it so difficult for you to understand the difference between not believing something is true and believing it is false?

I find no compelling evidence in favor of the claim that God doesn't exist, does this mean that nobody have a BoP and nobody has to justify their claims?

That depends; is anyone claiming God does not exist?

If No; Then there is no claim being made so of course no one carries a burden, but this also means that there is no conversation taking place.

If yes, then that person has the BoP and you are well justified by asking that the claimant provide evidence for his assertion about reality.

So with that said let's try this, why don't I tell you about something I believe...

I believe in Bob the Magic Ferry. He hangs around in peoples closets when they are not home. He likes to trash the place and make a mess, but once he senses that someone is close by he disappears and magically erases all traces of his ever having been there. So now that I have shared my belief with you I have two serious questions:

1. Do you believe in Bob the Magic Merry?

Assuming you don't...

2. If you and I were to debate the existence of Bob the Magic Ferry, do you carry just as much of the burden of proving Bob does not exist as I do to prove that he does?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 10:17:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 8:27:18 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
@RR
What you are stating can be conveyed with a simple Why or How question. There is no excuse for an arrogant attitude combined with a double-meaning.

At 11/6/2014 4:44:45 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:12:51 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/5/2014 12:40:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 11/5/2014 4:57:56 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Whoever makes the claim.
If you make a claim that a claim is false or unwarranted, you have a burden of proof to provide reasoning as well.

How can you prove a negative?

The statement "You can't prove a negative" is itself a negative, therefore it is self-defeating and false regardless of whether we assume that it is true or false.

One of the principles of logic is "The law of NON-contradiction" (a negative). Furthermore, you can pretty much turn any statement into a negative with the rule of double negative; if I prove that a car exists, I have also proven that the car is not non-existent.
You can prove that square circles are impossible to exist, you can prove that the ball you are going to drop isn't going to fly to the ceiling, you can prove that the word "a'fdlkhsadk" doesn't exist in a dictionary.

Really, it is simply an amusing admission from Atheists that they cannot justify what they believe.

All those are examples, however, are impossible by their inception, or absurd at the core, and even the most rational of those examples relies immediately on what is directly infront of the viewing audience to make its point, which is far from what religion does.

Many atheists easily justify what they believe: there is no compelling evidence in favor of the claim that God exists, hence, the BoP lay with the one that claims 'God exists', or they find the idea of a supernatural omnipotent creator to be absurd in favor of a more rational explanation, which thus far, science has been pretty good at providing as time marches on.

If one were to engage in turn about being fair play, elitist is simply your dismissal of those not interested in believing in what fairy tale you might believe in.

In other words, you admit that you are unable to provide reasons, justification, or reasons to believe God doesn't exist and you do it anyway for emotional reasons.

Were I to type them again, this would be the second time. People don't believe in something due to a lack of evidence. Were I to state that I have a pet dragon, and then asking you for proof of why you disbelieve, it would be a backwards endeavour, as such a claim should be readily proven. Such is not the case with God.

I find no compelling evidence in favor of the claim that God doesn't exist, does this mean that nobody have a BoP and nobody has to justify their claims?

What evidence do you have that he does, without saying 'Because I have no clue as to how it all started', or 'the Bible'? Seriously, are you just being argumentative for the sake of argument, or do you really not understand exactly what a LACK of evidence can infer when a claim such as 'God' is made?

Rational explanation like... "The universe came from nothing!".........

So the immediate rational conclusion is an all powerful entity whom cares if you engage in premarital sex. Good call.

So if I hide behind special pleading fallacies, stop carrying my BoP while demanding that you carry your own, would I be eligible to join the "Thou shall not question" elitist union?

... you don't understand how proving a negative works, and second, THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE ALREADY DONE! Being asked to prove something, only to turn around and say 'Nope, you prove I am wrong' when the opposition is specifically based on LACK OF EVIDENCE TO THE CLAIM, you are doing NOTHING to bolster your own cause, and claiming a victory that your invisible omnipresent omnipotent judge is real, despite (unsurprisingly) having no tangible evidence for His presence!
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:27:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 8:46:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/6/2014 8:27:18 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
@RR

In other words, you admit that you are unable to provide reasons, justification, or reasons to believe God doesn't exist and you do it anyway for emotional reasons.

In other words? You're not even responding to my post, hence the "@RR".

Why is it so difficult for you to understand the difference between not believing something is true and believing it is false?

Back to the dead amoeba example. The reason it was at the last round since my priority was to refute your claim rather than support a contradicting claim. An to refute your "I don't believe that it is false":

1- A person understands the proposition and accepts it. He has a god-theory.

2- A person understands the proposition and rejects it. He has a god-theory.

3- A person understands the proposition but completely forgets it. He has no god-theory.

4- A person understands the proposition but does not care, so he does not care to engage or discuss it.

5- A person does not understand the proposition neither accepts or rejects it, and remains bewildered by it. He has no god-theory.

6- A person never hears the proposition and can't reject or accept it. He has no god-theory.

7- Rocks, mud, dead amoeba, and other material that can't gain knowledge can't reject or accept the proposition. They have no god-theory.

Please tell me what number are you o' honored Atheist.

I find no compelling evidence in favor of the claim that God doesn't exist, does this mean that nobody have a BoP and nobody has to justify their claims?

That depends; is anyone claiming God does not exist?

If No; Then there is no claim being made so of course no one carries a burden, but this also means that there is no conversation taking place.

If yes, then that person has the BoP and you are well justified by asking that the claimant provide evidence for his assertion about reality.

So with that said let's try this, why don't I tell you about something I believe...

I believe in Bob the Magic Ferry. He hangs around in peoples closets when they are not home. He likes to trash the place and make a mess, but once he senses that someone is close by he disappears and magically erases all traces of his ever having been there. So now that I have shared my belief with you I have two serious questions:

1. Do you believe in Bob the Magic Merry?

Assuming you don't...

2. If you and I were to debate the existence of Bob the Magic Ferry, do you carry just as much of the burden of proving Bob does not exist as I do to prove that he does?

Yawn. So much desperation in order to justify your inability to justify your belief.

To gain some insight in your belief of nothingness, may you answer the following questions?
1- Do you disbelief that God exists?
2- Do you disbelief that God doesn't exist?
3- Are you interested in knowing the answer?
4- What do you think of this quote: "The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it." --Friedrich Nietzsch

As for your questions:
1. I don't know of no one named bob who is magically (extremely) happy (merry).
Assuming you meant "Ferry", I don't believe in him. In fact I believe that he doesn't exist, or at least abstract and meaningless. And the reason for my belief is that your statement is self-refuting, as you seem to have intense knowledge of him and his activities despite stating that you are unable to gain knowledge of him. This makes your statement false, and your testimony unreliable.

2. Depending on the format of the debate. If we plan to have a concise debate which attempts to investigate and find the correct answer, then the BoP is on both. If we are to analyze the rational foundation behind an individual belief, then the BoP would lean on the said belief.

I still don't see your point. Do you have reasons to believe God doesn't exist or not?
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:31:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 10:17:34 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 8:27:18 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
@RR
What you are stating can be conveyed with a simple Why or How question. There is no excuse for an arrogant attitude combined with a double-meaning.

At 11/6/2014 4:44:45 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/5/2014 3:12:51 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/5/2014 12:40:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:

How can you prove a negative?

The statement "You can't prove a negative" is itself a negative, therefore it is self-defeating and false regardless of whether we assume that it is true or false.

One of the principles of logic is "The law of NON-contradiction" (a negative). Furthermore, you can pretty much turn any statement into a negative with the rule of double negative; if I prove that a car exists, I have also proven that the car is not non-existent.
You can prove that square circles are impossible to exist, you can prove that the ball you are going to drop isn't going to fly to the ceiling, you can prove that the word "a'fdlkhsadk" doesn't exist in a dictionary.

Really, it is simply an amusing admission from Atheists that they cannot justify what they believe.

All those are examples, however, are impossible by their inception, or absurd at the core, and even the most rational of those examples relies immediately on what is directly infront of the viewing audience to make its point, which is far from what religion does.

Many atheists easily justify what they believe: there is no compelling evidence in favor of the claim that God exists, hence, the BoP lay with the one that claims 'God exists', or they find the idea of a supernatural omnipotent creator to be absurd in favor of a more rational explanation, which thus far, science has been pretty good at providing as time marches on.

If one were to engage in turn about being fair play, elitist is simply your dismissal of those not interested in believing in what fairy tale you might believe in.

In other words, you admit that you are unable to provide reasons, justification, or reasons to believe God doesn't exist and you do it anyway for emotional reasons.

Were I to type them again, this would be the second time. People don't believe in something due to a lack of evidence. Were I to state that I have a pet dragon, and then asking you for proof of why you disbelieve, it would be a backwards endeavour, as such a claim should be readily proven. Such is not the case with God.

So if I say: "I went to the mall yesterday", you are obligated to not believe me until I provide compelling evidence of that claim?
Likewise, you are not permitted to believe any claim the scientific community has made until you work through the evidence and experiments yourself and crunch through all the necessary calculations?
You suspend judgement on historical claims until you have read the relevant documents with their original archaic languages, and examined the pertinent archeological sites with your own eyes?
If the news reporter said a tornado is coming over to your town, you are not to believe him or prepare until you see the said tornado yourself?
In case you bought an airplane ticket, you are not to believe that there will be a plane at a certain time and day going to a certain location until you see it?

The reasons for disbelief are obvious and requires no hassle for presenting them; dragons are big & aggressive. Having a pet dragon unnoticed is immensely unlikely, therefore I inductively ought to predict that it doesn't exist.

Not sure what is your point. Lets go over these hypothetical conversations to demonstrate the irrelevance of your point:

Crazy person: I have a dragon in my garage!
Atheist: No you don't. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Crazy person: I have an invisible dragon in my garage!
Atheist: how did you know?
Crazy person: Because sometimes it makes itself visible to me!
Atheist: Ya... Right.
[Atheist sees dragon appear for a couple of seconds]
Crazy person: There! Did you see it!?
Atheist: Well.. Crap. Maybe invisible dragons do exist after all. But that doesn't mean God does! *maniacal laugh*

I find no compelling evidence in favor of the claim that God doesn't exist, does this mean that nobody have a BoP and nobody has to justify their claims?

What evidence do you have that he does, without saying 'Because I have no clue as to how it all started', or 'the Bible'? Seriously, are you just being argumentative for the sake of argument, or do you really not understand exactly what a LACK of evidence can infer when a claim such as 'God' is made?

You must be sleeping under a rock to be oblivious to arguments and evidence even though they are obvious.

If cause and effect is consistent enough to be a principle of logic and the basis of empirical science, then it should be consistent enough for justifying the possibility that the universe had a cause which was greater than the sum components of the universe. Do you agree?

I could add the fine tuning argument or an ontological argument, but I'll settle with this one:

1- If the laws of logic (You can make a variation argument with small adjustments with: objective morality/intuition/laws of nature) exists, they are universal, infallible, immutable, omnipresent, eternal, intentional truths.
2- Intentional entities are best explained by mental products.
3- Therefore, if the laws of logic (objective morality/intuition/laws of nature) exists, then they are best explained by universal, infallible, immutable, omnipresent, and an eternal mind (God's mind).
4- The laws of logic (objective morality/intuition/laws of nature) exists.
C: Therefore, they are best explained by the product of God's mind.


Rational explanation like... "The universe came from nothing!".........

So the immediate rational conclusion is an all powerful entity whom cares if you engage in premarital sex. Good call.

Hmm... Something that is incoherent and logically impossible vs. All powerful being who instructs us regarding children, love, lust, marriage, physical and psychological well-being.
I wonder which of the two beliefs is more justified...

So if I hide behind special pleading fallacies, stop carrying my BoP while demanding that you carry your own, would I be eligible to join the "Thou shall not question" elitist union?

... you don't understand how proving a negative works, and second, THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE ALREADY DONE! Being asked to prove something, only to turn around and say 'Nope, you prove I am wrong' when the opposition is specifically based on LACK OF EVIDENCE TO THE CLAIM, you are doing NOTHING to bolster your own cause, and claiming a victory that your invisible omnipresent omnipotent judge is real, despite (unsurprisingly) having no tangible evidence for His presence!

Oh... Please master... Provide thou holy and sacred instructions of the secret and occult knowledge of how "proving a negative works"...

So basically that is a convoluted way of trying to tell me not to believe in God for absolutely no reason because you can't come up with any reason to justify your position in any way.
Thank you sir, I almost forgot how bankrupt your position is.

As far as I've seen, Theist tend to have reasons for their beliefs and they often readily present it. Atheists don't, meaning that their belief is emotional.

Hmm... I can't touch my thoughts, therefore they don't exist! I can't touch my great grandfather, therefore he doesn't exist! I can't touch the law of gravity and can only observe it's effects, therefore there is no such entity called the law of gravity!
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 5:11:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

So if I say: "I went to the mall yesterday", you are obligated to not believe me until I provide compelling evidence of that claim?

This is not an extraordinary claim, though, is it? It doesn't require the audience to believe as you do for eternal salvation, and what reason would I have for you not to have been to the mall? Nothing about that defies common logic.

Likewise, you are not permitted to believe any claim the scientific community has made until you work through the evidence and experiments yourself and crunch through all the necessary calculations?

The job of a scientist by their nature is to have done that. Unless you think seminary is as grueling as particle physics, these are not equal comparisons. Secondly, even the most rudimentary of science experiments CAN be done at home to test their validity. Pray as hard as I might, I don't hear God.

You suspend judgement on historical claims until you have read the relevant documents with their original archaic languages, and examined the pertinent archeological sites with your own eyes?

Do you think a creature named Grendel ran rampant through the Fjords? Historical claims are usually concurrent. Religious ones, not so much.

If the news reporter said a tornado is coming over to your town, you are not to believe him or prepare until you see the said tornado yourself?

Considering most news casts, that is already happening. Hey, look, doppler radar shows a funnel cloud in the down town area. People alive and running around today can attest to the fact, and secondly, depending on residence, ITS NOT AN EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM. Tornadoes have been pictured, frequently. Their destruction has been cataloged, frequently. A man rising from the dead or walking on water or turning water into wine? Not so much.
In case you bought an airplane ticket, you are not to believe that there will be a plane at a certain time and day going to a certain location until you see it?

The reasons for disbelief are obvious and requires no hassle for presenting them; dragons are big & aggressive. Having a pet dragon unnoticed is immensely unlikely, therefore I inductively ought to predict that it doesn't exist.

As it is with God, wouldn't you agree?

Not sure what is your point. Lets go over these hypothetical conversations to demonstrate the irrelevance of your point:

Crazy person: I have a dragon in my garage!
Atheist: No you don't. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Crazy person: I have an invisible dragon in my garage!
Atheist: how did you know?
Crazy person: Because sometimes it makes itself visible to me!
Atheist: Ya... Right.
[Atheist sees dragon appear for a couple of seconds]

LOL! I love this part!

Crazy person: There! Did you see it!?
Atheist: Well.. Crap. Maybe invisible dragons do exist after all. But that doesn't mean God does! *maniacal laugh*

Just don't look behind the curtain too long, right?

I find no compelling evidence in favor of the claim that God doesn't exist, does this mean that nobody have a BoP and nobody has to justify their claims?

I don't think I ever said that, its up to the claimant to prove their case of existence. Existence demands evidence. LACK of existence doesn't. Considering the mounting case of God's domain being explained through rational explanation, lack of existence is more and more apparent.

What evidence do you have that he does, without saying 'Because I have no clue as to how it all started', or 'the Bible'? Seriously, are you just being argumentative for the sake of argument, or do you really not understand exactly what a LACK of evidence can infer when a claim such as 'God' is made?

You must be sleeping under a rock to be oblivious to arguments and evidence even though they are obvious.

-snerk- and this doesn't apply to you, how, exactly?

If cause and effect is consistent enough to be a principle of logic and the basis of empirical science, then it should be consistent enough for justifying the possibility that the universe had a cause which was greater than the sum components of the universe. Do you agree?

No.

I could add the fine tuning argument or an ontological argument, but I'll settle with this one:

1- If the laws of logic (You can make a variation argument with small adjustments with: objective morality/intuition/laws of nature) exists, they are universal, infallible, immutable, omnipresent, eternal, intentional truths.
2- Intentional entities are best explained by mental products.
3- Therefore, if the laws of logic (objective morality/intuition/laws of nature) exists, then they are best explained by universal, infallible, immutable, omnipresent, and an eternal mind (God's mind).
4- The laws of logic (objective morality/intuition/laws of nature) exists.
C: Therefore, they are best explained by the product of God's mind.

Logically dividing by zero, and self referencing.

Logically proving a arrow never strikes its target is possible as well. Secondly, History demonstrates this most decidedly was NOT ordered in all things, morality was not regular, and coming to the conclusion that a supernatural entity ordered the world as we see it makes no logical sense. You could just as easily replace 'Fire Demon' or 'Air Genie' in there to arrive at the same conclusions. This type of logical totally removes man, as they are not simple Dimwits in the equation, or that psychologically, we have a need for an explanation, and will choose anything, no matter how illogical at the time.


Rational explanation like... "The universe came from nothing!".........

So the immediate rational conclusion is an all powerful entity whom cares if you engage in premarital sex. Good call.

Hmm... Something that is incoherent and logically impossible vs. All powerful being who instructs us regarding children, love, lust, marriage, physical and psychological well-being.
I wonder which of the two beliefs is more justified...

'Nothing' as you and I both know is short sighted, and 'Nothing' seems a LOT more plausible given the selective nature in which God can be 'found'. Lets face it, He just has a really good publicist.

So if I hide behind special pleading fallacies, stop carrying my BoP while demanding that you carry your own, would I be eligible to join the "Thou shall not question" elitist union?

... you don't understand how proving a negative works, and second, THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE ALREADY DONE! Being asked to prove something, only to turn around and say 'Nope, you prove I am wrong' when the opposition is specifically based on LACK OF EVIDENCE TO THE CLAIM, you are doing NOTHING to bolster your own cause, and claiming a victory that your invisible omnipresent omnipotent judge is real, despite (unsurprisingly) having no tangible evidence for His presence!

Oh... Please master... Provide thou holy and sacred instructions of the secret and occult knowledge of how "proving a negative works"...

Demonstrating existence. (your BoP)

So basically that is a convoluted way of trying to tell me not to believe in God for absolutely no reason because you can't come up with any reason to justify your position in any way.
Thank you sir, I almost forgot how bankrupt your position is.

As far as I've seen, Theist tend to have reasons for their beliefs and they often readily present it. Atheists don't, meaning that their belief is emotional.

Hmm... I can't touch my thoughts, therefore they don't exist! I can't touch my great grandfather, therefore he doesn't exist! I can't touch the law of gravity and can only observe it's effects, therefore there is no such entity called the law of gravity!

None of these are extraordinary claims. Surely, you must understand the difference between universal forces of matter and energy compared to a Biblical deity.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 11:16:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 1:27:57 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/6/2014 8:46:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
Why is it so difficult for you to understand the difference between not believing something is true and believing it is false?

Back to the dead amoeba example. The reason it was at the last round since my priority was to refute your claim rather than support a contradicting claim. An to refute your "I don't believe that it is false":

1- A person understands the proposition and accepts it. He has a god-theory.

2- A person understands the proposition and rejects it. He has a god-theory.

3- A person understands the proposition but completely forgets it. He has no god-theory.

4- A person understands the proposition but does not care, so he does not care to engage or discuss it.

5- A person does not understand the proposition neither accepts or rejects it, and remains bewildered by it. He has no god-theory.

6- A person never hears the proposition and can't reject or accept it. He has no god-theory.

7- Rocks, mud, dead amoeba, and other material that can't gain knowledge can't reject or accept the proposition. They have no god-theory.

Please tell me what number are you o' honored Atheist.

8- A person understands the proposition and recognizes that any conclusion regarding the proposition being true or false (depending on how it is specifically defined) is rationally unjustified. Therefore he has no god theory that he accepts to be true, and reminds those that do that they have a burden to substantiate their conclusion.

Yawn. So much desperation in order to justify your inability to justify your belief.

To gain some insight in your belief of nothingness,

Please enlighten me, at what point did I proclaim this belief?

may you answer the following questions?
1- Do you disbelief that God exists?
2- Do you disbelief that God doesn't exist?
3- Are you interested in knowing the answer?
4- What do you think of this quote: "The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it." --Friedrich Nietzsch

Disbelieve: To not accept something as true.

1. Yes, I do not accept the proposition that God exists
2. Yes, I do not accept the proposition that God (vaguely defined) does not exist.
3. Yes, very much so. I am however convinced by this point that the answer is beyond our capability to attain.
4. I don't quite understand it. Logical contradictions aside, the "irrationality" of a thing does not support the claim that it doesn't exist which BTW is exactly why we have this thing we call the burden of proof and is exactly why we focus on one prong of a dilemma at a time.

The condition part is where the quote lost me. It can be rephrased as "The irrationality of a thing is... a condition of [its existence]. That makes no sense.

As for your questions:
1. I don't know of no one named bob who is magically (extremely) happy (merry).
Assuming you meant "Ferry", I don't believe in him. In fact I believe that he doesn't exist, or at least abstract and meaningless. And the reason for my belief is that your statement is self-refuting, as you seem to have intense knowledge of him and his activities despite stating that you are unable to gain knowledge of him. This makes your statement false, and your testimony unreliable.

Please explain how my inability to attain knowledge of said being lead you to conclude that my statement of his existence is false.

2. Depending on the format of the debate. If we plan to have a concise debate which attempts to investigate and find the correct answer, then the BoP is on both. If we are to analyze the rational foundation behind an individual belief, then the BoP would lean on the said belief.

I agree.

So how about we debate the existence of Bob the magic ferry under your first format? (serious question)

I still don't see your point. Do you have reasons to believe God doesn't exist or not?

Will address this after getting your responses to the above...
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 6:10:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 11:16:53 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:27:57 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/6/2014 8:46:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
Why is it so difficult for you to understand the difference between not believing something is true and believing it is false?

Back to the dead amoeba example. The reason it was at the last round since my priority was to refute your claim rather than support a contradicting claim. An to refute your "I don't believe that it is false":

1- A person understands the proposition and accepts it. He has a god-theory.

2- A person understands the proposition and rejects it. He has a god-theory.

3- A person understands the proposition but completely forgets it. He has no god-theory.

4- A person understands the proposition but does not care, so he does not care to engage or discuss it.

5- A person does not understand the proposition neither accepts or rejects it, and remains bewildered by it. He has no god-theory.

6- A person never hears the proposition and can't reject or accept it. He has no god-theory.

7- Rocks, mud, dead amoeba, and other material that can't gain knowledge can't reject or accept the proposition. They have no god-theory.

Please tell me what number are you o' honored Atheist.

8- A person understands the proposition and recognizes that any conclusion regarding the proposition being true or false (depending on how it is specifically defined) is rationally unjustified. Therefore he has no god theory that he accepts to be true, and reminds those that do that they have a burden to substantiate their conclusion.

In other words, you are #2 and you actively reject the proposition.
Thank you, now can you tell me what are the reasons for your rejection? It will be interesting to know why you reject Atheism too.

Yawn. So much desperation in order to justify your inability to justify your belief.

To gain some insight in your belief of nothingness,

Please enlighten me, at what point did I proclaim this belief?

It is void reason wise; no statements of logic and no evidence. A belief that demands what it is unable to satisfy for itself is a sign of it's weakness.

may you answer the following questions?
1- Do you disbelief that God exists?
2- Do you disbelief that God doesn't exist?
3- Are you interested in knowing the answer?
4- What do you think of this quote: "The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it." --Friedrich Nietzsch

Disbelieve: To not accept something as true.

1. Yes, I do not accept the proposition that God exists
2. Yes, I do not accept the proposition that God (vaguely defined) does not exist.
3. Yes, very much so. I am however convinced by this point that the answer is beyond our capability to attain.
4. I don't quite understand it. Logical contradictions aside, the "irrationality" of a thing does not support the claim that it doesn't exist which BTW is exactly why we have this thing we call the burden of proof and is exactly why we focus on one prong of a dilemma at a time.

The condition part is where the quote lost me. It can be rephrased as "The irrationality of a thing is... a condition of [its existence]. That makes no sense.

1- Which means you reject my argument in case you are rational? Refute the syllogism then.

2- The attitude I get from many so-called Agnostic is criticizing Theists for believing in God as if you knew for sure that there was no God, even though you technically don't. Technically, you shouldn't say "God does not exist", but you should definitely not say "God exists", but for all practical purpose you'll just say "God does not exist". Do you consider yourself "Without God"? If so then your decision is not on hold, but on the basis of having rejected God.

3- Please prove this empty statement. I have provided logical evidence, therefore logical counter-evidence could exist.

4- How so? According to Atheism, logical ability is based on the movements of subatomic particles. Perhaps someone else's brain finds it rational, and perhaps we will evolve different brains that can see the rationality in what the particles in an other brain may persevere as irrational. Just because someone is forced to have the illusion of thinking that something is irrational doesn't mean that it is irrational or that there is such a thing called "irrational".

As for your questions:
1. I don't know of no one named bob who is magically (extremely) happy (merry).
Assuming you meant "Ferry", I don't believe in him. In fact I believe that he doesn't exist, or at least abstract and meaningless. And the reason for my belief is that your statement is self-refuting, as you seem to have intense knowledge of him and his activities despite stating that you are unable to gain knowledge of him. This makes your statement false, and your testimony unreliable.

Please explain how my inability to attain knowledge of said being lead you to conclude that my statement of his existence is false.

Putting aside that your testimony is completely and unquestionably false, your description states that your entity, other than being an implausible proposition with many features that have no rational justification, has no casual interference, thus based on our limited inductive knowledge gained from opening the closet (that there have been no casual interaction taken place), it is rational to predict that such entity does not exist and is equivalent to an abstract object. Our only source is inductive knowledge in that case, since testimony is impossible by description, and that entity is contingent and not necessary thus there is no deductive proof. A person may not be absolutely certain that his food is not poisoned, but based on his limited investigation it would be rational for the person to predict that it is not.

2. Depending on the format of the debate. If we plan to have a concise debate which attempts to investigate and find the correct answer, then the BoP is on both. If we are to analyze the rational foundation behind an individual belief, then the BoP would lean on the said belief.

I agree.

So how about we debate the existence of Bob the magic ferry under your first format? (serious question)

Sure thing. I maintain that your testimony is rubbish and shouldn't be taken into account, the entity is implausible based on our knowledge, and that it is rational to predict that the entity is an abstract object in the same way we predict that an external world exists.

Would you like to have an other debate on whether your mother is a p-zombie afterward? You may pick the side.

I still don't see your point. Do you have reasons to believe God doesn't exist or not?

Will address this after getting your responses to the above...

Although I fail to see any non-fallacious connection between the point and the issue of God, I am waiting.
Regards,
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 8:42:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 6:10:39 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/9/2014 11:16:53 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:27:57 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Back to the dead amoeba example. The reason it was at the last round since my priority was to refute your claim rather than support a contradicting claim. An to refute your "I don't believe that it is false":

1- A person understands the proposition and accepts it. He has a god-theory.

2- A person understands the proposition and rejects it. He has a god-theory.

3- A person understands the proposition but completely forgets it. He has no god-theory.

4- A person understands the proposition but does not care, so he does not care to engage or discuss it.

5- A person does not understand the proposition neither accepts or rejects it, and remains bewildered by it. He has no god-theory.

6- A person never hears the proposition and can't reject or accept it. He has no god-theory.

7- Rocks, mud, dead amoeba, and other material that can't gain knowledge can't reject or accept the proposition. They have no god-theory.

Please tell me what number are you o' honored Atheist.

8- A person understands the proposition and recognizes that any conclusion regarding the proposition being true or false (depending on how it is specifically defined) is rationally unjustified. Therefore he has no god theory that he accepts to be true, and reminds those that do that they have a burden to substantiate their conclusion.

In other words, you are #2 and you actively reject the proposition.
Thank you, now can you tell me what are the reasons for your rejection? It will be interesting to know why you reject Atheism too.

#2 and #8 are not the same thing. As far as why I reject the proposition... read #8 again, pay attention this time.

As far as why I reject atheism... wow. That's just stupid.

may you answer the following questions?
1- Do you disbelief that God exists?
2- Do you disbelief that God doesn't exist?
3- Are you interested in knowing the answer?
4- What do you think of this quote: "The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it." --Friedrich Nietzsch

Disbelieve: To not accept something as true.

1. Yes, I do not accept the proposition that God exists
2. Yes, I do not accept the proposition that God (vaguely defined) does not exist.
3. Yes, very much so. I am however convinced by this point that the answer is beyond our capability to attain.
4. I don't quite understand it. Logical contradictions aside, the "irrationality" of a thing does not support the claim that it doesn't exist which BTW is exactly why we have this thing we call the burden of proof and is exactly why we focus on one prong of a dilemma at a time.

The condition part is where the quote lost me. It can be rephrased as "The irrationality of a thing is... a condition of [its existence]. That makes no sense.

1- Which means you reject my argument in case you are rational? Refute the syllogism then.

2- The attitude I get from many so-called Agnostic is criticizing Theists for believing in God as if you knew for sure that there was no God, even though you technically don't. Technically, you shouldn't say "God does not exist", but you should definitely not say "God exists", but for all practical purpose you'll just say "God does not exist". Do you consider yourself "Without God"? If so then your decision is not on hold, but on the basis of having rejected God.

3- Please prove this empty statement. I have provided logical evidence, therefore logical counter-evidence could exist.

4- How so? According to Atheism, logical ability is based on the movements of subatomic particles. Perhaps someone else's brain finds it rational, and perhaps we will evolve different brains that can see the rationality in what the particles in an other brain may persevere as irrational. Just because someone is forced to have the illusion of thinking that something is irrational doesn't mean that it is irrational or that there is such a thing called "irrational".

1. Yes, it means that I reject whatever arguments you have presented. To what syllogism are you referring?

2. No, I don't consider myself "Without God". I also don't consider myself with God either. I simply don't concern myself with the proposition until someone can provide evidence for which one I am.

3. The proof that I am convinced of what I said is the fact that I told you that I am convinced of it.

4. There is no such thing as "according to atheism...". Please pick up a dictionary.

I still don't see your point. Do you have reasons to believe God doesn't exist or not?

Will address this after getting your responses to the above...

Although I fail to see any non-fallacious connection between the point and the issue of God, I am waiting.

Not sure why, just read option #8.
a_drumming_dog
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 1:25:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 4:29:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anyone who claims knowledge has a burden proof.

Yes! Thank you. Someone is spot on for once.
The truth will set you free
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 6:03:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 8:42:32 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/13/2014 6:10:39 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/9/2014 11:16:53 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/7/2014 1:27:57 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Back to the dead amoeba example. The reason it was at the last round since my priority was to refute your claim rather than support a contradicting claim. An to refute your "I don't believe that it is false":

1- A person understands the proposition and accepts it. He has a god-theory.

2- A person understands the proposition and rejects it. He has a god-theory.

3- A person understands the proposition but completely forgets it. He has no god-theory.

4- A person understands the proposition but does not care, so he does not care to engage or discuss it.

5- A person does not understand the proposition neither accepts or rejects it, and remains bewildered by it. He has no god-theory.

6- A person never hears the proposition and can't reject or accept it. He has no god-theory.

7- Rocks, mud, dead amoeba, and other material that can't gain knowledge can't reject or accept the proposition. They have no god-theory.

Please tell me what number are you o' honored Atheist.

8- A person understands the proposition and recognizes that any conclusion regarding the proposition being true or false (depending on how it is specifically defined) is rationally unjustified. Therefore he has no god theory that he accepts to be true, and reminds those that do that they have a burden to substantiate their conclusion.

In other words, you are #2 and you actively reject the proposition.
Thank you, now can you tell me what are the reasons for your rejection? It will be interesting to know why you reject Atheism too.

#2 and #8 are not the same thing. As far as why I reject the proposition... read #8 again, pay attention this time.

As far as why I reject atheism... wow. That's just stupid.

You stated that you rejected the proposition therefore, you have a position thus you have a god-theory. Please provide reasoning for why you believe it is impossible to reach a true-false answer.

You stated that you reject the opposite proposition, therefore you reject Atheism and employ Agnosticism. I am interested of why you reject Atheism too.

may you answer the following questions?
1- Do you disbelief that God exists?
2- Do you disbelief that God doesn't exist?
3- Are you interested in knowing the answer?
4- What do you think of this quote: "The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it." --Friedrich Nietzsch

Disbelieve: To not accept something as true.

1. Yes, I do not accept the proposition that God exists
2. Yes, I do not accept the proposition that God (vaguely defined) does not exist.
3. Yes, very much so. I am however convinced by this point that the answer is beyond our capability to attain.
4. I don't quite understand it. Logical contradictions aside, the "irrationality" of a thing does not support the claim that it doesn't exist which BTW is exactly why we have this thing we call the burden of proof and is exactly why we focus on one prong of a dilemma at a time.

The condition part is where the quote lost me. It can be rephrased as "The irrationality of a thing is... a condition of [its existence]. That makes no sense.

1- Which means you reject my argument in case you are rational? Refute the syllogism then.

2- The attitude I get from many so-called Agnostic is criticizing Theists for believing in God as if you knew for sure that there was no God, even though you technically don't. Technically, you shouldn't say "God does not exist", but you should definitely not say "God exists", but for all practical purpose you'll just say "God does not exist". Do you consider yourself "Without God"? If so then your decision is not on hold, but on the basis of having rejected God.

3- Please prove this empty statement. I have provided logical evidence, therefore logical counter-evidence could exist.

4- How so? According to Atheism, logical ability is based on the movements of subatomic particles. Perhaps someone else's brain finds it rational, and perhaps we will evolve different brains that can see the rationality in what the particles in an other brain may persevere as irrational. Just because someone is forced to have the illusion of thinking that something is irrational doesn't mean that it is irrational or that there is such a thing called "irrational".

1. Yes, it means that I reject whatever arguments you have presented. To what syllogism are you referring?

You can reject for political or emotional reasons. I want logical rejection, which means refutation. Here you go:

1- If the laws of logic (You can make a variation argument with small adjustments with: objective morality/intuition/regularity of the laws of nature) exists, they are universal, infallible, immutable, omnipresent, eternal, intentional truths.
2- Intentional entities are best explained by mental products.
3- Therefore, if the laws of logic (objective morality/intuition/laws of nature) exists, then they are best explained by universal, infallible, immutable, omnipresent, and an eternal mind [God's mind].
4- The laws of logic (objective morality/intuition/regularity of the laws of nature) exists.
C: Therefore, they are best explained by the product of God's mind, who is universal, infallible, immutable, omnipresent, and an eternal.

2. No, I don't consider myself "Without God". I also don't consider myself with God either. I simply don't concern myself with the proposition until someone can provide evidence for which one I am.

So you arbitrarily select a moral theory, purpose of life, value of life, etc. on a whim?

Law of excluded middle: You are either with God or without God, there is nothing in between. You should say "I don't know whether I am with/without God" in the first sentence to avoid confusion.

According to your position above, it is impossible to gain evidence, and yet you are verifying the opposite. Does this mean that your position is irrational?

3. The proof that I am convinced of what I said is the fact that I told you that I am convinced of it.

"Convinced" implies that there is evidence or logic behind this position. Otherwise, "deluded" would be more appropriate. I ask to know of this logic or evidence.

4. There is no such thing as "according to atheism...". Please pick up a dictionary.

Yes, according to the implications of Atheism. But lets put that aside, you have any objection to anything I said? You have any reason to believe what Nietzsche said is wrong in light of the "facts" I presented?

I still don't see your point. Do you have reasons to believe God doesn't exist or not?

Will address this after getting your responses to the above...

Although I fail to see any non-fallacious connection between the point and the issue of God, I am waiting.

Not sure why, just read option #8.

And likewise, I ask you to take an elevator above and support your position.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 10:37:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 6:03:54 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/13/2014 8:42:32 PM, Double_R wrote:
#2 and #8 are not the same thing. As far as why I reject the proposition... read #8 again, pay attention this time.

As far as why I reject atheism... wow. That's just stupid.

You stated that you rejected the proposition therefore, you have a position thus you have a god-theory. Please provide reasoning for why you believe it is impossible to reach a true-false answer.

My position is that I have no God theory. If you want to call that a God theory then go right ahead.

As far as why... because God is defined as a supernatural entity, which makes him by definition something that exists outside of our reality. The minute he manifests himself in our reality then his manifestations become part of our reality. There is no basis for concluding that something within our reality originated outside of our reality. You figure we as a species would have learned this by now considering how many things like fire, lightning, and rain were all attributed to supernatural causes.

You stated that you reject the opposite proposition, therefore you reject Atheism and employ Agnosticism. I am interested of why you reject Atheism too.

How many more times will you need to be explained what atheism and agnosticism are before you get it?

1. Yes, it means that I reject whatever arguments you have presented. To what syllogism are you referring?

You can reject for political or emotional reasons. I want logical rejection, which means refutation. Here you go:

1- If the laws of logic (You can make a variation argument with small adjustments with: objective morality/intuition/regularity of the laws of nature) exists, they are universal, infallible, immutable, omnipresent, eternal, intentional truths.
2- Intentional entities are best explained by mental products.
3- Therefore, if the laws of logic (objective morality/intuition/laws of nature) exists, then they are best explained by universal, infallible, immutable, omnipresent, and an eternal mind [God's mind].
4- The laws of logic (objective morality/intuition/regularity of the laws of nature) exists.
C: Therefore, they are best explained by the product of God's mind, who is universal, infallible, immutable, omnipresent, and an eternal.

The laws of logic do not "exist". They are rules that we set as boundaries of rational discourse which BTW have nothing to do with objective morality, intuition, or natural law.

2. No, I don't consider myself "Without God". I also don't consider myself with God either. I simply don't concern myself with the proposition until someone can provide evidence for which one I am.

So you arbitrarily select a moral theory, purpose of life, value of life, etc. on a whim?

I get my moral standards and purpose the same way that everyone else does... from that which I value.

Law of excluded middle: You are either with God or without God, there is nothing in between. You should say "I don't know whether I am with/without God" in the first sentence to avoid confusion.

You asked me a yes or no question. I answered no. If you find that confusing then perhaps you should rethink the questions you're asking.

According to your position above, it is impossible to gain evidence, and yet you are verifying the opposite. Does this mean that your position is irrational?

Explain what verifying the opposite means and how that ties into my position.

And do you even know what my position is, despite my explaining it over and over and over again?

4. There is no such thing as "according to atheism...". Please pick up a dictionary.

Yes, according to the implications of Atheism. But lets put that aside, you have any objection to anything I said? You have any reason to believe what Nietzsche said is wrong in light of the "facts" I presented?

I already explained to you that I agree with the first part of his statement and that the second part does not make sense. You didn't make any sense out of it, all you did was start talking about brain particles.

Again, the second part of his statement broken down literally states "the irrationality of a thing is a condition of its existence". Please make sense out of this statement, then I will tell you what I think about it.

I still don't see your point. Do you have reasons to believe God doesn't exist or not?

Will address this after getting your responses to the above...

Although I fail to see any non-fallacious connection between the point and the issue of God, I am waiting.

Not sure why, just read option #8.

And likewise, I ask you to take an elevator above and support your position.

This isn't rocket science. You asked if I have reasons to believe God does not exist. Here is how I described my position on Gods existence in #8. Please pay attention this time:

A person [that would be me] understands the proposition and recognizes that any conclusion regarding the proposition being true or false (depending on how it is specifically defined) is rationally unjustified. Therefore he has no god theory that he accepts to be true, and reminds those that do that they have a burden to substantiate their conclusion.
Student4Life1975
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 4:38:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/4/2014 10:25:49 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I think that the person making the positive claim assumes the burden of proof.

Regardless of whether its a positive or negative claim, whoever comes forth with the claim in question should have the burden of proof. Why would the person who claims a Unicorn is under the bed ask the person at their bedroom door to prove it?
there is no progress without compromise"