Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Logical fallacy in arguing "existence"

wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 4:04:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

PROVING NON-EXISTENCE
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something." Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence." The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

------------------

So why do so many theist here continually attempt to use the logical fallacy of "prove God does not exist?"

I have seen this tried to be used countless times here. To me, that argument only shows a total lack of evidence to support their claim of existence and a complete lack of knowledge of logic.

It's a total waste of time and makes the person who tries to use it look like a fool.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 4:25:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 4:04:37 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

PROVING NON-EXISTENCE
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something." Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence." The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

------------------

So why do so many theist here continually attempt to use the logical fallacy of "prove God does not exist?"

I have seen this tried to be used countless times here. To me, that argument only shows a total lack of evidence to support their claim of existence and a complete lack of knowledge of logic.

It's a total waste of time and makes the person who tries to use it look like a fool.

When someone believes in something that they cannot prove, and resorts to demanding that the non-believer prove that "it" does not exist, or insists that the non-believer cannot prove that "it" does not exist, that believer has essentially just proved that he/she lacks the intelligence to support their own belief.

Also, when someone insists that another cannot prove that something does not exist, I have to wonder who they're trying to convince more, the non-believer, or themselves.

If you can't prove the existence of what you believe in, have the guts to admit it. It doesn't mean that you have to abandon your belief, but intelligence dictates that you give it an unbiased evaluation, and a closer look.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 4:46:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 4:04:37 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

PROVING NON-EXISTENCE
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something." Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence." The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

------------------

So why do so many theist here continually attempt to use the logical fallacy of "prove God does not exist?"

I have seen this tried to be used countless times here. To me, that argument only shows a total lack of evidence to support their claim of existence and a complete lack of knowledge of logic.

It's a total waste of time and makes the person who tries to use it look like a fool.

I can universally prove there are no square-circles, or married bachelors. If you claim 'God does not exist' then you take the burden to prove so when challenged. If you can't provide justifications for your claim, then it is not a rational or logically derived at concept.

If you can not argue that God is non-existent in the a similar argument I can make for non-existence of God. Then with your current understanding you must admit 'God' is a logically consistent concept, even if you lack belief in it's actual manifestation.

So stop shifting the burden of proof everytime you make an emotional irrational claim.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 4:50:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 4:46:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:04:37 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

PROVING NON-EXISTENCE
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something." Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence." The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

------------------

So why do so many theist here continually attempt to use the logical fallacy of "prove God does not exist?"

I have seen this tried to be used countless times here. To me, that argument only shows a total lack of evidence to support their claim of existence and a complete lack of knowledge of logic.

It's a total waste of time and makes the person who tries to use it look like a fool.

I can universally prove there are no square-circles, or married bachelors. If you claim 'God does not exist' then you take the burden to prove so when challenged. If you can't provide justifications for your claim, then it is not a rational or logically derived at concept.

If you can not argue that God is non-existent in the a similar argument I can make for non-existence of God. Then with your current understanding you must admit 'God' is a logically consistent concept, even if you lack belief in it's actual manifestation.

So stop shifting the burden of proof everytime you make an emotional irrational claim.

Project much? I have known no one to argue that God does not exist, only that there is no viable evidence to prove that he does. All most atheists and all the agnostics I know simply want you to prove that there is a god like you claim but until you do, we cannot accept your assertion. Yours is the emotional, irrational claim. Ours is the rational rejection of it based on lack of evidence, much like a court dismissing charges when no physical evidence is available.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 5:01:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 4:50:49 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:46:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:04:37 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

PROVING NON-EXISTENCE
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something." Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence." The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

------------------

So why do so many theist here continually attempt to use the logical fallacy of "prove God does not exist?"

I have seen this tried to be used countless times here. To me, that argument only shows a total lack of evidence to support their claim of existence and a complete lack of knowledge of logic.

It's a total waste of time and makes the person who tries to use it look like a fool.

I can universally prove there are no square-circles, or married bachelors. If you claim 'God does not exist' then you take the burden to prove so when challenged. If you can't provide justifications for your claim, then it is not a rational or logically derived at concept.

If you can not argue that God is non-existent in the a similar argument I can make for non-existence of God. Then with your current understanding you must admit 'God' is a logically consistent concept, even if you lack belief in it's actual manifestation.

So stop shifting the burden of proof everytime you make an emotional irrational claim.

Project much? I have known no one to argue that God does not exist, only that there is no viable evidence to prove that he does. All most atheists and all the agnostics I know simply want you to prove that there is a god like you claim but until you do, we cannot accept your assertion. Yours is the emotional, irrational claim. Ours is the rational rejection of it based on lack of evidence, much like a court dismissing charges when no physical evidence is available.

I'm not convinced by the arguments for God, so God does not exist. Same fallacy the OP pointed out. It's called argument from ignorance.

But I get it back to athiesm is a lack of belief. Athiest tactic run back to the defintion after making an emotional irrational claim like 'God is imagionary'

You want to be agnostic about God's existence act like it. But most athiest I see are anti-God till challenged to provide justifications for thier words.

This responsibility to offer justifications for your statements is a part of logical discourse. Athiesm ideology is a poison you become hypocritical in the application of reason. You think spouting off crap and the hiding in epistemological doubt and agnosticism is something logical and intellectually honest?

Athiest like that are jokes and tools.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 5:51:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 5:01:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:50:49 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:46:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:04:37 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

PROVING NON-EXISTENCE
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something." Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence." The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

------------------

So why do so many theist here continually attempt to use the logical fallacy of "prove God does not exist?"

I have seen this tried to be used countless times here. To me, that argument only shows a total lack of evidence to support their claim of existence and a complete lack of knowledge of logic.

It's a total waste of time and makes the person who tries to use it look like a fool.

I can universally prove there are no square-circles, or married bachelors. If you claim 'God does not exist' then you take the burden to prove so when challenged. If you can't provide justifications for your claim, then it is not a rational or logically derived at concept.

If you can not argue that God is non-existent in the a similar argument I can make for non-existence of God. Then with your current understanding you must admit 'God' is a logically consistent concept, even if you lack belief in it's actual manifestation.

So stop shifting the burden of proof everytime you make an emotional irrational claim.

Project much? I have known no one to argue that God does not exist, only that there is no viable evidence to prove that he does. All most atheists and all the agnostics I know simply want you to prove that there is a god like you claim but until you do, we cannot accept your assertion. Yours is the emotional, irrational claim. Ours is the rational rejection of it based on lack of evidence, much like a court dismissing charges when no physical evidence is available.

I'm not convinced by the arguments for God, so God does not exist. Same fallacy the OP pointed out. It's called argument from ignorance.

But I get it back to athiesm is a lack of belief. Athiest tactic run back to the defintion after making an emotional irrational claim like 'God is imagionary'

You want to be agnostic about God's existence act like it. But most athiest I see are anti-God till challenged to provide justifications for thier words.

This responsibility to offer justifications for your statements is a part of logical discourse. Athiesm ideology is a poison you become hypocritical in the application of reason. You think spouting off crap and the hiding in epistemological doubt and agnosticism is something logical and intellectually honest?

Athiest like that are jokes and tools.

As has been mentioned already, you're just projecting your own emotional and irrational claims onto others who only ask you to produce evidence, which you never do.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 6:23:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 5:51:22 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/20/2015 5:01:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:50:49 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:46:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:04:37 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

PROVING NON-EXISTENCE
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something." Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence." The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

------------------

So why do so many theist here continually attempt to use the logical fallacy of "prove God does not exist?"

I have seen this tried to be used countless times here. To me, that argument only shows a total lack of evidence to support their claim of existence and a complete lack of knowledge of logic.

It's a total waste of time and makes the person who tries to use it look like a fool.

I can universally prove there are no square-circles, or married bachelors. If you claim 'God does not exist' then you take the burden to prove so when challenged. If you can't provide justifications for your claim, then it is not a rational or logically derived at concept.

If you can not argue that God is non-existent in the a similar argument I can make for non-existence of God. Then with your current understanding you must admit 'God' is a logically consistent concept, even if you lack belief in it's actual manifestation.

So stop shifting the burden of proof everytime you make an emotional irrational claim.

Project much? I have known no one to argue that God does not exist, only that there is no viable evidence to prove that he does. All most atheists and all the agnostics I know simply want you to prove that there is a god like you claim but until you do, we cannot accept your assertion. Yours is the emotional, irrational claim. Ours is the rational rejection of it based on lack of evidence, much like a court dismissing charges when no physical evidence is available.

I'm not convinced by the arguments for God, so God does not exist. Same fallacy the OP pointed out. It's called argument from ignorance.

But I get it back to athiesm is a lack of belief. Athiest tactic run back to the defintion after making an emotional irrational claim like 'God is imagionary'

You want to be agnostic about God's existence act like it. But most athiest I see are anti-God till challenged to provide justifications for thier words.

This responsibility to offer justifications for your statements is a part of logical discourse. Athiesm ideology is a poison you become hypocritical in the application of reason. You think spouting off crap and the hiding in epistemological doubt and agnosticism is something logical and intellectually honest?

Atheist like that are jokes and tools.

As has been mentioned already, you're just projecting your own emotional and irrational claims onto others who only ask you to produce evidence, which you never do.

I don't discuss Physics with my dogs, and I don't discuss my reasonable justifications to illogical people.

As noted by the OP.
I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

Is a Fallacy known as argument from ignorance. Same as:
I cannot prove X doesn't exist, so you prove it does,
if you can't, X doesn't exist.

Let's break it down. You are under the impression that a universal negative can not be proven. That's false. I can give a logical argument that proves out of the entire universe a square-circle does not exist.

Then based on this false premise you have the illogical bravado that if you can not logically prove your statement, then it is the challenger's responsibility to prove the opposite.

Here's an idea the next time you say "God is <blank>" You back that statement up. That is actually how logical debate works.

But you must be troll and not interested in logical rational discourse. You are just interested in derision. You are so idle brained you don't even desire truth.

What's disgusting is you and other atheist on this site pass this fallacious argument and shifting of BoP AS IF it was logic and reason! The travesty is NO matter how many times this is logically shown to you all, it doesn't matter because you obviously can not use reason to explain logic to the illogical.

Just stop passing your "God is <blank>" statements off as if they are anything but derision, emotional, unjustified claims, diarrhea of the mouth from an irrational mind, until you back it up.

And asking the challenger to back up the reverse claim is NOT backing your gibberish up.

Atheism - lack of belief.
Agnostic - I do not know.

If you say anything OTHER than "I don't belief that." or "I do not know", or anything like "God is ..." than you are making a claim! when challenged you offer your justifications for it.

You know never mind, I already spent too much time trying to explain algebra to a dog.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 7:42:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 4:46:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:04:37 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

PROVING NON-EXISTENCE
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something." Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence." The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

------------------

So why do so many theist here continually attempt to use the logical fallacy of "prove God does not exist?"

I have seen this tried to be used countless times here. To me, that argument only shows a total lack of evidence to support their claim of existence and a complete lack of knowledge of logic.

It's a total waste of time and makes the person who tries to use it look like a fool.

I can universally prove there are no square-circles, or married bachelors. If you claim 'God does not exist' then you take the burden to prove so when challenged. If you can't provide justifications for your claim, then it is not a rational or logically derived at concept.

If you can not argue that God is non-existent in the a similar argument I can make for non-existence of God. Then with your current understanding you must admit 'God' is a logically consistent concept, even if you lack belief in it's actual manifestation.

So stop shifting the burden of proof everytime you make an emotional irrational claim.

I have made no claims, other than many theist here use illogical arguments.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 7:51:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 4:50:49 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:46:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:04:37 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

PROVING NON-EXISTENCE
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something." Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence." The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

------------------

So why do so many theist here continually attempt to use the logical fallacy of "prove God does not exist?"

I have seen this tried to be used countless times here. To me, that argument only shows a total lack of evidence to support their claim of existence and a complete lack of knowledge of logic.

It's a total waste of time and makes the person who tries to use it look like a fool.

I can universally prove there are no square-circles, or married bachelors. If you claim 'God does not exist' then you take the burden to prove so when challenged. If you can't provide justifications for your claim, then it is not a rational or logically derived at concept.

If you can not argue that God is non-existent in the a similar argument I can make for non-existence of God. Then with your current understanding you must admit 'God' is a logically consistent concept, even if you lack belief in it's actual manifestation.

So stop shifting the burden of proof everytime you make an emotional irrational claim.

Project much? I have known no one to argue that God does not exist, only that there is no viable evidence to prove that he does. All most atheists and all the agnostics I know simply want you to prove that there is a god like you claim but until you do, we cannot accept your assertion.

I find it very hard to believe that you and "almost all the atheists and agnostics you know" are so astoundingly uninformed about the subject matter. I mean, c"mon, you can't be serious that you never heard the word "faith" associated with belief in God before. Do you live under a rock or something?

What you are asserting here is an epistemological claim called "Evidentialism", which is a completely irrational belief that self referentially negates itself; there is no evidence for it and a boatload of evidence against it. There is just no evidence that the justification of a belief depends solely on the evidence for it, so according to your own postulate, evidentialism should not be believed because it is strictly a "faith based" belief that is completely unjustified.

But hey, if you want to evangelize your belief in evidentialism, you need to provide us with some proof.

Yours is the emotional, irrational claim. Ours is the rational rejection of it based on lack of evidence, much like a court dismissing charges when no physical evidence is available.

There is nothing rational about your evidentialism, and the implication that you require "proof" in order to have "faith" is inane.

All you have provided us with here is ignorance of the subject matter and evidence that your mind has slammed closed.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 8:07:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 5:01:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
But I get it back to athiesm is a lack of belief. Athiest tactic run back to the defintion after making an emotional irrational claim like 'God is imagionary'

You want to be agnostic about God's existence act like it. But most athiest I see are anti-God till challenged to provide justifications for thier words.

Atheists are not anti-God. We're anti nonsense when it comes to people who claim he exists. You mistake our confidence in our position that it is unreasonable to believe in a God, with confidence in whether there is actually a God. Why I don't know, but it seems apparent to me that you do so because it is convenient for you. It's much easier to forget about the fact that you have no valid reason to hold your beliefs when you are busy attacking the beliefs you made up for us.

And yes, God is imaginary. Being imaginary does not preclude something from existing. The amazing hot blonde who loves to cook and clean, loves football, hates shopping, and just wants to have sex all day is imaginary. That doesn't mean she is not actually out there somewhere.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 9:57:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 6:23:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 5:51:22 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/20/2015 5:01:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:50:49 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:46:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:04:37 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

PROVING NON-EXISTENCE
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something." Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence." The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

------------------

So why do so many theist here continually attempt to use the logical fallacy of "prove God does not exist?"

I have seen this tried to be used countless times here. To me, that argument only shows a total lack of evidence to support their claim of existence and a complete lack of knowledge of logic.

It's a total waste of time and makes the person who tries to use it look like a fool.

I can universally prove there are no square-circles, or married bachelors. If you claim 'God does not exist' then you take the burden to prove so when challenged. If you can't provide justifications for your claim, then it is not a rational or logically derived at concept.


If you can not argue that God is non-existent in the a similar argument I can make for non-existence of God. Then with your current understanding you must admit 'God' is a logically consistent concept, even if you lack belief in it's actual manifestation.

So stop shifting the burden of proof everytime you make an emotional irrational claim.

Project much? I have known no one to argue that God does not exist, only that there is no viable evidence to prove that he does. All most atheists and all the agnostics I know simply want you to prove that there is a god like you claim but until you do, we cannot accept your assertion. Yours is the emotional, irrational claim. Ours is the rational rejection of it based on lack of evidence, much like a court dismissing charges when no physical evidence is available.

I'm not convinced by the arguments for God, so God does not exist. Same fallacy the OP pointed out. It's called argument from ignorance.

But I get it back to athiesm is a lack of belief. Athiest tactic run back to the defintion after making an emotional irrational claim like 'God is imagionary'

You want to be agnostic about God's existence act like it. But most athiest I see are anti-God till challenged to provide justifications for thier words.

This responsibility to offer justifications for your statements is a part of logical discourse. Athiesm ideology is a poison you become hypocritical in the application of reason. You think spouting off crap and the hiding in epistemological doubt and agnosticism is something logical and intellectually honest?

Atheist like that are jokes and tools.

As has been mentioned already, you're just projecting your own emotional and irrational claims onto others who only ask you to produce evidence, which you never do.

I don't discuss Physics with my dogs, and I don't discuss my reasonable justifications to illogical people.

As noted by the OP.
I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

Is a Fallacy known as argument from ignorance. Same as:
I cannot prove X doesn't exist, so you prove it does,
if you can't, X doesn't exist.

Let's break it down. You are under the impression that a universal negative can not be proven. That's false. I can give a logical argument that proves out of the entire universe a square-circle does not exist.

The same reason for such things not to exist are the same reason for God not to exist: they are contradictions of terms at their concept. Its a logical argument over an illogical/irrational term.


Then based on this false premise you have the illogical bravado that if you can not logically prove your statement, then it is the challenger's responsibility to prove the opposite.

Here's an idea the next time you say "God is <blank>" You back that statement up. That is actually how logical debate works.


But you must be troll and not interested in logical rational discourse. You are just interested in derision. You are so idle brained you don't even desire truth.

What's disgusting is you and other atheist on this site pass this fallacious argument and shifting of BoP AS IF it was logic and reason! The travesty is NO matter how many times this is logically shown to you all, it doesn't matter because you obviously can not use reason to explain logic to the illogical.

Just stop passing your "God is <blank>" statements off as if they are anything but derision, emotional, unjustified claims, diarrhea of the mouth from an irrational mind, until you back it up.

And asking the challenger to back up the reverse claim is NOT backing your gibberish up.

... the irony is thick on that one. You and LMGIG would have a great time discussing that particular prong.

Atheism - lack of belief.
Agnostic - I do not know.

If you say anything OTHER than "I don't belief that." or "I do not know", or anything like "God is ..." than you are making a claim! when challenged you offer your justifications for it.

You know never mind, I already spent too much time trying to explain algebra to a dog.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 10:05:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 8:07:37 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/20/2015 5:01:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
But I get it back to athiesm is a lack of belief. Athiest tactic run back to the defintion after making an emotional irrational claim like 'God is imagionary'

You want to be agnostic about God's existence act like it. But most athiest I see are anti-God till challenged to provide justifications for thier words.

Atheists are not anti-God. We're anti nonsense when it comes to people who claim he exists. You mistake our confidence in our position that it is unreasonable to believe in a God, with confidence in whether there is actually a God. Why I don't know, but it seems apparent to me that you do so because it is convenient for you. It's much easier to forget about the fact that you have no valid reason to hold your beliefs when you are busy attacking the beliefs you made up for us.


I can not have a rational discourse with someone who makes the false claim that a universal negative can not be proven. I can not have a reasonable discourse with someone who shifts the burden. I can not have a logical discussion with someone who passes formal and informal fallacies as a logical basis for their beliefs.

And yes, God is imaginary. Being imaginary does not preclude something from existing. The amazing hot blonde who loves to cook and clean, loves football, hates shopping, and just wants to have sex all day is imaginary. That doesn't mean she is not actually out there somewhere.

Imaginary: existing only in the imagination.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Imagination: the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Nice word play. When someone says God is imaginary the meaning is clear they are making an assertive claim that God does not exist in reality.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 10:23:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 10:05:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 8:07:37 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/20/2015 5:01:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
But I get it back to athiesm is a lack of belief. Athiest tactic run back to the defintion after making an emotional irrational claim like 'God is imagionary'

You want to be agnostic about God's existence act like it. But most athiest I see are anti-God till challenged to provide justifications for thier words.

Atheists are not anti-God. We're anti nonsense when it comes to people who claim he exists. You mistake our confidence in our position that it is unreasonable to believe in a God, with confidence in whether there is actually a God. Why I don't know, but it seems apparent to me that you do so because it is convenient for you. It's much easier to forget about the fact that you have no valid reason to hold your beliefs when you are busy attacking the beliefs you made up for us.


I can not have a rational discourse with someone who makes the false claim that a universal negative can not be proven. I can not have a reasonable discourse with someone who shifts the burden. I can not have a logical discussion with someone who passes formal and informal fallacies as a logical basis for their beliefs.


Well, every logician I know of says you argument a fallacy, so you should have no expectations of a rational discussion when you hold an irrational position.

And yes, God is imaginary. Being imaginary does not preclude something from existing. The amazing hot blonde who loves to cook and clean, loves football, hates shopping, and just wants to have sex all day is imaginary. That doesn't mean she is not actually out there somewhere.

Imaginary: existing only in the imagination.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Imagination: the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Nice word play. When someone says God is imaginary the meaning is clear they are making an assertive claim that God does not exist in reality.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 10:35:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 10:23:50 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 1/20/2015 10:05:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 8:07:37 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/20/2015 5:01:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
But I get it back to athiesm is a lack of belief. Athiest tactic run back to the defintion after making an emotional irrational claim like 'God is imagionary'

You want to be agnostic about God's existence act like it. But most athiest I see are anti-God till challenged to provide justifications for thier words.

Atheists are not anti-God. We're anti nonsense when it comes to people who claim he exists. You mistake our confidence in our position that it is unreasonable to believe in a God, with confidence in whether there is actually a God. Why I don't know, but it seems apparent to me that you do so because it is convenient for you. It's much easier to forget about the fact that you have no valid reason to hold your beliefs when you are busy attacking the beliefs you made up for us.


I can not have a rational discourse with someone who makes the false claim that a universal negative can not be proven. I can not have a reasonable discourse with someone who shifts the burden. I can not have a logical discussion with someone who passes formal and informal fallacies as a logical basis for their beliefs.


Well, every logician I know of says you argument a fallacy, so you should have no expectations of a rational discussion when you hold an irrational position.

What is my irrational position?
What is my argument of fallacy?
Who are these logicians?



And yes, God is imaginary. Being imaginary does not preclude something from existing. The amazing hot blonde who loves to cook and clean, loves football, hates shopping, and just wants to have sex all day is imaginary. That doesn't mean she is not actually out there somewhere.

Imaginary: existing only in the imagination.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Imagination: the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Nice word play. When someone says God is imaginary the meaning is clear they are making an assertive claim that God does not exist in reality.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 11:03:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 10:35:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 10:23:50 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 1/20/2015 10:05:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 8:07:37 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/20/2015 5:01:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
But I get it back to athiesm is a lack of belief. Athiest tactic run back to the defintion after making an emotional irrational claim like 'God is imagionary'

You want to be agnostic about God's existence act like it. But most athiest I see are anti-God till challenged to provide justifications for thier words.

Atheists are not anti-God. We're anti nonsense when it comes to people who claim he exists. You mistake our confidence in our position that it is unreasonable to believe in a God, with confidence in whether there is actually a God. Why I don't know, but it seems apparent to me that you do so because it is convenient for you. It's much easier to forget about the fact that you have no valid reason to hold your beliefs when you are busy attacking the beliefs you made up for us.


I can not have a rational discourse with someone who makes the false claim that a universal negative can not be proven. I can not have a reasonable discourse with someone who shifts the burden. I can not have a logical discussion with someone who passes formal and informal fallacies as a logical basis for their beliefs.


Well, every logician I know of says you argument a fallacy, so you should have no expectations of a rational discussion when you hold an irrational position.

What is my irrational position?
What is my argument of fallacy?
Who are these logicians?



And yes, God is imaginary. Being imaginary does not preclude something from existing. The amazing hot blonde who loves to cook and clean, loves football, hates shopping, and just wants to have sex all day is imaginary. That doesn't mean she is not actually out there somewhere.

Imaginary: existing only in the imagination.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Imagination: the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Nice word play. When someone says God is imaginary the meaning is clear they are making an assertive claim that God does not exist in reality.

Sorry. I refuse to indulge you in your irrationally.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 11:06:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 11:03:43 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 1/20/2015 10:35:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 10:23:50 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 1/20/2015 10:05:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 8:07:37 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/20/2015 5:01:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
But I get it back to athiesm is a lack of belief. Athiest tactic run back to the defintion after making an emotional irrational claim like 'God is imagionary'

You want to be agnostic about God's existence act like it. But most athiest I see are anti-God till challenged to provide justifications for thier words.

Atheists are not anti-God. We're anti nonsense when it comes to people who claim he exists. You mistake our confidence in our position that it is unreasonable to believe in a God, with confidence in whether there is actually a God. Why I don't know, but it seems apparent to me that you do so because it is convenient for you. It's much easier to forget about the fact that you have no valid reason to hold your beliefs when you are busy attacking the beliefs you made up for us.


I can not have a rational discourse with someone who makes the false claim that a universal negative can not be proven. I can not have a reasonable discourse with someone who shifts the burden. I can not have a logical discussion with someone who passes formal and informal fallacies as a logical basis for their beliefs.


Well, every logician I know of says you argument a fallacy, so you should have no expectations of a rational discussion when you hold an irrational position.

What is my irrational position?
What is my argument of fallacy?
Who are these logicians?



And yes, God is imaginary. Being imaginary does not preclude something from existing. The amazing hot blonde who loves to cook and clean, loves football, hates shopping, and just wants to have sex all day is imaginary. That doesn't mean she is not actually out there somewhere.

Imaginary: existing only in the imagination.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Imagination: the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Nice word play. When someone says God is imaginary the meaning is clear they are making an assertive claim that God does not exist in reality.

Sorry. I refuse to indulge you in your irrationally.

I'm agnostic to the claim that I am irrational. You haven't presented any justifications for it.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 4:28:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Whilst it just possible a deity could exist, theists have not the slightest shred of evidence to prove that it does.
Geneaux
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 4:46:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 4:04:37 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

PROVING NON-EXISTENCE
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something." Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence." The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

------------------

So why do so many theist here continually attempt to use the logical fallacy of "prove God does not exist?"

I have seen this tried to be used countless times here. To me, that argument only shows a total lack of evidence to support their claim of existence and a complete lack of knowledge of logic.

It's a total waste of time and makes the person who tries to use it look like a fool.

The logical fallacy of Wsunmit, motorhead- I will misrepresent the claims of theists. They only believe because we can't produce evidence for our own claim there is no God! Here is this retarded idea which literally every theist I meet on this forum says!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 6:34:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 9:57:49 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/20/2015 6:23:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 5:51:22 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/20/2015 5:01:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:50:49 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:46:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:04:37 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

PROVING NON-EXISTENCE
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something." Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence." The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

------------------

So why do so many theist here continually attempt to use the logical fallacy of "prove God does not exist?"

I have seen this tried to be used countless times here. To me, that argument only shows a total lack of evidence to support their claim of existence and a complete lack of knowledge of logic.

It's a total waste of time and makes the person who tries to use it look like a fool.

I can universally prove there are no square-circles, or married bachelors. If you claim 'God does not exist' then you take the burden to prove so when challenged. If you can't provide justifications for your claim, then it is not a rational or logically derived at concept.




If you can not argue that God is non-existent in the a similar argument I can make for non-existence of God. Then with your current understanding you must admit 'God' is a logically consistent concept, even if you lack belief in it's actual manifestation.

So stop shifting the burden of proof everytime you make an emotional irrational claim.

Project much? I have known no one to argue that God does not exist, only that there is no viable evidence to prove that he does. All most atheists and all the agnostics I know simply want you to prove that there is a god like you claim but until you do, we cannot accept your assertion. Yours is the emotional, irrational claim. Ours is the rational rejection of it based on lack of evidence, much like a court dismissing charges when no physical evidence is available.

I'm not convinced by the arguments for God, so God does not exist. Same fallacy the OP pointed out. It's called argument from ignorance.

But I get it back to athiesm is a lack of belief. Athiest tactic run back to the defintion after making an emotional irrational claim like 'God is imagionary'

You want to be agnostic about God's existence act like it. But most athiest I see are anti-God till challenged to provide justifications for thier words.

This responsibility to offer justifications for your statements is a part of logical discourse. Athiesm ideology is a poison you become hypocritical in the application of reason. You think spouting off crap and the hiding in epistemological doubt and agnosticism is something logical and intellectually honest?

Atheist like that are jokes and tools.

As has been mentioned already, you're just projecting your own emotional and irrational claims onto others who only ask you to produce evidence, which you never do.

I don't discuss Physics with my dogs, and I don't discuss my reasonable justifications to illogical people.

As noted by the OP.
I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

Is a Fallacy known as argument from ignorance. Same as:
I cannot prove X doesn't exist, so you prove it does,
if you can't, X doesn't exist.

Let's break it down. You are under the impression that a universal negative can not be proven. That's false. I can give a logical argument that proves out of the entire universe a square-circle does not exist.

The same reason for such things not to exist are the same reason for God not to exist: they are contradictions of terms at their concept. Its a logical argument over an illogical/irrational term.

Explain what is illogical about a God concept?
_


Then based on this false premise you have the illogical bravado that if you can not logically prove your statement, then it is the challenger's responsibility to prove the opposite.

Here's an idea the next time you say "God is <blank>" You back that statement up. That is actually how logical debate works.


But you must be troll and not interested in logical rational discourse. You are just interested in derision. You are so idle brained you don't even desire truth.

What's disgusting is you and other atheist on this site pass this fallacious argument and shifting of BoP AS IF it was logic and reason! The travesty is NO matter how many times this is logically shown to you all, it doesn't matter because you obviously can not use reason to explain logic to the illogical.

Just stop passing your "God is <blank>" statements off as if they are anything but derision, emotional, unjustified claims, diarrhea of the mouth from an irrational mind, until you back it up.

And asking the challenger to back up the reverse claim is NOT backing your gibberish up.

... the irony is thick on that one. You and LMGIG would have a great time discussing that particular prong.

Atheism - lack of belief.
Agnostic - I do not know.

If you say anything OTHER than "I don't belief that." or "I do not know", or anything like "God is ..." than you are making a claim! when challenged you offer your justifications for it.

You know never mind, I already spent too much time trying to explain algebra to a dog.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 8:43:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 7:51:49 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:50:49 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:46:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:04:37 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

PROVING NON-EXISTENCE
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something." Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence." The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

------------------

So why do so many theist here continually attempt to use the logical fallacy of "prove God does not exist?"

I have seen this tried to be used countless times here. To me, that argument only shows a total lack of evidence to support their claim of existence and a complete lack of knowledge of logic.

It's a total waste of time and makes the person who tries to use it look like a fool.

I can universally prove there are no square-circles, or married bachelors. If you claim 'God does not exist' then you take the burden to prove so when challenged. If you can't provide justifications for your claim, then it is not a rational or logically derived at concept.

If you can not argue that God is non-existent in the a similar argument I can make for non-existence of God. Then with your current understanding you must admit 'God' is a logically consistent concept, even if you lack belief in it's actual manifestation.

So stop shifting the burden of proof everytime you make an emotional irrational claim.

Project much? I have known no one to argue that God does not exist, only that there is no viable evidence to prove that he does. All most atheists and all the agnostics I know simply want you to prove that there is a god like you claim but until you do, we cannot accept your assertion.

I find it very hard to believe that you and "almost all the atheists and agnostics you know" are so astoundingly uninformed about the subject matter. I mean, c"mon, you can't be serious that you never heard the word "faith" associated with belief in God before. Do you live under a rock or something?

Of course I have. Faith is belief without evidence. I don't have 'faith' in anything. I trust things to be as they have always been, to function as they are designed to, and for the laws of the universe not to shift at someone's whim. If you have faith, good, but don't try to conflate faith with knowledge.

What you are asserting here is an epistemological claim called "Evidentialism", which is a completely irrational belief that self referentially negates itself; there is no evidence for it and a boatload of evidence against it. There is just no evidence that the justification of a belief depends solely on the evidence for it, so according to your own postulate, evidentialism should not be believed because it is strictly a "faith based" belief that is completely unjustified.

"What you are asserting here is an epistemological claim called "Evidentialism", which is a completely irrational belief that self referentially negates itself; there is no evidence for it and a boatload of evidence against it."

Interesting that you choose to make a remark like that in the first place since you don't believe evidence is needed to believe something. You have just countered your own argument.
Ok, since you have admitted the need for evidence to prove or disprove a point, give me that boatload of evidence and tell me how it self referentially negates itself.

"There is just no evidence that the justification of a belief depends solely on the evidence for it,"

Take that before a judge in a criminal court and argue that you don't need evidence to prove your case. If I told you that I had a leprechaun living under a toadstool in my back yard and wanted you to take it on faith, would you? I somehow doubt it. You and everyone else uses 'evidentialism' in their every day lives all the time yet somehow religion and religious beliefs are exempted. I suggest that you are being hypocritical in your arguments/

But hey, if you want to evangelize your belief in evidentialism, you need to provide us with some proof.


Once again, I say that I have a leprechaun living under a toadstool in my back yard. Do you believe me or do you want some evidence?

Yours is the emotional, irrational claim. Ours is the rational rejection of it based on lack of evidence, much like a court dismissing charges when no physical evidence is available.

There is nothing rational about your evidentialism, and the implication that you require "proof" in order to have "faith" is inane.

I never used the word 'faith' and neither did you at the outset. I said that there is a positive assertion that a god or gods exist. I stated that there was no viable evidence to support the assertion so I reject it. No faith required, just a few fact to support the assertion. There are none.


All you have provided us with here is ignorance of the subject matter and evidence that your mind has slammed closed.

And you have provided nothing but word salad conflating faith with knowledge. Once again, get your definitions straight before you use words. If you don't then none of your arguments will hold water.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 8:53:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 5:01:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:50:49 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:46:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:04:37 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

PROVING NON-EXISTENCE
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something." Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence." The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

------------------

So why do so many theist here continually attempt to use the logical fallacy of "prove God does not exist?"

I have seen this tried to be used countless times here. To me, that argument only shows a total lack of evidence to support their claim of existence and a complete lack of knowledge of logic.

It's a total waste of time and makes the person who tries to use it look like a fool.

I can universally prove there are no square-circles, or married bachelors. If you claim 'God does not exist' then you take the burden to prove so when challenged. If you can't provide justifications for your claim, then it is not a rational or logically derived at concept.

If you can not argue that God is non-existent in the a similar argument I can make for non-existence of God. Then with your current understanding you must admit 'God' is a logically consistent concept, even if you lack belief in it's actual manifestation.

So stop shifting the burden of proof everytime you make an emotional irrational claim.

Project much? I have known no one to argue that God does not exist, only that there is no viable evidence to prove that he does. All most atheists and all the agnostics I know simply want you to prove that there is a god like you claim but until you do, we cannot accept your assertion. Yours is the emotional, irrational claim. Ours is the rational rejection of it based on lack of evidence, much like a court dismissing charges when no physical evidence is available.

I'm not convinced by the arguments for God, so God does not exist. Same fallacy the OP pointed out. It's called argument from ignorance.

But I get it back to athiesm is a lack of belief. Athiest tactic run back to the defintion after making an emotional irrational claim like 'God is imagionary'

You want to be agnostic about God's existence act like it. But most athiest I see are anti-God till challenged to provide justifications for thier words.

This responsibility to offer justifications for your statements is a part of logical discourse. Athiesm ideology is a poison you become hypocritical in the application of reason. You think spouting off crap and the hiding in epistemological doubt and agnosticism is something logical and intellectually honest?

Athiest like that are jokes and tools.

I'll tell you what. Check all of my posts and see if you can find anywhere that I said God didn't exist. If you can find one, let me know. If not, I suggest you stop lying about people.

"This responsibility to offer justifications for your statements is a part of logical discourse. Athiesm ideology is a poison you become hypocritical in the application of reason. You think spouting off crap and the hiding in epistemological doubt and agnosticism is something logical and intellectually honest?"

It's as honest as it's possible to be. I have seen no evidence that supports the proposition that a god or gods, or anything supernatural, exists. I therefore reject the assertion pending new information. Since most holy books have stopped being updated, there is little or no new information forthcoming. That's not a fallacy, that's just plain logic.

I will repeat, if I said there was a leprechaun living under a toadstool in my back yard and you could not see it, had to take it on faith, you would reject that assertion. That is how I view the assertion of the existence of a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient being of any type. Just because you don't like my stance doesn't make it invalid or dishonest.

"Athiesm ideology" - No such thing. The only thing common to all atheists is a lack of belief in any deity. We have no overarching ideology. We're Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and some of us have no politics at all. We don't have any rituals, we don't get together and chant or anything like that. We just don't believe what religion in general tries to tell us since there is no viable evidence to support it. I'm sorry that you have such a blind spot that you cannot see that simple truth.

" Athiest like that are jokes and tools."

Resorting to name calling is the last resort of a child who has been told no.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 9:40:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 6:23:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I don't discuss Physics with my dogs, and I don't discuss my reasonable justifications to illogical people.

When you do make a reasonable justification, that means you won't say anything?

As noted by the OP.
I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

Is a Fallacy known as argument from ignorance. Same as:
I cannot prove X doesn't exist, so you prove it does,
if you can't, X doesn't exist.

Yes, your posts are often littered with fallacies, nice to see you're starting to read them and understand them, hopefully you'll stop using them.

Let's break it down. You are under the impression that a universal negative can not be proven. That's false. I can give a logical argument that proves out of the entire universe a square-circle does not exist.

I'd like to hear that argument to see how compelling and convincing. Go ahead. Logical arguments can also be used to show gods don't exist, too.

Then based on this false premise you have the illogical bravado that if you can not logically prove your statement, then it is the challenger's responsibility to prove the opposite.

The burden of proof lies on the claimant, who are the theists claiming their gods exist. Do you need any more help in understanding this one?

Here's an idea the next time you say "God is <blank>" You back that statement up. That is actually how logical debate works.

God is evil, There are plenty of verses showing how evil God is in the Bible. The Flood, Job and Moses commanded to genocide.

But you must be troll and not interested in logical rational discourse. You are just interested in derision. You are so idle brained you don't even desire truth.

And, you call other trolls when you have nothing to say.

What's disgusting is you and other atheist on this site pass this fallacious argument and shifting of BoP AS IF it was logic and reason! The travesty is NO matter how many times this is logically shown to you all, it doesn't matter because you obviously can not use reason to explain logic to the illogical.

That was an incomprehensible rant.

Just stop passing your "God is <blank>" statements off as if they are anything but derision, emotional, unjustified claims, diarrhea of the mouth from an irrational mind, until you back it up.

Why can't you just show us evidence for your God and be done with it? Oh yes, you have no evidence, you have only faith and delusion.

And asking the challenger to back up the reverse claim is NOT backing your gibberish up.

Atheism - lack of belief.
Agnostic - I do not know.

If you say anything OTHER than "I don't belief that." or "I do not know", or anything like "God is ..." than you are making a claim! when challenged you offer your justifications for it.

You know never mind, I already spent too much time trying to explain algebra to a dog.

And, you failed miserably explaining yourself as you usually do.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 2:04:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

I have seen this tried to be used countless times here. To me, that argument only shows a total lack of evidence to support their claim of existence and a complete lack of knowledge of logic.

It's a total waste of time and makes the person who tries to use it look like a fool.

I can universally prove there are no square-circles, or married bachelors. If you claim 'God does not exist' then you take the burden to prove so when challenged. If you can't provide justifications for your claim, then it is not a rational or logically derived at concept.




If you can not argue that God is non-existent in the a similar argument I can make for non-existence of God. Then with your current understanding you must admit 'God' is a logically consistent concept, even if you lack belief in it's actual manifestation.

So stop shifting the burden of proof everytime you make an emotional irrational claim.

Project much? I have known no one to argue that God does not exist, only that there is no viable evidence to prove that he does. All most atheists and all the agnostics I know simply want you to prove that there is a god like you claim but until you do, we cannot accept your assertion. Yours is the emotional, irrational claim. Ours is the rational rejection of it based on lack of evidence, much like a court dismissing charges when no physical evidence is available.

I'm not convinced by the arguments for God, so God does not exist. Same fallacy the OP pointed out. It's called argument from ignorance.

But I get it back to athiesm is a lack of belief. Athiest tactic run back to the defintion after making an emotional irrational claim like 'God is imagionary'

You want to be agnostic about God's existence act like it. But most athiest I see are anti-God till challenged to provide justifications for thier words.

This responsibility to offer justifications for your statements is a part of logical discourse. Athiesm ideology is a poison you become hypocritical in the application of reason. You think spouting off crap and the hiding in epistemological doubt and agnosticism is something logical and intellectually honest?

Atheist like that are jokes and tools.

As has been mentioned already, you're just projecting your own emotional and irrational claims onto others who only ask you to produce evidence, which you never do.

I don't discuss Physics with my dogs, and I don't discuss my reasonable justifications to illogical people.

As noted by the OP.
I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

Is a Fallacy known as argument from ignorance. Same as:
I cannot prove X doesn't exist, so you prove it does,
if you can't, X doesn't exist.

Let's break it down. You are under the impression that a universal negative can not be proven. That's false. I can give a logical argument that proves out of the entire universe a square-circle does not exist.

The same reason for such things not to exist are the same reason for God not to exist: they are contradictions of terms at their concept. Its a logical argument over an illogical/irrational term.

Explain what is illogical about a God concept?

An entity that can manifest matter or energy at will. An entity that lives outside of the universe. An entity that knows all, and is everywhere. There are a host more, but these are irrational ideas to give to something that is supposed to be -real-. A squared circle can't exist because its self contradictory, all these qualities are contradictory of anything in the known universe, but exist in God.

_


Then based on this false premise you have the illogical bravado that if you can not logically prove your statement, then it is the challenger's responsibility to prove the opposite.

Here's an idea the next time you say "God is <blank>" You back that statement up. That is actually how logical debate works.


But you must be troll and not interested in logical rational discourse. You are just interested in derision. You are so idle brained you don't even desire truth.

What's disgusting is you and other atheist on this site pass this fallacious argument and shifting of BoP AS IF it was logic and reason! The travesty is NO matter how many times this is logically shown to you all, it doesn't matter because you obviously can not use reason to explain logic to the illogical.

Just stop passing your "God is <blank>" statements off as if they are anything but derision, emotional, unjustified claims, diarrhea of the mouth from an irrational mind, until you back it up.

And asking the challenger to back up the reverse claim is NOT backing your gibberish up.

... the irony is thick on that one. You and LMGIG would have a great time discussing that particular prong.

Atheism - lack of belief.
Agnostic - I do not know.

If you say anything OTHER than "I don't belief that." or "I do not know", or anything like "God is ..." than you are making a claim! when challenged you offer your justifications for it.

You know never mind, I already spent too much time trying to explain algebra to a dog.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 4:52:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 2:04:33 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

I have seen this tried to be used countless times here. To me, that argument only shows a total lack of evidence to support their claim of existence and a complete lack of knowledge of logic.

It's a total waste of time and makes the person who tries to use it look like a fool.

I can universally prove there are no square-circles, or married bachelors. If you claim 'God does not exist' then you take the burden to prove so when challenged. If you can't provide justifications for your claim, then it is not a rational or logically derived at concept.




If you can not argue that God is non-existent in the a similar argument I can make for non-existence of God. Then with your current understanding you must admit 'God' is a logically consistent concept, even if you lack belief in it's actual manifestation.

So stop shifting the burden of proof everytime you make an emotional irrational claim.

Project much? I have known no one to argue that God does not exist, only that there is no viable evidence to prove that he does. All most atheists and all the agnostics I know simply want you to prove that there is a god like you claim but until you do, we cannot accept your assertion. Yours is the emotional, irrational claim. Ours is the rational rejection of it based on lack of evidence, much like a court dismissing charges when no physical evidence is available.

I'm not convinced by the arguments for God, so God does not exist. Same fallacy the OP pointed out. It's called argument from ignorance.

But I get it back to athiesm is a lack of belief. Athiest tactic run back to the defintion after making an emotional irrational claim like 'God is imagionary'

You want to be agnostic about God's existence act like it. But most athiest I see are anti-God till challenged to provide justifications for thier words.

This responsibility to offer justifications for your statements is a part of logical discourse. Athiesm ideology is a poison you become hypocritical in the application of reason. You think spouting off crap and the hiding in epistemological doubt and agnosticism is something logical and intellectually honest?

Atheist like that are jokes and tools.

As has been mentioned already, you're just projecting your own emotional and irrational claims onto others who only ask you to produce evidence, which you never do.

I don't discuss Physics with my dogs, and I don't discuss my reasonable justifications to illogical people.

As noted by the OP.
I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

Is a Fallacy known as argument from ignorance. Same as:
I cannot prove X doesn't exist, so you prove it does,
if you can't, X doesn't exist.

Let's break it down. You are under the impression that a universal negative can not be proven. That's false. I can give a logical argument that proves out of the entire universe a square-circle does not exist.

The same reason for such things not to exist are the same reason for God not to exist: they are contradictions of terms at their concept. Its a logical argument over an illogical/irrational term.

Explain what is illogical about a God concept?

An entity that can manifest matter or energy at will. An entity that lives outside of the universe. An entity that knows all, and is everywhere. There are a host more, but these are irrational ideas to give to something that is supposed to be -real-. A squared circle can't exist because its self contradictory, all these qualities are contradictory of anything in the known universe, but exist in God.


How are any of those self contridictory? I don't think you understand the logic involved in the nonexistence of a square circle.



_


Then based on this false premise you have the illogical bravado that if you can not logically prove your statement, then it is the challenger's responsibility to prove the opposite.

Here's an idea the next time you say "God is <blank>" You back that statement up. That is actually how logical debate works.


But you must be troll and not interested in logical rational discourse. You are just interested in derision. You are so idle brained you don't even desire truth.

What's disgusting is you and other atheist on this site pass this fallacious argument and shifting of BoP AS IF it was logic and reason! The travesty is NO matter how many times this is logically shown to you all, it doesn't matter because you obviously can not use reason to explain logic to the illogical.

Just stop passing your "God is <blank>" statements off as if they are anything but derision, emotional, unjustified claims, diarrhea of the mouth from an irrational mind, until you back it up.

And asking the challenger to back up the reverse claim is NOT backing your gibberish up.

... the irony is thick on that one. You and LMGIG would have a great time discussing that particular prong.

Atheism - lack of belief.
Agnostic - I do not know.

If you say anything OTHER than "I don't belief that." or "I do not know", or anything like "God is ..." than you are making a claim! when challenged you offer your justifications for it.

You know never mind, I already spent too much time trying to explain algebra to a dog.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 7:53:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 4:46:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:04:37 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

PROVING NON-EXISTENCE
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something." Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence." The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

------------------

So why do so many theist here continually attempt to use the logical fallacy of "prove God does not exist?"

I have seen this tried to be used countless times here. To me, that argument only shows a total lack of evidence to support their claim of existence and a complete lack of knowledge of logic.

It's a total waste of time and makes the person who tries to use it look like a fool.

I can universally prove there are no square-circles, or married bachelors. If you claim 'God does not exist' then you take the burden to prove so when challenged. If you can't provide justifications for your claim, then it is not a rational or logically derived at concept.

If you can not argue that God is non-existent in the a similar argument I can make for non-existence of God. Then with your current understanding you must admit 'God' is a logically consistent concept, even if you lack belief in it's actual manifestation.

So stop shifting the burden of proof everytime you make an emotional irrational claim.

You are not helping your cause. You only reinforce and confirm what I stated in the OP.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 10:27:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If you can not argue that God is non-existent in the a similar argument I can make for non-existence of God. Then with your current understanding you must admit 'God' is a logically consistent concept, even if you lack belief in it's actual manifestation.

So stop shifting the burden of proof everytime you make an emotional irrational claim.

Project much? I have known no one to argue that God does not exist, only that there is no viable evidence to prove that he does. All most atheists and all the agnostics I know simply want you to prove that there is a god like you claim but until you do, we cannot accept your assertion. Yours is the emotional, irrational claim. Ours is the rational rejection of it based on lack of evidence, much like a court dismissing charges when no physical evidence is available.

I'm not convinced by the arguments for God, so God does not exist. Same fallacy the OP pointed out. It's called argument from ignorance.

But I get it back to athiesm is a lack of belief. Athiest tactic run back to the defintion after making an emotional irrational claim like 'God is imagionary'

You want to be agnostic about God's existence act like it. But most athiest I see are anti-God till challenged to provide justifications for thier words.

This responsibility to offer justifications for your statements is a part of logical discourse. Athiesm ideology is a poison you become hypocritical in the application of reason. You think spouting off crap and the hiding in epistemological doubt and agnosticism is something logical and intellectually honest?

Atheist like that are jokes and tools.

As has been mentioned already, you're just projecting your own emotional and irrational claims onto others who only ask you to produce evidence, which you never do.

I don't discuss Physics with my dogs, and I don't discuss my reasonable justifications to illogical people.

As noted by the OP.
I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

Is a Fallacy known as argument from ignorance. Same as:
I cannot prove X doesn't exist, so you prove it does,
if you can't, X doesn't exist.

Let's break it down. You are under the impression that a universal negative can not be proven. That's false. I can give a logical argument that proves out of the entire universe a square-circle does not exist.

The same reason for such things not to exist are the same reason for God not to exist: they are contradictions of terms at their concept. Its a logical argument over an illogical/irrational term.

Explain what is illogical about a God concept?

An entity that can manifest matter or energy at will. An entity that lives outside of the universe. An entity that knows all, and is everywhere. There are a host more, but these are irrational ideas to give to something that is supposed to be -real-. A squared circle can't exist because its self contradictory, all these qualities are contradictory of anything in the known universe, but exist in God.


How are any of those self contridictory? I don't think you understand the logic involved in the nonexistence of a square circle.

Probably not, because a squared circle CAN'T exist. Like I stated, its a self contradictory concept. Something that contains the factors and designs of God (from the Bible) falls into the same category. An entity with influence on this universe, but lives apart from it. Well 'lives', as best as can be put into words. The laws of the universe do not apply to Him, with the only reason they shouldn't being a special pleading. The comings and goings of this entity are (as of late) never seen, His influence never definitively felt, His motives convoluted at best... He just doesn't add up.



_


Then based on this false premise you have the illogical bravado that if you can not logically prove your statement, then it is the challenger's responsibility to prove the opposite.

Here's an idea the next time you say "God is <blank>" You back that statement up. That is actually how logical debate works.


But you must be troll and not interested in logical rational discourse. You are just interested in derision. You are so idle brained you don't even desire truth.

What's disgusting is you and other atheist on this site pass this fallacious argument and shifting of BoP AS IF it was logic and reason! The travesty is NO matter how many times this is logically shown to you all, it doesn't matter because you obviously can not use reason to explain logic to the illogical.

Just stop passing your "God is <blank>" statements off as if they are anything but derision, emotional, unjustified claims, diarrhea of the mouth from an irrational mind, until you back it up.

And asking the challenger to back up the reverse claim is NOT backing your gibberish up.

... the irony is thick on that one. You and LMGIG would have a great time discussing that particular prong.

Atheism - lack of belief.
Agnostic - I do not know.

If you say anything OTHER than "I don't belief that." or "I do not know", or anything like "God is ..." than you are making a claim! when challenged you offer your justifications for it.

You know never mind, I already spent too much time trying to explain algebra to a dog.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 11:34:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 4:46:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:04:37 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

PROVING NON-EXISTENCE
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something." Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence." The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

------------------

So why do so many theist here continually attempt to use the logical fallacy of "prove God does not exist?"

I have seen this tried to be used countless times here. To me, that argument only shows a total lack of evidence to support their claim of existence and a complete lack of knowledge of logic.

It's a total waste of time and makes the person who tries to use it look like a fool.

I can universally prove there are no square-circles, or married bachelors.
That's because those are direct contradictions. One might note that "life" requires certain chemical interactions, and therefore, the claim of any living entity devoid of a physical being is also a contradiction. But something tells me you lack the intellectual honesty to accept that.

If you claim 'God does not exist' then you take the burden to prove so when challenged. If you can't provide justifications for your claim, then it is not a rational or logically derived at concept.
This is the same silly lack of understanding you have been demonstrating for the entire time I've been on the forum. A claim of non-existence is supported by the lack of evidence for existence. The statement that God does not exist is supported by a lack of evidence for God's existence. Evidence ALWAYS indicates existence, because evidence must be demonstrably linked to that for which it is claimed as evidence.

So non-existence is supported by a lack of evidence for existence, meaning that the atheist view is supported. And if you still can't wrap your mind around that reality, then for once, actually answer this question; how do you know there isn't a pride of lions in your living room?

Don't blow that off the way you always have. Answer it. Your continual evasion of such questions indicates that you already know that you're wrong, but you have no interest in the truth. Your interest is only in continuing to argue long after you've been shown to be wrong. And you've been shown to be wrong with your claim that atheists are shifting the burden of proof, multiple times. Yet you continue with that same disingenuous, and fully refuted argument, because truth is not what matters to you. Demonstrating the absurd ignorance of holding to demonstrably false beliefs is where you place your values.

If you can not argue that God is non-existent in the a similar argument I can make for non-existence of God. Then with your current understanding you must admit 'God' is a logically consistent concept, even if you lack belief in it's actual manifestation.
God is an inherently illogical concept. God cannot be "alive" unless God has a physical body. God cannot always do what is best, and still answer prayers. If God is necessary to explain the order of the universe, then God must have a creator to explain the order in God.

So stop shifting the burden of proof everytime you make an emotional irrational claim.
The only one shifting the burden of proof is you. And this is something you've done for months, despite the extremely obvious point that non-existence is supported by the LACK OF EVIDENCE for existence. And since you have no evidence for God's existence, that supports non-existence.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 10:46:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 11:34:09 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:46:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:04:37 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

PROVING NON-EXISTENCE
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something." Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence." The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

------------------

So why do so many theist here continually attempt to use the logical fallacy of "prove God does not exist?"

I have seen this tried to be used countless times here. To me, that argument only shows a total lack of evidence to support their claim of existence and a complete lack of knowledge of logic.

It's a total waste of time and makes the person who tries to use it look like a fool.

I can universally prove there are no square-circles, or married bachelors.
That's because those are direct contradictions. One might note that "life" requires certain chemical interactions, and therefore, the claim of any living entity devoid of a physical being is also a contradiction. But something tells me you lack the intellectual honesty to accept that.

If you claim 'God does not exist' then you take the burden to prove so when challenged. If you can't provide justifications for your claim, then it is not a rational or logically derived at concept.
This is the same silly lack of understanding you have been demonstrating for the entire time I've been on the forum. A claim of non-existence is supported by the lack of evidence for existence. The statement that God does not exist is supported by a lack of evidence for God's existence. Evidence ALWAYS indicates existence, because evidence must be demonstrably linked to that for which it is claimed as evidence.

So non-existence is supported by a lack of evidence for existence, meaning that the atheist view is supported. And if you still can't wrap your mind around that reality, then for once, actually answer this question; how do you know there isn't a pride of lions in your living room?

Don't blow that off the way you always have. Answer it. Your continual evasion of such questions indicates that you already know that you're wrong, but you have no interest in the truth. Your interest is only in continuing to argue long after you've been shown to be wrong. And you've been shown to be wrong with your claim that atheists are shifting the burden of proof, multiple times. Yet you continue with that same disingenuous, and fully refuted argument, because truth is not what matters to you. Demonstrating the absurd ignorance of holding to demonstrably false beliefs is where you place your values.

If you can not argue that God is non-existent in the a similar argument I can make for non-existence of God. Then with your current understanding you must admit 'God' is a logically consistent concept, even if you lack belief in it's actual manifestation.
God is an inherently illogical concept. God cannot be "alive" unless God has a physical body. God cannot always do what is best, and still answer prayers. If God is necessary to explain the order of the universe, then God must have a creator to explain the order in God.

So stop shifting the burden of proof everytime you make an emotional irrational claim.
The only one shifting the burden of proof is you. And this is something you've done for months, despite the extremely obvious point that non-existence is supported by the LACK OF EVIDENCE for existence. And since you have no evidence for God's existence, that supports non-existence.

The Op is trying to say that an athiest need not explian thier statements about God. That the burden of proof is on the the thiest.

If you want to use lack of evidence as your justification then that is your argument providing bop to the statements you make about God.

The point is the person making the claim provides justifications or reason for that claim.

Don't confuse justification and evidence.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 10:49:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 10:27:03 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
If you can not argue that God is non-existent in the a similar argument I can make for non-existence of God. Then with your current understanding you must admit 'God' is a logically consistent concept, even if you lack belief in it's actual manifestation.

So stop shifting the burden of proof everytime you make an emotional irrational claim.

Project much? I have known no one to argue that God does not exist, only that there is no viable evidence to prove that he does. All most atheists and all the agnostics I know simply want you to prove that there is a god like you claim but until you do, we cannot accept your assertion. Yours is the emotional, irrational claim. Ours is the rational rejection of it based on lack of evidence, much like a court dismissing charges when no physical evidence is available.

I'm not convinced by the arguments for God, so God does not exist. Same fallacy the OP pointed out. It's called argument from ignorance.

But I get it back to athiesm is a lack of belief. Athiest tactic run back to the defintion after making an emotional irrational claim like 'God is imagionary'

You want to be agnostic about God's existence act like it. But most athiest I see are anti-God till challenged to provide justifications for thier words.

This responsibility to offer justifications for your statements is a part of logical discourse. Athiesm ideology is a poison you become hypocritical in the application of reason. You think spouting off crap and the hiding in epistemological doubt and agnosticism is something logical and intellectually honest?

Atheist like that are jokes and tools.

As has been mentioned already, you're just projecting your own emotional and irrational claims onto others who only ask you to produce evidence, which you never do.

I don't discuss Physics with my dogs, and I don't discuss my reasonable justifications to illogical people.

As noted by the OP.
I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

Is a Fallacy known as argument from ignorance. Same as:
I cannot prove X doesn't exist, so you prove it does,
if you can't, X doesn't exist.

Let's break it down. You are under the impression that a universal negative can not be proven. That's false. I can give a logical argument that proves out of the entire universe a square-circle does not exist.

The same reason for such things not to exist are the same reason for God not to exist: they are contradictions of terms at their concept. Its a logical argument over an illogical/irrational term.

Explain what is illogical about a God concept?

An entity that can manifest matter or energy at will. An entity that lives outside of the universe. An entity that knows all, and is everywhere. There are a host more, but these are irrational ideas to give to something that is supposed to be -real-. A squared circle can't exist because its self contradictory, all these qualities are contradictory of anything in the known universe, but exist in God.


How are any of those self contridictory? I don't think you understand the logic involved in the nonexistence of a square circle.


Probably not, because a squared circle CAN'T exist. Like I stated, its a self contradictory concept. Something that contains the factors and designs of God (from the Bible) falls into the same category. An entity with influence on this universe, but lives apart from it. Well 'lives', as best as can be put into words. The laws of the universe do not apply to Him, with the only reason they shouldn't being a special pleading. The comings and goings of this entity are (as of late) never seen, His influence never definitively felt, His motives convoluted at best... He just doesn't add up.

Something outside this universe, logically would not neccassarily follow the laws of this universe. Thats actually logically consistent not self contridictory.

Maybe you should read up on self contridiction. And logical consistency.




_


Then based on this false premise you have the illogical bravado that if you can not logically prove your statement, then it is the challenger's responsibility to prove the opposite.

Here's an idea the next time you say "God is <blank>" You back that statement up. That is actually how logical debate works.


But you must be troll and not interested in logical rational discourse. You are just interested in derision. You are so idle brained you don't even desire truth.

What's disgusting is you and other atheist on this site pass this fallacious argument and shifting of BoP AS IF it was logic and reason! The travesty is NO matter how many times this is logically shown to you all, it doesn't matter because you obviously can not use reason to explain logic to the illogical.

Just stop passing your "God is <blank>" statements off as if they are anything but derision, emotional, unjustified claims, diarrhea of the mouth from an irrational mind, until you back it up.

And asking the challenger to back up the reverse claim is NOT backing your gibberish up.

... the irony is thick on that one. You and LMGIG would have a great time discussing that particular prong.

Atheism - lack of belief.
Agnostic - I do not know.

If you say anything OTHER than "I don't belief that." or "I do not know", or anything like "God is ..." than you are making a claim! when challenged you offer your justifications for it.

You know never mind, I already spent too much time trying to explain algebra to a dog.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 10:52:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 10:46:19 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/21/2015 11:34:09 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:46:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/20/2015 4:04:37 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

PROVING NON-EXISTENCE
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something." Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence." The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn"t.
If you can"t, X exists.

------------------

So why do so many theist here continually attempt to use the logical fallacy of "prove God does not exist?"

I have seen this tried to be used countless times here. To me, that argument only shows a total lack of evidence to support their claim of existence and a complete lack of knowledge of logic.

It's a total waste of time and makes the person who tries to use it look like a fool.

I can universally prove there are no square-circles, or married bachelors.
That's because those are direct contradictions. One might note that "life" requires certain chemical interactions, and therefore, the claim of any living entity devoid of a physical being is also a contradiction. But something tells me you lack the intellectual honesty to accept that.

If you claim 'God does not exist' then you take the burden to prove so when challenged. If you can't provide justifications for your claim, then it is not a rational or logically derived at concept.
This is the same silly lack of understanding you have been demonstrating for the entire time I've been on the forum. A claim of non-existence is supported by the lack of evidence for existence. The statement that God does not exist is supported by a lack of evidence for God's existence. Evidence ALWAYS indicates existence, because evidence must be demonstrably linked to that for which it is claimed as evidence.

So non-existence is supported by a lack of evidence for existence, meaning that the atheist view is supported. And if you still can't wrap your mind around that reality, then for once, actually answer this question; how do you know there isn't a pride of lions in your living room?

Don't blow that off the way you always have. Answer it. Your continual evasion of such questions indicates that you already know that you're wrong, but you have no interest in the truth. Your interest is only in continuing to argue long after you've been shown to be wrong. And you've been shown to be wrong with your claim that atheists are shifting the burden of proof, multiple times. Yet you continue with that same disingenuous, and fully refuted argument, because truth is not what matters to you. Demonstrating the absurd ignorance of holding to demonstrably false beliefs is where you place your values.

If you can not argue that God is non-existent in the a similar argument I can make for non-existence of God. Then with your current understanding you must admit 'God' is a logically consistent concept, even if you lack belief in it's actual manifestation.
God is an inherently illogical concept. God cannot be "alive" unless God has a physical body. God cannot always do what is best, and still answer prayers. If God is necessary to explain the order of the universe, then God must have a creator to explain the order in God.

So stop shifting the burden of proof everytime you make an emotional irrational claim.
The only one shifting the burden of proof is you. And this is something you've done for months, despite the extremely obvious point that non-existence is supported by the LACK OF EVIDENCE for existence. And since you have no evidence for God's existence, that supports non-existence.

The Op is trying to say that an athiest need not explian thier statements about God. That the burden of proof is on the the thiest.

If you want to use lack of evidence as your justification then that is your argument providing bop to the statements you make about God.

The point is the person making the claim provides justifications or reason for that claim.

Don't confuse justification and evidence.

You assert God exists and the Bible is his word. I say show me evidence to support this claim. You have none. I reject your claim. Lack of evidence is a justification for rejecting a claim and it happens all the time. Once again, if I claim there is a leprechaun living under a toadstool in my back yard but you can't see or hear it in any way, you will reject my claim. That is where you stand with any claim that God exists and that the Bible is anything but a bunch of writings of men collected, edited, and published by men. It's really a simple concept.