Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I simply tire of the counter argument "You can't PROVE that God DOESN'T EXIST" as a response to the statement that God's existance cannot be proven.




You can't prove Zeus doesn't exist either.


You can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the floating teacup in outer space doesn't exist either.








All you have to go by is Logic, History, and Science. Please realize the fallacy of the argument "You cannot Prove God doesn't exist".


All of you Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other Theists deny the existance of other myths and possibilities, but will defend your own to the death, even though you know you cannot prove your beleif true.


Your arguments will earn respect when you clarify your beleif as beleif, but once you claim your beleif as truth that is when the Burden of Proof falls upon you.




Understand ?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I simply tire of the counter argument "You can't PROVE that God DOESN'T EXIST" as a response to the statement that God's existance cannot be proven.




You can't prove Zeus doesn't exist either.


You can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the floating teacup in outer space doesn't exist either.








All you have to go by is Logic, History, and Science. Please realize the fallacy of the argument "You cannot Prove God doesn't exist".


All of you Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other Theists deny the existance of other myths and possibilities, but will defend your own to the death, even though you know you cannot prove your beleif true.


Your arguments will earn respect when you clarify your beleif as beleif, but once you claim your beleif as truth that is when the Burden of Proof falls upon you.




Understand ? You're familiar with the logical concept of argumentum ad ignorantiam, right?

Originally posted by Creshosk
You're familiar with the logical concept of argumentum ad ignorantiam, right?


If you disagree with my point, then counter it.

But I don't make the entirely outlandish claim that I have a personal relationship with Zeus, father Christmas or the tooth fairy. None of those characters have done anything to justify their existence in my life. None of them have presented themselves to me through scripture, through miraculous events, through feelings and emotions that I couldn't prove but I know 110% to be truth, to be an act of God in my life. I can't prove it but nonetheless I know it to be truth.

If you put yourself in my shoes. When I read my Bible I find references to events of solutions to problems in my daily life. I find things that affect me on a deep personal level. It isn't just tips or simply advisory quotes it's like some amazing revelation has hit me like a ton of bricks and I feel stupid and ignorant for missing these solutions before.

That's just scripture.

When I pray it isn't me just whispering something on the wind in hopes that finally someone will speak back. When I pray God answers me. God presents answers to my prayers through opportunities with people, conversation and through revealing things I wouldn't have thought of before. This sounds crazy I know, but If I cared about people thinking I was crazy, I wouldn't be telling anyone this.

I tell you this not to convince you suddenly that God exists or to tell you you should believe this or that. I'm just saying it so maybe you can emphasise and understand why I can say without a shadow of doubt that i know God exists even if I can't prove it. I don't necessarily expect anyone's opinions to suddenly change but I at least expect them to have respect for my opinion if they don't agree.

Originally posted by willRules
But I don't make the entirely outlandish claim that I have a personal relationship with Zeus, father Christmas or the tooth fairy. None of those characters have done anything to justify their existence in my life. None of them have presented themselves to me through scripture, through miraculous events, through feelings and emotions that I couldn't prove but I know 110% to be truth, to be an act of God in my life. I can't prove it but nonetheless I know it to be truth.

If you put yourself in my shoes. When I read my Bible I find references to events of solutions to problems in my daily life. I find things that affect me on a deep personal level. It isn't just tips or simply advisory quotes it's like some amazing revelation has hit me like a ton of bricks and I feel stupid and ignorant for missing these solutions before.

That's just scripture.

When I pray it isn't me just whispering something on the wind in hopes that finally someone will speak back. When I pray God answers me. God presents answers to my prayers through opportunities with people, conversation and through revealing things I wouldn't have thought of before. This sounds crazy I know, but If I cared about people thinking I was crazy, I wouldn't be telling anyone this.

I tell you this not to convince you suddenly that God exists or to tell you you should believe this or that. I'm just saying it so maybe you can emphasise and understand why I can say without a shadow of doubt that i know God exists even if I can't prove it. I don't necessarily expect anyone's opinions to suddenly change but I at least expect them to have respect for my opinion if they don't agree.







You misunderstand me.



I am not here to destroy your Faith, or get you to become Atheist.





I am glad you beleive in God, and that you have something helping you grow stronger. All I am saying is if you claim your beleif as fact, then you must prove it to us.




If you want me to beleive what you beleive, then prove to me that you are right and my beleifs are wrong.


If you don't care what I beleive, then don't tell me what to beleive. I trust my senses, knowledge, and experiences, and I do not need to replace mine with your own.




**************************************************
********



What I am attacking is the specific argument "You cannot Prove that God Doesn't Exist". There's no need to prove it. I don't want to care to prove that.


The argument fails, and I already explained why.


Likewise, you shouldn't have to justify to me why you beleive something. Whatever you beleive is your right, and none of my business.

Just don't expect me to beleive what you say when you preach to me (like u often do), without providing me evidense for your claims.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
You misunderstand me.



I am not here to destroy your Faith, or get you to become Atheist.





I am glad you beleive in God, and that you have something helping you grow stronger. All I am saying is if you claim your beleif as fact, then you must prove it to us.




If you want me to beleive what you beleive, then prove to me that you are right and my beleifs are wrong.


If you don't care what I beleive, then don't tell me what to beleive. I trust my senses, knowledge, and experiences, and I do not need to replace mine with your own.




**************************************************
********



What I am attacking is the specific argument "You cannot Prove that God Doesn't Exist". There's no need to prove it. I don't want to care to prove that.


The argument fails, and I already explained why.


Likewise, you shouldn't have to justify to me why you beleive something. Whatever you beleive is your right, and none of my business.

Just don't expect me to beleive what you say when you preach to me (like u often do), without providing me evidense for your claims.

Well that's a matter of your choice. Like I said I can't prove it but I know it to be true. On this statement alone I can't expect you suddenly believe the same thing unless you experience the same thing I experienced, unless God speaks to you in the same way he has spoken to me. I'm sorry if I sound preachy, I just felt it necessary to express my beliefs in order to reach some level of understanding

Originally posted by willRules
Well that's a matter of your choice. Like I said I can't prove it but I know it to be true.


Like I already said. I can't prove what I beleive either, but I know it to be true.


You see ? That's the problem.


I know what I beleive is true, and you know what you beleive is true. So whose right and whose wrong ?






Originally posted by willRules
On this statement alone I can't expect you suddenly believe the same thing unless you experience the same thing I experienced, unless God speaks to you in the same way he has spoken to me.


And you will not be able to see things my way unless you had my experiences either.



I have been Christian for 18 years, and I kept feeding myself the Lie that anytime something good happened to me, it was God's doing.


That's not true. I learned that now. We only have eachother. And we are all responsible for our own lives.








Originally posted by willRules
I'm sorry if I sound preachy,



You do....





Originally posted by willRules
I just felt it necessary to express my beliefs in order to reach some level of understanding



Do Not apologize to me for expressing your beleifs. You owe me no such apology.



If you are going to apologize for anything, apologize for claiming your beleif as truth without supporting it with evidense.

Originally posted by willRules
But I don't make the entirely outlandish claim that I have a personal relationship with Zeus, father Christmas or the tooth fairy. None of those characters have done anything to justify their existence in my life. None of them have presented themselves to me through scripture, through miraculous events, through feelings and emotions that I couldn't prove but I know 110% to be truth, to be an act of God in my life. I can't prove it but nonetheless I know it to be truth.

If you put yourself in my shoes. When I read my Bible I find references to events of solutions to problems in my daily life. I find things that affect me on a deep personal level. It isn't just tips or simply advisory quotes it's like some amazing revelation has hit me like a ton of bricks and I feel stupid and ignorant for missing these solutions before.

That's just scripture.

When I pray it isn't me just whispering something on the wind in hopes that finally someone will speak back. When I pray God answers me. God presents answers to my prayers through opportunities with people, conversation and through revealing things I wouldn't have thought of before. This sounds crazy I know, but If I cared about people thinking I was crazy, I wouldn't be telling anyone this.

I tell you this not to convince you suddenly that God exists or to tell you you should believe this or that. I'm just saying it so maybe you can emphasise and understand why I can say without a shadow of doubt that i know God exists even if I can't prove it. I don't necessarily expect anyone's opinions to suddenly change but I at least expect them to have respect for my opinion if they don't agree.

Are you an introvert?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
If you disagree with my point, then counter it. You know when you go and make a post that's obviously dripping with heavy sarcasm it kinda makes you look childish to make a post like this.

A bit like going

"Nanny nany boo boo gaga wanga binga. Counter that point!"

Originally posted by Jim Reaper
Are you an introvert?

Not really. I love to socialize.

Originally posted by Creshosk
You know when you go and make a post that's obviously dripping with heavy sarcasm it kinda makes you look childish to make a post like this.

A bit like going

"Nanny nany boo boo gaga wanga binga. Counter that point!"


If you disagree with my point, then counter it.


Btw, you were the one utilizing sarcasm. My point is valid. If you disagree, prove its invalidity.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
If you disagree with my point, then counter it.


Btw, you were the one utilizing sarcasm. My point is valid. If you disagree, prove its invalidity. My first post wasn't sarcastic in the slightest.

My second one... no not really sarcastic.


But it's pretty evident that your first post in this thread is heavily sarcastic.

I mean come on...

"You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the floating teacup in outer space doesn't exist either."

So how am I supposed to take you seriously? Your points aren't valid because they commit the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

So It's quite akin to wanting me to counter a point of "Nanny nany boo boo gaga wanga binga"

Nonesense. I'm supposed to counter nonesense?

Originally posted by Creshosk
My first post wasn't sarcastic in the slightest.

My second one... no not really sarcastic.


But it's pretty evident that your first post in this thread is heavily sarcastic.

I mean come on...

"You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the floating teacup in outer space doesn't exist either."

So how am I supposed to take you seriously? Your points aren't valid because they commit the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

So It's quite akin to wanting me to counter a point of "Nanny nany boo boo gaga wanga binga"

Nonesense. I'm supposed to counter nonesense?



My argument is the fallacy of the argument "You cannot Prove that God doesn't exist"



If you beleive the argument that we cannot prove God doesn't exist is valid, then prove it.







P.S. You obviously have not been on KMC long enough, else you'd know what the "flying spaghetti monster" and "floating tea cup" was referrencing.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
My argument is the fallacy of the argument "You cannot Prove that God doesn't exist" Which isn't a fallacy.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
If you beleive the argument that we cannot prove God doesn't exist is valid, then prove it. You're ignoring the fact that I pointed out your fallacy.

Shall I again refer you to Electrons, Atoms or Viruses?

Before these were discovered they existed. Before we had any proof or evidence of their existence, they existed.

Or are you going to tell me that they did not exist until we discovered them?

I'm not so foolish however as to fall for your trap of challenging you to prove that he doesn't exist. Cause we both know you can't. And not for anything like you simply don't have evidence. But we both know you can't prove a negative. Which in and of itself is proof that you can't prove he doesn't exist. But just because you can't prove that he doesn't exist, doesn't mean that he does.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
P.S. You obviously have not been on KMC long enough, else you'd know what the "flying spaghetti monster" and "floating tea cup" was referrencing. Them being inside jokes doesn't make them any more or less nonsense.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Which isn't a fallacy.


Yes it is, as I have explained above. You can't prove that Zeus doesn't exist either, but that doesn't validate Zeus's existance.






Originally posted by Creshosk
You're ignoring the fact that I pointed out your fallacy.

Shall I again refer you to Electrons, Atoms or Viruses?

Before these were discovered they existed. Before we had any proof or evidence of their existence, they existed.

Or are you going to tell me that they did not exist until we discovered them?



Lack of proof for thier non existance would not have supported the validity of thier existance.


Thier existance is the only thing that validates thier existance, not lack of proof for thier non existance. Do you get it ?


I am not arguing whether or not God exists. I am critisizing the argument "You cannot prove that God doesn't exist". The Burden of proof does not fall upon the non beleiver, only the believer.






Originally posted by Creshosk
I'm not so foolish however as to fall for your trap of challenging you to prove that he doesn't exist. Cause we both know you can't. And not for anything like you simply don't have evidence. But we both know you can't prove a negative. Which in and of itself is proof that you can't prove he doesn't exist. But just because you can't prove that he doesn't exist, doesn't mean that he does.


I am not asking you to prove God exists. You seem to be missing the point entirely.


You can't prove a negative, and you don't have to prove a negative. Those who take the positive postion have the burden of proof upon them, as explained before.


If you have a theory that the Earth is cubical, then it is you who must prove the Earth is cubical. Those who deny such a thoery do not have to prove anything.


Same if you want to argue that the Universe has boundaries. If you have a theory that the Universe has boundaries, then it is your burden to prove it, or atleast support it. Those who deny your theory do not need to disprove yours.


Do you understand ? Or should I explain slower ?




Originally posted by Creshosk
Them being inside jokes doesn't make them any more or less nonsense.


They are not inside jokes. Refer to Xmarksthespot, and Shakymunison for further details.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Yes it is, as I have explained above. No, it's not. Name the fallacy then.
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
You can't prove that Zeus doesn't exist either, but that doesn't validate Zeus's existance. Correct. And this statement right here really shows that this whole thread was created as a reaction to something that was said in another thread, and is not seriously trying to prove the point that it literally states.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Lack of proof for thier non existance would not have supported the validity of thier existance. Correct.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Thier existance is the only thing that validates thier existance, not lack of proof for thier non existance. Do you get it ? Preaching to the choir. The thing you're failing to realize is that it goes the other way as well.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I am not arguing whether or not God exists. I am critisizing the argument "You cannot prove that God doesn't exist". The Burden of proof does not fall upon the non beleiver, only the believer. The argument itslelf really doesn't further anything. It is however true. You cannot prove a negative.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I am not asking you to prove God exists. You seem to be missing the point entirely. Then I'd suggest trying another method to get the point across. This whole thread is based off of distaste for a true statement that everyone inadvertantly agrees on.

A theist will say "You cannot prove that God doesn't exist."
The Atheist with then phrase the statement differently and in a more vauge manner "You cannot prove a negative."

The intent of saying it is different, but it doesn't make it any less true. You can't prove that something doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative. and something not existing is a negative.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
You can't prove a negative, and you don't have to prove a negative. Those who take the positive postion have the burden of proof upon them, as explained before. And even though they can't answer the burden of proof, that doesn't prove that they are wrong just that they can't prove it.

If someone hits you, it doesn't leave a mark, there are no witnesses, and you have no evidence of it... does that mean they didn't hit you?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
If you have a theory that the Earth is cubical, then it is you who must prove the Earth is cubical. Those who deny such a thoery do not have to prove anything. Right. But a lack of evidence of supporting evidence doesn't mean they're wrong. Evidence against the theory is what proves them to be wrong. Such as the evidence that proves the Earth is round.
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Same if you want to argue that the Universe has boundaries. If you have a theory that the Universe has boundaries, then it is your burden to prove it, or atleast support it. Those who deny your theory do not need to disprove yours. Correct.
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Do you understand ? Or should I explain slower ? I understand perfectly. You're missing half of the equation.
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
They are not inside jokes. Refer to Xmarksthespot, and Shakymunison for further details. "Not inside jokes refer to X"... oh yeah.. that proves they're not inside jokes. hell, having to ask about the joke shows they're inside jokes.

What you don't understand is that Theists will demand that we provide proof for the non existance of God, which we do not have the prove.

The Burden of Proof is on the person who claims thier beleif or theory to be true.

Like I said before, if you tell me that the Earth is cubical, and I deny what you say, I don't have to prove you wrong. You are the one who has to provide proof, since you made the claim in the first place.


NOW..If I blatantly say God doesn't exist, then I have to provide evidense/support or proof for my claim.


But If I say that I don't beleive in God, because.....then I do not need to provide proof.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
What you don't understand is that Theists will demand that we provide proof for the non existance of God, which we do not have the prove. As I said the intent is different.

"You cannot prove that God doesn't exist." <-Nothing wrong with this statement.
"Prove that God doesn't exist." <-This is the fallacy.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
The Burden of Proof is on the person who claims thier beleif or theory to be true. Right.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Like I said before, if you tell me that the Earth is cubical, and I deny what you say, I don't have to prove you wrong. You are the one who has to provide proof, since you made the claim in the first place.Yup. However as in this example sometimes it's better to prove them wrong even if you don't have to. Since you CAN prove that the Earth is not cubical by proving that it is something else.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
NOW..If I blatantly say God doesn't exist, then I have to provide evidense/support or proof for my claim. Umm... This is a tricky area, for while ou're right, you still wouldn't be able to since you can't prove a negative. And its been rather used as a trap statement because anyone challenging you is then indirectly asserting the opposite in that he does. any challenge to that statement usually is followed up by saying "you can't prove a negative." then challenging the challnger of your claim by proving that he does, which they cannot do either.

And I don't mean you personally, I mean in a more general sense as there are others who do directly state that "God doesn't exist". and use that tactic.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
But If I say that I don't beleive in God, because.....then I do not need to provide proof. Right.

I'm not really sure what we're arguing about here. I'm agreeing with most of what you're saying with minor disagreements.

I am agnostic and feel that you can't prove God's existence either way. And without that evidence the only thing you can say is you believe or you have faith. Personally? I don't know what the answer is. I'm not entirely happy with the Atheist side when I ask them specific questions because they usually become about as reasonable as a theist. and eventually start saying "It just is." ...

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I simply tire of the counter argument "You can't PROVE that God DOESN'T EXIST" as a response to the statement that God's existance cannot be proven.




You can't prove Zeus doesn't exist either.


You can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the floating teacup in outer space doesn't exist either.








All you have to go by is Logic, History, and Science. Please realize the fallacy of the argument "You cannot Prove God doesn't exist".


All of you Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other Theists deny the existance of other myths and possibilities, but will defend your own to the death, even though you know you cannot prove your beleif true.


Your arguments will earn respect when you clarify your beleif as beleif, but once you claim your beleif as truth that is when the Burden of Proof falls upon you.




Understand ?

First fallacy with your argument is, that for one, we all have more or less an agreed idea/definition of father Christmas and tooth fairy.
Second - those ideas have developed through ages. When they begun, they meant something complitely different - Father Chrismas is St Nicholas, and what the fairies are is not agreed upon, considering that they vary from originally being referred to as ghosts, sometimes angels, sometimes fallen angels and in different folklores as devils.

I hope this alone illustrates with the problem here.

We do not have an agreed definition of God. What it is or where it is.
You can make up your own definitions - more power to you - that however does not bring us any closer to understanding God.

Second, proof CANNOT and I repeat CANNOT be generated in reference to God BECAUSE God does NOT produce EMPIRICAL data which can be CALCULATED or EVALUATED in order to produce PROOF.

GOD is a philosophical question. It is not scientific. Repeat, NOT scientific.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I am agnostic and feel that you can't prove God's existence either way. And without that evidence the only thing you can say is you believe or you have faith. Personally? I don't know what the answer is. I'm not entirely happy with the Atheist side when I ask them specific questions because they usually become about as reasonable as a theist. and eventually start saying "It just is." ...
"It's said that the only rational stance is agnosticism because you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural creator. I find that a weak position. It is true that you can't disprove anything but you can put a probability value on it. There's an infinite number of things that you can't disprove: unicorns, werewolves, and teapots in orbit around Mars. But we don't pay any heed to them unless there is some positive reason to think that they do exist."
Richard Dawkins.

Originally posted by Creshosk
"You cannot prove that God doesn't exist." <-Nothing wrong with this statement.
"Prove that God doesn't exist." <-This is the fallacy.



However, the statements "you cannot prove that God doesn't exist" and "prove that God doesn't exist" are used interchangeable as a response to the demand "prove that God exists" on KMC.



Originally posted by Creshosk
Yup. However as in this example sometimes it's better to prove them wrong even if you don't have to. Since you CAN prove that the Earth is not cubical by proving that it is something else.



True, I can prove it in this case, but at a time where no one knew the Earth was round, even those people would not have to provide proof for why they disbeleive in a cubical earth, it happening to be very unlikely and all.






Originally posted by Creshosk
Umm... This is a tricky area, for while ou're right, you still wouldn't be able to since you can't prove a negative. And its been rather used as a trap statement because anyone challenging you is then indirectly asserting the opposite in that he does. any challenge to that statement usually is followed up by saying "you can't prove a negative." then challenging the challnger of your claim by proving that he does, which they cannot do either.



The point is, not being able to prove that God doesn't exist, is not evidense for his existance. I want people to realize that.


I cannot prove that Zeus doesn't exist. Yet, we all mutually accept his non existance, even though there are centuries of art, literature, and culture dedicated to his legend.



I find that with the same ease I can dismiss Zeus, I can also dismiss Yahweh. And for someone to insist that Yahweh does exist, the burden of proof would be on them, the same way the burden of proof would be on the person who claims Zeus' existance as true.





Originally posted by Creshosk
I'm not really sure what we're arguing about here. I'm agreeing with most of what you're saying with minor disagreements.



I am arguing about the fallacy of using the fact that we cannot disprove God's existance as evidence of his existance.






Originally posted by Creshosk
I am agnostic and feel that you can't prove God's existence either way. And without that evidence the only thing you can say is you believe or you have faith. Personally? I don't know what the answer is. I'm not entirely happy with the Atheist side when I ask them specific questions because they usually become about as reasonable as a theist. and eventually start saying "It just is." ...



I beleive that God is the universe. I am not convinced that God is a sentient conciousness, and I am definately not convinced that the creator of the universe is all loving.



Nature is not all loving, niether is the universe. There are cycles of creation and destruction, there are cycles of pain and suffering.


If God exists, then God is both "good" and "evil".

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
However, the statements "you cannot prove that God doesn't exist" and "prove that God doesn't exist" are used interchangeable as a response to the demand "prove that God exists" on KMC.Yes, that is a problem. However saying that "you cannot prove that God doesn't exist" is a fallacy or is wrong... that's ... another problem in and of itself.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
True, I can prove it in this case, but at a time where no one knew the Earth was round, even those people would not have to provide proof for why they disbeleive in a cubical earth, it happening to be very unlikely and all.And at some point in time people decided that the Earth was round and didn't have evidence for it. At that point in time they were not wrong simply because they lacked evidence.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
The point is, not being able to prove that God doesn't exist, is not evidense for his existance. I want people to realize that. This is true. But I just hope you understand that it goes the other way as well.
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I cannot prove that Zeus doesn't exist. Yet, we all mutually accept his non existance, I don't believe one way or the other on Zeus either actually.
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
even though there are centuries of art, literature, and culture dedicated to his legend.
I find that with the same ease I can dismiss Zeus, I can also dismiss Yahweh.Huh...
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
And for someone to insist that Yahweh does exist, the burden of proof would be on them, the same way the burden of proof would be on the person who claims Zeus' existance as true. Yeah.
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I am arguing about the fallacy of using the fact that we cannot disprove God's existance as evidence of his existance. And risk or have committed the same fallacy in the reverse.
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I beleive that God is the universe. I am not convinced that God is a sentient conciousness, and I am definately not convinced that the creator of the universe is all loving.
Nature is not all loving, niether is the universe. There are cycles of creation and destruction, there are cycles of pain and suffering.
If God exists, then God is both "good" and "evil". And this last part is your beliefs which I can't debate, because I can't tell you what you believe. It is I will say, another possibility.

We don't HAVE to do anything

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
We don't HAVE to do anything
You do if you want to ban abortion, ban gay marriage, incorporate prayer and creationism to school curriculum, etc.

Originally posted by backdoorman
You do if you want to ban abortion, ban gay marriage, incorporate prayer and creationism to school curriculum, etc.

Indeed - if people say "But this is what God intended - he wouldn't want abortion, gay marriage, evolution taught" then that person is bringing God from "I just believe this" to "God is real and we should act accordingly."

Likewise for the "I am going to tell you the truth so you can be saved - God is real, the Bible is his word and we are his children" - once again goes past "this is just faith" to "this is real and you should believe me."

The onus of proof rests on the shoulders of the person claiming God and his actions are real and have a direct impact on us and our world and that we should act accordingly, not the other-way round.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I simply tire of the counter argument "You can't PROVE that God DOESN'T EXIST" as a response to the statement that God's existance cannot be proven.




You can't prove Zeus doesn't exist either.


You can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the floating teacup in outer space doesn't exist either.








All you have to go by is Logic, History, and Science. Please realize the fallacy of the argument "You cannot Prove God doesn't exist".


All of you Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other Theists deny the existance of other myths and possibilities, but will defend your own to the death, even though you know you cannot prove your beleif true.


Your arguments will earn respect when you clarify your beleif as beleif, but once you claim your beleif as truth that is when the Burden of Proof falls upon you.




Understand ?

Santa Clause was based on a real dead person.

Tooth fairy isn't real to anyone's knowledge since they haven't found her remains in a tomb somewhere.

Jesus' bones were believed to be found. Along with a coat or something.

And the rest some sad little man came up with.

If it was proven that Zeus exists, I would worship him. Because number one: he exists so I might as well and number two: I've always admired him anyways.

Originally posted by backdoorman
You do if you want to ban abortion, ban gay marriage, incorporate prayer and creationism to school curriculum, etc.

But we don't

MY Christian religion doesn't care about banning abortion, banning gay marriage, and incorporating prayer to school curriculum, etc. So stop trying to throw us in to the heap of Christians. The people who you guys are talking about are CATHOLICS. There are a LOT of Christians who are NOT Catholics. There IS a difference.

So please, refrain from the "oh you Christians this" and "oh you Christians that!". We don't all have the same ideals.

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
But we don't

MY Christian religion doesn't care about banning abortion, banning gay marriage, and incorporating prayer to school curriculum, etc. So stop trying to throw us in to the heap of Christians. The people who you guys are talking about are CATHOLICS. There are a LOT of Christians who are NOT Catholics. There IS a difference.

So please, refrain from the "oh you Christians this" and "oh you Christians that!". We don't all have the same ideals.

Agreed. Lumping 2 billion+ people under one label is beyond stupid.

Just replace the word "Christian" with an ethnicity in some of these anti-Christian threads, and see how it sounds.

Thank you, it's so annoying.

"OMG all Christians are t3h stoopidz 'cause they say Gods sends sinners to hell!"

Not all Christian sects believe in hell.

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
The people who you guys are talking about are CATHOLICS.

Nah, there talking about Evangelical Christians.

From where?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If it was proven that Zeus exists, I would worship him. Because number one: he exists so I might as well and number two: I've always admired him anyways.

I can stand the Greek gods they have no sense of loyalty they are always stabbing each other in the back.

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
From where?

From the states, Catholicism is a completely different religion on it's own. Even though it created mordern Christianity.

Then again, I should be able to assume that a Muslim/Christian/Jew/Buddhist of Taiwan has the same beliefs as a Muslim/Christian/Jew/Buddhist of Greenland.

I still find it weird how people find so many different variations of what is supposed to be the same religion. You should be able to generalize (or stereotype if you want to be an ass) what they believe because it should be the same. Otherwise, there are many "fake" Muslim/Christian/Jew/Buddhist and only one of the variations of all of this is supposed to be correct. Maybe they are all wrong, giggle.

The problem is that the Abrahamic Religions are always creating various variations because of little changes in scripture. And, some of them fued about it for prolonged periods of time, it's annoying.

But the scripture should not be changing anyway.

Sigh, that's why I rarely get a straight answer from folks about theology. They already don't read the books that explain what they "believe" and then it's constantly in flux.

Exactly

Originally posted by chithappens
But the scripture should not be changing anyway.



Why not. Everything changes, why shouldnt scripture.

Cause scripture is supposed to be the word of God and the laws of God can only be ordained by God, unless you are suggesting a man can decide what God wants on a whim.

This is the era of media and I have not seen one tape showing God sitting down with Dan Patrick explaining how Barry Bonds REALLY never did 'roids:

"It was just a blessing through the Almighty, self, now accept it."

I haven't seen that tape yet.

Originally posted by chithappens
Cause scripture is supposed to be the word of God and the laws of God can only be ordained by God, unless you are suggesting a man can decide what God wants on a whim.

But, the scriptures aren't the word of God. That's just the belief of the people who abide by them to justify said beliefs, furthermore the concept of GOD is subjective.

I don't think they should be changed either, but for different reasons than you. People should use the scriptures as it fits their life, but as humans progress certain traditions become outdated.

so, chemical addiction is based on dopamine being released into the hippocampus and the body needing that level to be maintained (along with other things, but bare with me).

So, when something makes you happy, like REALLY happy, you know, like say a religious experience, it would release dopamine into your brain...

hmmm, sorta forgot where I was going with that...

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
furthermore the concept of GOD is subjective.


Go on...

Originally posted by chithappens
Go on...

Pretty much, some cultures believe god to be celestial bodies while others believe God was a gain Phallus. The intrinsic meaning of God is simply veneration of natural occurring phenomenon, Individuals, Celestial bodies or concepts.

Originally posted by chithappens
Cause scripture is supposed to be the word of God and the laws of God can only be ordained by God, unless you are suggesting a man can decide what God wants on a whim.

This is the era of media and I have not seen one tape showing God sitting down with Dan Patrick explaining how Barry Bonds REALLY never did 'roids:

"It was just a blessing through the Almighty, self, now accept it."

I haven't seen that tape yet.

Well god sis upposed to be everywhere even in man, so I guess yopu could say that man could change scripture, but of course most of the time people change scripture for personal benefit.



Originally posted by inimalist
so, chemical addiction is based on dopamine being released into the hippocampus and the body needing that level to be maintained (along with other things, but bare with me).

So, when something makes you happy, like REALLY happy, you know, like say a religious experience, it would release dopamine into your brain...

hmmm, sorta forgot where I was going with that...

I dunno something along the lines of relgious experieneces are just caused by chemicals in the brain.

Originally posted by Alfheim
I dunno something along the lines of relgious experieneces are just caused by chemicals in the brain.

it was going to be something about religion being addictive but i chickened out

then there is the whole ritual and habit forming aspect of something being done at a particular time over and over...

but ya... not to imply anything about the people who post here

(and to clarify, studies have shown that it isn't just religious beliefs that affect dopamine. People are essentially "addicted" to their political ideologies).

Originally posted by inimalist
it was going to be something about religion being addictive but i chickened out

then there is the whole ritual and habit forming aspect of something being done at a particular time over and over...

but ya... not to imply anything about the people who post here

(and to clarify, studies have shown that it isn't just religious beliefs that affect dopamine. People are essentially "addicted" to their political ideologies).

...yeah thanks for that.

Originally posted by inimalist
it was going to be something about religion being addictive but i chickened out

then there is the whole ritual and habit forming aspect of something being done at a particular time over and over...

but ya... not to imply anything about the people who post here

(and to clarify, studies have shown that it isn't just religious beliefs that affect dopamine. People are essentially "addicted" to their political ideologies).
I should note that the methods you mention are mindcontrol techniques.

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
I should note that the methods you mention are mindcontrol techniques.



I don't interpret the findings that way...

Originally posted by inimalist


I don't interpret the findings that way...
But, they are regardless of how you interpert them. . .

In Greek mythology, Corvus was a bird who was cast into the sky by the Gods as a punishment. In the next breath they placed a dog called Laeleps in the sky as a reward for winning a race against a fox. I wish these Greek deities would make their bloody minds up.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I simply tire of the counter argument "You can't PROVE that God DOESN'T EXIST" as a response to the statement that God's existance cannot be proven.




You can't prove Zeus doesn't exist either.


You can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the floating teacup in outer space doesn't exist either.








All you have to go by is Logic, History, and Science. Please realize the fallacy of the argument "You cannot Prove God doesn't exist".


All of you Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other Theists deny the existance of other myths and possibilities, but will defend your own to the death, even though you know you cannot prove your beleif true.


Your arguments will earn respect when you clarify your beleif as beleif, but once you claim your beleif as truth that is when the Burden of Proof falls upon you.




Understand ?


Good point Kali, once again you trump the Theists

I don't see why people are having so much trouble with the premise.

All the OP is saying that some people are trying to counter rational attacks on their comments with the argument "You cannot prove that God does not exist" when that argument is indeed irrelevant because it is not part of that rational process. This is not a criticism arimed at everyone nor a trojan horse designed to try and undermine all religious belief. it is simply a criticism of that argument, and this thread will work better if people recognisr that.

And LIl- all very well you simply saying that God is a matter of philosophy, but for a lot ofmpeople he is a matter of certain fact, and as mentioned, with that comes certain legal demands based on his existence that we would not tolerate from any other source.

And likewise, such people who justify their grounds on the position of "you cannot prove god does not exist" would expect to be taken more seriously than people who use the same argument to justify their believe in the tooth fairy or pyramid building aliens- a simple douuble standard. Such people often makes claims of personal experience just as strong as the first reply to this thread gave, but we do not treat that seriously.

The application of science is a process that has given us modern civilisation. There should be no harm or stigma in pointing out that religion fails the scientific process.

Originally posted by Ushgarak


The application of science is a process that has given us modern civilisation. There should be no harm or stigma in pointing out that religion fails the scientific process.


I dunno man it seems to me that the universe can be proof for existance of god but wether god created the universe or not seems to be subjective, also the existance of very powerful beings seem to be entirely logical.

It might possibly be advanced as evidence, but at the very best- and really stretching it- evidence of the existence of some super-powerful crration process that you may be able to personify. Not of any specific existence of a deity as espoused by religion.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It might possibly be advanced as evidence, but at the very best- and really stretching it- evidence of the existence of some super-powerful crration process that you may be able to personify.


Thats not unreasonable.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

Not of any specific existence of a deity as espoused by religion.

Well....I did edit my post...but even if the existance of God cannot be proven or may seem to be illogical, the existance of powerful beings (gods) does seem very likely.

I think 'very likely' is a mattter of opinion only.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think 'very likely' is a mattter of opinion only.

mmmm well I find it unlikey that if ants exist and humans exist why wouldnt there be creatures more powerful than humans? If you spat on an ant an ant would think its raining. I think there is a strong possiblity that other beings exist but humans are not able to precieve them.

Originally posted by Alfheim
mmmm well I find it unlikey that if ants exist and humans exist why wouldnt there be creatures more powerful than humans? If you spat on an ant an ant would think its raining. I think there is a strong possiblity that other beings exist but humans are not able to precieve them.

how anthropic

mind explaining what makes you better than an ant without it boiling down to you are better at being human?

so of course, there must be something even better at being human out there than we are

Originally posted by inimalist
how anthropic

mind explaining what makes you better than an ant without it boiling down to you are better at being human?

Ahhh I knew somebody was going to pick up on that....basterd This reminds me of what a guy said about cockroaches in the heroes series. He explained how cockroaches were so much superior to humans and deduced that god must be a cockroach.

Originally posted by inimalist

so of course, there must be something even better at being human out there than we are

Ok well this is how I see it. Wether a human is more superior to an ant is really subjective BUT a human is more powerful than an ant (not proportional strength, but a human could just squash an ant). My point about me spittining on the ant was really about perception, if there are beings like us it seems to me that there must also be other beings that are aware of our existance but we are not fully aware or are oblivous to them. A god cries it rains *shrug*

Originally posted by Alfheim
Ahhh I knew somebody was going to pick up on that....basterd This reminds me of what a guy said about cockroaches in the heroes series. He explained how cockroaches were so much superior to humans and deduced that god must be a cockroach.

insects are much better adapted to this planet, and much more essential to the biosphere, than humans will ever be

Originally posted by Alfheim
Ok well this is how I see it. Wether a human is more superior to an ant is really subjective BUT a human is more powerful than an ant (not proportional strength, but a human could just squash an ant). My point about me spittining on the ant was really about perception, if there are beings like us it seems to me that there must also be other beings that are aware of our existance but we are not fully aware or are oblivous to them. A god cries it rains *shrug*

but the thing is, if you don't know where it's comming from, I could spit on you and you might hazard a guess that it was starting to rain.

This is just anthropizing what "power" is, in this case in relation to what was evolutionarily beneficial for the human anscestor's being valued as better than what was evolutionarily beneficial for ant anscestor's, and the final logic being that your ability to choose and execute the action of killing the ant shows you are superior to it. by that logic we could then assume that the most powerful creatures on the planet are virisus and bacteria, and that elephants, due to their ability to trample people, represent something closer to God than ourselves.

But, the spit analogy goes even further to proving my point. As humans, we do have something that makes us unique in the animal kingdom. Whatever we want to define it is (totally unimportant here) it allows us to do the thing that we like to think makes us "better" than other animals (although it only makes us better at doing the things that made us better adapted to our environment). If you are spit on, you can look around, check the weather, observe things and compare them to your past experience. All of that is dependent on you having a sensory system that, by tautological principal has to be more complex than that of an ant, and a remarkable memory, which an ant, strangely, probably has (though clearly not like humans). Suppose you see me standing there laughing, you are then able to use your super complex motor system and social communicative systems to discern why it is i am laughing. In other words, you, based on the fact that the human mind has evolved in the way it needed to, can observe reality and get an understanding for what is happening. So, when we figure out that the rain is really part of a cycle of evaporation and percipitation based on cloud build up and whatever else, it kinda eliminates the need for that anthropic spitter

-----god work is lame today...

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well you misunderstood me as well. I see gods as highier lifeforms but not all knowing like God very powerful but not god, sorry I didnt make this clear. In saying that though im pretty sure my perception of these beings are alot more powerful than you perecieve them. To me they are like Q in the Star Trek series, im not sure if your thinking on that level.

P.S. I know you didnt question that there couldnt be lie out there Where would be your cutoff point for being a god? Is there a certain ability or level of knowledge that you would make them a god in your opinion?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Where would be your cutoff point for being a god? Is there a certain ability or level of knowledge that you would make them a god in your opinion?

Well I guess one cut off point is that they die eventually. My idea of powerful beings is something along the lines of a 1000 years to them is a minute due to the way they perceieve time and are capable of creating universes but eventually they die. *shrug*

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well to be fair that is kinda how heathenism is. The gods are like very powerful relatives. Heathens might use the word worship but its not worship in an Abrahamic sense its kinda how you would worship.

P.S. Just so you know im not trying to convert you. I know but I'm trying to convert you to worship the Emperor of Mankind and lead you from the path of heresy and Chaos

Originally posted by Alfheim
...Meh.

pffft....


Originally posted by Alfheim
Thats true.

damn right

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well yyyyyyeah I know I did give the example of squashing an ant but remember I gave an example of perception for example the existance of powerful beings that have a different perception of time and space. Seen Dark City?

lol, what I am saying is more along the line of: "There is no universal standard by which 'power' can be measured, and therefore 'powerful' can have no value without a specific premise as to what 'power' is". The whole concept of one thing being more powerful than another is an anthropic principle because we can use our brains and come up with anthropic principles. One being cannot be more powerful than another without defining what power is, and in pretty much all cases, the concept of God is just a more powerful version of what makes humans very well adapted to their environment.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Good point but not entirely true. It could be argued that animals and insects have things that humans dont have for example a salamnder can grow back limbs, a caterpillar can change into a very different organism. It could even be argued that maybe inscets perceieve more than we know but due to our limited intelligence we dont understand them.

Yup, kinda goes along with my point. I am saying there is no way that humans can be more powerful than anything else, so I don't get what you are arguing here...

Originally posted by Alfheim
Another argument could be that you just think you can make yourself better but in fact the way humans think is very primitive. Powerful beings could see humans like ants. When you consider the amount of stuff humans DONT know the universe becomes alot bigger.

The concept of a powerful being looking down on a weaker being is an anthropic concept because the powerful being in this case is just a more powerful version of a human with power defined as the things that humanity would find powerful or familiar.

I believe the idea that you can't disprove the existence of anything unless you have proof... but without proof it can exist or it doesn't the most common argument that Zeus wouldn't exist is that people have climbed what the Greeks called Mount Olympus, but of course people thought God lived in the sky not another dimension until we had planes... so we moved it to outer space... then we went into space, and so on, all will be constantly adapted with the knowledge of the current times.

The point is that without hard, cold evidence nothing can be proven either way... so with such things as "God does exist" or "God doesn't exist" are incorrect and should be reserved for those that are not prepared to argue their points logically using all your sources to the max, of course many don't do this and thus results in the previous stated statements.

An example of such a conundrum is where dinosaur bones came from how they got there and such... of course this seems like an odd example, but there are people think God put them there to test their faith, or that the devil put them there to lead people away from God, while science says that they came from billions of years ago...

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I simply tire of the counter argument "You can't PROVE that God DOESN'T EXIST" as a response to the statement that God's existance cannot be proven.




You can't prove Zeus doesn't exist either.


You can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the floating teacup in outer space doesn't exist either.








All you have to go by is Logic, History, and Science. Please realize the fallacy of the argument "You cannot Prove God doesn't exist".


All of you Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other Theists deny the existance of other myths and possibilities, but will defend your own to the death, even though you know you cannot prove your beleif true.


Your arguments will earn respect when you clarify your beleif as beleif, but once you claim your beleif as truth that is when the Burden of Proof falls upon you.




Understand ?
I see what you're saying BUT it's hard to prove something DOESN'T exist as opposed to proving it DOES exist.

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
I see what you're saying BUT it's hard to prove something DOESN'T exist as opposed to proving it DOES exist.


Proving a Negative is faulty, the objective should be to prove a positive, and if such an act fails, the conclusion is the negative.


All I am saying is that if one adheres to the negative, or if one is in reasonable denial of something fantastic or unbelievable being true, that person does not have to prove anything.


The person who claims the positive, the person who claims that an unlikely and illogical existance is true, is the person who bears the burden of proof for his or her conclusion. Especially in the case where that person tries to intimidate, threaten, or condescend to the person who denies thier conclusion(s).

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Proving a Negative is faulty, the objective should be to prove a positive, and if such an act fails, the conclusion is the negative.


All I am saying is that if one adheres to the negative, or if one is in reasonable denial of something fantastic or unbelievable being true, that person does not have to prove anything.


The person who claims the positive, the person who claims that an unlikely and illogical existance is true, is the person who bears the burden of proof for his or her conclusion. Especially in the case where that person tries to intimidate, threaten, or condescend to the person who denies thier conclusion(s).
Whew, ya lost me there.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Proving a Negative is faulty, the objective should be to prove a positive, and if such an act fails, the conclusion is the negative. No, the conclusion is "we don't know." Not, we don't know, therefore it's not.

A lack of evidence does not constitute proof of the negative.


Originally posted by Goddess Kali
All I am saying is that if one adheres to the negative, or if one is in reasonable denial of something fantastic or unbelievable being true, that person does not have to prove anything. So long as they don't claim their stance to be true.


Originally posted by Goddess Kali
The person who claims the positive, the person who claims that an unlikely and illogical existance is true, is the person who bears the burden of proof for his or her conclusion. Especially in the case where that person tries to intimidate, threaten, or condescend to the person who denies thier conclusion(s). You don't understand argumentum ad ignorantiam in the slightest do you?

An argument from ignorance is logically fallicious.

Just call me Io.......Hmmmmmmm good times..

Originally posted by Creshosk
. . . logically fallicious.

Is this not the tag line for Luck Charms?

lol bible charms

Originally posted by inimalist
pffft....

Well im pretty bloody sure if humans decided to stop killing each other and put their resources into helping each other we would be more productive than insects.


Originally posted by inimalist

lol, what I am saying is more along the line of: "There is no universal standard by which 'power' can be measured, and therefore 'powerful' can have no value without a specific premise as to what 'power' is". The whole concept of one thing being more powerful than another is an anthropic principle because we can use our brains and come up with anthropic principles. One being cannot be more powerful than another without defining what power is, and in pretty much all cases, the concept of God is just a more powerful version of what makes humans very well adapted to their environment.

Ok.

Originally posted by inimalist

Yup, kinda goes along with my point. I am saying there is no way that humans can be more powerful than anything else, so I don't get what you are arguing here...

Well this is part of the post.

"As humans, we do have something that makes us unique in the animal kingdom. Whatever we want to define it is (totally unimportant here) it allows us to do the thing that we like to think makes us "better" than other animals."

It sounded like you were implying that you cant compare humans to ants because humans are unique. So eventhough you were not really saying humans are more powerful you were saying that in some ways humans are special. I was just saying no humans are not even unique or special thats our limited perception.


QUOTE=9380540]Originally posted by inimalist

The concept of a powerful being looking down on a weaker being is an anthropic concept because the powerful being in this case is just a more powerful version of a human with power defined as the things that humanity would find powerful or familiar.

Ok.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well im pretty bloody sure if humans decided to stop killing each other and put their resources into helping each other we would be more productive than insects.


productive is an anthropic principle

Originally posted by Schecter
lol bible charms

I'd go with religion charms myself, that way you could have all kinds of religious symbols in there.

hearts, stars, and horseshoes, clovers and blue moons, pots o' gold and rainbows, and the red balloon

Ankhs, stars and crosses... etc...

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I simply tire of the counter argument "You can't PROVE that God DOESN'T EXIST" as a response to the statement that God's existance cannot be proven.




You can't prove Zeus doesn't exist either.


You can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the floating teacup in outer space doesn't exist either.








All you have to go by is Logic, History, and Science. Please realize the fallacy of the argument "You cannot Prove God doesn't exist".


All of you Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other Theists deny the existance of other myths and possibilities, but will defend your own to the death, even though you know you cannot prove your beleif true.


Your arguments will earn respect when you clarify your beleif as beleif, but once you claim your beleif as truth that is when the Burden of Proof falls upon you.




Understand ? You can't prove a giant penis didn't create anything.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You can't prove a giant penis didn't create anything.

There is actually a version of an Egyptian creation myth that involves masturbation bringing the materials of existence into being.

I guess that is kind of a giant penis creating everything.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I'd go with religion charms myself, that way you could have all kinds of religious symbols in there.

hearts, stars, and horseshoes, clovers and blue moons, pots o' gold and rainbows, and the red balloon

Ankhs, stars and crosses... etc...

like a hardline evangelical would ever swallow a marshmallow star of david. your marketing skills are lacking, my friend.

Originally posted by Schecter
like a hardline evangelical would ever swallow a marshmallow star of david. your marketing skills are lacking, my friend. I doubt that they'd eat regular lucky charms either... what with being made from magic and being advertised by a leprechaun and all.

Originally posted by Creshosk
No, the conclusion is "we don't know." Not, we don't know, therefore it's not.


The conclusion is a personal one in this case, not a fact





Originally posted by Creshosk
A lack of evidence does not constitute proof of the negative.



I know that.





Originally posted by Creshosk
So long as they don't claim their stance to be true.


If the Atheist makes the claim that God doesn't exist as Fact, then the Atheist needs to support what they say. If the Atheist asks the Theist to prove that God exists, the Theist should admit that they cannot prove it, not ask the Atheist to prove the negative.





Originally posted by Creshosk
You don't understand argumentum ad ignorantiam in the slightest do you?


Yes I do, I just don't see how it applies here.






Originally posted by Creshosk
An argument from ignorance is logically fallicious.




You obviously don't get my point. If one personally concludes that there is no God, because:


-lack of evidense
-contradiction to logic
-contradiction to science

Then that person has the right to disregard that beleif, the same way a Theist disregards Santa Clause.


If a person tells a Theist that Santa Clause exists, the Theist will demand proof/evidense. If a person tells the Theist that there are many Gods, other than thier own, the Theist will demand proof/evidense.


Likewise, if the Theist tells the Atheist that God exists, the Atheist will demand proof/evidense.


It would be totally wrong and stupid for the Theist to respond "well prove that God doesn't exist" when asked to prove or back up God's existance. This is many times the case on KMC.



On KMC, I find that Theists are more convicted in thier beleif in God, than Atheists are convicted in thier disbeleif. Usually, the Theist will make claims such as Salvation, Damnation, etc. and the Atheist will simply state thier disbeleif, and critisize those notions.

The Atheist need not prove anything, they are denying what seems unlikely to them.

The Theist, if persistantly claiming the truth of thier words, need prove it.



Do you get it now ?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
The conclusion is a personal one in this case, not a fact
I know that.
If the Atheist makes the claim that God doesn't exist as Fact, then the Atheist needs to support what they say. If the Atheist asks the Theist to prove that God exists, the Theist should admit that they cannot prove it, not ask the Atheist to prove the negative.
Yes I do, I just don't see how it applies here. Naturally, those the commit a fallacy more often than not don't understand it.


Originally posted by Goddess Kali
You obviously don't get my point. If one personally concludes that there is no God, because:


-lack of evidenseargumentum ad ignorantiam

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
-contradiction to logicontological argument
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
-contradiction to scienceArgumentum ad ignorantiam.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Then that person has the right to disregard that beleif, the same way a Theist disregards Santa Clause. Et tu fallacy.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
If a person tells a Theist that Santa Clause exists, the Theist will demand proof/evidense. If a person tells the Theist that there are many Gods, other than thier own, the Theist will demand proof/evidense.
Likewise, if the Theist tells the Atheist that God exists, the Atheist will demand proof/evidense.
It would be totally wrong and stupid for the Theist to respond "well prove that God doesn't exist" when asked to prove or back up God's existance. This is many times the case on KMC.
On KMC, I find that Theists are more convicted in thier beleif in God, than Atheists are convicted in thier disbeleif. Usually, the Theist will make claims such as Salvation, Damnation, etc. and the Atheist will simply state thier disbeleif, and critisize those notions. Two different stances of faith. *shrugs*

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
The Atheist need not prove anything, they are denying what seems unlikely to them. With just as much evidence for their stance as the theist.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
The Theist, if persistantly claiming the truth of thier words, need prove it. Just as an Atheist would... its really no different.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Do you get it now ? Yeah, you're trying to justify a double standard with an et tu fallacy as well as ad ignoratiam.

You tried to say that the Atheist was justified and one of your reasons was the lack of evidence. So no matter how many times you say you understand the fallacy, each time you commit it shows that you don't.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Naturally, those the commit a fallacy more often than not don't understand it.


argumentum ad ignorantiam

ontological argument
Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Et tu fallacy.

Two different stances of faith. *shrugs*

With just as much evidence for their stance as the theist.

Just as an Atheist would... its really no different.

Yeah, you're trying to justify a double standard with an et tu fallacy as well as ad ignoratiam.

You tried to say that the Atheist was justified and one of your reasons was the lack of evidence. So no matter how many times you say you understand the fallacy, each time you commit it shows that you don't.



OMG...



You still don't get it...



The whole point to this thread is the fallacy of using the argument "You cannot prove that God doesn't exist" as a solution to the demand to prove God's existance.



Like I said before, IF the Atheist makes a claim that "God doesn't exist", then yes he or she must prove this. However, if this is simply thier belief, then no, they need not prove a thing.


If the Theist makes thier claims as beleif and not as fact, then no, they don't have to prove anything either.



However... on KMC, the average Theist makes thier claims as fact. They claim their beleifs as TRUTH, not just personal conclusions.


Therefore, if the Theist is trying to convert the Atheist into a beleiver (which is highly the case in the religion forum), then the Theist must provide support, proof, or evidense for thier claims.


The Burden of Proof falls upon them.


If you argue to me that Santa Clause exists, and I say no he doesn't, you are the one who has to prove your claim, not me. I have the right to deny your claim if you cannot prove it to me, while you would not be in the right to expect me to beleive something you cannot prove.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
OMG...



You still don't get it... Naturally you're going to keep saying that until I agree with your using fallacy to defend more fallacy. Which I won't because its highly illogical.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
The whole point to this thread is the fallacy of using the argument "You cannot prove that God doesn't exist" as a solution to the demand to prove God's existance.Which isn't actually a fallacy. How is it different from pointing out the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam fallacy?

"Just because I can't doesn't mean that I'm wrong."

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Like I said before, IF the Atheist makes a claim that "God doesn't exist", then yes he or she must prove this. However, if this is simply thier belief, then no, they need not prove a thing.Which is different from the Theist how?


Originally posted by Goddess Kali
If the Theist makes thier claims as beleif and not as fact, then no, they don't have to prove anything either. Sure you say that now, but any itme someone states their beilef you jump on their back with what I can only imagine is a response you have saved to a text document with THE BURDAN OF PROOF IS ON YOUR SHOULDERS saved in it. Complete with bold tags and everything including your prewritten up snide remarks about the way YOU PERSONALLY define God to be in such a way that makes it easy for you to claim they don't exist. DESPITE not know wether or not that's what the person you're attacking actually thinks.

Then when you're called on your OWN inability as part of their retort you went and made this thread as one big "haha! aren't they illogical twits!" defense, in nothing more than you on a soap box trying to preach down to us about the bad bad theists.

Oh no, I understand your point perfectly, in fact I see right through your ruse. I was able to see right through your ruse by your repeating that "I don't get it" over and over. You don't want a nice well thought out discussion you want to preach to us about the bad little theists and their illogical little beliefs in an invisible man who lives in the sky.

I got news for you, satire is NOT a logical retort. It is nothing more than a strawman, an exagerated version of another's claims which is easily dismantled but totally ignores the other person's ACTUAL claims.


Originally posted by Goddess Kali
However... on KMC, the average Theist makes thier claims as fact. They claim their beleifs as TRUTH, not just personal conclusions. "Oh those bad little theists, aren't they big dumb doodoo heads?" vin

Get off your damn soapbox, there's obviously nothing in this threads to discuss, as you don't want opposing points of veiw, you want us to "get it" .. as in blindly agree with YOUR personal beliefs.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Therefore, if the Theist is trying to convert the Atheist into a beleiver (which is highly the case in the religion forum), then the Theist must provide support, proof, or evidense for thier claims. And if the Atheist is trying to make the Theist into an Atheist?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
The Burden of Proof falls upon them. Ditto.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
If you argue to me that Santa Clause exists, and I say no he doesn't, you are the one who has to prove your claim, not me. I have the right to deny your claim if you cannot prove it to me, while you would not be in the right to expect me to beleive something you cannot prove. And that's usually how strawmen work, you pick another example and use that something which is much easier to disprove. But still ignores the other person's claims.


As I said before this is nothing more than a personal sopabox thread for you to bemoan your woes of how other people have treated you, isn't it Czarina... er I mean Kali?

You don't want a discussion.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
OMG...



You still don't get it...

You want us to "get it"...

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
However... on KMC, the average Theist makes thier claims as fact. They claim their beleifs as TRUTH, not just personal conclusions.

In addition to often claiming this Truth is of such a high quality that it should define Government policies on everything from stem cells to abortion to what gets taught in class rooms.



Which is essentially correct - the onus always lies with the side presenting a hypothesis/theory/action as a factual reality.

Just like a legal case a defendant operates from a position of innocence, it is the prosecutions responsibility to provide evidence to prove the hypothesis that he exists, due to proven actions, as a criminal.

The problem with the religious parallel is that it has been given and accepted socially for so long that "God is automatically real and responsible for all attributed actions until proven otherwise" is a mind set despite the fact this is backwards in terms of, logically, where the burden of proof would normally lie.

As such Theists can say:

"we don't have to prove God is real and actually committed the actions we say he did, it is automatically accepted as fact. It is your responsibility to find proof that proves he doesn't exist and as such is not responsible for said actions. And be aware that the fact no proof can be raised to support the claims he exists or did the actions attributed to him does not equal evidence of his non-existence."

While most Atheists will say:

"Wait, that isn't right, by any logical standard of proof the burden lies with the claim of existence and action, and lack of evidence to support those claims would be applicable to whether they were judged as real or not. The prosecution can not win a legal battle by saying "While we have no proof to show the defendant has committed criminal acts, the defense has no proof that he hasn't committed criminal acts, thus proof that something didn't happen, so he is guilty".

Originally posted by Creshosk
Naturally you're going to keep saying that until I agree with your using fallacy to defend more fallacy. Which I won't because its highly illogical.

Which isn't actually a fallacy. How is it different from pointing out the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam fallacy?

"Just because I can't doesn't mean that I'm wrong."

Which is different from the Theist how?


Sure you say that now, but any itme someone states their beilef you jump on their back with what I can only imagine is a response you have saved to a text document with THE BURDAN OF PROOF IS ON YOUR SHOULDERS saved in it. Complete with bold tags and everything including your prewritten up snide remarks about the way YOU PERSONALLY define God to be in such a way that makes it easy for you to claim they don't exist. DESPITE not know wether or not that's what the person you're attacking actually thinks.

Then when you're called on your OWN inability as part of their retort you went and made this thread as one big "haha! aren't they illogical twits!" defense, in nothing more than you on a soap box trying to preach down to us about the bad bad theists.

Oh no, I understand your point perfectly, in fact I see right through your ruse. I was able to see right through your ruse by your repeating that "I don't get it" over and over. You don't want a nice well thought out discussion you want to preach to us about the bad little theists and their illogical little beliefs in an invisible man who lives in the sky.

I got news for you, satire is NOT a logical retort. It is nothing more than a strawman, an exagerated version of another's claims which is easily dismantled but totally ignores the other person's ACTUAL claims.


"Oh those bad little theists, aren't they big dumb doodoo heads?" vin

Get off your damn soapbox, there's obviously nothing in this threads to discuss, as you don't want opposing points of veiw, you want us to "get it" .. as in blindly agree with YOUR personal beliefs.

And if the Atheist is trying to make the Theist into an Atheist?

Ditto.

And that's usually how strawmen work, you pick another example and use that something which is much easier to disprove. But still ignores the other person's claims.


As I said before this is nothing more than a personal sopabox thread for you to bemoan your woes of how other people have treated you, isn't it Czarina... er I mean Kali?

You don't want a discussion.



You want us to "get it"...



Woah..where is all this coming from ?



You are pretty much imagining things. You are making up your own conclusion about what I am trying to say, accusing me of enacting a "ruse" and such.

Even Imperial gets my point, the basic gist of it, while you yourself continue to turn this into something it's not.


I have made my peace with Christianity long ago. I am arguing the fallacy of using the statement "You cannot prove that God doesn't exist" as a justification for not being able to prove he exists. It clearly is a fallacy to use that argument, as I explained atleast six times already.



You are making this too personal.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
In addition to often claiming this Truth is of such a high quality that it should define Government policies on everything from stem cells to abortion to what gets taught in class rooms.



That's where the problem arises.


If you wish to have some control over my life, or the lives of others, than prove you are correct. Do not enforce your morals and way of life upon myself or others, if you cannot even prove you know what's right from wrong.






Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Which is essentially correct - the onus always lies with the side presenting a hypothesis/theory/action as a factual reality.

Just like a legal case a defendant operates from a position of innocence, it is the prosecutions responsibility to provide evidence to prove the hypothesis that he exists, due to proven actions, as a criminal.

The problem with the religious parallel is that it has been given and accepted socially for so long that "God is automatically real and responsible for all attributed actions until proven otherwise" is a mind set despite the fact this is backwards in terms of, logically, where the burden of proof would normally lie.

As such Theists can say:

"we don't have to prove God is real and actually committed the actions we say he did, it is automatically accepted as fact. It is your responsibility to find proof that proves he doesn't exist and as such is not responsible for said actions. And be aware that the fact no proof can be raised to support the claims he exists or did the actions attributed to him does not equal evidence of his non-existence."

While most Atheists will say:

"Wait, that isn't right, by any logical standard of proof the burden lies with the claim of existence and action, and lack of evidence to support those claims would be applicable to whether they were judged as real or not. The prosecution can not win a legal battle by saying "While we have no proof to show the defendant has committed criminal acts, the defense has no proof that he hasn't committed criminal acts, thus proof that something didn't happen, so he is guilty".


I agree with you 100%


Now, if only Creshock could understand this

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Woah..where is all this coming from ? Gee.. let me think.. where could I possibly be picking up the idea that this is just a soap box for you to try and lecture people from?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Now, if only Creshock could understand this

Hmm.. I just can't think of where I could possibly get that idea from..

Could it have something to do with the willful ignorace you display and how if I don't agree with you "I don't get it."

You're not trying to have a civil discussion. You're trying to teach us all something. And none of this denial:

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
You are pretty much imagining things. You are making up your own conclusion about what I am trying to say, accusing me of enacting a "ruse" and such.

Even Imperial gets my point, the basic gist of it, while you yourself continue to turn this into something it's not.


I have made my peace with Christianity long ago. I am arguing the fallacy of using the statement "You cannot prove that God doesn't exist" as a justification for not being able to prove he exists. It clearly is a fallacy to use that argument, as I explained atleast six times already.



You are making this too personal.

Is is anything more than you covering your own ass after being caught.

Originally posted by inimalist
productive is an anthropic principle


Well both ants and humans seek to be more productive and hence become prosperous. Im not sure if I fully understand the concept of anthropic principle but from what I understand what you're saying is that by saying that we would be more productive I am imposing human ideals on ants, correct? If this is the case I think you are wrong because productivity is a universal concept all creatures even plants try to be more "productive" so they can "prosper".

Originally posted by Creshosk
Gee.. let me think.. where could I possibly be picking up the idea that this is just a soap box for you to try and lecture people from?



Hmm.. I just can't think of where I could possibly get that idea from..

Could it have something to do with the willful ignorace you display and how if I don't agree with you "I don't get it."

You're not trying to have a civil discussion. You're trying to teach us all something. And none of this denial:



Is is anything more than you covering your own ass after being caught.




You need to stop acting like a child. You are making this debate into a personal argument, and I won't get involved in that.


I already explained my point to you repeatedly. You don't have to agree with it, but don't try and accuse me of sending mixed messages, when I have made my point perfectly clear to everyone on this forum.


You are the only person on this thread trying to turn this into something it's not. Go find something to do.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
You need to stop acting like a child. You are making this debate This isn't a debate. A debate usually involves the other side listneing to opposing points of veiw. That was not the intent of this thread, the intent of this thread was for you to teach us something. Hence its a soapbox.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
into a personal argument, and I won't get involved in that.You already did when you made the thread to lecture people.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I already explained my point to you repeatedly. You don't have to agree with it, but don't try and accuse me of sending mixed messages, when I have made my point perfectly clear to everyone on this forum. Uh huh... I explained the problems with your point and you respond with "You don't get it."

Explain to me how its a debate when one person says something, they're offered a different point of veiw and they do the equivilent of sticking their fingers in their ears and make noise so they cant' hear the other person?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
You are the only person on this thread trying to turn this into something it's not. Go find something to do. Yeah a debate... which it isn't.. its a soapbox.

I was the only one offereing an opposing point of veiw, everyone else was agreeing with you.

Originally posted by Creshosk
This isn't a debate. A debate usually involves the other side listneing to opposing points of veiw. That was not the intent of this thread, the intent of this thread was for you to teach us something. Hence its a soapbox.



Teach you what ?


There's a fallacy of argument I see on the religion forum quite often, and I am against it. That's what this thread is for. It's not to discuss God's existance or non existance. It is too discuss the point "You cannot Prove that God doesn't exist" as a solution or response to being asked to prove or support God's existance.


As I told you before the phrases, "You cannot prove that God doesn't exist" and "Prove that God doesn't exist" are used interchangeably on the KMC religion forum.

When one tells a Theist, or rather, asks a Theist to prove that God exists (since many of the Theists on this forum specialize in telling other people what to beleive, and how to live thier lives), the Theist will respond "Why don't you prove that God doesn't exist"?


There is a fallacy in that response, since the Burden of Proof would fall upon the beleiver of such an illogical and supported claim.


Like I said before...you tell me that I should worship Zeus, I will ask you to prove that Zeus exists. Don't ask me to prove that he doesn't exist, because I don't have to.




Originally posted by Creshosk
You already did when you made the thread to lecture people.


Lecture huh ?


Most threads on the religion forum aim to "lecture" people on what to beleive or what not to beleive. It's kind of hard to separate lectures from religion.

I already explained what this thread is for. Take it as you will, I don't care.






Originally posted by Creshosk
Uh huh... I explained the problems with your point and you respond with "You don't get it."


No, you were jumping to your own conclusions. The problem with my point is that you simply don't like it.

You keep lecturing me on how the Atheist should prove that there is no God, just as much as the Theist should prove there is a God.


And I already agreed that if the Atheist pushes his or her beleif that there is no God, as fact, then yes, he or she should back thier stances up.


However, that is not commonly the case here on KMC. The Atheists aren't telling other people what to beleive, or how they should live thier lives.


The Theists here are pushing thier beleifs upon others. Look at JIA, look at Marcello. Ofcourse, not every Theist here is pushing it as extensively as they are, but the others still remain solid in pushing what they beleive upon the decisions, choices, and lifestyles of others.


Reasonably, the Atheist, the "non-beleiver" will ask that if they should change thier lives and mentalities, if they should change what they beleive, than all they ask is proof, or atleast some sort of evidense proving the Theists correct.


The Theists, instead of proving proof or concrete evidense for thier beleifs, will simply respond "No, prove to me that God doesn't exist".


See, that's the problem. Atheists don't have to. They are not the ones pushing thier beleifs, they are not the ones telling other people what they should beleive, or how they should live thier lives.


That's the issue I am discussing here. Take it, or leave it.



Originally posted by Creshosk
Explain to me how its a debate when one person says something, they're offered a different point of veiw and they do the equivilent of sticking their fingers in their ears and make noise so they cant' hear the other person?



Please read the above ^



Originally posted by Creshosk
Yeah a debate... which it isn't.. its a soapbox.


You're displaying the most emotional response on this thread. The soapbox if coming from yourself, not I




Originally posted by Creshosk
I was the only one offereing an opposing point of veiw, everyone else was agreeing with you.


You were also making a personal attack. Please act like an adult.

And more lecturing... predictable. So tell me, how does one go about "debating" this?

Hmm...? You're obviously right and don't wish to hear opposing points of veiw.

Originally posted by Creshosk
And more lecturing... predictable. So tell me, how does one go about "debating" this?

Hmm...? You're obviously right and don't wish to hear opposing points of veiw.


Question: If a person tells me that I should beleive in thier God, and change my lifestyle and choices, do I have the right to ask them to prove they are right about what they claim ?


Question: If I ask them to prove that God exists, would they be in the right to ask me to prove that God doesn't exist, following scenario 1?



Statement: KMC forums is not all about debates. Discussion in general is what KMC is for.



Apology: My intention is not to copy Feceman's style. Just thought it can be properly applied here.

Originally posted by Creshosk
And more lecturing... predictable. So tell me, how does one go about "debating" this?

Hmm...? You're obviously right and don't wish to hear opposing points of veiw.

Well to be honest I get what he has been saying and accept the way he has approached it. Perhaps we could move beyond schematics and maybe just look at the question?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Question: If a person tells me that I should beleive in thier God, and change my lifestyle and choices, do I have the right to ask them to prove they are right about what they claim ?Yes.


Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Question: If I ask them to prove that God exists, would they be in the right to ask me to prove that God doesn't exist, following scenario 1? And that's not waht you were talking about initially. You were talking about the statement given: "You cannot Prove that God doesn't exist." It is equivocation to unify "You cannot prove that God does/doesn't exist." with "Prove that God does/doesn't exist. And an Et tu fallacy to justify your fallacy by saying "Well that's what the Theists/Atheists do."

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Statement: KMC forums is not all about debates. Discussion in general is what KMC is for.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
You are making this debate ...

Originally posted by Creshosk
And that's not waht you were talking about initially. You were talking about the statement given: "You cannot Prove that God doesn't exist." It is equivocation to unify "You cannot prove that God does/doesn't exist." with "Prove that God does/doesn't exist. And an Et tu fallacy to justify your fallacy by saying "Well that's what the Theists/Atheists do."



I explained what I meant though. You have been arguing semantics for the majority of the thread, even Imperial could see it.


The gist of the thread is the fallacy of being asked to disprove God's existance, when challenged to prove it in the first place. That argument is not only a cop-out, but it's not productive.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I explained what I meant though. You have been arguing semantics for the majority of the thread, even Imperial could see it. semantics are a part of language, debate and philosophy. If you commit a fallacy due to your syntax then I'm going to tell you.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
The gist of the thread is the fallacy of being asked to disprove God's existance, when challenged to prove it in the first place. That argument is not only a cop-out, but it's not productive. and how do you know that when a person tells you you cannot disprove God's existence that they are telling you to do so?

It still sounds like you're just whining about the behavior of the other people. Is that this threads purpose? To whine about other people's behavior?

What does it really have to do with religion then? Especially since ou used non-religous examples in the opening thread.

It doesn't seem to me like a thread dedicated to complaining about how other members act should remain open. It's not really discussing religon, but other users of KMC.

Originally posted by Creshosk
semantics are a part of language, debate and philosophy. If you commit a fallacy due to your syntax then I'm going to tell you.

and how do you know that when a person tells you you cannot disprove God's existence that they are telling you to do so?

It still sounds like you're just whining about the behavior of the other people. Is that this threads purpose? To whine about other people's behavior?

What does it really have to do with religion then? Especially since ou used non-religous examples in the opening thread.

It doesn't seem to me like a thread dedicated to complaining about how other members act should remain open. It's not really discussing religon, but other users of KMC.



yawn- here we go again



You want to argue semantics even further. I have explained by purpose and intention before, everyone can clearly see it, except yourself.

I will not argue in circles with you.


The only person lecturing is you.

The point is that the validity of the argument, "A phenomena does not exist," is not affected by the inability to prove that the phenomena does not exists, as a negation cannot be proved; whereas the validity of the argument, "A phenomena does exist," is affected by the inability to prove that the phenomena exists, as a positive claim can be proved.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The point is that the validity of the argument, "A phenomena does not exist," is not affected by the inability to prove that the phenomena does not exists, as a negation cannot be proved; whereas the validity of the argument, "A phenomena does exist," is affected by the inability to prove that the phenomena exists, as a positive claim can be proved. So the point is committing the Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Yeah, I already got that. Its not a valid point. I understand it just fine, its just not valid.

Well, then you can't prove Thomas the Tank Engine doesn't exist.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, then you can't prove Thomas the Tank Engine doesn't exist.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/how-thomas-the-tank-engine-works-1.jpg
This character is named thomas the tank engine. It exists within the book series of Rev. W. V. Awdry's creation.

Originally posted by Creshosk
So the point is committing the Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Yeah, I already got that. Its not a valid point. I understand it just fine, its just not valid.

Arguments that commit the logical fallacy Argument From Ignorance infer that because a premise or conclusion has not been disproved, that it is true or sound, e.g. "It has not been disproved that God exists, therefore God exists," or that because a premise or conclusion has not been proved, that it is not true or sound, e.g. "It has not been proved that God exists, therefore God does not exist."

The point presented in my previous post does not commit the logical fallacy of Argument From Ignorance because:

It does not address the existence or non-existence of a phenomena, but whom bears the burden of proof to substantiate an argument.

It does not infer, "It has not been proved that God exists, therefore God does not exist," but "If it can be proved that God exists, then the inability to prove that God exists affects the validity of the argument."

Again, if you cannot cite logical fallacies correctly, then do not cite them at all.

How did my post revert? I changed what I wanted to say at 4:52... why it it back to its original form?

I changed it to state that he was talking about the users who commit the burden of proof fallacy. And through equivocation was commiting that argumentum ad ignorantiam...

Any way I didn't sday that you commited the fallacy either. So enough with the ad hominem.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The point is that the validity of the argument, "A phenomena does not exist," is not affected by the inability to prove that the phenomena does not exists, as a negation cannot be proved; whereas the validity of the argument, "A phenomena does exist," is affected by the inability to prove that the phenomena exists, as a positive claim can be proved.


Basically sums it up. Thank You

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The point is that the validity of the argument, "A phenomena does not exist," is not affected by the inability to prove that the phenomena does not exists, as a negation cannot be proved; whereas the validity of the argument, "A phenomena does exist," is affected by the inability to prove that the phenomena exists, as a positive claim can be proved.

That is very well said.



For some reason I wish I had the power to create a fallacy based upon a person never actually dealing with anothers intended point, a point apparently percievable to all, because he is to busy questioning the way in which the person presented it.

I mean all this talk of fallacy has certainly contributed a great deal to the actual topic.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
For some reason I wish I had the power to create a fallacy based upon a person never actually dealing with anothers intended point, a point apparently percievable to all, because he is to busy questioning the way in which the person presented it.

I mean all this talk of fallacy has certainly contributed a great deal to the actual topic.




Yeah, Creshock certainly has a way of derailing threads

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
For some reason I wish I had the power to create a fallacy based upon a person never actually dealing with anothers intended point, a point apparently percievable to all, because he is to busy questioning the way in which the person presented it.

It would be a combination of a fallacy of Induction and Changing the Subject.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
That is very well said.



For some reason I wish I had the power to create a fallacy based upon a person never actually dealing with anothers intended point, a point apparently percievable to all, because he is to busy questioning the way in which the person presented it.

I mean all this talk of fallacy has certainly contributed a great deal to the actual topic.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Yeah, Creshock certainly has a way of derailing threads

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It would be a combination of a fallacy of Induction and Changing the Subject.

So I'm guessing you're all trying out for hypocrite of the year then?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I simply tire of the counter argument "You can't PROVE that God DOESN'T EXIST" as a response to the statement that God's existance cannot be proven.




You can't prove Zeus doesn't exist either.


You can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist either.


You can't prove the floating teacup in outer space doesn't exist either.








All you have to go by is Logic, History, and Science. Please realize the fallacy of the argument "You cannot Prove God doesn't exist".


All of you Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other Theists deny the existance of other myths and possibilities, but will defend your own to the death, even though you know you cannot prove your beleif true.


Your arguments will earn respect when you clarify your beleif as beleif, but once you claim your beleif as truth that is when the Burden of Proof falls upon you.




Understand ?


I think Zues exists

Originally posted by Creshosk
So I'm guessing you're all trying out for hypocrite of the year then?

I don't know about anyone else, but personally I was expressing my view, in the medium of cynical sarcasm, that the constant repetition of "you're committing a fallacy" hasn't really offered much to the thread, unless one enjoys such things.

Personally I then got a laugh out of imagining Parliament question time consisting of the first MP making a statement/asking a question and then the next five hours a constant back and forward of fallacy claims and counterclaims after which all they will be able to say is "I never want to hear Argumentum ad hominem ever, ever again."

Ergo they'd need a fallacy for such situations so someone could stand up and go "The member for Wattle has committed the fallacy of contributing little or nothing to the debate beyond showing he can point out fallacies in others statements."

p.s. The is no constituency in Australia called Wattle, hence the Member for Wattle doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Creshosk
So I'm guessing you're all trying out for hypocrite of the year then?


Contribute to the thread, or don't. It's your choice, but if you came here for the intention of making online rivals, please do it at another site. Thank You

Originally posted by Creshosk
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/how-thomas-the-tank-engine-works-1.jpg
This character is named thomas the tank engine. It exists within the book series of Rev. W. V. Awdry's creation. Outside the book.

Some people still believe in Zeus you know

Originally posted by Endless Mike
Some people still believe in Zeus you know



I like Zeus, he's sexy. But I don't beleive in him.

Originally posted by Endless Mike
Some people still believe in Zeus you know

Yes I know.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I like Zeus, he's sexy. But I don't beleive in him.

You think everythings sexy.

Originally posted by Alfheim
You think everythings sexy.



No.


Muhammed's not sexy.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
No.


Muhammed's not sexy.

You can say that again!

Originally posted by Alfheim
You can say that again!



Muhammed's not sexy

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Muhammed's not sexy

Damn it you actually did it. You said it again, I was wondering if you would actually do that.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Damn it you actually did it. You said it again, I was wondering if you would actually do that.


You'd be amazed what I am capable of droolio

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
You'd be amazed what I am capable of droolio

Yeah ok backoff. Had to come back to sex again.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Yeah ok backoff. Had to come back to sex again.



dd

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I don't know about anyone else, but personally I was expressing my view, in the medium of cynical sarcasm, that the constant repetition of "you're committing a fallacy" hasn't really offered much to the thread, unless one enjoys such things.

Personally I then got a laugh out of imagining Parliament question time consisting of the first MP making a statement/asking a question and then the next five hours a constant back and forward of fallacy claims and counterclaims after which all they will be able to say is "I never want to hear Argumentum ad hominem ever, ever again."

Ergo they'd need a fallacy for such situations so someone could stand up and go "The member for Wattle has committed the fallacy of contributing little or nothing to the debate beyond showing he can point out fallacies in others statements."

p.s. The is no constituency in Australia called Wattle, hence the Member for Wattle doesn't exist. You're critisizing me for the way I present arguments, because "it adds nothing to the thread", and doing this adds what to the thread?

You're guilty of what you accuse me of. Thus you're a hypocrite.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Contribute to the thread, or don't. It's your choice, but if you came here for the intention of making online rivals, please do it at another site. Thank You I came here with no such intentions, you're the one who decided to start attacking me to other people, So for all your talk of "Not making things personal." You're doing a fine job of making things personal.

You're guilty of what you accuse me of. Thus you're a hypocrite.


Originally posted by lord xyz
Outside the book.

http://www.thomas-tank-engine.com/Images/RC2Images/LC76001.jpg
This is a thomas the tank engine that exists outside the book.

Originally posted by Creshosk
You're critisizing me for the way I present arguments, because "it adds nothing to the thread", and doing this adds what to the thread?

You're guilty of what you accuse me of. Thus you're a hypocrite.

I have already made comments to the nature of the topic raised, as have most people, but fallacies keep coming back again and again.

If I had posted post after post going "contribute to the topic, contribute to the topic, contribute to the topic" without at any point contributing myself then I would be a hypocrite, as would the other posters you described if they also hadn't at any point contributed.

And no, I am criticising you for taking your fallacy Crusade in this case beyond its used by date. I think we all get it that you can make an argument SpearofDestiny did something involving a Fallacy, but since everyone else seems to have been able to still deal with the overall point he was making the entire fallacy debate seems to have become rather redundant, especially since the fallacy, such as it is, does not render his point moot in the debate of where the balance of proof lies, nor does it render it moot in the terms of quality of evidence, or even the whole illogical business of "well, you can't prove it doesn't, so we'll just accept it does, now we should have politicians ban gay marriage because God wouldn't like it and we have just decided we are going to accept his existence."



There once was an image, it was a pipe, written on it was "this is not a pipe." Which is accurate - because it wasn't a pipe, it was a painting of a pipe. That is not Thomas the Tank Engine, that is a toy of Thomas the Tank Engine. You have proved toys of Thomas the Tank Engine exist . Congratulations. Not that Thomas the Tank Engine actually exists though, just a fictional character in a text.

A bit like deities exist within the medium of their texts/myths and outside there are even statues and images of them. But those statues and images aren't those deities, they are just statues and images of the deities from the texts/myths.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura


I have already made comments to the nature of the topic raised, as have most people, but fallacies keep coming back again and again.

If I had posted post after post going "contribute to the topic, contribute to the topic, contribute to the topic" without at any point contributing myself then I would be a hypocrite, as would the other posters you described if they also hadn't at any point contributed.

And no, I am criticising you for taking your fallacy Crusade in this case beyond its used by date. I think we all get it that you can make an argument SpearofDestiny did something involving a Fallacy, but since everyone else seems to have been able to still deal with the overall point he was making the entire fallacy debate seems to have become rather redundant, especially since the fallacy, such as it is, does not render his point moot in the debate of where the balance of proof lies, nor does it render it moot in the terms of quality of evidence, or even the whole illogical business of "well, you can't prove it doesn't, so we'll just accept it does, now we should have politicians ban gay marriage because God wouldn't like it and we have just decided we are going to accept his existence." Oh, nice attempt to cover your ass... You're still critisizing the way I debate, saying I'm attacking the way a point is presented and thus adding nothing to the discussion..
In so doing you're attacking the way a point is presented and thus adding nothing to the debate.

Like it or not, you're guilty of what you critisize me of. doped

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
There once was an image, it was a pipe, written on it was "this is not a pipe." Which is accurate - because it wasn't a pipe, it was a painting of a pipe. That is not Thomas the Tank Engine, that is a toy of Thomas the Tank Engine. You have proved toys of Thomas the Tank Engine exist . Congratulations. Not that Thomas the Tank Engine actually exists though, just a fictional character in a text.

A bit like deities exist within the medium of their texts/myths and outside there are even statues and images of them. But those statues and images aren't those deities, they are just statues and images of the deities from the texts/myths. So you're saying that toy is not called Thomas The Tank?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Oh, nice attempt to cover your ass... You're still critisizing the way I debate, saying I'm attacking the way a point is presented and thus adding nothing to the discussion..
In so doing you're attacking the way a point is presented and thus adding nothing to the debate.

Like it or not, you're guilty of what you critisize me of. doped

Incorrect, you would have to be debating the subject for me to be criticising your debating technique. If you notice I didn't say you were unable to present a case for what you are saying, just that in the boundaries of a defined topic that people can handle it is not relevant to the thread. Unless you can show that it is then my point stands that picking fallacies out of SpearofDestiny's topic contributes nothing.

We can start actually talking about the issue of where the burden of proof lies in the matter of religion, especially as it detracts a great deal from the emphasis you have put on the phrase Argumentum ad ignorantiam.



Sorry, just had to giggle at that. I stated you had proof there was a toy of Thomas the Tank but that is all. The poster didn't say "prove to me a toy exists outside the book" he said "prove to me Thomas exists outside the book". You didn't do that. If that was all it took to prove something exists a statue of Jesus would prove Jesus is real, a stain-glass window of Jesus rising again proof of the Resurrection and angels and demons.

What you have proven is that the toy exists, not that Thomas the Tank Engine himself exists. When you can provide us with tickets to fly to the Island of Sodor so we can take a trip on a living, talking Tank Engine with a face the best you can claim is that Thomas the Tank Engine exists as nothing more then a fictional character in a book/TV series, with merchandise based upon that character. Nothing more. Which strangely enough seems almost to parallel another situation we are almost discussing.. now if only I could put my finger on it what it is...

Oh yes, religion!

Originally posted by Creshosk
I came here with no such intentions, you're the one who decided to start attacking me to other people, So for all your talk of "Not making things personal." You're doing a fine job of making things personal.

You're guilty of what you accuse me of. Thus you're a hypocrite.



Shhh.....Be Quiet

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Incorrect, you would have to be debating the subject for me to be criticising your debating technique. And its only your opinion that I was not.

Are you going to use your own opinion as evidence to support your position?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
If you notice I didn't say you were unable to present a case for what you are saying, just that in the boundaries of a defined topic that people can handle it is not relevant to the thread. Your opinion. {csm]doped

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Unless you can show that it is then my point stands that picking fallacies out of SpearofDestiny's topic contributes nothing. Which is your opinion and nothing more. doped

Good job reenforcing your hypocrite status. durup

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
We can start actually talking about the issue of where the burden of proof lies in the matter of religion, especially as it detracts a great deal from the emphasis you have put on the phrase Argumentum ad ignorantiam.The topic technically isn't about "Where the burden of proof lies." Its about Kali/spearofdestiny whining about people who commit the burden of proof fallacy.

As he's said before he's not debating proving or disproving the existence or nonexistence of these such things he listed. But merely about the theists who commit the burden of proof fallacy. And through equivocation he commits the Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

The only way to be on topic in this personal rant thread is to either eefend or bash the theists he's talking about, since they are the subject of the thread. Not who actually has the proof.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Sorry, just had to giggle at that. I stated you had proof there was a toy of Thomas the Tank but that is all. The poster didn't say "prove to me a toy exists outside the book" he said "prove to me Thomas exists outside the book". You didn't do that. If that was all it took to prove something exists a statue of Jesus would prove Jesus is real, a stain-glass window of Jesus rising again proof of the Resurrection and angels and demons.So you want me to show that Thomas the tank exists? hmm

In case you haven't noticed, I'm trying to show that its in the way you define something. Simply defining something incorrectly doesn't make it not exist.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
What you have proven is that the toy exists, not that Thomas the Tank Engine himself exists. When you can provide us with tickets to fly to the Island of Sodor so we can take a trip on a living, talking Tank Engine with a face the best you can claim is that Thomas the Tank Engine exists as nothing more then a fictional character in a book/TV series, with merchandise based upon that character. Nothing more. Which strangely enough seems almost to parallel another situation we are almost discussing.. now if only I could put my finger on it what it is...

Oh yes, religion! Yes, those damned dirty theists and their illogical beliefs. durfist

Originally posted by Creshosk
And its only your opinion that I was not.

Are you going to use your own opinion as evidence to support your position?

Your opinion. {csm]doped

Which is your opinion and nothing more. doped

Good job reenforcing your hypocrite status. durup

So your entire defense is "nah. nah, that is just you opinion."?

Since I don't think I could extract a more perfect rebuttal I think I will leave that there to bask a while.





A fellow poster said one can't prove he doesn't exist, but as we all know:

Thomas the Tank Engine exists as a fictional character in a defined manner and not beyond that. That can be proven. His toy is a toy. That can be proven. An inaccurate definition is nothing more then an inaccurate definition and does not change the existence or non-existence of something.

A picture of a pipe is not a pipe.



Well, you chose to say it. And good work, you dealt with the point in a mature, intelligent fashion that does a credit to you. *hehehe*

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So your entire defense is "nah. nah, that is just you opinion."?

Since I don't think I could extract a more perfect rebuttal I think I will leave that there to bask a while. Truth hurts doesn't it? sly


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
A fellow poster said one can't prove he doesn't exist, but as we all know:

Thomas the Tank Engine exists as a fictional character in a defined manner and not beyond that. That can be proven. His toy is a toy. That can be proven. uh huh... :rolleyes.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
An inaccurate definition is nothing more then an inaccurate definition and does not change the existence or non-existence of something. That's the first intelligent thing I've seen you say.

Ever.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
A picture of a pipe is not a pipe.



Well, you chose to say it. And good work, you dealt with the point in a mature, intelligent fashion that does a credit to you. *hehehe* I certainly hope you didn't miss the sarcasm.

seriously creshosk, werent you the guy that labelled me as a muslim trying to preach christians about their own belief??? and then called me a liar for claiming i was an agnostic/atheist??? lmao. you shud stop talking for the sake of yourself{if not the bleading ears of practically every poster here}

I put dumbasses on ignore

leonheartmm This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click

And I have not put Imperial nor Kali/spearofdestiny on, cause I don't think they're dumbasses.

Amusing...

Referring way back to the very first post, someone confronted me with that argument yesterday in conversation. I wish I had remembered to say something like "You can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist." but I handled it relatively admirably.

Technically speaking, nothing can be 'proven' period. Subjective reality makes it literally impossible. So it can be taken even another step beyond deities.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
seriously creshosk, werent you the guy that labelled me as a muslim trying to preach christians about their own belief??? and then called me a liar for claiming i was an agnostic/atheist??? lmao. you shud stop talking for the sake of yourself{if not the bleading ears of practically every poster here}

I wouldnt be suprised he almost accused me of being a sock once.


Originally posted by DigiMark007
Amusing...

Referring way back to the very first post, someone confronted me with that argument yesterday in conversation. I wish I had remembered to say something like "You can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist." but I handled it relatively admirably.

Technically speaking, nothing can be 'proven' period. Subjective reality makes it literally impossible. So it can be taken even another step beyond deities.

Maybe you cant prove that deities exist but the possibility of their existance seems very logical.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Maybe you cant prove that deities exist but the possibility of their existance seems very logical.

Actually, it doesn;t seem that way to me at all. But I suppose that's the crux of the argument. But the burden of proof should be (though usually isn't) on the theists who claim a belief in something beyond that which we can see, measure, experience, etc.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Actually, it doesn;t seem that way to me at all. But I suppose that's the crux of the argument. But the burden of proof should be (though usually isn't) on the theists who claim a belief in something beyond that which we can see, measure, experience, etc.



That's exactly what I've been saying, but a certain Creshock doesn't see that.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
That's exactly what I've been saying, but a certain Creshock doesn't see that. Repeating that horse shit of me not understanding over and over doesn't make it true.

I understand exactly what you're saying. You are the one who doesn't get what I am saying.

And could you at least try to spell my name right when you attempt to insult me, Spear?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Repeating that horse shit of me not understanding over and over doesn't make it true.

I understand exactly what you're saying. You are the one who doesn't get what I am saying.

And could you at least try to spell my name right when you attempt to insult me, Spear?



SSSSHHHH...Be Quiet