You Cannot Prove Zeus doesn't Exist

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I simply tire of the counter argument [b]"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 ? [/B]

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

This character is named thomas the tank engine. It exists within the book series of Rev. W. V. Awdry's creation.

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 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

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

Originally posted by lord xyz
Outside the book.

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."

This is a thomas the tank engine that exists outside the book.

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."

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. [/B]

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.

So you're saying that toy is not called Thomas The Tank? 🙄

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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! [/B]