You Cannot Prove Zeus doesn't Exist

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
You need to stop acting like a child. You are making this debate

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
into a personal argument, and I won't get involved in that.

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.

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.

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
[b]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 ?[/b]

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
[b]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?[/b]

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

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.[b]

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
[B]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.

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.

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.

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:

[list=1][*]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."[/list]

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.

So the point is committing the Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

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? 😆