Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We don't have science discussions. This is within the Religion and Spirituality area. We have a Science forum that you are welcome to use.
Then why are atheists allowed to keep provoking such discussions by demanding they are correct about the ontology of our Reality (that it is NOT God) until scientific proof is provided in a forum where it cannot be provided and would be rejected in the forum they suggest be used??? Please explain this absurdity.
easy ... they feel talking about all beliefs and the evidence for them hurts the their atheist crusades. So evidence that can't be denied is disavowed. Its is funny how they demand evidence then stop it from being presented it and say we don't have any.
Then why are atheists allowed to keep provoking such discussions by demanding they are correct about the ontology of our Reality (that it is NOT God) until scientific proof is provided in a forum where it cannot be provided and would be rejected in the forum they suggest be used??? Please explain this absurdity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
easy ... they feel talking about all beliefs and the evidence for them hurts the their atheist crusades. So evidence that can't be denied is disavowed. Its is funny how they demand evidence then stop it from being presented it and say we don't have any.
Because argumentum ad ignorantiam is not allowed in debates of logic. It may aggravate folks to no end that atheists have the rules of logical debate on their side, but they do. The assertion that something is true until proven false is a false argument. Always has been. This no doubt chaps those who try and use such as their main point of debate, but that's just the rules of logical debate that have been accepted worldwide for a long time.
You are never going to win over logical people with an argument from ignorance. They understand it is a weak and fallacious argument.
Note that this fallacy can occur in the reverse, by atheists saying gods can't possibly exist until proven. In this particular case though, and with most atheists I have ever read or talked with , atheists are simply saying they choose not to believe without evidence, not that gods are an impossibility . Choosing to see evidence on unknown and invisible beings before believing is not a fallacious argument, just a logical personal choice. The onus in this case is on the ones making claims of the existence of invisible beings.
Last edited by NatesDude; 01-24-2021 at 06:31 PM..
Because argumentum ad ignorantiam is not allowed in debates of logic. It may aggravate folks to no end that atheists have the rules of logical debate on their side, but they do. The assertion that something is true until proven false is a false argument. Always has been. This no doubt chaps those who try and use such as their main point of debate, but that's just the rules of logical debate that have been accepted worldwide for a long time.
You are never going to win over logical people with an argument from ignorance. They understand it is a weak and fallacious argument.
Balderdash!. The ONTOLOGY of what science is investigating is NOT a given and cannot be ascertained by science. That atheists ASSUME it is not and cannot BE God is pure hubris and an inappropriate reliance on the capabilities of a tool with extreme limitations. You, logic lovers, need to study some rigorous philosophy to temper your arrogant certainty about what is fallacious.
Balderdash!. The ONTOLOGY of what science is investigating is NOT a given and cannot be ascertained by science. That atheists ASSUME it is not and cannot BE God is pure hubris and an inappropriate reliance on the capabilities of a tool with extreme limitations. You, logic lovers, need to study some rigorous philosophy to temper your arrogant certainty about what is fallacious.
You can call the established rules of logical debate balderdash all you want. That opinion is irrelevant to reality. The accepted rules exist whether you agree with them or not. Folks that disagree with the long established rules of logical debate are the ones in need of a little more rigorous study of philosophy.
When you can find a reliable site that will inform us all that the argument that something is true until proven false is a legit debate tactic, please post it.
You can call the established rules of logical debate balderdash all you want. That opinion is irrelevant to reality. The accepted rules exist whether you agree with them or not. Folks that disagree with the long established rules of logical debate are the ones in need of a little more rigorous study of philosophy.
When you can find a reliable site that will inform us all that the argument that something is true until proven false is a legit debate tactic, please post it. https://fallacyinlogic.com/appeal-to...-and-examples/
Stop repeating your strawman rebuttal. I am not disputing any of it. The issue has nothing to do with logical fallacies. The ONTOLOGY of the existing Reality (WHAT it IS or IS NOT) cannot be proven true or untrue! So you proceed from a broken premise by insisting on proof of its ontology. What the existing Reality IS or IS NOT cannot be resolved by science. That is your fallacious ASSumption pretending that science has the capability to resolve the ontology of Reality. It does NOT!.
Stop repeating your strawman rebuttal. I am not disputing any of it. The issue has nothing to do with logical fallacies. The ONTOLOGY of the existing Reality (WHAT it IS or IS NOT) cannot be proven true or untrue! So you proceed from a broken premise by insisting on proof of its ontology. What the existing Reality IS or IS NOT cannot be resolved by science. That is your fallacious ASSumption pretending that science has the capability to resolve the ontology of Reality. It does NOT!.
I make no such claims. My point here refers to your claim that a lack of evidence AGAINST God is a valid argument against atheism. Nothing more . I do not address your ideas on God , specifically because none of them would be provable. Let's stick with addressing what I did say please.
I make no such claims. My point here refers to your claim that a lack of evidence AGAINST God is a valid argument against atheism. Nothing more. I do not address your ideas on God , specifically because none of them would be provable. Let's stick with addressing what I did say please.
That is not my argument and never has been. The atheists here pretend that their atheism is the default FACT about our Reality until proven otherwise. It is NOT. It is their BELIEF about it just as is my BELIEF about it. You seem to be just as presumptuous as the existing cadre attacking me and my views. Thanks, I really needed that.
Then why are atheists allowed to keep provoking such discussions by demanding they are correct about the ontology of our Reality (that it is NOT God) until scientific proof is provided in a forum where it cannot be provided and would be rejected in the forum they suggest be used??? Please explain this absurdity.
Because you keep claiming your extrapolation is supported by science, and then admitting it has not been scientifically verified. That is the absurdity, either you have the science or you do not.
And do not confuse your extrapolation with the science you base it on.
I will demonstrate again our position.
Natural world + supernatural = normal religion.
Natural world + your extrapolation = your religion.
Natural world = atheism.
All three have the evidence for natural forces, this is the verified science you base your extrapolation on; but normal religions and your religion have something extra that does not have evidence. We have met the burden of proof (subconsciously or rationally), we do not need to prove there are no gods, that is not possible.
The religions have the extra claim, and they need to demonstrate that extra claim is valid. And if you claim your extra is backed by science, you need to demonstrate that.
Because argumentum ad ignorantiam is not allowed in debates of logic. It may aggravate folks to no end that atheists have the rules of logical debate on their side, but they do. The assertion that something is true until proven false is a false argument. Always has been. This no doubt chaps those who try and use such as their main point of debate, but that's just the rules of logical debate that have been accepted worldwide for a long time.
Correct. The problem is, very few atheists are asserting something is true until proven false, and I have seen none on this forum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
