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.
And why that reasonably puts the onus on the Atheists to "represent" and "prove their claim".
Argumentum ad populum does not shift the burden of proof of factual statements and claims. The onus of evidence lies entirely at the feet of people postulating there is a god, regardless of whether they are 2 people or two trillion people.
AGAIN: Please proffer a LOGICAL basis for your Atheist position.
"Lack of evidence"..."No substantiation"..."No proof/evidence"...is NOT a logical basis.
By this argument, it wouldn't matter if anyone answers. After all, as you say, lack of evidence is NOT a logical basis for rejecting an idea - including the idea that there's a logical basis for atheism. So even if no one answers you're still no closer to figuring out whether or not there is a basis for not believing in gods.
Your own argument makes this question irrelevant, assuming you care to be consistent in your ideas.
If lack of evidence, no substantiation and no proof/evidence is an illogical way to come to a conclusion I am highly illogical.
Goldie doesn't appear to understand his own logical fallacies. Logically, something can't be absolutely 'proved' to NOT exist because of a lack of evidence. But that's not what anyone on this thread is saying. So once again, he is battling a straw man and seems to think he has scored some imaginary goal.
What science proves is that there's no empirical evidence at all for any of the supernatural God claims that have been made by people throughout history.
We all know what the scientific method is:
The steps:
Ask a question
Do background research
Construct a hypothesis
Test hypothesis with experiment
Analyze the data
Draw a conclusion
Communicate results
Would someone please show me through the scientific method how God does not exist, taking me through each of the steps?
That's not how it works.
Science rests on evidence. Nonexistent entities have none.
For instance, science is utterly incapable of proving the nonexistence of gigantic invisible underground gnomes who are responsible for plate tectonics, pushing the continents across earth's surface.
AGAIN: Please proffer a LOGICAL basis for your Atheist position.
"Lack of evidence"..."No substantiation"..."No proof/evidence"...is NOT a logical basis.
Argumentum ad populum does not shift the burden of proof of factual statements and claims. The onus of evidence lies entirely at the feet of people postulating there is a god, regardless of whether they are 2 people or two trillion people.
But nice dodge on my previous post all the same.
No, no Nozz!
No more pointing out and slamming Logical Fallacies...until you quit your most prolific use of Logical Fallacy to support your conclusion (Oh, sorry, "workable" conclusion).
Argumentum e Silentio (Argument from silence)
This fallacy occurs when a conclusion is based on the silence of the opponent, failing to give proof, and/or based on "lack of evidence".
Making determinations based on a lack of evidence, is a Logical Fallacy. And it's pretty much the whole basis for your position!! WOW!...talk about hypocritical!
See...as most here know..I don't have a problem with Logical Fallacies...matter of fact, I have always endorsed them and employed them...blatantly and without apology. So, I work off a different standard in light of this.
On the other hand...it is typical of the Atheists to jump with, "Logical Fallacy, Logical Fallacy-Epic Fail!!", at any opportunity.
So...it ain't cool for those calling out Logical Fallacy usage to use Logical Fallacy to support their positions. You need to get hip to that.
Sounds kinda like the Religious Fundies answering the declaration that there's evolution.
But then, Fundies of all stripes have a similar general attitude along those lines.
By this argument, it wouldn't matter if anyone answers. After all, as you say, lack of evidence is NOT a logical basis for rejecting an idea - including the idea that there's a logical basis for atheism. So even if no one answers you're still no closer to figuring out whether or not there is a basis for not believing in gods.
Your own argument makes this question irrelevant, assuming you care to be consistent in your ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manderly6
If lack of evidence, no substantiation and no proof/evidence is an illogical way to come to a conclusion I am highly illogical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
Goldie doesn't appear to understand his own logical fallacies. Logically, something can't be absolutely 'proved' to NOT exist because of a lack of evidence. But that's not what anyone on this thread is saying. So once again, he is battling a straw man and seems to think he has scored some imaginary goal.
Pretty funny really.
It's almost like it's MY fault that, "Conclusions made based on lack of evidence", is a Logical Fallacy!
Here's the way it is: Argumentum e Silentio (Argument from silence)
This fallacy occurs when a conclusion is based on the silence of the opponent, failing to give proof, and/or based on "lack of evidence".
If the shoe fits...wear it.
Anyone that says, "that's not what anyone on this thread is saying", needs to go back and read the postings again.
Matter of fact...the Atheist argument is just about 99% drawing the conclusion that GOD(s) do NOT exist based upon a lack of evidence/proof for them. THAT is a Logical Fallacy.
So...time to find a LOGICAL argument for concluding GOD(s) don't exist. The one y'all are using now isn't.
I agree: It is "pretty funny, REALLY"!
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.
Does Scientific Method Prove God's Nonexistence?
