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.
The burden of proof is on those making a consequential claim about what their premise that God exists means.
That, is "more or less it". Stop working so hard to bury your earlier, mistaken statement under piles of bs.
Don't be so bloody cheeky Whichever way you dress it up, the duty to explain what they are claiming or what they mean when they make that claim, falls on the one making the claim. If one is making a claim for existence of God or a god or anything one labels "God". the burden of proof in every respect that I can think of, other than giving a link to the Nizkor project,falls on the one making the god -claim.
I'm sure you've heard the saying, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day...Teach him to fish and you've fed him for life".
So you can be "Proof Fed" for life: Whenever you see something that you question it's validity...use a small portion of the effort you would take posting a request for "proof"...take that base idea and type it into the search bar of Google or any other good search engine. Click to search. You will see a list of links to many websites. Click on them and read them. 99% of the time...you will know in a minute everything required to back the claim or not. These would be the exact same links that would be used to provide the validating info.
Try it out...you'll see.
So now, for practice: I made the claim that "God" can definitively be "The Ultimate Reality" and "Something of Supreme Value".
To check to see if that is valid...use a small portion of the effort you would use to ask for proof, and type, "God definition" into the Google search bar. Click the little magnifying glass icon. See all the links!! WOW! On the very first page will be the link for Merriam-Webster, a top expert at providing the definition and meaning of words. Click that link. Read the definition for "G-O-D" and see if my claim is true. Heeeeeey! Look at that...it IS true!
The process can be accomplished in seconds.. Less effort than putting up a post asking for proof!
Apply this method every time you don't know through your own knowledge if a claim is true or not.
Most people are not going to provide proof of every single claim made in a post...much will be assumed to be common knowledge. But for those that require those things to be explained...what I just showed you will be invaluable to them.
I love this guy. a five para. post to say every damn thing about his God -definition -except the one thing that is relevant. Multiple definitions and his picking one that suits him and not only ignoring the other but claiming (as he did many posts back) that there aren't any.
Theism..folks...meets atheism in a place called (wrongly) "agnosticism". On one side is a degree of rejection of all god -claims with just a token percentage of doubt, just to avoid the Alvin Plantinga fallacy of "Atheism is illogical because it claims absolute certainly" (or something along those lines) and on the theist side, something of a similar certainly though there the claim of 120% certainly (the certainty is illogical so why not the percentage certainty, too? ) and in the middle a sliding scale of 'buy -in' to the god -claim from the skeptic side or doubt of the God -claim to the "god" - believing theist side.
They meet in a grey area miscalled 'agnosticism' where sortagod rules a sorta earth of quantum foam that coexists with the earth of matter and produces new species like NED experiences, out of nothing in a way that is absurd when evilooshunists suggest it as an explanation.
On the atheist side this is a very persuasive and convincing way to accept a 'God' -claim without all the church -stuff, though one can wangle in the Bible if one wants to (1) I recall with some sadness Boxcar who suddenly became convinced that First -cause sortagod was real (or at least valid) and, having Bought In...shook the dust of the atheist forum from his shoes and left..
On the theist side we have our sortagod theists, Deists, irreligious theists, pantheists, Pan-enthists and Gnostic agnostics, like our pal Victorian Punk.
And, if they have a beef with organized religion (and put in an occasional token post on Christianity, arguing with them) it is nothing compared to their beef with "New" Atheism, which is just like the good old skool atheism they rather liked, but with the added vice of Fundamentalism - which being translated into the sortatheist dialect means "speaking out and making us look at uncomfortable questions".
The response to this is not to cite their faith and agree to disagree, nor argue the facts amicably, because that, for obvious reasons is not an option. The response is to bash, paste and flame atheism with all the venom, bitterness and detestation of a Creationist Isidore and with use of the arsenal of the whole religious library and Creation - museum - full of misrepresentation, fallacy and lies that is all they got in place of a virtual total dearth of reliable facts and valid logic.
Yes, friends, to the sleeved pages of my folder of 'Theist asshats of CD-religion' I can now add a page of 'fundamentalist agnostic - theists (see also accommodationalists) and I can tell by their looking like a fundamentalist agnostic - theists and walking like a fundamentalist agnostic - theist and persistent mind numbing quacking (1a) like a fundamentalist agnostic - theist that enables me to pot them a mile off and tick all the boxes on my list.
I couldn't have asked for a better Xmas gift than to be given the clue to sort you fundamentalist agnostics out, finally.
(1)Mystic's "spiritual fossil record" theory cumulates in a pretty much Sunday pulpit sermon about Christ's' sacrifice on the cross, but just reinvented to fit his own beliefs about "God".
(1a) It sounds like this "you work so hard at not believing in God because you know he is real and I am right and you know it but are denying it because you can't admit you are wrong..." It is called projection.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-20-2015 at 09:04 AM..
Reason: a few addenna..
I love this guy. a five para. post to say every damn thing about his God -definition -except the one thing that is relevant. Multiple definitions and his picking one that suits him and not only ignoring the other but claiming (as he did many posts back) that there aren't any.
Theism..folks...meets atheism in a place called (wrongly) "agnosticism". On one side is a degree of rejection of all god -claims with just a token percentage of doubt, just to avoid the Alvin Plantinga fallacy of "Atheism is illogical because it claims absolute certainly" (or something along those lines) and on the theist side, something of a similar certainly though there the claim of 120% certainly (the certainty is illogical so why not the percentage certainty, too? ) and in the middle a sliding scale of 'buy -in' to the god -claim from the skeptic side or doubt of the God -claim to the "god" - believing theist side.
They meet in a grey area miscalled 'agnosticism' where sortagod rules a sorta earth of quantum foam that coexists with the earth of matter and produces new species like NED experiences, out of nothing in a way that is absurd when evilooshunists suggest it as an explanation.
On the atheist side this is a very persuasive and convincing way to accept a 'God' -claim without all the church -stuff, though one can wangle in the Bible if one wants to (1) I recall with some sadness Boxcar who suddenly became convinced that First -cause sortagod was real (or at least valid) and, having Bought In...shook the dust of the atheist forum from his shoes and left..
On the theist side we have our sortagod theists, Deists, irreligious theists, pantheists, Pan-enthists and Gnostic agnostics, like our pal Victorian Punk.
And, if they have a beef with organized religion (and put in an occasional token post on Christianity, arguing with them) it is nothing compared to their beef with "New" Atheism, which is just like the good old skool atheism they rather liked, but with the added vice of Fundamentalism - which being translated into the sortatheist dialect means "speaking out and making us look at uncomfortable questions".
The response to this is not to cite their faith and agree to disagree, nor argue the facts amicably, because that, for obvious reasons is not an option. The response is to bash, paste and flame atheism with all the venom, bitterness and detestation of a Creationist Isidore and with use of the arsenal of the whole religious library and Creation - museum - full of misrepresentation, fallacy and lies that is all they got in place of a virtual total dearth of reliable facts and valid logic.
Yes, friends, to the sleeved pages of my folder of 'Theist asshats of CD-religion' I can now add a page of 'fundamentalist agnostic - theists (see also accommodationalists) and I can tell by their looking like a fundamentalist agnostic - theists and walking like a fundamentalist agnostic - theist and persistent mind numbing quacking (1a) like a fundamentalist agnostic - theist that enables me to pot them a mile off and tick all the boxes on my list.
I couldn't have asked for a better Xmas gift than to be given the clue to sort you fundamentalist agnostics out, finally.
(1)Mystic's "spiritual fossil record" theory cumulates in a pretty much Sunday pulpit sermon about Christ's' sacrifice on the cross, but just reinvented to fit his own beliefs about "God".
(1a) It sounds like this "you work so hard at not believing in God because you know he is real and I am right and you know it but are denying it because you can't admit you are wrong..." It is called projection.
Wrong. It is YOU that picks one definition of GOD and DEMANDS A REJECTION of the rest.
I know, and fully acknowledge, that GOD is defined as Religious Deities...among other definitions and meanings.
I never said it can't be Religious Deities...it is that TOO. It is just not the one I use and believe in.
I accept the full and complete definition...ALL of it. YOU, et al, are the ones that cherry-pick one and redact all the rest. Because you must...or your platform crumbles beneath you...and you crash.
That GOD is defined as, and means more than just Religious Deities is not something I did or caused. That's just THE REALITY OF WHAT IS TRUE.
Y'all like "facts", and "proof" ,and "truth" so much! Try THAT truthful, proven, fact!!
Also. Why cling to the one definition so much...at the rejection of all the rest? Through human history...GOD as ALL, or something other than Religious Deities is just as prevalent...so that can't be the reason.
I have it figured out. It's " Godophobia", plain and simple. You are afraid to acknowledge the existence of God in any way, shape or form.
Why that is...is your own personal headtrips. Usually the hate of Religious oppression...and the Deities the oppressing is done in the name of.
But I'm sure there are plenty of other hangups to go along with that.
Unfortunately...you don't get to render my manifestation of GOD null and void because of that.
I, and billions of others through human history, have our perceptions of GOD...that GOD objectively exists...and your headtrips do not in any way divest us of that perception or nullify the existence of our GOD(s).
No. You are wrong. I look at all the definitions -including yours - and say whether they are definitions I want to bother about. You appear to be the one picking the definition that suits you and acting as though it is the only one. And it moreover, such a broad definition as to be virtually meaningless.
You have had this explained many times, but you still keep on with the same false arguments.
No. You are wrong. I look at all the definitions -including yours - and say whether they are definitions I want to bother about. You appear to be the one picking the definition that suits you and acting as though it is the only one. And it moreover, such a broad definition as to be virtually meaningless.
You have had this explained many times, but you still keep on with the same false arguments.
I NEVER said it was the only one. I ALWAYS said the FULL AND COMPLETE definition is to be considered...and you know it.
So, to clear it up, if it would make you feel better: THE DEFINITION OF G-O-D INCLUDES (AMONG OTHER DEFINITIONS AND MEANINGS) RELIGIOUS DEITIES. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT IS MANDATORY TO RECOGNIZE THAT TO FULLY, LOGICALLY, REASONABLY, AND PROPERLY CONSIDER IT DEFINITIVELY.
You okay now?
The question is...Are YOU as open-minded, or are you a blinkered Fundie clinging exclusively to your narrow worldview?
The TRUTH is--- Only YOU are doing what you claim...I havent, don't, and won't do that. You have done nothing but...and actually argue the merit of doing it...saying the other definitions of GOD are "meaningless".
Anyone can perceive God as a Religious Deity...I have no problem with that whatsoever. They can believe whatever they want. Of course, it is on them to deal with challenges to substantiate the objective existence of the God they perceive. And though I have my differing perception, I'm cool with them holding theirs.
So now, for practice: I made the claim that "God" can definitively be "The Ultimate Reality" and "Something of Supreme Value"...
This statement about is kinda useless since anything can be anything really hypothetically speaking and I don't care about universal unfalsifiable hypotheticals.
What I really care about is not what CAN be, but what IS.
Lets practice with another statement you made.
Please show me how to prove using google this statement of yours - God is all that exists.
This statement about is kinda useless since anything can be anything really hypothetically speaking and I don't care about universal unfalsifiable hypotheticals.
What I really care about is not what CAN be, but what IS.
Lets practice with another statement you made.
Please show me how to prove using google this statement of yours - God is all that exists.
Go to Google...type in, "God definition". Click on the link that comes up for Merriam-Webster. Read the full definition.
Now in the Merriam-Webster search line...type word "perception". Read that..learn it.
I explained with the analogies of "friend" and "hero" that there are things that are made manifest and objectively exist based on being imbued with a quality by virtue of being perceived as such.
Friends and heros objectively exist through one holding the perception of someone or something as having that quality. These things exist objectively...though the quality imbued through perception that makes them a "friend" or "hero" isn't something that exists in a material form.
As you saw in the full definition...God is defined (among other sundry meanings) as "The Ultimate Reality" and "Something of Supreme Value".
Once I (like the millions upon millions through human history) perceive ALL THAT EXISTS to be The Ultimate Reality and Something of Supreme Value (what could be more the ultimate reality than All of Reality, or be of more supreme value?) it is then imbued with that status/quality, and thus definitively "God".
Once it is perceived as such...ALL THAT EXISTS is then objectively God...and since it is true "ALL" objectively exists...God objectively exists.
That it doesn't mean anything to you is irrelevant...it does to others, that's all that is required to imbue the God status. Your feelings on it does not change that. Just as your friend not being my friend, or that I don't care that it is your friend...doesn't change the status of that person as a friend or make them nonexistent.
I will attempt to clarify and explain further and if need be. I'm glad to do it.
Go to Google...type in, "God definition". Click on the link that comes up for Merriam-Webster. Read the full definition.
Now in the Merriam-Webster search line...type word "perception". Read that..learn it.
I explained with the analogies of "friend" and "hero" that there are things that are made manifest and objectively exist based on being imbued with a quality by virtue of being perceived as such.
Friends and heros objectively exist through one holding the perception of someone or something as having that quality. These things exist objectively...though the quality imbued through perception that makes them a "friend" or "hero" isn't something that exists in a material form.
As you saw in the full definition...God is defined (among other sundry meanings) as "The Ultimate Reality" and "Something of Supreme Value".
Once I (like the millions upon millions through human history) perceive ALL THAT EXISTS to be The Ultimate Reality and Something of Supreme Value (what could be more the ultimate reality than All of Reality, or be of more supreme value?) it is then imbued with that status/quality, and thus definitively "God".
Once it is perceived as such...ALL THAT EXISTS is then objectively God...and since it is true "ALL" objectively exists...God objectively exists.
That it doesn't mean anything to you is irrelevant...it does to others, that's all that is required to imbue the God status. Your feelings on it does not change that. Just as your friend not being my friend, or that I don't care that it is your friend...doesn't change the status of that person as a friend or make them nonexistent.
I will attempt to clarify and explain further and if need be. I'm glad to do it.
I'm glad you are glad to clarify and explain further. So please do.
It is impossible to take your argument seriously b/c your argument is based on dictionary’s definitions.
This approach is nothing more but trivial logical fallacy - appeal to definition.
Read that..learn it
Appeal to definition:
Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined through argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.
Moreover, you really need to explain how you came to conclusion that something that MAYBE perceived as objectively existing DOES in fact objectively exist.
Great many of our perceptions don't have anything to do with reality.
Please demonstrate that you perception of whatever you call "God" is a perception of something real.
As far as I'm concerned it is not.
Now you have your null hypothesis. Your perception of whatever you call "God" is a perception of something that does not exists in reality.
Prove this hypothesis wrong and then will have something to talk about.
Until then, stay cool in your rabbit hole.
Friends and heros objectively exist through one holding the perception of someone or something as having that quality. These things exist objectively...
Friends and heros are labels we put on certain people and people are the only "thing" that objectively exists.
Friends and heros don't exist objectively as "things".
I'm glad you are glad to clarify and explain further. So please do.
It is impossible to take your argument seriously b/c your argument is based on dictionary’s definitions.
This approach is nothing more but trivial logical fallacy - appeal to definition.
Read that..learn it
Appeal to definition:
Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined through argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.
Moreover, you really need to explain how you came to conclusion that something that MAYBE perceived as objectively existing DOES in fact objectively exist.
Great many of our perceptions don't have anything to do with reality.
Please demonstrate that you perception of whatever you call "God" is a perception of something real.
As far as I'm concerned it is not.
Now you have your null hypothesis. Your perception of whatever you call "God" is a perception of something that does not exists in reality.
Prove this hypothesis wrong and then will have something to talk about.
Until then, stay cool in your rabbit hole.
Even though I submit that a deferral to Merriam-Webster as a top expert at defining words would prevail over anything you, me, or anyone else else would have to offer...you argument actually helped MY contention.
If "dictionaries don't give the full story"...the only evidence needed is my proclamation that I REALLY DO have the perception I claim to have...and, since "God" is a title like "friend" or "hero"...all that is needed is for anyone to define something as "God" is to just proclaim their definition and perception.
So, there ya go...you don't even need the dictionary (it could just be considered a "known expert standard" to be used as reinforcement) but as long as there are those that define "God" in whatever way...that meaning must be accepted...simply because there are people that feel that is the definition. The limits of the dictionary definition of a word be danmed!
Let me ask you...if you can't logically go by the dictionary for the meaning of words...what do you go by?
I've noted this many times...how after a referral to the experts and seeing that my contention is correct, the grabbing for the only straw there is, and that is to dispute the dictionary. Which, besides being demonstrative of having no argument and being desperate...actually just exposes them even worse, because then the only thing left is for people to just pick whatever meaning suits them for a word. Then...anything could mean anything! If nobody is wrong than everyone is right!
Actually, the desperate "contest the dictionary" argument is the height of tactical ignorance.
I challenge you to substantiate that Merriam-Webster isn't qualified to define a word...and that random laymen are superior.
The contention that appealing to the dictionary for the meaning of a word creates a logical fallacy...on the basis that it might not be correct....is completely bogus. Heck...using that argument...you could say using ANY expert info creates a logical fallacy...because it might be wrong.
Arguments like this are only used when there is no real argument left.
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.
Whichever way you dress it up, the duty to explain what they are claiming or what they mean when they make that claim, falls on the one making the claim. If one is making a claim for existence of God or a god or anything one labels "God". the burden of proof in every respect that I can think of, other than giving a link to the Nizkor project,falls on the one making the god -claim.
I love this guy. a five para. post to say every damn thing about his God -definition -except the one thing that is relevant. Multiple definitions and his picking one that suits him and not only ignoring the other but claiming (as he did many posts back) that there aren't any. 
is not an option. The response is to bash, paste and flame atheism with all the venom, bitterness and detestation of a Creationist Isidore and with use of the arsenal of the whole religious library and Creation - museum - full of misrepresentation, fallacy and lies that is all they got in place of a virtual total dearth of reliable facts and valid logic.
