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.
You use unsupportable premises based on what you think is reasonable and conclude what you start out believing. That is not how you use those tools. That is unavoidable because we do not know what Reality is so we have no supportable premises.
The use of 2500 years was intended to pretend that we have 2500 years of scientific evidence of no God which is false for two reasons. None of the evidence can be used to claim there is no God as the source of it and there are not 2500 years of evidence. This is the kind of disingenuous and deceptive crap you pull all the time. I must have missed it. What DO you have in opposition and how did you decide it was in opposition to the existence of such an omnipresent, ubiquitous, and all-encompassing attribute that exceeds anything you have in opposition?
Evasion noted. I said those extras are the result of your misunderstanding using argumentum ad populum misconceptions. That means you are adding attributes to God that are purely the result of popular conceptions, hence ad populum. Don't argue against MY concept of God using ad populum arguments. I understand perfectly. You cannot tell me what the hell naturalism ACTUALLY is without presuming it as you do with all your so-called logic and reasoning. It IS inscrutable and you have no method to discern it. You just prefer the label to God because of all that ad populum baggage you disdain. According to what purely objective standard? That would be why it is my BELIEF. Your BELIEF is opposed but you do not have anything scientific to point to that would definitively dispute it, do you? Stalemate, or as I have been saying, dueling BELIEFS. Face it, you ASSUME what is collected by science is NOT about God but there is no objective indisputable standard that establishes that as fact. If there is, tell me what it is.
Once again you are requesting proof of negatives. Prove that leprechauns don’t exist. Not necessary. He who asserts the claim has the burden of proof. We are under no obligation to prove that a deity does not exist. It simply does not exist, by default, until material evidence is presented to validate rational belief. No such evidence has been presented, now or ever, to anyone. So disbelief continues to be the correct position. As it always has.
The default position is non-belief in leprechauns, pixies, deities, telepathy, alien abductions, and cattle mutilations. They are all, by default, things we should disbelieve as no evidence has ever been presented.
We all know it, even the believers know it. They always say “I can’t prove the existence of my favorite deity, but I take it on faith”. Not good enough. Faith is the reason given when there is no good reason to believe.
We will never have to prove the non-existece of any deity. They simply do not exist until evidence is presented.
And chanting “quantum, quantum, quantum” like a deranged monk will not change the fact that disbelief is the base standard.
Don't have the patience or motivation. His mind is locked into his little tropes. NOTHING is admitted. "We live in a system that resembles life more than non-life". What kind of inane effluent is that? I'm supposed to decode it. I had already submitted it to a team of linguistic experts last year, when he was repeating it then. Like some deranged mantra. They wouldn't return the hardcopies I sent them. Claimed I was being cruel and abusive to chimpanzees and that I needed to stop.
I still have a small claims action going to retrieve my materials.
Once again you are requesting proof of negatives. Prove that leprechauns don’t exist. Not necessary. He who asserts the claim has the burden of proof. We are under no obligation to prove that a deity does not exist. It simply does not exist, by default, until material evidence is presented to validate rational belief. No such evidence has been presented, now or ever, to anyone. So disbelief continues to be the correct position. As it always has.
Your immaturity is palpable. Your asinine argument does not work on something that DOES exist!!! You have to show by evidence that what EXISTS is NOT what it prima facie seems to be - the omnipresent, creator, maintainer, and controller of all existence - aka God. No amount of ad populum ignorance about it will impress.
Your immaturity is palpable. Your asinine argument does not work on something that DOES exist!!! You have to show by evidence that what EXISTS is NOT what it prima facie seems to be - the omnipresent, creator, maintainer, and controller of all existence - aka God. No amount of ad populum ignorance about it will impress.
yeah, its beyond imaturity at this point.
They really don't care what the belief is. They are really locked into ...
Sortagod (using their definition) cannot be allowed to pass through inattention or being worn down with constant nagging, because it hands theism the logical default for free. Without their having to produce anything but fallacious arguments.
If its about just strength of evidence" its simple. But its about the above statement so who cares. They will gladly take "saint marc" under their wing.
You use unsupportable premises based on what you think is reasonable and conclude what you start out believing. That is not how you use those tools. That is unavoidable because we do not know what Reality is so we have no supportable premises.
The use of 2500 years was intended to pretend that we have 2500 years of scientific evidence of no God which is false for two reasons. None of the evidence can be used to claim there is no God as the source of it and there are not 2500 years of evidence. This is the kind of disingenuous and deceptive crap you pull all the time. I must have missed it. What DO you have in opposition and how did you decide it was in opposition to the existence of such an omnipresent, ubiquitous, and all-encompassing attribute that exceeds anything you have in opposition?
Evasion noted. I said those extras are the result of your misunderstanding using argumentum ad populum misconceptions. That means you are adding attributes to God that are purely the result of popular conceptions, hence ad populum. Don't argue against MY concept of God using ad populum arguments. I understand perfectly. You cannot tell me what the hell naturalism ACTUALLY is without presuming it as you do with all your so-called logic and reasoning. It IS inscrutable and you have no method to discern it. You just prefer the label to God because of all that ad populum baggage you disdain. According to what purely objective standard? That would be why it is my BELIEF. Your BELIEF is opposed but you do not have anything scientific to point to that would definitively dispute it, do you? Stalemate, or as I have been saying, dueling BELIEFS. Face it, you ASSUME what is collected by science is NOT about God but there is no objective indisputable standard that establishes that as fact. If there is, tell me what it is.
Your usual excuses, misrepresenatations, fallacies and prove a negative stupidity.
I have given my reasons for my position in post 147, which you responded to by simply repeating your non sequitur claims.
Either you have actual evidence our reality is conscious or you do not. If not, the horse died long ago, stop beating it.
Last edited by Harry Diogenes; 02-26-2021 at 02:52 AM..
Your immaturity is palpable. Your asinine argument does not work on something that DOES exist!!!
Your Motte and Bailey fallacy is noted.
You are asking us to prove it is NOT a god, a negative. Your argument is nothing more than the simple Christian argument to prove God does NOT exist, or to prove God has NO reason to allow evil. Marc is correct, and either you do not understand this or you are playing dishonest games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You have to show by evidence that what EXISTS is NOT what it prima facie seems to be - the omnipresent, creator, maintainer, and controller of all existence - aka God.
No, you have to show it IS a god. List ALL the traits a god should have. If it fails any, your position fails.
Your Motte and Bailey fallacy is noted.
You are asking us to prove it is NOT a god, a negative. Your argument is nothing more than the simple Christian argument to prove God does NOT exist, or to prove God has NO reason to allow evil. Marc is correct, and either you do not understand this or you are playing dishonest games.
No, you have to show it IS a god. List ALL the traits a god should have. If it fails any, your position fails.
No. If it has ANY of the traits of God (which it DOES) YOU cannot EVER assume or pretend that we must accept it is NOT God until YOU are satisfied it is. That is why there can be NO DEFAULT! Your immature and pointless logic games notwithstanding.
No. If it has ANY of the traits of God (which it DOES) YOU cannot EVER assume or pretend that we must accept it is NOT God until YOU are satisfied it is. That is why there can be NO DEFAULT! Your immature and pointless logic games notwithstanding.
And look at the length it had to go so that the evidence couldn't be presented. They claim "can it hold up in court" then the evidence is disallowed. Especially if we had the phrase "Beyond all doubt". Your case is sound. Even tho I lack belief at this time.
there are two reason they are fighting you so hard. None of it has to do with facts being wrong, but they both have to do with your facts being plausible.
Named for Ferdinande de Motte and Sir Henry Bailey, and first described in their logical treatise "The dishonest debater and their pet dog". This is described as 'The ever - twisted argument of the habitual dissembler, who may be distinguished from the common run of man by having their head affixed in the reverse position from the norm; and who may seen stallking the forum with raised eyebrows and an exceeding long nose, nostrils flared in supercilious fashion, and utterring 'Well damn' me' or 'Alors,' or 'Verflucht' (for he may be found in many lands) [1] "I perceive that I am the only one whom is looking in the correct direction!" And the Trollhound which doggs his heels yaps: "Yup, Yup".' (notWiki)
[1] "This is never a 'she' for she who must be obeyed is always right." Pussywhipping and how to survive it by Trodd Downe
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-26-2021 at 11:08 PM..
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.
^the usual meaningless nonsense
