Christianity and the Burden of Proof

[zippy2006]

And Dave and I have carefully explained in several different ways why you're incorrect.

You've demonstrably committed various fallacies that I've pointed out along the way. Maybe that's what you mean by "carefully explained"?

You said shadows aren't existent. They clearly are.

We can say shadows exist, holes exist, or blindness exists, but we aren't indicating a positive entity. Instead we are indicating an absence. Respectively, the absence of light, the absence of matter, and the absence of sight. So we are using "exists" in a rather different sense than the way it is primarily used.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Right, let me amend it:

Joe: I think there's an even number of gumballs.
Dave: Nonsense! That's ludicrous! I deny the idea that there is an even number!
Joe: So you think there's an odd number?
Dave: Of course not! I'm an atheist! For atheists disputing the claim there is an even number says nothing about your opinion on there being an odd number!
Joe: Uh, okay bro, whatever you say.​

Let me amend it in a way that an actual rational person would talk:

Joe: I think there's an even number of gumballs.
Dave: How did you determine that without any way of examining that?
Joe: So you think there's an odd number?
Dave: No, I just don't see any reason why you think you know there's an even number when you've had no way of testing your claim. I have no idea either way if there's an even or odd number, and neither do you unless there's some evidence you have that I'm not aware of?
Joe: I don't have any evidence
Dave: Then I have no reason to accept your claim. There's a 50/50 chance either way, and I have no way to determine which is true. Therefore it would be dishonest of me to assert something to be true that I don't know is true.
Joe: You're right, I withdraw my claim.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yes.

"I don't accept claim X." This shows no sign of dispute, argument, debate, or even disagreement. It simply means that they don't see sufficient reason to accept claim X as being true.

If someone says "claim X is true" and you don't agree with their claim, then you by definition disagree with them. It's not that hard.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You've demonstrably committed various fallacies that I've pointed out along the way. Maybe that's what you mean by "carefully explained"?

You seem to have the most bizarre ideas about what fallacies are. I have several remedial books on logic I can send you if you like...

 

[zippy2006]

Let me amend it in a way that an actual rational person would talk:

Joe: I think there's an even number of gumballs.
Dave: How did you determine that without any way of examining that?
Joe: So you think there's an odd number?
Dave: No, I just don't see any reason why you think you know there's an even number when you've had no way of testing your claim. I have no idea either way if there's an even or odd number, and neither do you unless there's some evidence you have that I'm not aware of?
Joe: I don't have any evidence
Dave: Then I have no reason to accept your claim. There's a 50/50 chance either way, and I have no way to determine which is true. Therefore it would be dishonest of me to assert something to be true that I don't know is true.
Joe: You're right, I withdraw my claim.

Then we run up against Todd's error of confusing a claim about knowledge with a claim about reality. As Dave's first reply makes clear, he is not disputing Joe's first statement. "I have no reason to accept your claim" is not the same as "I dispute your claim."

I've explained as much here, here, and even here with respect to atheism.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Then we run up against Todd's error of confusing a claim about knowledge with a claim about reality. As Dave's first reply makes clear, he is not disputing Joe's first statement. "I have no reason to accept your claim" is not the same as "I dispute your claim."

I've explained as much here, here, and even here with respect to atheism.

Of course that's a dispute, the whole conversation is a dispute/disagreement.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You've demonstrably committed various fallacies that I've pointed out along the way. Maybe that's what you mean by "carefully explained"

To be honest, I doubt that you've taken courses on philosophy and you certainly haven't taken any on logical fallacies. You've wrongfully claimed Todd committed fallacies, and you've committed some pretty blatant ones yourself.

 

[zippy2006]

If someone says "claim X is true" and you don't agree with their claim, then you by definition disagree with them. It's not that hard.

Yes, but we are talking about whether non-acceptance implies dispute, not whether non-agreement implies disagreement.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yes, but we are talking about whether non-acceptance implies dispute, not whether non-agreement implies disagreement.

DISPUTE

dis·pute
diˈspyo͞ot/
noun

1. 1.
   a disagreement, argument, or debate.

A disagreement IS a dispute.

 

[zippy2006]

To be honest, I doubt that you've taken courses on philosophy and you certainly haven't taken any on logical fallacies. You've wrongfully claimed Todd committed fallacies, and you've committed some pretty blatant ones yourself.

Well you're mistaken, yet again.

Todd has committed the fallacy of equivocation in conflating propositions about knowledge with propositions about reality. This is the basic error he refuses to admit to.

 

[zippy2006]

DISPUTE

dis·pute
diˈspyo͞ot/
noun

1. 1.
   a disagreement, argument, or debate.

A disagreement IS a dispute.

Yes it is, and I have said nothing to the contrary. I would advise reading again the post you attempted to respond to.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yes it is, and I have said nothing to the contrary. I would advise reading again the post you attempted to respond to.

You said:

"Yes, but we are talking about whether non-acceptance implies dispute, not whether non-agreement implies disagreement."

What's the difference when a dispute is a disagreement?

 

[zippy2006]

You said:

"Yes, but we are talking about whether non-acceptance implies dispute, not whether non-agreement implies disagreement."

What's the difference when a dispute is a disagreement?

Do you really not see your error?

Zippy: Yes, but we are talking about whether non-acceptance implies dispute, not whether non-agreement implies disagreement.
Dave: A disagreement IS a dispute.
Zippy: Where have I said otherwise? I made two points: 1) the question is whether non-acceptance implies dispute, and 2) the question is not whether non-agreement implies disagreement. In neither of these points do I claim that a disagreement is not a dispute. Therefore I ask again, where have I said otherwise?​

 

[bhsmte]

False. Consider an infant. Having no beliefs, the infant does not accept the existence of Santa Claus. This does not mean that they dispute the existence of Santa Claus. This is obvious.

LOL

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If someone says "claim X is true" and you don't agree with their claim, then you by definition disagree with them. It's not that hard.

It's hard if your MO is to torture the English language to keep from admitting you're wrong...

 

[zippy2006]

It's hard if your MO is to torture the English language to keep from admitting you're wrong...

Says the fellow who claims to be unable to comprehend the word "nothing."

 

[Dave Ellis]

Do you really not see your error?

Zippy: Yes, but we are talking about whether non-acceptance implies dispute, not whether non-agreement implies disagreement.
Dave: A disagreement IS a dispute.
Zippy: Where have I said otherwise? I made two points: 1) the question is whether non-acceptance implies dispute, and 2) the question is not whether non-agreement implies disagreement. In neither of these points do I claim that a disagreement is not a dispute. Therefore I ask again, where have I said otherwise?​

You're not getting my point.... my point is saying:

Zippy: Yes, but we are talking about whether non-acceptance implies dispute, not whether non-agreement implies disagreement.

Is akin to saying:

Zippy: Yes, but we are talking about whether an apple is red, not whether an apple is red.

If a dispute is a disagreement, you're talking about the same thing. Your rebuttal is nonsensical.

 

[zippy2006]

You're not getting my point.... my point is saying:

Zippy: Yes, but we are talking about whether non-acceptance implies dispute, not whether non-agreement implies disagreement.

Is akin to saying:

Zippy: Yes, but we are talking about whether an apple is red, not whether an apple is red.

If a dispute is a disagreement, you're talking about the same thing. Your rebuttal is nonsensical.

Okay, here's a challenge. If you think the fact that a dispute is a disagreement causes my two statements to be identical, then prove it. In any place in my statement where I use the word "dispute," feel free to substitute the word "disagreement," and in any place where I use the word "disagreement," feel free to substitute the word "dispute."

If you are telling the truth, then after your substitutions are completed we will have two identical statements, like, "Yes, but we are talking about whether an apple is red, not whether an apple is red." Show your work like so, with one substitution per line:

1. Yes, but we are talking about whether non-acceptance implies dispute, not whether non-agreement implies disagreement.
   
2. Yes, but we are talking about whether non-acceptance implies disagreement, not whether non-agreement implies disagreement.
   
3. Yes, but we are talking about whether non-acceptance implies disagreement, not whether non-agreement implies dispute.
   
4. etc.

If you are unable to substitute "dispute" and "disagreement" and arrive at identical statements, then it would seem that your logic is as bad as Todd's.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Okay, here's a challenge. If you think the fact that a dispute is a disagreement causes my two statements to be identical, then prove it. In any place in my statement where I use the word "dispute," feel free to substitute the word "disagreement," and in any place where I use the word "disagreement," feel free to substitute the word "dispute."

If you are telling the truth, then after your substitutions are completed we will have two identical statements, like, "Yes, but we are talking about whether an apple is red, not whether an apple is red." Show your work like so, with one substitution per line:

1. Yes, but we are talking about whether non-acceptance implies dispute, not whether non-agreement implies disagreement.
   
2. Yes, but we are talking about whether non-acceptance implies disagreement, not whether non-agreement implies disagreement.
   
3. Yes, but we are talking about whether non-acceptance implies disagreement, not whether non-agreement implies dispute.
   
4. etc.

If you are unable to substitute "dispute" and "disagreement" and arrive at identical statements, then it would seem that your logic is as bad as Todd's.

All of those statements mean the same thing. How do you not see that?

A dispute is a disagreement, it's in the definition of the word that I posted above.

 

[zippy2006]

All of those statements mean the same thing. How do you not see that?

If you are right then it will be easy to fulfill my challenge. So let's see it.

A dispute is a disagreement, it's in the definition of the word that I posted above.

Then feel free to substitute them for each other in my statement, as I noted.