And you're doing nothing to clarify yourself. It's like you're not even trying to communicate.
What is unclear about "Atheists don't claim that 'the universe alone is all that exists'"? Nothing. You thought you could draw a conclusion from that fact, but it was a non-sequitur.
That would make it a legal accusation for a court of law to determine.
Nope.
With no coherent order whatsoever.
They're in order. Thank you hyperlinks for verifying this!
You're posting quotes without context, nor nuance, and youcan't explain anything.
No quotes are without context. Thank you hyperlinks!
You can't really boil down your thesis for refutation. Again, you need to make some sense first.
Post 264 is boiled down nicely.
Then why did you misrepresent it?
lol I didn't misrepresent your argument. Look:
Your argument is not:
p1 The Big Bang
p2 The Big Bang
p3 The Big Bang
c God
When I tell you what your argument
is not, I cannot possibly be telling you it
is something that is inaccurate. Sheesh.
You didn't say "a premise", you didn't say "some premises". You said "the premises". If "the premises = The Big Bang" then this:
p1 The Big Bang
p2 The Big Bang
p3 The Big Bang
would be your argument.
Because that's how "the" works.
How about starting over again, but this time with specifics. Name the exact type of syllogism and/or logical form you assume I'm using, and why it's wrong.
How about you just prove "nor can there be" like you claimed? You refuse to prove the premise of your argument, so I guess you don't want to talk about your actual argument.
What is your point, really?
Just drawing attention to you talking about claims you imagined as if they were real. That's all.
As an atheist, I'm deferring to your concept of burden of proof. Not the one you think I claimed.
No, you're not. This is false.
My concept of the burden of proof is "Everyone proves all of the claims they make, positive or negative". I've told you this repeatedly, and you refuse because you insist on using
your concept which is "If you don't prove me wrong, then that is proof I'm right".
You haven't lifted a finger to disprove the existence of God, so we're obviously working from the atheist concept of burden of proof. In all fairness, that means I don't have to prove a negative claim.
I never made that claim, so I don't have that burden. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
The point where you're confused is that Stephen Law does not represent the atheist majority, who will generally never shoulder the burden of proof for negative claims. Much like you've been doing this whole time. You don't speak for the atheist majority either.
Well I don't know how you can claim the atheist majority says it's a rule when the
only atheist you've cited says it ain't. I say it ain't as well. So that's 2-0 against you.
But you're not willing to commit to any consistent rules to begin with. *shrug*
I would like both of us to prove all of our claims. But since you refuse, I'll go with Paulo's concept of the burden of proof.
That's pretty much how atheism works.
Nope. Just Paulo's concept of the burden of proof. We can start using mine, the general standard, just as soon as you prove "nor can there be".
You missed the part where your point was taken.
lol Your idea of agreeing with me is making up something else to argue about.
