God the middleman

[Paulomycin]

He only claimed it's possible. He didn't claim it's true. You didn't ask him to support his claim.

If he's not going to support it, then he's not even committed to the mere possibility! You can't sit on the fence of a mere possibility. Nor can you defend a mere possibility as-if it were probable.

Just like you said in the thread you started, there's nothing wrong with proving a negative, so get to it.

Oh, well then fair is fair. If you do believe that you can prove a negative, then what proof or evidence do you have that God does not exist?

"B-but I never said. . .!!!"

The title of the thread clearly reads, "I accept the Burden of Proof, but only because I choose to."

And I continue to choose to, until any atheist outright admits that you can prove a negative.

Which you haven't.

 

[Paulomycin]

How many fingers am I holding up as I click "Post Reply"?

I already answered this: My indeterminate "I don't know" is not a conclusive substitute for the truth of the actual number of fingers you're holding up.

Stop skipping my replies. Getting tired of repeating myself.

 

[Moral Orel]

If he's not going to support it

Then demand he supports his claim that it's possible.

Oh, well then fair is fair. If you do believe that you can prove a negative, then what proof or evidence do you have that God does not exist?

"B-but I never said. . .!!!"

There's that fantasy world of yours again. Everyone is responsible for proving the claims they make, not the claims you dream of them making.

The title of the thread clearly reads, "I accept the Burden of Proof, but only because I choose to."

And I continue to choose to, until any atheist outright admits that you can prove a negative.

Except you don't accept it, you refused it.

Which you haven't.

You can prove a negative. In fact, the first person to post that article from Mr. Law wasn't even you. I beat you to it years ago.

 

[Moral Orel]

I already answered this: My indeterminate "I don't know" is not a conclusive substitute for the truth of the actual number of fingers you're holding up.

His isn't making a conclusion either. Sometimes "I don't know" is as far as you can go at the moment until you get further information.

Stop skipping my replies.

I didn't. I replied to your response to my query the first time too.

Getting tired of repeating myself.

Then stop repeating the same basic errors.

 

[Paulomycin]

Then demand he supports his claim that it's possible.

I don't have to formally "demand" anything. Either it's supported or not. If he's too lazy to do the work of supporting it, then that's on him. It remains unsupported, and I'm fine with that.

There's that fantasy world of yours again. Everyone is responsible for proving the claims they make, not the claims you dream of them making.

Oh, well then fair is fair. If you do believe that you can prove a negative, then what proof or evidence do you have that God does not exist?

Except you don't accept it, you refused it.

I'm flexible.

You can prove a negative. In fact, the first person to post that article from Mr. Law wasn't even you. I beat you to it years ago.

Awesome. So what proof or evidence do you have that God does not exist? Wow, I can't believe I'm even asking this.

 

[Paulomycin]

His isn't making a conclusion either. Sometimes "I don't know" is as far as you can go at the moment until you get further information.

And you're perfectly content with maintaining that same level of ignorance indefinitely.

I didn't. I replied to your response to my query the first time too.

That doesn't mean you comprehend my explanation. If you did, then you wouldn't have repeated yourself.

Then stop repeating the same basic errors.

You never demonstrated any objective errors. You're an avowed subjectivist, remember? Nothing you claim necessarily applies to anyone else outside of yourself alone. Sucks, huh?

 

[Lion IRC]

If/since medical science claims to have a watertight method of empirically determining that a person is dead, then it (medical science) can prove a negative.

Paulomycin: Albert Einstein is alive.
Verificationism: No he isnt.
Paulomycin : Yes he is. Prove me wrong.
Verificationism : Thats not fair...you can't prove a negative.

 

[Paulomycin]

If/since medical science claims to have a watertight method of empirically determining that a person is dead, then it (medical science) can prove a negative.

Excellent point. I hadn't thought of that.

 

[Moral Orel]

Awesome. So what proof or evidence do you have that God does not exist? Wow, I can't believe I'm even asking this.

Why do you ask?

And you're perfectly content with maintaining that same level of ignorance indefinitely.

It's better than claiming knowledge when I don't really know. Sometimes "I don't know" is the only statement I can make that I know is true. You're okay with making false statements.

That doesn't mean you comprehend my explanation. If you did, then you wouldn't have repeated yourself.

Your explanation and reasoning is bad, that's why I have to repeat myself.

You never demonstrated any objective errors. You're an avowed subjectivist, remember? Nothing you claim necessarily applies to anyone else outside of yourself alone. Sucks, huh?

I did. And I'm a moral subjectivist, that doesn't mean there are no facts.

 

[Moral Orel]

If/since medical science claims to have a watertight method of empirically determining that a person is dead, then it (medical science) can prove a negative.

Paulomycin: Albert Einstein is alive.
Verificationism: No he isnt.
Paulomycin : Yes he is. Prove me wrong.
Verificationism : Thats not fair...you can't prove a negative.

No one here is claiming you can't prove a negative. What is the purpose of this post?

 

[Paulomycin]

Why do you ask?

Wow. You really aren't paying attention after all.

It's better than claiming knowledge when I don't really know. Sometimes "I don't know" is the only statement I can make that I know is true. You're okay with making false statements.

"I don't know," is not a conclusive knowledge claim. But you just wanna stay put. You don't want to take it any further.

Your explanation and reasoning is bad, that's why I have to repeat myself.

You didn't explain why it was "bad."

I did. And I'm a moral subjectivist, that doesn't mean there are no facts.

I think we've isolated your cognitive dissonance here. Facts are objective; not subjective. If you claim facts exist, then you're not a subjectivist. However, if you insist on your (sketchy) subjectivism, then there are no true facts. No double-standards.

 

[Paulomycin]

No one here is claiming you can't prove a negative. What is the purpose of this post?

You're flip-flopping, actually. If you can prove a negative, then the one making the positive claim doesn't necessarily carry the burden of proof. You're not really thinking about how this works.

 

[Lion IRC]

You're flip-flopping, actually. If you can prove a negative, then the one making the positive claim doesn't necessarily carry the burden of proof. You're not really thinking about how this works.

Right.
Its pretty simple.
God - yes?
God - no?
God - maybe?

Atheists either believe (on faith) that God doesn't exist, or they are certain.
If atheism is a belief, welcome to the club called religion.
If its not a faith-based position then presumably they have evidence.

 

[Moral Orel]

Wow. You really aren't paying attention after all.

I am. I said that you can prove a negative claim, and you asked me to prove that there is no God. Why does that question follow from my statement? So you agree that it's possible to prove a negative. What proof do you have that my hair isn't grey?

"I don't know," is not a conclusive knowledge claim. But you just wanna stay put. You don't want to take it any further.

It actually is a conclusive knowledge claim about the contents of my knowledge. You just want to make statements that you don't really know whether they are true or false.

You didn't explain why it was "bad."

I did.

I think we've isolated your cognitive dissonance here. Facts are objective; not subjective. If you claim facts exist, then you're not a subjectivist. However, if you insist on your (sketchy) subjectivism, then there are no true facts. No double-standards.

Yes, facts are objective. Not everything is objective fact.

You're flip-flopping, actually. If you can prove a negative, then the one making the positive claim doesn't necessarily carry the burden of proof. You're not really thinking about how this works.

No. If I make a negative claim, and you make the positive counter claim, then we both have the burden of proof for our respective claims.

 

[Moral Orel]

If atheism is a belief

Atheism isn't a belief.

 

[Paulomycin]

I am. I said that you can prove a negative claim,

I can, but I don't want to, because I'm siding with the general majority of pop-atheists who claim you can't prove a negative. I grew up watching the Amazing Randi. I'm charitably deferring to people like him. There's no point in arguing who goes first. Besides, I wouldn't trust an atheist with burden of proof anyway. So here we are.

. . .and you asked me to prove that there is no God. Why does that question follow from my statement?

If you really believe that you can prove a negative, then you can prove atheism.

It actually is a conclusive knowledge claim about the contents of my knowledge.

Which is subjective (a.) and subject to change (b.). It's never an objective and final conclusion of truth.

Yes, facts are objective. Not everything is objective fact.

Then you're not a "100% dyed-in-the-wool" subjectivist.

No. If I make a negative claim, and you make the positive counter claim, then we both have the burden of proof for our respective claims.

LMAO, suddenly it's both!

 

[Lion IRC]

Atheism isn't a belief.

OK
Let's use a different word.
'schmatheism' - the belief that no God(s) exist(s).
'schmatheism' - a wishful thinking idea invented by folks who hope there's no God.
'schmatheism' - the religion which created the god it wishes were true - weak, impotent, invisible, unintrusive, ambivalent...

 

[Paulomycin]

Atheism isn't a belief.

Pick a lane, buddy!

 

[Moral Orel]

If you really believe that you can prove a negative, then you can prove atheism.

If you really believe that you can prove a negative, then you can prove my hair isn't grey.

Which is subjective (a.) and subject to change (b.). It's never an objective and final conclusion of truth.

It isn't a, it is b, and so what?

Then you're not a "100% dyed-in-the-wool" subjectivist.

I'm a moral subjectivist.

LMAO, suddenly it's both!

When was it ever not both?

 

[Moral Orel]

OK
Let's use a different word.
'schmatheism' - the belief that no God(s) exist(s).
'schmatheism' - a wishful thinking idea invented by folks who hope there's no God.
'schmatheism' - the religion which created the god it wishes were true - weak, impotent, invisible, unintrusive, ambivalent...

Okay, I'll leave you to your daydreaming.