God the middleman

[doubtingmerle]

No. That's a negative claim.

Wait, what? We have here:

The argument from negative claims
1. You claimed that negative claims should be accepted as truth with no evidence needed.
2. You admit that the claim that your posts have no validity is a negative claim.
3. Therefore, if what you say is valid, then your posts have no validity.

Can we now declare victory and go home?

 

[gaara4158]

Emphasis mine.

You do not understand that both traits are requisite for the universe to be an effect, and we have only demonstrated one of them. Before you respond to this, have another look at post 470:

Therefore to consider the universe an effect it must first be determined to have a cause, not the other way around. I repeat myself, so this will be my final response.

 

[Moral Orel]

No timestamps; no context. Show your work.

lol See that little blue arrow in the quote block? That's a hyperlink to the exact location where I quoted from, complete with time stamp and the quote you were referring to when you made your statement. I know you're new to this website and all, but I included all of the necessary information.

You really don't get it, and you're not even paying attention to my OP in the other thread.

Oh no, I get it.

You didn't say "why," and the thread history shows you didn't explain it either, so don't fib.

I don't need to, it's a negative claim so I don't have the burden of proof according to your purely subjective rule.

Again, you fail to explain why, and don't claim you did, because the thread history shows it.

I don't need to, it's a negative claim so I don't have the burden of proof according to your purely subjective rule.

This is my full statement with the part you skipped underlined, which clearly stated that I do follow the rule.

No, you follow your rule, not the standard. And your rule isn't applied consistently. You refuse to prove negative claims, and then you demand that I prove negative claims. All I'm asking for is a little intellectual consistency.

No. That's a negative claim. Note the "doesn't."

No. That's a negative claim. Note the "has no."

No. That's a negative claim. Note the "nobody."

No, it's a negative claim. Stop paying attention to Moral Orel's posts.

Which is a negative claim. No worries.

So this is where we are now. You made a whole thread about atheists refusing to prove negatives, and now you've got two atheists telling you that refusing to prove negatives is ridiculous while you refuse to prove negatives. This is officially a joke now.

 

[doubtingmerle]

This is officially a joke now.

Agreed.

 

[Moral Orel]

Agreed.

Ya know, every claim can be phrased as a negative claim. So instead of claiming, "All atheists are smarter than all apologists" we can say "No atheist is less than or equal to the intelligence level of any apologist" and poof! Negative claim I don't have to prove! Prove me wrong, apologists!

Oh wait, what if they prove me wrong? Oh, I know. "You did not prove me wrong" poof! Negative claim I don't have to prove!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Ya know, every claim can be phrased as a negative claim. So instead of claiming, "All atheists are smarter than all apologists" we can say "No atheist is less than or equal to the intelligence level of any apologist" and poof! Negative claim I don't have to prove! Prove me wrong, apologists!

Oh wait, what if they prove me wrong? Oh, I know. "You did not prove me wrong" poof! Negative claim I don't have to prove!

You're not not not not not not not not not not not wrong.

 

[Paulomycin]

So this is where we are now. You made a whole thread about atheists refusing to prove negatives, and now you've got two atheists telling you that refusing to prove negatives is ridiculous while you refuse to prove negatives. This is officially a joke now.

Bottom line:

1. There is no rule, and you can't prove any.
2. I generally accept burden of proof.
3. Therefore, you can't accuse me of anything, and for some reason you're mad about it.

 

[Paulomycin]

Wait, what? We have here:

The argument from negative claims
1. You claimed that negative claims should be accepted as truth with no evidence needed.
2. You admit that the claim that your posts have no validity is a negative claim.
3. Therefore, if what you say is valid, then your posts have no validity.

Can we now declare victory and go home?

Bottom line:

1. There is no rule, and you can't prove any.
2. I generally accept burden of proof.
3. Therefore, you can't accuse me of anything, and for some reason you're mad about it.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Uh, that would be in the observable universe. The universe that began with the big bang could go far beyond the observable universe and could be infinite.

It could but so far the evidence says that it is finite and that evidence is growing.

 

[Paulomycin]

Agreed.

Too bad you can't explain it.

Too bad you can't quote me directly.

Too bad you have nothing to really accuse me of.

 

[Paulomycin]

Ya know, every claim can be phrased as a negative claim.

Which was already stated in the OP of this thread, but you "already knew that," even though you're behaving as-if this were some new revelation.

Oh wait, what if they prove me wrong? Oh, I know. "You did not prove me wrong" poof! Negative claim I don't have to prove!

How long do we have to wait until you're done melting down?

 

[Ed1wolf]

You do not understand that both traits are requisite for the universe to be an effect, and we have only demonstrated one of them. Before you respond to this, have another look at post 470:

It has both traits of an effect.

 

[Moral Orel]

Bottom line:

1. There is no rule, and you can't prove any.
2. I generally accept burden of proof.
3. Therefore, you can't accuse me of anything, and for some reason you're mad about it.

Yeah, I can point out that you're inconsistent. Either you always accept the burden of proof (consistent) or you "generally" accept the burden of proof (inconsistent). If you aren't going to accept the burden of proof for every claim you make, you and I are just going to play Calvinball instead. Your choice.

Which was already stated in the OP of this thread, but you "already knew that," even though you're behaving as-if this were some new revelation.

Your thread wasn't a "new revelation". I posted that article years ago on here.

How long do we have to wait until you're done melting down?

Melting down? This is a laugh riot, buddy!

 

[Paulomycin]

Yeah, I can point out that you're inconsistent. Either you always accept the burden of proof (consistent) or you "generally" accept the burden of proof (inconsistent).

When have I ever not accepted the burden of proof for my own positive claims? Hint: I never have, and you can't quote me.

Your thread wasn't a "new revelation". I posted that article years ago on here.

Allegedly.

Melting down? This is a laugh riot, buddy!

It sure is, because you got nothing on me!

 

[Moral Orel]

When have I ever not accepted the burden of proof for my own positive claims? Hint: I never have, and you can't quote me.

Yeah, you've done that too. My thread is full of you doing that. Also, a while back I explained to you that you need to prove all of the premises of your arguments for them to be proven sound, and you refused. "B-but, there's no rule that sez I hafta!". Yes, there is, in the definition of a "sound argument".

It sure is, because you got nothing on me!

Just you complaining about atheists refusing to prove a negative and then you turning around and refusing to prove negative claims, so yeah, nothing at all

 

[Paulomycin]

Yeah, you've done that too. My thread is full of you doing that.

What, empty personal accusations?

Also, a while back I explained to you that you need to prove all of the premises of your arguments for them to be proven sound, and you refused. "B-but, there's no rule that sez I hafta!". Yes, there is, in the definition of a "sound argument".

Because Moral Orel said so. No external citations. Ad infinitum.

Just you complaining about atheists refusing to prove a negative and then you turning around and refusing to prove negative claims, so yeah, nothing at all

Quote me "complaining" about atheists refusing to prove a negative (& don't forget the timestamp). I only do it when they ask me to prove a negative.

 

[Moral Orel]

What, empty personal accusations?

Awww... Nothing personal, buddy!

Because Moral Orel said so. No external citations. Ad infinitum.

If you don't know the definition of a "sound argument" then you don't have any place making logical arguments. This is Logic 101 stuff, buddy.

Quote me "complaining" about atheists refusing to prove a negative (& don't forget the timestamp).

I already did.

I only do it when they ask me to prove a negative.

No atheists around here said you can't prove a negative. So why do you refuse to support your claims?

 

[doubtingmerle]

It could but so far the evidence says that it is finite and that evidence is growing.

What evidence do you have that the universe is finite?

Scientists tell us that our universe has no edge. There is no place where an observer could stand and see nothing but nothing in one direction, and nothing but universe in the other direction. Do you agree?

That basically leaves us with two options. 1) Either our universe is infinite, or 2) Our universe bends back on itself in a giant arc in all directions. If you had a telescope that could see far enough, and there were no obstructions, in whatever direction you looked through that telescope you would see the back of your head. It would be sorta like traveling around the equator, and ending up back where you started at.

As I understand it, the evidence for #2 is weak. First, there is not enough mass in the known universe to make light bend back on itself in a big arc. And second, all attempts to see the same galaxy when looking in opposite directions have failed.

It is possible that #2 is still true. There could be mass out there that we don't know about. It is possible that the arc of the universe is so big that our observations are not able to see the whole way around.

Or it is possible our universe it is infinite. We don't know.

If the arc of the universe is so big that there are galaxies out there that we cannot possibly see, then we have no idea how big that arc is, and how many galaxies might be in that unobservable reason. Even if the universe bends back on itself, the total universe out there may completely dwarf the minute portion we see.

So any attempt to argue anything based on the limited universe we see is incomplete. The universe that began with the Big Bang could be much bigger than what we can see.

All that deals only with the universe that began with the Big Bang. We have no way of telling if there were other Big Bangs, or other aspects of nature in a completely different spacetime from our nature.

We don't know.

 

[Paulomycin]

If you don't know the definition of a "sound argument" then you don't have any place making logical arguments. This is Logic 101 stuff, buddy.

The Burden of Refutation is on the one claiming an objectively unsound argument. Time to put up or shut up.

I already did.

No direct quote of me "complaining" about atheists refusing to prove a negative (& don't forget the timestamp). <-- U forgot those.

No atheists around here said you can't prove a negative. So why do you refuse to support your claims?

^ Note no specifics.

 

[Moral Orel]

The Burden of Refutation is on the one claiming an objectively unsound argument. Time to put up or shut up.

Yes, put up or shut up. Prove your claims.

No direct quote of me "complaining" about atheists refusing to prove a negative (& don't forget the timestamp). <-- U forgot those.

I already did. And timestamps are included in the hyperlink that accompanies every quote.

^ Note no specifics.

So you refuse for no reason. Got it.