What Convinced you God Exists?

[Moral Orel]

Then atheists are TOTALLY fine with supernaturalism.

Sure. Just demonstrate some supernature and we'll believe in that.

You didn't say who would determine the truth of it.

Because it doesn't matter. If the truth is he's a spousal abuser, it doesn't matter if it makes it to court or not.

I clearly stated, "No coherent order."

Chronological isn't coherent?

Boils down to a bunch of empty accusations and "nuh-uhs." You're not even continuing the discussion atm.

Nope. All your gainsaying and nuh-uhs can't beat post 264.

Q1. What's the name of that format? Answer: You'll evade the question.

Loaded Question Fallacy. It doesn't have a name because it isn't a valid argument.

Q2. How do you know you're even representing my argument? Answer: You'll evade the question.

Loaded Question Fallacy. I'm not representing your argument.

That's your interpretation of the premises. I never framed it that way.

I know you never framed it that way and I keep telling you that. It's because you never framed it that way that your statement "the premises = The Big Bang" is false. Try to keep up. Sheesh.

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.

Because you're not the only atheist that exists, you know.

You refuse to prove your claims because I'm not the only atheist? You never run out of excuses do you.

I actually had to look that one up: Burden Of Proof - Definition & Examples | LF (logicalfallacies.org)

^ Looks like a rule to me. Now I'm literally second-guessing my Stephen Law thread. <-- Yeah, I said it. I will have to reassess, since I honestly don't know which atheist to believe anymore.

Which atheist is correct, Orel?

@Amoranemix , Stephen Law, that link, and I all agree. Everyone is responsible for proving the claims that they make whether they are positive or negative. Where in the world do you see contention between any of us?

 

[Paulomycin]

You're still failing to explain your litany of quotes. You claim you see something awful there, but can't explain it at all. You're just desperately hoping a random accusation will eventually stick.

Red Herring. We aren't talking about formal notation.

You put it in way more formal "P1" notation than I did. It was entirely your format.

We're talking about whether or not "The premises = The Big Bang".

According to what syllogistic structure? Is it a rule of inference? If so, then which rule? Is it a rule of replacement? If so, then which one? Which modal form (if even modal)? C'mon, you're pretending to be the teacher here, so teach me.

"Nor can there be" is a premise of your argument. That is what you need to prove or you have not given reason to believe your argument is sound.

Which is the accusation of a false dilemma. One thing I do know is that if false dilemma/trilemma is accused, then it's on the accuser to provide the alternative options. I don't have to do your dirty work.

 

[Paulomycin]

Yes, many are. Atheism has to do with the position on gods not the supernatural.

- wat

Atheists take their position on god(s) because there is no naturalistic evidence of the supernatural.

 

[Moral Orel]

You're still failing to explain your litany of quotes. You claim you see something awful there, but can't explain it at all. You're just desperately hoping a random accusation will eventually stick.

Not random, sorrynotsorry you lost.

You put it in way more formal "P1" notation than I did. It was entirely your format.

Still with the red herring.

According to what syllogistic structure? Is it a rule of inference? If so, then which rule? Is it a rule of replacement? If so, then which one? Which modal form (if even modal)? C'mon, you're pretending to be the teacher here, so teach me.

Still with the red herring.

Which is the accusation of a false dilemma. One thing I do know is that if false dilemma/trilemma is accused, then it's on the accuser to provide the alternative options. I don't have to do your dirty work.

Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy. I only claimed that you haven't attempted to prove soundness, which you refuse to do. I did not claim that it was in fact unsound.

So will you prove the soundness of your argument by proving your premise is true, or will you continue to refuse to prove the soundness of your argument?

 

[Paulomycin]

Sure. Just demonstrate some supernature and we'll believe in that.

So you don't believe in supernaturalism.

Because it doesn't matter. If the truth is he's a spousal abuser, it doesn't matter if it makes it to court or not.

You're an atheist. You have no objective knowledge of truth. That's why you depend on courts in society to determine guilt.

Chronological isn't coherent?

It can be in perfect chronological order, still contain mistaken assumptions, and have no coherent explanation.

Nope. All your gainsaying and nuh-uhs can't beat post 264.

So the magic word is "post 264," and that's what drives the leprechauns away.

Loaded Question Fallacy. It doesn't have a name because it isn't a valid argument.

You seemed to recognize it well-enough to format it for me.

Loaded Question Fallacy. I'm not representing your argument.

Thank you for that ^ admission. Now I have something to actually work with.

You refuse to prove your claims because I'm not the only atheist? You never run out of excuses do you.

Which claim. You know, half your problem is you lack specifics.

@Amoranemix , Stephen Law, that link, and I all agree. Everyone is responsible for proving the claims that they make whether they are positive or negative. Where in the world do you see contention between any of us?

Then you had nothing to whine about to begin with. lol. Why try to start contention where it never existed in the first place? I was only using more specific terminology for the same content. You just wanna pick petty fights.

BTW, Stephen Law does not agree. You Can Prove a Negative | Psychology Today

 

[Moral Orel]

So the magic word is "post 264," and that's what drives the leprechauns away.

It perfectly demonstrates your wrongness without me having to type it all out and track down quotes over and over. Anyone who wants to witness how ridiculous your argumentation is can simply reference back to that.

Which claim. You know, half your problem is you lack specifics.

You just responded to me reminding you of your unsupported claim within 20 minutes of posting this. Try to keep up.

@Amoranemix , Stephen Law, that link, and I all agree. Everyone is responsible for proving the claims that they make whether they are positive or negative. Where in the world do you see contention between any of us?

Then you had nothing to whine about to begin with. lol. Why try to start contention where it never existed in the first place? I was only using more specific terminology for the same content. You just wanna pick petty fights.

BTW, Stephen Law does not agree. You Can Prove a Negative | Psychology Today

What in the world? He agrees with what I just said. You refuse to prove your claims, that's the issue.

 

[Paulomycin]

It perfectly demonstrates your wrongness without me having to type it all out and track down quotes over and over.

Like. . .magic.

Anyone who wants to witness how ridiculous your argumentation is can simply reference back to that.

And I dare them to coherently explain it. You obviously can't. Maybe you're hoping a buddy will come in and rescue you.

You just responded to me reminding you of your unsupported claim within 20 minutes of posting this. Try to keep up.

I make a lot of claims to a lot of people all the time. Again, which one?

What in the world? He agrees with what I just said. You refuse to prove your claims, that's the issue.

Only direct quotes from the author, please. You can't even prove you actually read the article.

 

[Paulomycin]

Wrong. "Nor can there be" is a negative claim in my words.

That's great. Now try to be consistent with it.

My claim about the existence of god(s) is the following: "". Which is not a claim.

The "not" still makes it negative. The statement, "I have not made a claim," is still a negative claim that you have not made a claim.

^ He doesn't know what a "sound" argument is. How precious.

Then teach me. Oh wait, you refused.

 

[Moral Orel]

That's great. Now try to be consistent with it.

When was I inconsistent? Quote me stating that "nor can there be" is not a claim.

The "not" still makes it negative. The statement, "I have not made a claim," is still a negative claim that you have not made a claim.

Correct. Even a broken clock, eh? So I made a negative claim about what I have claimed. So what? I did not make a claim about god(s).

Then teach me. Oh wait, you refused.

If you don't know what soundness is then all of this is going to just fly right over your head. And you know what? I like it that way. So look it up if you want to know how to actually demonstrate something is true, or carry on making this low hanging fruit for me.

 

[Moral Orel]

My claim about the existence of god(s) is the following: "". Which is not a claim.

So, yeah. You did.

My claim about the existence of god(s) is only what is within the quotation marks. Is there anything in between those quotation marks?

 

[Paulomycin]

Nope. I'm showing you the absence of a claim.

Proper English, please.

Good, we agree. So prove that your premises are true or you have not proven that your argument is sound. Will you prove that your premises are true or will you continue to refuse to prove that your premises are true?

See, that's where you miss the point. The argument depends entirely on whether you accept Big Bang cosmology or not. I'm perfectly fine with atheists being anti-science.

 

[Moral Orel]

See, that's where you miss the point. The argument depends entirely on whether you accept Big Bang cosmology or not. I'm perfectly fine with atheists being anti-science.

It does not. Your argument attempts to prove the explanation for the Big Bang. The Big Bang merely describes the universe expanding from a central point. You want to prove why. You claim it must have been intent, or chance, or an infinite regress of causes. Prove that is true. And don't say "Well you haven't shown any other possibilities!" <--- That's shifting the burden of proof. You need to prove your premises all on your own. Burden of refutation kicks in after you've done that and I dispute your evidence. Do you have any?

 

[Paulomycin]

It does not. Your argument attempts to prove the explanation for the Big Bang.

Which depends entirely on whether you believe the Big Bang is true.

The Big Bang merely describes the universe expanding from a central point. You want to prove why. You claim it must have been intent, or chance, or an infinite regress of causes. Prove that is true.

In elimination, I don't have to prove all three options. I'm deductively eliminating down to just one option.

And don't say "Well you haven't shown any other possibilities!" <--- That's shifting the burden of proof.

To prove "other possibilities," would make them probable; not merely possible.

Burden of refutation kicks in after you've done that and I dispute your evidence. Do you have any?

You're already attempting burden of refutation by strawmanning me with your imaginary logic format. One thing I do know, is there is no rule that states I have to prove every possibility. You have no evidence of such a rule either. If I did have to prove every-single-possiblity, then they'd all be true all at the same time! You're literally saying my proof has failed if all possibilities are not proven true. <-- And if you say, "nope," you are obligated to explain why.

 

[Moral Orel]

In elimination, I don't have to prove all three options. I'm deductively eliminating down to just one option.

You have to prove that it must be one of them.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

- wat

Atheists take their position on god(s) because there is no naturalistic evidence of the supernatural.

I don’t believe gods exist because there is no good evidence they exist. There are atheists that believe in ghosts, psychics and other supernatural phenomena. The supernatural can exist without there being gods.

 

[Paulomycin]

I don’t believe gods exist because there is no good evidence they exist.

"good" evidence means evidence that conforms to your will about what does and does not qualify as "good."

There are atheists that believe in ghosts, psychics and other supernatural phenomena. The supernatural can exist without there being gods.

Why the double-standard?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

"good" evidence means evidence that conforms to your will about what does and does not qualify as "good."

we have been over this. No need to go over it again, we don’t agree.

Why the double-standard?

Ask an atheist that believes the supernatural exists. That is not me.

 

[Paulomycin]

we have been over this. No need to go over it again, we don’t agree.

Sorry. I completely forgot. All atheists look alike to me.

Ask an atheist that believes the supernatural exists. That is not me.

Do they even post here at all? It's "pants on head" crazy.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Sorry. I completely forgot. All atheists look alike to me.

this may be one of your problems. Listen to what a particular atheists believes instead of assuming what they believe. We all believe different things just like theists.

Do they even post here at all? It's "pants on head" crazy.

belief in the supernatural does not make you mentally ill whether it is ghosts or gods.

 

[Bradskii]

this may be one of your problems. Listen to what a particular atheists believes instead of assuming what they believe. We all believe different things just like theists.

belief in the supernatural does not make you mentally ill whether it is ghosts or gods.

Takes all sorts...

"Unbelief in God doesn’t necessarily entail unbelief in other supernatural phenomena,' write the report's authors.

'Atheists and (less so) agnostics exhibit lower levels of supernatural belief than do the wider populations. However, only minorities of atheists or agnostics in each of our countries appear to be thoroughgoing naturalists.' " Most atheists and agnostics BELIEVE in the supernatural and ‘underlying forces of good and evil' | Daily Mail Online

If in doubt, ask.