Russell's Teapot

[Gods_Mercenary]

You know what I was aiming at, I am more likely to be male, but God is likely to not exist, but I could be female, could God exist? It remains to be seen.

I am arguing from ignorance, as we all are in this area. If you ask me a question and I am ignorant of the answer, the only answer I can rightfully give is, "I don't know"

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary You know what I was aiming at, I am more likely to be male, but God is likely to not exist, but I could be female, could God exist? It remains to be seen.

Claiming 'god' is more like claiming you're a magical third gender that's completely different from male or female... and claiming this magical gender is just as probable as male because there's no evidence specifically disproving a third gender (which there is: DNA).

[Kamehameha34]

The lack of evidence for god and the outlandish nature of the claim of god renders the claim false.

No. That renders the claim unknown. It's certainly ridiculous that you think your subjective view of what is "outlandish" holds water in logic.

I'll conceptualize it:

There's a box in front of you. The lid is too heavy to open. You have no evidence that anything is inside it.


Is the claim "there is something inside the box" false, or unknown?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I'll conceptualize it:

The ability to conceptualize and imagine gods & monsters does not evidence these musings are real or possible. It takes evidence.

[Zhavric]

Also...

Quote by: Kamehameha34 There's a box in front of you. The lid is too heavy to open. You have no evidence that anything is inside it. Is the claim "there is something inside the box" false, or unknown?

... "something" is conveniently amorphous enough to be true, false or unknown.

"The interior of the box" = true.
"Something small enough to fit into the box" = unknown.
"God is inside the box" = false because god isn't real.

Honestly, it's a horrible analogy to "is there a god somewhere?" We have an entire thread about hypothetical nonsensical explanations for natural occurances, do we not? In the misc. section? Of all those explanations, can you tell me which ones are unknown or true?

The ones with evidence proving them possible or proving them true.

All the rest, like god, are false.

[Kamehameha34]

&

Clearly, this has no point. It's almost as if there was supposed to be text around it. Oh well, everything I don't quote is inconsequential. Cookie cutting context is fun.

... "something" is conveniently amorphous enough to be true, false or unknown.

And the only way you're defining god as "not amorphous enough to be true" is through subjective drivel about "outlandishness" - because you can't do so objectively.

Claims are unknown in the absence of evidence. That's a basic fundament of logic.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Clearly, this has no point. It's almost as if there was supposed to be text around it. Oh well, everything I don't quote is inconsequential. Cookie cutting context is fun.

I'm trying to think of a more impotent or inapropriate rebuttal. Short of ad homs I've got nothing.

And the only way you're defining god as "not amorphous enough to be true" is through subjective drivel about "outlandishness" - because you can't do so objectively.

You have that backwards. As a fundamentalist agnostic, it is you who have defined god as being amorphous enough to slip out of any logical issue. As an atheist, god has one universal constant: no supporting evidence.

Claims are unknown in the absence of evidence. That's a basic fundament of logic.

Evidence can readily be ignored. That's a basic of fundamentalist agnosticism.

[pikatore]

Claims may be technically unknown in the absence of evidence, but are assumed to be false until they are proven.

[Kamehameha34]

I'm trying to think of a more impotent or inapropriate rebuttal. Short of ad homs I've got nothing.

Great, so we agree this kind of thing is 'impotent and inappropriate'.

You have that backwards. As a fundamentalist agnostic, it is you who have defined god as being amorphous enough to slip out of any logical issue. As an atheist, god has one universal constant: no supporting evidence.

I define 'god' the same as the dictionary. The fact that it's a concept you can't disprove doesn't mean there's an agnostic conspiracy to redefine the term.

Stop debating against the word. If you're going to talk about some ultra-specific god, then you're redefining the word.

Also, you completely missed the point. You said that "something" is amorphous enough to be true, while "god" isn't. Unless you can prove that objectively, you're officially pulling it out of your ass.

Evidence can readily be ignored. That's a basic of fundamentalist agnosticism.

Agnostics ignore no evidence - theists and atheists alike fail to provide it.

Your "energy can't be created" BS has been challenged and refuted. You have failed in your hunt for evidence.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore Claims may be technically unknown in the absence of evidence, but are assumed to be false until they are proven.

Oh, so they're technically unknown, but we're just going to call it false, eh?

Ad Ignorantiam

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Oh, so they're technically unknown, but we're just going to call it false, eh? Ad Ignorantiam

Yes. Much like it is technically unknown that unicorns exist or not. But I'm not a unicorn agnostic, am i?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Great, so we agree this kind of thing is 'impotent and inappropriate'.

I do not see where you have refuted the linked statement. Your ability to imagine things can only evidence that which exists ONLY in your mind, Kame.

Your "energy can't be created" BS has been challenged and refuted. You have failed in your hunt for evidence.

I get a chuckle when I read something like this.

You have never refuted a single argument I've made because every rebuttal you've ever offered is a straw man where you (not so) subtely change the context of my claims.

"Matter and energy cannot appear spontaneously. We know this because of X."

"Well, god doesn't NEED to create matter and energy! Neener!"

You know what I've stated is true so you just conjure a different skyhook to support your faith-based assertion that god is possible.

Again, your ability to conceptualize a thing does not evidence that thing as real or possible.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric I do not see where you have refuted the linked statement. Your ability to imagine things can only evidence that which exists ONLY in your mind, Kame.

You completely missed the point of the analogy.

You have never refuted a single argument I've made because every rebuttal you've ever offered is a straw man where you (not so) subtely change the context of my claims.

Incorrect. You're the one manipulating the definition of "god" to suit your purposes to disprove it. You're the one changing the context.

You're done. You're clearly not talking about the same god everyone else is, because you're adding the unnecessary clause "that has to have created the energy and matter in the universe".

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore Yes. Much like it is technically unknown that unicorns exist or not. But I'm not a unicorn agnostic, am i?

Ah, another fallacy.

Appeal to ridicule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway, unicorns would introduce an unnecessary variable. A "god" would not, given infinite regression.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You're done. You're clearly not talking about the same god everyone else is, because you're adding the unnecessary clause "that has to have created the energy and matter in the universe".

That clause is unneccesary, but even if it is taken into account, russell's teapot analogy still stands to be the same.

[Kamehameha34]

That the claim doesn't default to true because there's no evidence against it. No one here is disputing that.

All claims are unknown in the presence of no evidence.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You're the one manipulating the definition of "god" to suit your purposes to disprove it. You're the one changing the context.

Not at all. I have maintained the same stance through all your ever-changing fundamentalist agnostic claims: god is unevidenced.

All claims are unknown in the presence of no evidence.

All claims seem to lack evidence when dealing with a fundamentalist agnostic. Russell's teapot isn't "unknown" Kame. It's false. Claiming it's real requires evidence that simply doesn't exist and the claim is too ridiculous to be possible.

Finally, if you're going to accuse others of using fallacies you'd do well to learn how they function and when they're appropriate. From your own link:

If Einstein's theory of relativity is right, that would mean that when I drive my car it gets shorter and heavier the faster I go. That's crazy!

Cars don't get shorter and heavier as they go faster. Thus, it's a fallacy.

If the theory of evolution were true, that would mean that your grandfather was a gorilla!

No one has a Gorilla for a grandfather. Thus, it's a fallacy.

Much like it is technically unknown that unicorns exist or not.

There is no evidence supporting the existence of unicorns and considerable evidence they're fictional. Thus, it's NOT an appeal to ridicule.

The appeal to ridicule is meant to safeguard arguments from absurdist straw men. It's not there for your impotent arguments to hide behind.

[Kamehameha34]

Not at all. I have maintained the same stance through all your ever-changing fundamentalist agnostic claims: god is unevidenced.

You're claiming that I'm proposing there's evidence behind a "god"..?

I don't think you fully understand agnosticism.

the claim is too ridiculous to be possible.

This pretty much sums up your entire argument.

Appeal to ridicule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you're not going to acknowledge this as a fallacy as the rest of us do, then we're not going to get very far.

There is no evidence supporting the existence of unicorns and considerable evidence they're fictional.

I'm still waiting for the evidence against a universal creator.

[RickSp]

I think we should develop the definition of another fallacy - a special case form of the "appeal to authority" - the "appeal to Wikipedia", being the relentless citing of fallacies on an open source encyclopedia, particularly when the referencer has only a limited understanding of the fallacies cited therein.

The "appeal to testosterone" has some possibilities as well, in the form of "my fallacy is bigger than your fallacy."

Probably wouldn't catch on.

[Kamehameha34]

This message is hidden because RickSp is on your ignore list.

I could probably point out how it is undoubtedly more style-over-substance trash, or go through how it's probably inundated with personal attacks, but I get more substance from the one sentence I quoted than I've ever gotten from your posts.

All of the rational atheists left this discussion. I'm going to go find them.