Russell's Teapot

[RickSp]

LOL. He has me on his ignore list yet still feels free to insult me. Nothing like a self important 14 year old.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 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.

Rick, I guess Kame got tired of you destroying his arguments.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Zhavric Rick, I guess Kame got tired of you destroying his arguments.

He keeps me chuckling.

[Kamehameha34]

I'd like to congratulate you on the last word. After all, the last word means you're right. :rolleyes:

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I'd like to congratulate you on the last word. After all, the last word means you're right. :rolleyes:

Stop posting on this thread, Kame. You are destroying it, and making my search for knowledge that little more difficult. Go be a smartarse in a thread where people don't mind it please.

[LetThereBe]

Personally, I do not see why this thread is still alive.

We all agree that the burden of proof lies with he who asserts...

That is all Russell's analogy is applicable to.

[pikatore]

Quote by: LetThereBe Personally, I do not see why this thread is still alive. We all agree that the burden of proof lies with he who asserts... That is all Russell's analogy is applicable to.

Well, it being 'all' its applicable to includes the assertion that a god exists. I needed to run that by all the theists here.

I take an assertion that a god exists exactly the same as one saying a teapot in space exists: I assume it to be false until there is evidence to prove otherwise.

That is also the basis of weak atheism, i might add

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: pikatore I take an assertion that a god exists exactly the same as one saying a teapot in space exists: I assume it to be false until there is evidence to prove otherwise.

Has anyone disagreed with this view?

[pikatore]

Quote by: LetThereBe Has anyone disagreed with this view?

Kame did

[Jagged]

I think Zav. made a good point many seemed to miss awhile back. Disregarding the "adding another variable" bit, one because the unicorn doesnt have to introduce a variable, and two because everybody disagrees on the usage of Occhams Razor, there IS evidence that unicorns are fictional. I just made the concept up.

I mean, according to the dictionary, fabricating something is the same as saying an untruthful statement.

[Compugasm]

What kind of tea does the teapot like?

[Jack]

Ganja tea. Why else do we call it a t-pot?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Jagged I think Zav. made a good point many seemed to miss awhile back. Disregarding the "adding another variable" bit, one because the unicorn doesnt have to introduce a variable..

It does. We know that "nothing" could exist in the place of your unicorns, which means your unicorns are proven to be a possibility, but an unnecessary one.

I won't accept any statements as "necessary" or "unnecessary" until you list all of the causes preceding the creation of our universe, and show that "god" isn't a possibility.

Or you could prove to me that a "being with the power and intent to make matter and energy into a collection suitable to be called universe" could not exist.

Do that, and then your calling the god claim "false" will be logical.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: LetThereBe Has anyone disagreed with this view?

I did, because it's foolish to assume that something is false if you don't have evidence to prove it false.

If you make a claim, in order to call it false, you have to find a counterexample to the claim. So to disprove X, you have to prove ~X. The fact that there is no evidence for X does not mean that it's logically sound to call it false. Claims are unknown with a lack of evidence to prove confirming or contradicting claims.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I did, because it's foolish to assume that something is false if you don't have evidence to prove it false.

That is a candidate for the idiotic post thread I believe.

It is a logically sound method to assume a new claim false until proven true. It's one of the main logical mechanisms that has helped humankind progress. How on earth could you say something like that???

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 It does. We know that "nothing" could exist in the place of your unicorns, which means your unicorns are proven to be a possibility, but an unnecessary one.

'Nothing' existing in the place of a unicorn is as plausible as 'nothing' in the place of a god, seeing that a god is an unneccessary possibility as well. Correct?

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I won't accept any statements as "necessary" or "unnecessary" until you list all of the causes preceding the creation of our universe, and show that "god" isn't a possibility.

Of course a god is a possibility! But being possible doesn't mean it is neccessary. You are getting tangled in your own strings, methinks.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Or you could prove to me that a "being with the power and intent to make matter and energy into a collection suitable to be called universe" could not exist.

Even though I can't do that, I don't need to do that to reject the claim that a god exists. You might as well ask me to prove to you that unicorns could not exist, which I can't do anyway. It's both unnessecary, as well as impossible.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Do that, and then your calling the god claim "false" will be logical.

No, we can skip all that rubbish you are going on about and follow sound logical producures, the one most relevant being, a positive claim is assumed to be false until it is proven otherwise. You seem to have a hard time swallowing that.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I did, because it's foolish to assume that something is false if you don't have evidence to prove it false. If you make a claim, in order to call it false, you have to find a counterexample to the claim. So to disprove X, you have to prove ~X. The fact that there is no evidence for X does not mean that it's logically sound to call it false. Claims are unknown with a lack of evidence to prove confirming or contradicting claims.

Doesn't this guy ever get tired of repeating the same obvious fallacy?

I guess not.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I did, because it's foolish to assume that something is false if you don't have evidence to prove it false.

If you have no supporting evidence the proper course is to disbelieve. If by "assume that something is false" you mean "rule out the possibility" then you are absolultely correct. You must always remain open to more data.

When we say assume that something is false we simply mean that the default action is skepticism with such claims.

It could very well be true. We are not making statements regarding that.

[Kamehameha34]

When we say assume that something is false we simply mean that the default action is skepticism with such claims.

If you view something as true or false with an absence of evidence, then you're being biased. The only proper way to regard the claim is as "unknown". That's not taking anything on faith. I'm assuming that you're usage of "skeptical" is interchangeable with my usage of "unknown", so we're on the same page, semantics aside.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 If you view something as true or false with an absence of evidence, then you're being biased.

Big deal. I'm biased in my views on whether or not unicorns exist, because there is no evidence to support either way. Bias doesn't have to twist truth or logic to be bias.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 The only proper way to regard the claim is as "unknown". That's not taking anything on faith. I'm assuming that you're usage of "skeptical" is interchangeable with my usage of "unknown", so we're on the same page, semantics aside.

We may well be, but there a difference between affirming what you know or dont know, and then taking another step, and using logic to make assumptions based on the information that reality gives you.

I know that i dont know for sure whether or not a god exists, which is something ive been telling you for countless posts, and which is where you stop in your thinking. Therefore, you aren't really even agnostic. You are just undecided on what to think, because you haven't used either logic nor faith to come to a final conclusion. You are just saying something that everyone else should honestly agree with, which is, we don't know for sure whether or not a god exists, and its unknown. But, you become an agnostic when you say that NOONE on this planet CAN know for sure.

i go further and apply a logical principle to the claim that a god exists, and come to the conclusion that until there is proof for a god, I will assume the claim to be false, and therefore lack belief in gods of any sort.