Burden Of Proof

[Fangrim]

Quote by: rez Why am I reading this, yet see a whole page of the same stupid argument with Zharvic, Kamehameha34, and Fangrim involved.

Because Zhavric refuses to aknowledge a number of things:

1) An atheist is one who lacks a belief in God. This position can then be "strengthened" in the form of strong/hard atheism. A strong atheist believes that God does not exist, and affirms that non-existence.

2) "God does not exist" is a claim, just as "God exists" is a claim.

3) The proponents of either of these claims have their respective burdens of proof, and failing to meet that burden does not constitute fulfillment of the other sides' burden.

[Jack]

Quote by: Zhavric If by "we" you mean theists and some agnostics, then I'd agree.

Yes, I meant "we" as in most humans who behave that way.

Quote by: Fangrim I don't understand why Isherwood does not see that it clearly is a claim to say that God does not exist, just as God does exist is a claim. They're equal in "logical strength" and construction.

If someone says "god does not exist" because they are insufficiently convinced by the theist's arguments that god does exist, then I have no issue with it and the burden of proof resides with the theists who proposed the notion in the first place.

If someone were to maintain that "god(s) cannot exist", then they are claiming knowledge that would require evidence. They would have to be able to show that conditions are such that no known or unknown concept of a god could possibly exist. I'm not sure that could be done.

Still and all, we would not even be discussing this if theists had not first proposed the notion of gods. To consider that claim rationally and scientifically, credible, testable and falsifiable evidence to support the claim must be presented. None has.

[Kamehameha34]

If someone says "god does not exist" because they are insufficiently convinced by the theist's arguments that god does exist, then I have no issue with it and the burden of proof resides with the theists who proposed the notion in the first place.

If someone says "god does not exist" because they are insufficiently convinced by the theist's arguments that god does exist, then they need to review the basic fundamentals of logic.

Saying that you're calling gods nonexistent out of practicality, or convenience is one thing. However, none of that has any place in a logical discussion. A claim with no evidence for or against it is logically unknown.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 If someone says "god does not exist" because they are insufficiently convinced by the theist's arguments that god does exist, then they need to review the basic fundamentals of logic. Saying that you're calling gods nonexistent out of practicality, or convenience is one thing. However, none of that has any place in a logical discussion. A claim with no evidence for or against it is logically unknown.

Agreed. Pragmatism and the practicality of making claims has no relevance to the validity of the claims themselves in logical discussion unless some other value, like economic policy or efficiency of scientific methodization, is brought to bear.
Pure logic, however, is outside the realm of simple "convenience."

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 If someone says "god does not exist" because they are insufficiently convinced by the theist's arguments that god does exist, then they need to review the basic fundamentals of logic.

Pot, meet kettle.

Anyone who's fallen asleep in a philosophy 101 class or higher understands implied claims.

Saying that you're calling gods nonexistent out of practicality, or convenience is one thing. However, none of that has any place in a logical discussion. A claim with no evidence for or against it is logically unknown.

"God exists" is not a claim with no evidence for or against it. It's a (poor) scientific hypothesis without support which (to be true) would need at least a half dozen proven scientific theories to be false including conservation of energy.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim Agreed.

See? This is why you're an agnostic.

[Kamehameha34]

Pot, meet kettle. Anyone who's fallen asleep in a philosophy 101 class or higher understands implied claims.

Neither of those statements make any contexual sense.

"God exists" is not a claim with no evidence for or against it. It's a (poor) scientific hypothesis without support which (to be true) would need at least a half dozen proven scientific theories to be false including conservation of energy.

This thread is about logic. Don't confuse scientific terminology with logical terminology.

Also, we've already established that your sabotaged definition for god fails as a proposition. However, let's look at your implied proposition sterilized:

1. The definition for "god" is a being that created the universe (fact)
2. A being that created the universe has to be omnipotent.
3. God is omnipotent.

That's what I assume you mean by citing that the god claim violates the law of conservation of energy.

I'm challenging claim #2. It's unsupported. Support it.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Neither of those statements make any contexual sense.

You who I had to explain valid / true / sound to telling someone they should "review basic logic" + the pot meet kettle comment = a tremendously apt statement.

This thread is about logic. Don't confuse scientific terminology with logical terminology.

Again, pot meet kettle.

"God exists" is indeed a scientific hypothesis for the creation of the universe. As it's never been tested & has no support it's not earned the title "theory".

Anything with a definite absolute answer is a scientific question. God either exists or doesn't exist. One or the other. That makes it the province of science.

Also, we've already established that your sabotaged definition for god fails as a proposition.

My sabotaged definition? ROFLMAO!

If anyone has sabotaged the definition of god it's you and the rest of the agnostics, Kame. Allow me to demonstrate.

2. A being that created the universe has to be omnipotent. I'm challenging claim #2. It's unsupported. Support it.

Nope. You need to support the idea that god can create a universe without being omnipotent... just as you'd be the one responsible for explaining how a car without an engine runs or a plane without wings flies or a fish without gills breathes. Just as removing engines / wings / gills from their respective entities sabotages said things, you've deliberately come up with a retarded version of god who lacks the tools to do what he's hypothesized to do.

[Kamehameha34]

You who I had to explain valid / true / sound to telling someone they should "review basic logic" + the pot meet kettle comment = a tremendously apt statement.

You needn't have explained anything. I understand, and understood the basic fundaments of logic - as I said in the thread. I was using the terminology set in the OP of that particular thread.

The scenario I cited demonstrated a misrepresentation of logic.

My sabotaged definition? ROFLMAO! If anyone has sabotaged the definition of god it's you and the rest of the agnostics, Kame. Allow me to demonstrate.

Yes. Your sabotaged definition.

You include arbitrary, and unnecessary elements to the definition so you can easily knock it down.

Nope. You need to support the idea that god can create a universe without being omnipotent...

You are making a claim.

As such, I don't need to support anything. You have to support your claim, which has been challenged.

In your next post, prove the equivalence of the terms "universal creator" and "omnipotent being".

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric See? This is why you're an agnostic.

You have to be either joking or ignorant. I'm sorry, but you're really pushing on that one.

There's NO connection between agnosticism and proper claim evaluation. In fact, you don't even show how there IS a connection!

Keep it up Zhavric.

[Fangrim]

Nope. You need to support the idea that god can create a universe without being omnipotent... just as you'd be the one responsible for explaining how a car without an engine runs or a plane without wings flies or a fish without gills breathes. Just as removing engines / wings / gills from their respective entities sabotages said things, you've deliberately come up with a retarded version of god who lacks the tools to do what he's hypothesized to do.

Burden of proof fallacy and begging the question combined. Well done.

You propose Kame's outlined claim above. You have the burden of proof for that claim, unless you're content with its unknown status. Why are you trying out of it Zhavric? Are you annoyed that you actually have to DEBATE?

Second, your last sentence begs the question. Since your syllogism has the premise that God would need that "tool" of omnipotence to create the universe, you need to substantiate this premise with some form of evidence. You can't beg the question and propose your claim while at the same time assuming it is true.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You needn't have explained anything. I understand, and understood the basic fundaments of logic - as I said in the thread. I was using the terminology set in the OP of that particular thread.

Brother, if you knew about those aspects of logic before I schooled you in on them, it's news to volconvo.

Yes. Your sabotaged definition. You include arbitrary, and unnecessary elements to the definition so you can easily knock it down.

Nope. You're wrong. You've arbitrarily labeled crucial implied claims / attributes of god "unnecessary" because you're arguments are too lazy to defend them. It's not a tenable position nor is it one held by atheists, theologists or academics. You have no support for it, Kame.

You are making a claim. As such, I don't need to support anything. You have to support your claim, which has been challenged.

I did. This is what I mean about the difference between being responsible for supporing an argument and having the burden of proof.

You want us to believe things like god can create universes without being omnipotent. This is analogous to claiming planes can fly without wings. All I need to do to support my side of the argument is point out how impotent your claim is. Your image of god is untenable since you've stripped him of the main attribute necessary for him to be god.

In your next post, prove the equivalence of the terms "universal creator" and "omnipotent being".

They aren't the same term nor have I said they are... just as "car" is not equivalent to "engine". A car requries an engine just as a universal creator requires the abilities to be a universal creator. Your "he just is" argument is as asinine as it is untenable.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim There's NO connection between agnosticism and proper claim evaluation. In fact, you don't even show how there IS a connection!

Straw man. You're agnostic because you agree with Kame's very (flawed) agnostic stance.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim Burden of proof fallacy and begging the question combined. Well done.

Do you understand that words have meanings? Do you get that you can't just toss them out onto your screen and expect them to randomly become accurate? Do you have any idea what "begging the question" means or why it's a fallcy? Stating cars require engines isn't begging the question. Stating a creator god requires the necessary attributes to be a creator god isn't begging the question.

Also, it's Kame's stance that cars can be cars without engines and god can be god without necessary attributes. He needs to support that claim.

Will you please take the time to learn what logical fallacies are? I'm tired of you hurling false accusations. I'd have thought you'd have picked up on at least a few by now.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Straw man. You're agnostic because you agree with Kame's very (flawed) agnostic stance.

Straw man!?

Explain, explicity, how I am doing so, and explain equally explicitly how Kame's stance IN THAT SPECIFIC POST is flawed.

If anything, you're using straw man tactics by calling me an agnostic without even showing why. And yes I read your damnable definitions, and refuted their application.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Do you understand that words have meanings? Do you get that you can't just toss them out onto your screen and expect them to randomly become accurate? Do you have any idea what "begging the question" means or why it's a fallcy? Stating cars require engines isn't begging the question. Stating a creator god requires the necessary attributes to be a creator god isn't begging the question. Also, it's Kame's stance that cars can be cars without engines and god can be god without necessary attributes. He needs to support that claim. Will you please take the time to learn what logical fallacies are? I'm tired of you hurling false accusations. I'd have thought you'd have picked up on at least a few by now.

Ridiculous. You take my post and simply say that I'm using logical fallacies incorrectly and don't even demonstrate WHY or HOW, as if it's enough to refute my points by simply saying I'm wrong.

I could just as easily say YOU'RE using them incorrectly, and indeed, much of the time you are (burden of proofs, that is; you're fine on begging the question).

On this:"Stating cars require engines isn't begging the question. Stating a creator god requires the necessary attributes to be a creator god isn't begging the question. "
Because we all accept that cars require engines. We don't accept that a creator god requires omnipotence. You need to prove it so if you want it that way, because the definition that we're all starting off on is "created the universe." We can extrapolate more attributes based off of that, as you're trying to do, but you need to demonstrate why you can extrapolate that attribute. You can't just say "God's creation requires it." Justify! Why does creation require omnipotence?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim Ridiculous. You take my post and simply say that I'm using logical fallacies incorrectly and don't even demonstrate WHY or HOW, as if it's enough to refute my points by simply saying I'm wrong.

Ignorance on your part does not evidence omission on mine.

I could just as easily say YOU'RE using them incorrectly, and indeed, much of the time you are (burden of proofs, that is; you're fine on begging the question).

Of course you cannot say this because I don't employ logical fallacies when I argue. Look, I'm not sure what you think logical fallacies are and I could really care less. What they're not are your personal attack words that you can toss out whenever your argument gets crushed. If you think I'm using circular logic, you need to demonstrate where and how. There are rules for this sort of thing, Fangrim. You need to learn them.

Because we all accept that cars require engines. We don't accept that a creator god requires omnipotence.

By we, you're referring to Kame and yourself. Atheists understand that a god requires omnipotence to make a universe. Your cop-out definition doesn't stand up to any level of scrutiny.

"How did your idea of god create the universe."

"He just can cuz he'z god! lol"

Furthermore, creator of the universe isn't even an attribute required of god as we see by the Greek gods. None of them created the universe yet all are considered gods. Modern day theists all share the idea god is omnipotent. Indeed, the idea of a non-omnipotent deity only emerged on volconvo when I pointed out to some of the agnostics omnipotence / creation gods contradict what we already know to be true through science. Hence the...

• God is a logic claim / not a science claim BS that ZNF gave us.
• God isn't complex BS that Kame and yourself try to run with.
• God is anything he needs to be in order to avoid Zhav's argument that Kame owns.

In the end, the only atrributes of god that are consistant are a being who is intelligent and has supernatural powers.

Supernatural powers, by their very definition, contradict what we know to be true about the universe. Hence as I've maintained all along, the only tenable position to take on god is the atheist one: the claim "god exists" is false until proven true. Not unknown. False.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Ignorance on your part does not evidence omission on mine.

...

You do realize that that's the biggest cop-out that you can ever make?

"God exists."
"What? Prove it."
"I don't have to."
"Yes, you do."
"Ignorance on your part does not evidence omission on mine."

Ridiculous.

By we, you're referring to Kame and yourself. Atheists understand that a god requires omnipotence to make a universe. Your cop-out definition doesn't stand up to any level of scrutiny.

Your cop-out "I don't have to justify the requirement of omnipotence" certainly doesn't.

Don't be irritated when you actually have a burden of proof to fulfill. Be a man and fulfill it.

[freefallife]

um..once again...the very definition of omnipotence:

1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power

God = omnipotent

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim ... You do realize that that's the biggest cop-out that you can ever make? "God exists." "What? Prove it." "I don't have to." "Yes, you do." "Ignorance on your part does not evidence omission on mine." Ridiculous.

Horrible rebuttal.

The comment you quoted was in reference to the fact you'd accused me of not supporting my claim. I had. You ignored it. Hence my comment. I explained in detail how circular logic doesn't apply when discussing attributes in the manner I did. Why are you arguing what's already been proven?

Oh right. Because you're the one making cop-outs left and right and you're just trying to evade.

Got it.

Your cop-out "I don't have to justify the requirement of omnipotence" certainly doesn't.

Straw man. Omnipotence is an implied claim of a creator god just as "wings" are implied in airplane and "engine" is implied in automobile.

Nope... your borrowing of Kame's watered down version of god is the cop out. You know omnipotence renders god false so you're doing everything in your little agnostic power to not have to admit this is a common attribute of god.