RE: A good case against God
July 4, 2012 at 12:35 pm
(This post was last modified: July 4, 2012 at 12:39 pm by CliveStaples.)
(July 4, 2012 at 12:17 pm)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: INCORRECT. I am pointing out your abject failure to meet your burden of proof.
Having made no claims, I have no burden of proof. You have claimed "X is true", where X = "It is impossible to provide a shred of evidence that God exists." You have so far refused to support this claim.
If that's the style of argument that's promoted here, then I could merely claim "It is possible to provide a shred of evidence that God exists." And my claim would have just as much support as yours does.
Quote:I point out that you have failed to meet your burden of proof, to wit, you have not provided a shred of evidence. That is a "black swan" argument that you can destroy by providing a single bit of evidence. Now trot your fairy tale monster over to CNN and show the world, or shut the fuck up.
I haven't made any claims. In particular, I haven't made any claims that require evidence. You're asking me to support claims that I have never made; I'm asking you to support claims that you've made in this very thread.
Quote:Far better than you, little girl.
You're the one with an unsupported claim, Nancy.
Quote:We know a hysterical with nothing else to argue but "The adults are swearing, boo hoo!!!!" when we see one.
Uh, I give zero fucks about swearing. In fact, I love it. You're just bad at it.
Quote:Yes, it means whatever you make it up to be. That is because it is the product of every x-tard's pathological lying.
Well, in the context of theism generally, I use it to mean "An omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good entity", or in a specifically Christian context, I use it to mean the God of the Bible.
Quote:"You cannot provide a shred of EVIDENCE to support your claim of the existence of your fairy tale monster".
Yes, this is the claim that has zero support. Ironic that a bunch of atheists are insisting that their claim is true because the theist can't prove it to be false. Well, well, well, how the turntables...turn.
(July 4, 2012 at 12:33 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Let's cut the shit, shall we? Like a simultaneous equation, we can eliminate the reduceable values and come to this:
You claim god exists.
We ask for evidence.
You may say "I've never once claimed the above" (Even though your 'title' claims otherwise), but your recent contributions on pragmatism eliminate that as an option; Your beliefs clearly influence your ideas/notions/beliefs on your god (or gods)
So the original claim that you believe your god exists holds true, which is the actual impasse of the situation as we're right back down to ZERO evidence again.
When claiming that a god or gods exist, yet not presenting evidence, it is reasonable to assume either:
1. That you do have evidence but are not presenting it, which precludes any notion of a reasonable discussion (and hence the motives for such participation can be called into doubt)
(or)
2. That you in fact do not have evidence to produce and so it can be deduced that, indeed, one does not have a "shred of proof" that a god or gods exist.
Now the only way you can combat this is by either presenting evidence or going down the whole argument of "this is evidence you just refuse to accept it as such"...and I don't think that will fly here for a second.
All this is an aside however. The OP is wrong straight from the outset. We need something defined, described, and indeed evidenced if we're to discuss and evaluate it; so far, none of this has been done.
Uh, nope, I haven't claimed that God exists. I came into this thread and saw Taq claim that it's impossible to provide a shred of evidence that God exists. Since I'm interested in whether this claim is true, I wanted to see some support for it--reasons to believe that it's true.
Instead, people started shouting at me to prove him wrong by providing the evidence he was talking about. But my inability to provide evidence doesn't tell me whether his claim is true; maybe it is possible to provide evidence, but I just don't have it.
If you're going to claim that something is impossible, you need to explain why or how it is impossible. Otherwise, you're just making a bald assertion. And any asshole can do that. It's exactly what is supposedly so frustrating to you guys about theists.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”