New Video on Apologetics

[Esquilax]

All this to deflect from a logical fallacy that was espoused as logical?
.

You're misinterpreting the original point: whatever your threshold for proof, you don't believe every claim based solely on the possibility that evidence might exist. You've got your proof of a one horned ungulate animal, and that's fine, BUT: nobody was thinking of Elasmotherium when the word unicorn was mentioned. Nor were they just thinking of one horned horses. Probably, magic was involved in what we were all imagining, and that's why we react with disbelief.

Because negative evidence is still evidence: we have many hundreds of years of every magic claim being proven false weighing down any current claim of magic.

But that's not even the point: we need to make a distinction between belief and probability. You can accept that there is a probability- no matter how small- of something being true, without believing it to be true. For example, catfish, I have telekinetic powers. I can move shit with my mind, that's my thing. Now, I've just made a claim: do you believe it just on the possibility I might provide some evidence in future? Probably not, right? Instead, you'd furnish disbelief based on the fact that every other claim of telekinesis has been proven false and then- here's the important part- you'd demand proof. Demanding proof is an implicit acceptance that my claim might be true, but that it holds no real life weight without proof.

Which is what Cinjin was saying (I assume. Not gonna put words in anyone's mouth, here ) Even you don't accept all claims, because I assume your faith only features one god, not all of them? Even though you have an open mind on some things, your credulity is limited: you aren't blithely accepting everything.

Which... well, that was the original claim.

[catfish]

The original claim was "victory" before he had been presented evidence, a presuppositional fallacy, PERIOD.
That's the MO though isn't it? Make up your minds beforehand and never be open for change, untill of course, 100 people tell you how wrong you were...
.

[Cinjin]

The original claim was "victory" before he had been presented evidence, a presuppositional fallacy, PERIOD.
That's the MO though isn't it? Make up your minds beforehand and never be open for change, untill of course, 100 people tell you how wrong you were...

It's funny how you don't find your statement the least bit ironic.

You believe in your god without verifiable proof. You claim "victory" over death without the slightest evidence and you've made up your mind about all things Biblical even though hundreds of thousands of your fellow christians will tell you that you are wrong.

You point about an alleged "presuppositional fallacy," when it is you who lives his entire life under a presupposition.


As Forest Gump might say, "stupid is as stupid does."

[catfish]

lol, you obviously don't pay attention to what I write...

I have my verifiable proof, it's mine... I'm not pushing a belief of god on anyone, I simply don't care what others believe.
You can either admit that his statement of victory before evidence is/was presented is a logical fallacy, or you can deny it. What you choose to do exposes your character and thought processes...
.

[Cinjin]

What you choose to do exposes your character and thought processes...

As it does for all of us. Best heed your own words.

[catfish]

I may be a dick, but I'm an intelectually honest dick.
.

---

Don't hate me because I'm right, hate me because I'm an asshole... < Me
.

[Esquilax]

The original claim was "victory" before he had been presented evidence, a presuppositional fallacy, PERIOD.
That's the MO though isn't it? Make up your minds beforehand and never be open for change, untill of course, 100 people tell you how wrong you were...
.

Which is why I was trying to elucidate Cinjin's claim, not the original one. Of course the original one is a tad fallacious, but I think that's more in reaction to the same, tired old arguments that get trotted out as apologetics over and over again. It's not a logically consistent position to take, but then again the people we're using it on aren't logical people. Here comes Ken Ham, telling me the reason I don't believe in god is because I'm not looking at the world through "biblical glasses." Here's William Lane Craig, saying we can just presuppose god, just 'cause. And I'm not even mentioning Ray Comfort.

Of course we're open to evidence, just not the kind that apologists will want to use. Like I said earlier, if the kind of evidence that would satisfy our stringent criteria had been found, the first we would be hearing about it would not be in a debate with an apologist. At the very least, that's the evidence they would come out of the gate with, the showstopper. And indeed, the show would be stopped. We'd have no need to continue the argument. There wouldn't be an argument, nor a need for the mental gymnastics apologists would like us to be using.

None of us, I doubt even the OP, would espouse his video's claim in every case. But these are apologists. We know what they got already. It's just predictive reasoning.

[Cyberman]

To be honest, I wish you hadn't mentioned Ken Ham either; I just ate.

[Zone]

But then if God does exist and he created the universe as deists believe then it wouldn't really be outrageous to suggest that this God also performed miracles, had his only begotten son die for the sins of humanity and so on. They're already believing God without any evidence for God so they could also believe miracles occurred without evidence as well.

[catfish]

Ummmm, no.... I cannot accept that anyone would think sacrifice, let alone human sacrifice, is something that any god would want.
.

---

Let me rephrase that... "...any 'good' god would want..."
.