(January 7, 2013 at 6:51 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Replying consistently to similar questions is not spamming; copying and pasting the same post for multiple replies, however, is.

yes but as there are so many of you saying the same thing but avoiding my request to prove I must accept the burden of proof ; if I have to keep restating this I will eventually run out of ways to restate what I have previously stated and as I been warned once about copying and reposting a previous answer and have apologised as this was due to my misunderstanding of what spamming is I now need to be extra carefull so rather than risk it I have chosen to say a non response is to be seen as that previous post.

As long as you don't resort to copy and paste jobs, you've nothing to fear. See, I've said this twice so far without falling foul of the no-spam rule. That's how it's done. Please don't use this as an opportunity to play the martyr.

Mark, at some point, repeating that "avoiding" line becomes flat out bullshit. You passed that point awhile back. "The burden of proof" has been explained to you, at length.

(January 7, 2013 at 7:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Mark, at some point, repeating that "avoiding" line becomes flat out bullshit. You passed that point awhile back. "The burden of proof" has been explained to you, at length.

Burden of proof has been explained to me at length but has not been proved; God has been explained to you Guys at length but you say it has not been proved. I take your point but you don't take mine.

I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but are you asking me to prove that you can't use a logical fallacy and retain a valid argument?

(January 7, 2013 at 7:13 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Burden of proof has been explained to me at length but has not been proved; God has been explained to you Guys at length but you say it has not been proved. I take your point but you don't take mine.

I must have missed that part... what did you want to be proved?

The proof of god we require is simple. If such an entity exists and interacts with this planet, we require some measure of such interaction which would be at odds with all known physics.... I don't know if that would be enough, but it would be a start... warm fuzzy feelings and other mental representations are invalid as proof... See? simple!

(January 7, 2013 at 7:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but are you asking me to prove that you can't use a logical fallacy and retain a valid argument?

in reality I don't want to pass any burden of proof ; i just don't see it as relevant in a healthy discussion and exchange of ideas in the topics we tend to discuss because common sense tell us the proving or disproving the existance of a Transendental God is impossable and to ask either side to accept the burden of proof is to ask them to accept this impossable task.
If it were possible we would not be having this discussion. The fact is very intelligent people on both sides of this have all been able to hold to their belief or lack of belief in spite of burden of proof and were able to make up their own minds up without referencing the concept until afterwards. Some very notable people who were champions of one side or other have changed sides without burden of proof.

it is true that in many of the systems ,but not all as I have shown 1 that it is generally accepted , but that is my point accepted (not proven). But it does not have to be accepted especially if neither party is actually trying to actually prove a claim.

I can understand the idea that if you are going to make a claim that is going to have a significant impact on someones else life in the real world it is reasonable that the burden of proof be established if by acting on that claim changes that may be seen by one party to be detrimental to another, burden of proof may be an issue that needs addressing but as I have already shown it can be addressed in more ways than 1. But really is it of so much importance on this forum that it can't be put aside to facilitate a more lively and interesting discussion, are we really expecting life changing events to be caused by our banter.

AM I really being so unreasonable. ( can I even ask that question without someone analysing it for logical fallacies or wanting a definition of unreasonable ).

---

(January 7, 2013 at 7:45 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(January 7, 2013 at 7:13 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Burden of proof has been explained to me at length but has not been proved; God has been explained to you Guys at length but you say it has not been proved. I take your point but you don't take mine.

I must have missed that part... what did you want to be proved?

The proof of god we require is simple. If such an entity exists and interacts with this planet, we require some measure of such interaction which would be at odds with all known physics.... I don't know if that would be enough, but it would be a start... warm fuzzy feelings and other mental representations are invalid as proof... See? simple!

see post number 49

(January 7, 2013 at 7:57 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: in reality I don't want to pass any burden of proof ; i just don't see it as relevant in a healthy discussion and exchange of ideas in the topics we tend to discuss because common sense tell us the proving or disproving the existance of a Transendental God is impossable and to ask either side to accept the burden of proof is to ask them to accept this impossable task.

That's good, because to do so would render whatever argument you offered invalid. That's precisely what makes it relevant. Impossible? See, thats the trouble that making claims like this runs into. Perhaps you're simply incapable, or no one has properly formed the argument. Your inability to do so doesn't make it impossible, in the same way that others inability to do so doesn't make it impossible. Your inability to do so simply betrays your inability to meet the burden of proof.

Quote:If it were possible we would not be having this discussion. The fact is very intelligent people on both sides of this have all been able to hold to their belief or lack of belief in spite of burden of proof and were able to make up their own minds up without referencing the concept until afterwards. Both sides and some very notable people who were champions of one side or other have changed sides.

People believe things for which they cannot offer a logical argument. Many people believe (or cease to believe) many things.

Quote:it is true that in many of the systems ,but not all as I have shown 1 that it is generally accepted , but that is my point accepted (not proven). But it does not have to be accepted especially if neither party is actually trying to actually prove a claim.

No, it doesn't have to be accepted, you can make invalid arguments all day long, but if you're going to try to prove something (say, the veracity of a claim), you'll have to accept that you cannot do so by means of invalid arguments.You can claim for the sake of claiming all day long, if you like, as well.

Quote: I can understand the idea that if you are going to make a claim that is going to have a significant impact on someones else life in the real world it is reasonable that the burden of proof be established if by acting on that claim changes that may be seen by one party to be detrimental to another, burden of proof may be an issue that needs addressing but as I have already shown it can be addressed in more ways than 1. But really is it of so much importance on this forum that it can't be put aside to facilitate a more lively and interesting discussion, are we really expecting life changing events to be caused by our banter.

Sure, I can put aside the fact that logical fallacies render arguments invalid, so long as you can put aside any pretense to logic or reason in making them.

Quote:AM I really being so unreasonable. ( can I even ask that question without someone analysing it for logical fallacies or wanting a definition of unreasonable ).

Yes, you are being extremely unreasonable, in that you are insisting that an argument which leverages logical fallacies be treated as though it were not invalid (or at least be spared the embarrassment of being exposed as such). That's pretty damned "unreasonable" wouldn't you say?

Not gonna lie Mark -- I have no clue what you are trying to get at.

(January 7, 2013 at 8:13 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: Not gonna lie Mark -- I have no clue what you are trying to get at.

no worries it seems no on else does ; and many that do don't want to either.