(May 26, 2018 at 8:08 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: Ybe wrote:The burden of proof for this thread is for As to give a logical rational reason for being what they claim to be.
"So, if the logical support for being an A is No E
supported by the logical rational reason of No E
It would allow theists to claim logical support for believing G is
as long as they support it with the logical rational reason that G is .
But if that is all it take to support a reason by As, then A's have sufficient E to become a theist."
-------------------
"logical rational reason that G is". Ah, but that's precisely the problem. It's neither logical nor rational to believe in something when
there has been no evidence found for thousands of years that this thing actually exists.
Present clear scientific evidence that your imaginary friend actually exists, and yes, A's will accept the evidence presented.
The burden of proof is upon the person who is making the claims that this creature exists.
Chop chop troll. Get to it. Provide the evidence. (Obviously, do so without any personal anecdotes or quotes from literature.)
I remain unconvinced by the E given as logical rational reason to be what they claim to be.
Also, applying the logic given by an A (italics):
I am an A because No E Vs I am a T because G is
supported by No E supported by G is
If G is then A is False
G Is (as shown)
So Aism false
Now I am not saying the A logic is sound but if it is their logic then applying it G is and now they do have E
I cant accept the bellow A type reasoning:
If one has a lack of belief in G, then he is an A
I lack belief in G
I am an A
Oops Not very convincing 1. No proof of belief being lacked .
If I'm an A, then no E for G
no E for G
I'm an A
Oops how do you know you are able to know E or no E. What do you depend on to know you've analyzed E properly?
