RE: Ybe an atheist
May 31, 2018 at 1:33 pm
(This post was last modified: May 31, 2018 at 2:01 pm by Ybe.)
(May 31, 2018 at 3:37 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:above red me(May 30, 2018 at 11:54 pm)Ybe Wrote: Yeah ok, All the ASSERTIONS presented aren't even arguments so all I can say is they are faulty assertions.
You are asserting that they are faulty assertions (So what).
When you were asked to show this by providing evidence for God, you presented a faulty argument for God's existence. (It was only an overkill example of what a logical etc. is ).
I don't see how you are going to demonstrate the claim that there is no evidence for God is faulty except by presenting alleged evidence for God and seeing if it withstands scrutiny.(Hey, if any assertion does not include support (as As are doing here), then it should be obvious that all one need do is make assertions like As do).
you're just making an equally unsupported assertion. (I just supported it with logic)
If not believing something because there does not exist sufficient evidence for the thing is reasonable, then the atheist's explanation is prima facie reasonable. (all right a try)
Then> (If not believing As have sufficient E/Reason for being an A because there does not exist sufficient evidence for their not believing is reasonable, then No believing your above consequent is pri·ma fa·ci·e reasonable)
If you're saying it's not reasonable, then you need to show why that is. (See above) If you think it is reasonable, then you need to show why. Let's illustrate, it seems to be:
If X (G) is true, then the explanation of X (G) is true
X (G) is true
So, explanation of X (G) is true (reasonable)
But If a claim is justified because one just claims it so, then G is true right? Or?
It doesn't follow from the fact that someone has not presented evidence for their assertion that their assertion is therefore faulty.
(Like- if someone Asserts G is true)
So your claim that the atheist assertion is faulty because it is an unsupported assertion is, on the face of it, simply wrong. (So, if A claims above G Assertion is faulty, because it is an unsupported assertion, then the A assertion is simply wrong.)
And it will remain wrong until you demonstrate that sufficient evidence for belief in God exists
(So, the assertion stands until sufficeint evidence for a lack of belief in G exists.)
Yet that is something you've said you will not do. So you're left making irrational statements like the above.
(Correct even the above is not to present evidence, the above is just to point out evidence that A assertions lack in sufficiency)
Not presenting E for G in this thread. As (if they want) are supposed to present Y B an A? (with a logical reasonable rational reason).
logical:
: of, relating to, involving, or being in accordance with logic
reasonable:
: being in accordance with reason
rational:
: having reason or understanding
relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable
reason
: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (such as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or
explains a fact
logic https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
[b]See #261
> Arguments should be relevant to what is being asked (see first post) and the relevance should be shown.
> Justify your statements (arguments, so far were assertions) . So justify them ask yourself, and then say why your assertion true?
> Validity should also be included, any logical reason should have premises that logically produce the conclusion as the only possible conclusion.
From #261 post.
[/b]
(May 31, 2018 at 3:37 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:Thus the Q. (see 1st post)(May 30, 2018 at 11:54 pm)Ybe Wrote: My point is that Ts give lots of arguments/evidence, but the only As here have nothing but assertions.
As a matter of precision, when atheists say that there is no evidence for God, they typically mean that the evidence that exists is not sufficient to justify belief in a reasonable, unbiased individual.
So, reasonable, unbiased individuals are looking for the sufficient evidence that exists to justify the A's belief, that As are reasonable and unbiased , so that we reasonable unbiased types can know if they can should say, "we haven't seen sufficient evidence for G" is reasonable....
If all that is needed is to assert, then G has been asserted. : )
If not, then your next post will be some justifiable reasonable E that As have a justifiable, logical, reasonable-reason, for being an A
(May 31, 2018 at 7:08 am)purplepurpose Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/user/SansDeity/v...rid&sort=p
Matt Dillahaunty is a veteran among atheists. Check him out. Ybe, if anyone has logic you are looking for it's him.
How about you ask him the Q and see if you get one and then post it here. For posterity.