Burden of proof (philosophy)

Its the same thing another invisible product unless you can show a deity is real by the deity revealing itself openly so can you do this yes or no? It should be within their divine powers to show up and say hello if they don't they clearly don't care if they are denied or they don't exist or like to play games.

 

are you sure that is the correct context to be able to prove a deity?

 

As I call it, the regression of ignorance. The moment they base their argument around what we do not or cannot know about the true nature of reality, they have conceded the argument.

 

Well, that opinion is glaringly wrong, too wrong to not be noticed because if someone invokes the quantum world, I'll concede this thread is not for me.

I mean you can only predict the probability of things..

 

It's a complete rejection of 'god of the gaps' and equivocation of faith and belief.

Probability is a measurable and observable property of nature. I don't see how the two are comparable in terms of ignorance

 

I know for a fact that God plays dice.

 

huh?

 

You are special pleading now.

 

Thats not a very good assessment william, since if we take something as simple as the 10 commandments and murder. Just because it does not give you the reason not to have 'faith' and not to commit murder is in no way vague, equivocation, or a god of gaps fallacy. The true nature of reality is outside your reach, once again you fail to tell us where the matter and energy came from for the alleged big bang which imo is bs in the first place, then pick the speck out of their eye while ignoring the log in your own with your 'lack of belief' craziness which xwsmithx and yardmeat both atheists as far as I know totally demolished. You were unhappy with my explanations the question is will you reject theirs too?

and:

and:

Exactly!

 

I disagree, I proposed a negative claim, "There is no visible unicorn in the box", I can prove it by looking in the box. Such a proof is conclusive. No special pleading.

 

and I showed why it isn't conclusive by pointing out you can't see all light spectrums. You then special pleaded.

 

Why do you dismiss the big bang theory? WMAP did quite well imo.

 

The statement we're considering is about a *visible* unicorn. I haven't asked about unicorns who only emit light in other spectra (or who do not emit light at all). You are talking about some other statement.

 

because there is no explanation for where this matter came from, for all we know the matter came through a big garden hose that sprung a leak

They completed a census of the universe and finds that dark matter (matter not made up of atoms) is 24.0%, sort of opens up a whole big can of worms for atheists.

 

Well, according to Christians, a) Jesus did come down and tell us what God wants and needs from humanity, and b) preachers are God's servants telling you about said deity. Satisfied now?

Sure, the Christian God of the Bible. Start there and disprove his existence. If you want to get around to Thor and Hera later, go ahead.

I guess I have a thing about poking holes in people's theories... How is there only one god by definition? Who has disproved all the other gods? The God of the Bible said, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," which would seem to imply there ARE other gods, would it not?

Did you even read the article? Here's what it said: "Saying "You cannot prove a negative" is a pseudologic because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim." So, are you making a claim about God's existence or are you not? If you are, then prove it.

Actually, you are shifting the burden of proof here by claiming theists originated the argument. Theism is in fact the "default" position, held by some 85-90% of the world's population, depending on how you define animism and various Buddhist sects. To claim that 85-90% of the population is wrong puts the burden of proof squarely on you.

You'd be amazed how many beautiful theories out there don't agree with the facts... that birds originated from flying dinosaurs doesn't agree with the fossil record, that carbon dioxide causes global warming doesn't agree with the ice record from Antarctica because CO2 is a lagging indicator, that the Big Bang theory predicts (don't ask me how) the existence of monopole magnets, which don't exist, and so on and so forth.

Another one who didn't read the article. Here it is again: "Saying "You cannot prove a negative" is a pseudologic because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim." So, are you making a claim about God's existence, or are you not? If you are, then prove it.

 

The point I made was clearly way above your pay grade if that is what you surmise from it.

You are desperate now, it is really very funny to watch.

 

Not really. We already know there is stuff in the universe. Dark matter doesn't open any can of worms that normal matter hadn't already opened.

 

I believe it was HST not WMAP to get evidence for dark matter to exist.

You're harping on atheists "blah blah" which is boring semantics.

 

no, im talking about your statement

 

sorry that you don't like it, but you cant prove a negative

 

"Proofs" are not "Proof", they are individual elements that can be used to create fact. Symantec manipulations are dishonest distractions in debate.

 

Painting me green and pretending my blood is green is your SOP and is several magnitudes below my pay grade as anyone with logic/reason 101 experience blindfolded can see your posting history is nothing more than hypostatization, intension, naturalist, with continual poisoning the well and proof surrogates fallacies, and thats only the tip of the iceburg, not to mention you dodge any question proving it. Yes we all notice.

Pure denial! Seems atheists are equally or more dogmatic than theists.

He cant, none of them can, they wont even try because they know they cant, which is why all these atheists have chosen the flim flam route to defend their position with denial, adhominens, misdirection, strawmen and a virtuoso of other fallacies.

When we talk about the existence of a deity it most certainly does, since a deity could be composed of this stuff.

nah it zooms right in on the problem.

 

"Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repetition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repetition alone to substitute for real arguments." https://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

No matter how many times you repeat it, it's still bullshit. Would you like to repeat it 75 more ****ing times?

 

I will keep pointing out that a negative can not be proven.

 

I bought you a puzzle, should keep you occupied for days, perhaps weeks.