You claim that God does not exist.

Oh don't worry about it. This is just one of many little disputes that I have had with the stones over the past few years. Almost like one of those Hatfield and McCoy feuds... just keeps on ticking.

As for my being a "strange individual". Oh Well. I would suspect that depending on perspective, each of us have a degree of "strangeness". As for the "stability". I consider myself to be rather stable.... I maintain the same attitude the greater percentage of the time. On the other hand Tecoyah I do appreciate your concern and out of mutual respect, I will attempt to draw in the reins just a tad. Have a nice evening.

 

Uh, false. First off, my belief isn't absolute, nor do I claim to have an absolute knowledge. My belief is based off of the 1) inconsistency of the portrayal of his character, 2) the illogical manner in which he acts for a supposedly omnibenevolent and omnipotent entity, 3) the false proclamations made about the world throughout the Bible, 4) the archaeological evidence of Yahweh being worshipped by the Canaanites as one God of many (you can see multiple references to other Gods in the Old Testament, but it never states they don't exist in the same way Yahweh does) , and 5) the lack of evidence for the supposed actions of Yahweh.

Validated in what way? Even if it isn't possible to validate the information, that doesn't mean we can't judge God's portrayal. Why would it?

 

That inconsistency could very simply be a matter of your perception and or interpretation of what has been stated.

Where is it written that God is obligated to adhere to any system of 'logic' that was fabricated by people?

Where is the PROOF that any proclamation in the Bible is "false"?

Well of course the Bible speaks of many gods. ... and no.... they are not in the same category as God... they are considered as "lesser gods".

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Have you not read the various articles involving the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" fallacy?

Validated in the same manner that anything else might be validated.

Without the validation, your conclusion would be one reached through ignorance.

 

When one God advocates genocide, and then later advocates peace towards neighbors and enemies... I disagree with that suggestion.

Nowhere is it obligated. I'm simply stating that his actions are faulty when you consider his attributes.

I'm not talking about PROOF. I'm talking about evidence. How many times do I have to point out to you that you yourself admitted that irrefutable proof isn't possible? How many times do I have to question why you demand something from people when you don't accept that your demand actually is possible?

So, you don't believe that your God is the only god?

Man, I absolutely love Carl Sagan, he is one of my personal idols. I look up to what he stood for. But he was absolute incorrect with this statement, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence when the evidence SHOULD be there. Say I told you that I own 100 cats and keep them in my room. I then invite you to my room, and there are no cats there. No hair, no smell, no physical evidence what-so-ever. In fact, in my whole house, there is no food, food dish, litter box, toys, etc. Is that not evidence of absence of cats in my room?

I don't see how you drew that conclusion. Why would my conclusion be reached through ignorance?

 

Something that Christians think controls everything because they're too lazy to read a book.

 

Ok. So you disagree with it. The world is full of things and notions that people disagree on.

Perhaps from your perspective, but neither your perspective nor mine are what rules the world.

OK. And my question did not require irrefutable proof. Read it again: "Where is the PROOF that any proclamation in the Bible is "false"? " See... no mention of irrefutable proof.

You seem to be so caught up in a vain attempt to defend that you can't see where you are reading the posting I made correctly.

Never said He was. There are many gods.

No! It is just evidence of you doing a splendid job of removing anything that would hint at a cat having been there. you deserve a good housekeeping award.

Well, if you don't KNOW that there is no God because of a lack of validated information, then you have insufficient knowledge to reach an absolute conclusion. At which condition, you cannot absolutely rule out the possibility of a God being in existence unless you simply desire to make a conclusion while knowing that you really don't know.

 

Yes, I disagree with it and have evidence of the shift in character. Do you not agree that the character of God is radically different from the Old to the New Testament?

I'm not talking about ruling the world, I'm talking about judging a character in a book.

So, are you simply asking for evidence? What kind of proof are you requiring?

Okay, that's why I asked.

I mean, you can make an addendum to the hypothetical so that somehow I cleaned up every shred of evidence of 100 cats living in my room, but that isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about evidence of absence. Are the cats there? No. Is there any physical evidence at all? No. That IS evidence of absence.

I'm not discussing the nature of God's existence, I'm talking about the portrayal of him in the Bible. How many times do I have to repeat this to you? Why can I not judge a character's portrayal in a book?

 

Which point of an equilateral triangle is different from the other two? I disagree with that notion of yours, however it is your privilege to place whatever interpretation you desire.. bearing in mind that personal interpretations makes neither mine nor yours correct, but rather just differing views of the same thing.

So am I. Subsequently how you interpret a book does not rule the world. In other words your interpretation means nothing to me and has no effect upon me.

Well of course I am asking for 'evidence'. On the other hand, I cannot accept the opinions of you nor scientific explanations as science is not capable of processing data coming from the world of spirit. The 'proof' (evidence) would have to be tangible proof outside the realm of either science or opinion (which would include philosophical points of view).

Well, I guess that point is resolved.

No, that is simply evidence of your good housekeeping skills. Otherwise I would be forced to call you a liar for telling me that there were 100 cats in your house. I also have no evidence that you do not keep 100 cats in your house. Were you attempting to bait me into calling you a liar?

Repeating anything is simply a showing of redundancy. You can place any judgment on that character that you want, then you also have to support your judgment with evidence that cannot be controverted. Incontrovertible or irrefutable evidence is the only way to show that your claim (judgment) is correct. So, in short, there is no escaping the necessity of providing what you are calling an impossible evidence. If the evidence is impossible to provide, then the only logical assumption is that there is no evidence to support the judgment without it also being controvertible.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)

All points are the same.

Aye, that may be true, but I would insist that we compare evidence to distinguish whose interpretation has more support.

And why is that? Are you not convinced by argumentum?

I would argue that nobody is capable of processing data coming from the "world of spirit" since nobody has been able to provide any tangible evidence that such a world exists. Secondly, the Bible makes claims about not only the spiritual realm, but also claims about the tangible world.

So, let me get this straight, the non-appearance of 100 cats in my room is somehow not evidence of the non-appearance of cats in my room? Even if I continue to plead that the cats actually do exist in the same room you're in?

Do you believe that irrefutable evidence exists?

 

Well, the points of the Trinity are all the same.

Neither will have more support unless you are referring to 'peer' support. Peer support really means nothing because it is all subjective opinions.

Not when the argumentum is based upon ignorance and bias... ignorance of spiritual matters on the side of the non-believers and bias on the side of both believers and non-believers.

There we go with a full blown admission of the futility based on what is a seeming lack of evidence. The evidence is not lacking, it is simply a matter of one side not desiring to accept the evidence of the other side. Hence the necessity of find irrefutable evidence for an argument. Modern folk probably don't like the idea because of the problems associated with finding such evidence; but whatever their reason for not liking the requirement of irrefutable evidence, it is the only way to remedy an endless volley of go-no-where "argumentum."

Really? Care to elaborate on that? I would love to discuss some of those matters with you to determine if you can actually prove your claim.

No! it is the manifestation of you having told a lie regarding the 100 cats in your room... saying that the cats are in your room.

Then there is a compounding of the lie that you originally fabricated.

Yeppir. To the person who has experienced something, there remains irrefutable proof of the claim made by that witness.

 

The Trinity is an illogical doctrine as well.

So, are you of the opinion that all interpretations of evidence are equally valid?

And who is the judge of ignorance and bias?

And what is the evidence of the other side? Personal stories?

Well, for one, the Flood.

Which logically means that there is evidence of absence. The truth of the claim doesn't change the fact that a lack of evidence is evidence of absence.

But that isn't what we are trying to reach here. We are seeking some way to grasp at the objective knowledge, not the subjective knowledge, otherwise it seems that you'd be fine with taking every such personal revelation on face value.

 

Perhaps from your perspective: However from my perspective your views on many things is illogical. Such is the manner of perspective.

Did I use the word "valid"? No? Then you must be hallucinating else you have a skewed perception of words that are plainly written.

Well of course, everyone is. Didn't you know that?

Personal experience. You see, my experiences are mine and they are irrefutable.

Well, it is nice of you to have accepted the challenge: Remember the words of that challenge:
" Really? Care to elaborate on that? I would love to discuss some of those matters with you to determine if you can actually prove your claim. " So where is your PROOF of claim?

Which logically demands that you be known as a liar under that given set of circumstances. Then you are admitting that 'truth of a claim' is not a goal of Science? How nice of you to deny one of the goals of science... the seeking of truth.

Indeed I do take them on face value... is there a problem with me trusting in human integrity? Are you suggesting that you should not be trusted or that you are lacking in integrity? Are you suggesting that your word is not honorable?

 

If you believe my views on something are illogical, spell out the logic. It shouldn't be too hard to do.

You seemed to be implying that all subjective opinions are meaningless. Since subjective opinions are meaningless, I'm confused how you glean knowledge from anything if not through others' subjective opinions.

Subjectively sure, objectively, no.

It violates several laws of nature, and the evidence that should be there is not.

And why is that? Is it because the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence?

Explain how you inferred that from what I typed.

I have integrity. But it is a naive assumption to believe everybody has integrity. It would also be a naive assumption to accept personal revelations that are extraordinary and are claimed to come from a supernatural source.

 

You did notice the keyword you used above, didn't you? The keyword being "believe". You see, a belief does not have to be based on any logical premise. I believe what I stated to be true, therefore it is a "fact".

Once again, your keywords, but this time they are "seemed to be". 'Seemed to be" is not necessarily indicating a fact... just a supposition... something subjective. The others from which I glean knowledge (true knowledge) is the Holy Spirit and that is not a subjective source. It is an ethereal source.

Show one of my experiences that is not subjective? Support said claim with irrefutable evidence.

Is that the best you can do? Laws of Nature? How was the universe set in motion? Answer that with irrefutable proof, and then you might be on the right track to changing not only my views, but the views of many millions of believers. The evidence that should be there is not.

It is because you set out to deceive. There is no evidence in a lie other than the lie itself. There is no truth in a lie other than the fact that a lie has been fabricated. Now if you really want to be labeled as a liar with such scenario, then just go ahead and state that it is a 'fact' and call in a priest or pastor to validate your lie.

Simple: Your statement "The truth of the claim doesn't change the fact that a lack of evidence is evidence of absence." You have stated that truth is irrelevant and truth cannot change something.

What is the flavor of your integrity? Prove your claim that is highlighted above. In fact prove the claim that follows the first claim above. In fact, prove all the claims of that paragraph above.

 

It seems that you don't think that beliefs ought to be justifiable.

So, if you would be so kind: you believe that you gain knowledge from the Holy Spirit and nothing else?

When did I say your experiences weren't subjective?

Why do you keep demanding irrefutable proof which you claim is not possible to glean from another human being? And what evidence should there be?

Based on what evidence am I a liar? Did you not claim that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? How can you claim I am a liar if you are of the opinion that absence of evidence (the cats not being in my room) is not evidence of absence?

I did not say that, I was implying that the only thing that matters in the point I am making is how you GET to that conclusion that I was not telling the truth. Unless you recall your claim that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I see not how you can call me a liar.

What a childish and superfluous line of demands. What is it you call "proof" in this instance? You continue to make claims such as, "Well, the points of the Trinity are all the same," and "The evidence is not lacking, it is simply a matter of one side not desiring to accept the evidence of the other side. Hence the necessity of find irrefutable evidence for an argument. Modern folk probably don't like the idea because of the problems associated with finding such evidence; but whatever their reason for not liking the requirement of irrefutable evidence, it is the only way to remedy an endless volley of go-no-where "argumentum."

Shall I be like you and sit here demanding proof of these assertions? Until you can adequately define what you consider proof or evidence, I see not how we can continue.

 

It seems that you are once again attempting to read my mind and determine what I do or don't think. Keep trying ,,, the exercise might do you some good.

Is that what I said? No? Then it also seems that you are having a problem with your reading skills.

When did I say that you did say my experiences weren't subjective?

Because it is entertaining to see you faced with something that you cannot cope with and find a solution for. All evidence is evidence. Science rejects insurmountable volumes of evidence solely because science knows that it does not have the capability to otherwise disprove the evidence. Science deals only with the physical and not the spiritual.... likewise... you reject the spiritual evidence that has for thousands of years been available.

Because your declaration that said the cats were in your room, is disproved when it is found that there are no cats in your room.... your own declaration made you a liar under those circumstances.

Then what did you say? No! You stated that the truth does not matter.

I did not call you a liar. Your declaration of existing cats in your room made you to be the liar.

Yes! I made that quoted statement. So what? Prove that I am wrong... in fact, show that irrefutable proof that I am wrong.

Why bother. Just prove me wrong and then you won't have to demand anything.

I have already adequately defined what I consider proof or evidence. Now if you cannot see how we can continue, then simply bow out of the conversation and leave the battlefield.

 

I made an inference from your refusal to justify your belief.

Then why did you ask the question?

Excuse me, have I not from the beginning said there is no such a thing as irrefutable proof when concerning the natural sciences? I don't see how I'm not coping with something I've long held to be true.

And how exactly can we determine what spiritual evidence is if it is solely subjective, not reproduceable, and not tangible?

Once again, you stated that absence of evidence is not evidence of asbence. So, on what basis are you calling me a liar?

I certainly did not, and I'd appreciate of you didn't blatantly mince my words. I stayed that the truth of the claim does not change how you gained knowledge of the truth, which is using absence of evidence, which you stated is not evidence of absence.

The only way to determine that is through some sort of analysis of evidence. So, what evidence did you use to deduce or induce that conclusion?

Oh, I see, I have to prove my claims, but you don't have to prove yours?

I have seen no attempt at elaborating what proof is or what sort of evidence you accept besides something you call the Holy Spirit.

 

Well, I know I wouldn't seek guidance from you..

Anyway, I only claim that the claims of theists are bunk.

 

and I claim that claims of Durandal are bunk

 

Well shucks.

 

Show me a written law which mandates that I "justify" my "belief". You see, it is not a refusal, it is a recognition that I am not obligated to 'justify' my 'belief'. How many times can you be wrong in one day?

Curiosity prompted me.

That is just your opinion. In my opinion (as previously stated) the person who has an experience will maintain the memory of that experience as the irrefutable proof that is necessary for that person to continue believing his/her experience. You are finding it difficult to cope with the idea that experience is also part of that scientific method.

Reading back to what I previously stated, I see no mention of 'subjective'. Where did you get the notion of subjectivity as being 'spiritual' or vice versa. Until you can overcome that locked-in-the-box way of viewing things, there is little to no hope for you ever realizing anything about spiritual matters.

Already explained.

I am no more mincing your words than you are mincing my words. You are attempting every underhanded method conceivable to undermine the logical fallacy "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

The favorite system of logic using 'logical fallacies'. Not my design but hey ... non-theists like to use that same system against the theists.

What claims have I made?

Then you have seen that attempt.

 

It is a refusal if I ask you to justify your belief. Nobody is obligating you to do so, but you cannot possibly say you aren't refusing to shoulder any burden of proof.

Observation is ONE part of the scientific method. You don't seem to accept the other requirements, including falsifiability, as necessary to gain knowledge that isn't solely based on hearsay.

So, you believe that spiritual revelations can be objective?

Yup, and your explanation refutes what you said earlier. If you're saying that the absence of evidence disproves my claim, then how can you possibly say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

You have undermined the QUOTE, not the appeal to ignorance fallacy, yourself. I accept the fallacy, but I reject your interpretation of it, as does your own link if you had actually read it.

"Similarly, the burden of proof is usually on a person making a new or improbable claim, and the presumption may be that such a claim is false. For instance, suppose that someone claims that the president was taken by flying saucer to another planet, but when challenged can supply no evidence of this unusual trip. It would not be an Appeal to Ignorance for you to reason that, since there is no evidence that the president visited another planet, therefore he probably didn't do so."

I just posted two of them about two posts ago, have you forgotten them already?

Which had nothing to do with regular proof, but what you call irrefutable proof.

 

"burden of proof" implies that there is an obligation. Now where is the law that says I have a burden to prove a belief? Without a showing of such a law making it mandatory, you are peeing in the wind and it is blowing right back in your face. Now you already admitted above that nobody is obligating me, but dog-gonnit it sure seems like you are attempting to place such a burden upon me. Now where is the law which would obligate me to prove a belief?

Until you answer that, the remainder of your post is going to the circular file.

 

You know, you're right, it is an obligation. Now, since when are obligations only derived from legal means?

Ah, yes, of course. Your own link disagrees with you so you cut out the remainder of the post to concentrate on a superfluous topic. I guess I should expect these cowardly acts from you by now.

 

You are wrong again. No one has said anything about legalities such as jurisprudence... we are talking about legalities under the rules of logic. Now show me a logical rule which says that there is a burden of proof relating to a belief.

As for your allegation about me cutting the remainder of your former post. You are wrong again. As usual.. The reason it was cut off was explained right there in that paragraph you quoted from the page I cited.
"Similarly, the burden of proof is usually on a person making a new or improbable claim, and the presumption may be that such a claim is false. For instance, suppose that someone claims that the president was taken by flying saucer to another planet, but when challenged can supply no evidence of this unusual trip. It would not be an Appeal to Ignorance for you to reason that, since there is no evidence that the president visited another planet, therefore he probably didn't do so. "

Where does that paragraph say anything about a 'belief'? Uh Oh. It don't say anything about a 'belief'. My goodness what sort of rationalization are you going to attempt next?

For your edification on the subject of jurisprudential burden of proof, see here:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/burden+of+proof
This forum is neither a criminal venue nor a civil venue in which a jury has been summoned to determine the truth.