You claim that God does not exist.

The burden of proof exists in logic only when dealing with epistemology, but we have adapted the standard for pretty much every practice imaginable. The real questions are whether or not 1) You want to engage in debate and 2) whether you think beliefs should be justifiable by referencing some form of falsifiable evidence and not just subjective experiences.

"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."

That seems to be an absolute claim to me about absence of evidence being evidence of absence.

 

Supposing I am an atheist, why do you claim that god is a he, please explain how god can choose a gender or why you have done so for god.

 

"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. "

The above is a statement that I made. Why have you recited my same statement and not contained it in quotes?

Well, what you should do then is to apply the burden of proof on the publishers of dictionaries who publish such information (data) as the 2.c. definition of "fact". You see, that is where you have a problem with language and the social acceptance of language. Fact is epistemology deals with knowledge, dictionaries provide knowledge, so it would look like you are stuck. Now show me any rule of epistemology wherein it is stated that a belief must be proven.

It cannot be a claim when it relates to a hypothetical scenario that you established. Don't create such circumstances, and you won't have to be concerned about your declarations making you a liar.

 

Put the "

 

There is proof of a God right in front of your eyes. Just ask the progressives. There is a god like man that walks among us. He is infallible. He is all loving. He is the god that walks among us. ( angles trumpets starts to play) All Hail The God Like Obama.

Surely a god exists to have created a perfect human being.

 

Oh, I see what you're getting at. I thought you'd understand my meaning clearly, but apparently not, so here you go. "whether you think beliefs should be justifiable by referencing some form of falsifiable evidence and not just subjective experiences that aren't falsifiable" Does that make it clearer for you?

It isn't a rule that is written down, it is just a societal rule that we have adapted to our lives.

I apologize, you're correct, epistemology does deal with beliefs.

Why is a statement not a claim if made about a hypothetical situation?

Why even make the distinction? You still refuted your own point, no matter what you call your statement.

 

Of course I understood it. Now it is already known that you cannot falsify my beliefs. So what do you do now?
"Fal´si`fi`a`ble
a. 1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted.
2. able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science."
Now the nice thing here is that not all of my beliefs are of a religious nature... yet you are still not able to falsify those beliefs. Too bad... That means that science is a failure when it comes to dealing with beliefs. Tsk Tsk.

Well, I am a part of society and I have not adopted such a rule in my life. Is that an accurate example of falsifiability? It proves your statement "it is just a societal rule that we have adapted to our lives." is a false statement.

Well thank you.

Because it only deals with a hypothetical... not REAL...

My point has not been refuted. Your interpretation of what I said alleges that it has been refuted.... but .... no proof has been shown that my statements have been refuted.

 

It is known by whom? I see not why I can't falsify your beliefs as long as they are based on some sort of falsifiable evidence.

Again, why is that?

Well, now I know you are a liar since you have acted with that rule in this thread by constantly asking me to prove my claims. Is that not asking me to shoulder the burden of proof?

It is a factual claim in my hypothetical world because it is dealing with facts that I have presented, so how is the distinction warranted?

"No! I used the absence of evidence to reach that conclusion."

You admitted to me that you used absence of evidence to reach the conclusion that there was evidence of absence.

 

Well, you as an example... at least you should know because you have not falsified any of my beliefs. If you think you have, please provide a list of those beliefs that you think you have falsified.

Unfortunately for you, beliefs are not necessarily required to be based on some falsifiable evidence.

"be·lief (b-lf)
n.
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons."

Also see here:
"be·lieve (b-lv)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v.tr.
1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.
v.intr.
1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
2. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
3. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe."

I really love that first definition of 'believe': it reminds me of the 2.c. definition of 'fact'.

Because you cannot physically touch my beliefs.

Notice the keywords that I used ..."in my life". Not necessarily the others who may be well pleased with themselves for having adopted that rule in their lives. My use of that rule is a simple courtesy, to allow you the comfort zone that you might have grown accustomed to living under such a rule.

So now you are going to play the religion bound non-theist by claiming that your imaginations (your hypothetical world) is a 'factual' thing and the hypothetical cats are 'actual' cats? Now tell me in all honesty and integrity that you truly believe that the hypothetical scenario you created is actual, real, tangible.

Wrong. I admitted that I used absence of evidence to reach the conclusion that there were/are no cats in the room and subsequently making your tall tale a prevarication.

 

God does not exist in the same way that Hobbits don't exist. A creature created solely in the mind of a man, written down and read by others.

 

Gee... look you are right... in the same way...
Hobbits
https://www.google.com/search?gs_rn...urce=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=IzaxUf-rL8_54AOQ7IDIDA

and

God
https://www.google.com/search?gs_rn...61,d.aWc&fp=df10e9dee2efd1e8&biw=1024&bih=604

That is an uncanny observation on your part.

It is almost like neutrons, protons, bosons, etc.

boson:
https://www.google.com/search?gs_rn...61,d.aWc&fp=df10e9dee2efd1e8&biw=1024&bih=604

 

I should know that I can't falsify your beliefs because I haven't done so? Well... Okay.

You're right, but it isn't unfortunate for me, it's unfortunate for the people who don't believe that falsifying their beliefs is necessary. I am starting to assume that you're one of those unfortunate souls.

Why would I need to touch a belief to falsify it?

So, you have adopted the rule, at least in this thread. And I have sincere doubts that you don't use the same rule in the rest of your daily life.

You used the facts (information) of my scenario to make a claim. Call it what you wish, it matters not.

Which is in direct contradiction to your statement that you can't use absence of evidence to reach a conclusion that there is evidence of absence.

 

Then you agree... good.

The old "Yes, but" psychology game don't work with me. Assumptions also don't prove anything.

Because if you don't, then my belief stands as true.

Doubt, skepticism is part of your nature... so what else is new. Is that doubt at a sufficient level as to cause a desire within you to attempt to prove your suspicion to be true?

I did call it what I wanted to call it.

I never said anything about reaching the conclusion that you state above. The absence of evidence led me to conclude that there are no cats in the room, and that your claim that there are cats in your room to be a lie.

 

Come on folks. If I say I truly believe in santa clause.
You can not irrefutably prove my belief to be false.
See where that goes?

 

No, I just thought the argument wasn't worth parsing out since the logic of your statement made no sense to me.

What psychology game am I using?

Why? Why is it necessary to physically touch the belief itself to falsify it?

I wouldn't be able to prove the statement since I don't know you personally. But, I sincerely doubt that you'd jump off a bridge because somebody told you that you can fly if you flap your wings really hard.

WHY would it lead you to that conclusion if it WERE NOT evidence of absence?

 

Perhaps then you are using the wrong form of logic.

Derived from Freudian psychology and developed into Transactional Analysis. See here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis and here http://www.becomingwhoyouare.net/2010/05/transactional-analysis-part-2-the-games/

Because the scientific method requires physical analysis. "A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses."

Well, if you know that you cannot prove a statement to be true, then why execute such a statement?

Because it is not evidence of absence... it is the absence of evidence. Why would you persist on using such a logical fallacy?

 

If you're going to be blatantly intellectually dishonest, then this conversation is over. You made a conclusion about a situation based on a piece of information I gave you: there are no cats in the room. You concluded that the fact that there was no physical evidence of the cats in the room meant that my statement about there being cats in the room was false. What do you think evidence of absence means? Do you know what evidence means? Let's go to the dictionary!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

"that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."

Hmmm, let's see... what was it that you said earlier to me?

"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."

"Because the scientific method requires physical analysis. "A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses."

Yes, it requires physical analysis OF THE EVIDENCE, not of the belief or the hypothesis itself.

 

It's gotta be recreational or there would be no procreation. Why the dichotomy?

 

Then show where a religious 'belief' has been detected by the physical senses. Show where science has analyzed a religious 'belief' via the physical senses.

 

The last line of my post, since you don't seem to actually read the majority of my posts.

 

Ahhh... but the belief is the evidence... take it or leave it. BTW: seems you are very hasty to respond.. you posted the above before I even edited the former post of mine to reflect "religious belief".

 

What belief is the evidence? How can a belief be evidence of the veracity of itself? That's the very meaning of circular logic.

 

Religious belief.
That is a problem for the scientist to figure out.
That is the very meaning of 1 Corinthians 1:27
"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;"

 

So, you're saying that every religious belief is evidence that the belief itself is true, even when you have two conflicting religious beliefs?