-->
@ethang5
@Athias
Also, how is the bible credible?
how is the bible credible?
The Christians believe that the Hindus are delusional.Which Christians?
Both sides should be able to make positive statements and provide logical support.This is basic.
If you constantly attack without making any positive statements and refuse to clarify your criticisms when paraphrased (Nuh-uh that's not what I said, go back and read the words and prove it, you can't prove me wrong!)
you are hiding behind the massive and very blurry wall known as the ambiguity fallacy (also known as the appeal to ignorance).
These individuals may (or may not) have a coherent position (as they often repeatedly claim in vague terms and bald assertions), but regardless, inexplicably refuse to communicate. They mistakenly believe that the darkness gives them the benefit of the doubt.They believe that if they can merely cast doubt on certain obscure peripheral details of their opponent's argument (or pepper enough ridicule and ad hominems into their diatribe), then they are automatically proven correct without ever having to state their own argument.
However, based on epistemological standards of evidence, they do not have the benefit of the doubt. You must show your logic, because without evidence to the contrary, your position is logically incoherent.
If you make exceptions for certain claims without qualifying those exceptions then you are guilty of "special-pleading".Where and by whom were these exceptions made?
TAUTOLOGICALLY.A Christian = someone who believes JESUS is real and all other religions are FALSE.
Both sides should be able to make positive statements and provide logical support.This is basic.Both sides should be able; that is not the same as both sides being bound to make positive statements and provide logical support.
you are hiding behind the massive and very blurry wall known as the ambiguity fallacy (also known as the appeal to ignorance).This is projection based on your non sequitur.
Here's the claim.BigFoot (spirituality and or god) is false.Here's your response.Prove it.Why on earth would you ask someone to prove BigFoot is false unless you believe that BigFoot is real?\\
You claim this is a "strawman" but instead of clarifying your position, which should be quite simple, you pretend you have no opinion.
If the critic is unable or unwilling to make a counter-claim, then they are making a de facto appeal-to-ignorance.
Does god exist?
Who is that god?
Is he/she/it the only god, or are there other gods?
They believe that if they can merely cast doubt on certain obscure peripheral details of their opponent's argument (or pepper enough ridicule and ad hominems into their diatribe), then they are automatically proven correct without ever having to state their own argument.More projection; no one is stating that their position is validated in the wake of one's failure to substantiate the contrary.
Does god exist?YesIs he/she/it the only god, or are there other gods?Other gods do exist, yes.
If the critic is unable or unwilling to make a counter-claim, then they are making a de facto appeal-to-ignorance.No.
Why on earth would you ask someone to prove BigFoot is false unless you believe that BigFoot is real?\\Are you qualifying scrutiny using one's motives?
You can't expect someone who refuses to make a counter-claim to explicitly state their opponent is wrong.
For example, I someone says, "you must support your claim that BigFoot is real", wouldn't you agree that would be a de facto argument supporting the hypothesis that BigFoot is fake?
What are they appealing to? What type of argument would you say they are making?
I'm suggesting that it is reasonable to infer someone's argument based on their demands.
Especially if they refuse to clarify their position.
I won't. I will not answer the supplication of one who has denied me the same courtesy.Good. Now substantiate your claims.
p: I can believe spirituality is false.q: Therefore, I do believe spirituality is false.Hack away.
I won't. I will not answer the supplication of one who has denied me the same courtesy.
p: I can believe X.q: Therefore, I do X.
Similarly, since God exists outside of the observable universe,
...and we are unable to observe anything outside of the universe,
...we will never be able to 100% know whether a particular god/set of gods exists or not.
I haven't made a claim on this thread, so I have nothing to substantiate.
p: I can believe that daily human sacrifices are necessary to ensure that the sun rises tomorrow.q: Therefore, I do human sacrifices on a daily basis.Is this solid?
But what we CAN do is analyze the DESCRIPTIONS of these god claims and identify multiple critical and fundamental logical incongruities.We can be quite certain that incoherent descriptions of gods are FALSE descriptions.
The onus is always on the one making the positive claim.
He certainly would be expected to back it up.
You're right.Furthermore, if something does have description, it is perceivable; if it's perceivable, it must exist.
I never said it was this thread. It was in reference to a past thread you created, "there's no evidence for a particular god's existence." You led me to believe that you were constructing a proof that you would, as of yet, abandon, and when prompted for further information, you, as far as I'm concerned, lied. I choose whom I engage in debate over certain subjects, and I sustain a certain level of decorum.
evidenceNOUNmass noun
1The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
That's not his argument.It's:p: I can believe Xq: therefore, I do believe X.