-->
@Athias
Would it be more correct to add the plural.
Instead of god its gods.
1.
All wich is perceived must exist.
Gods are perceived.
Therefore Gods exist.
A challenge to theists. Can you be honest.
Posts
Total:
436
-->
@Athias
Far out man.
The way you use ( God , God's , and Gods. And probably little ( g ) god .
Is sooooo deciving.
Look at your post. You do it well but. Always to your advantage.
All good but.
-->
@ATroubledMan
Repeating a non-intelligent response is still a non-intelligent response.
Whatever you call my response, it was given and you will have t accept it.
Explanations are often standard when one disagrees.
You didn't disagree, you were stupid.
You tagged me homer.If you're unable to respond intelligently, perhaps you should move on.
You're offering non-intelligent responses that don't explain any stupidity on my part.
Read my reply even more slowly.
Is this your entire argument?
Argument for what?
What is your name homer?
It's not homer.
I didn't ask what your name was not, homer.
I'm still waiting for an intelligent response.
Me too!
If you have none to offer, then why are you here?
To toss a dweeb.
Your claim was indeed a fallacy.
Truth cannot be a fallacy.
I did not mention is was true either, I also said believe.
Lie.
Since there is no hard evidence, then it is evident that ideas with no evidence do convince people.
People like you maybe. Most people require evidence.
That same can be said for a wide variety of ideas that convince people.
Yes, people like you with poor critical thinking skills and low education.
Yes, evidence convinces people,...
Of course. And millions have been convinced over centuries. The fact that you can't see it means nothing.
You can explain it if you want.
You keep forgetting that I do not endulge stupidity.
I certainly understand it.
Sure you do.
That would the same fallacy you're invoking.
Ad popullum is only when the truth of the argument is based on popularity homer. I said nothing about its truth
Sorry, but that's a Strawman fallacy.
Lol! Why am I not surprised that you don't know what a strawman is either? The two cancel each other out. Hee, hee!
Do smart people call other people names,
Sure. That is what names are for.
do they say they are stupid without offering any explanation,
Smart people do not say they are stupid, so explanations are never needed.
do they invoke fallacies as arguments?
No, but they know what fallacies are.
Is that what you refer to as smart?
I referred to nothing as smart, I referred to you as not smart.
-->
@Athias
The emboldened statements were authored by me. Should you require further explanation, let me know.
Thank you. I don't see how you showed a logical incoherence. You are applying one approach to atheists and another to theists, which IS the incoherence itself. Whether subjective or objective, the same must apply to both groups, one does not get special treatment.
All which is perceived must exist.God is perceived.
False premise, God is not perceived.
All material or spiritual beings exist.
False premise, spiritual beings have never been shown to exist.
-->
@ethang5
Whatever you call my response, it was given and you will have t accept it.
No problem, I accept it as a non-intelligent response.
You didn't disagree, you were stupid.
You refused to explain why I was stupid. That would then be a personal insult.
Read my reply even more slowly.
The response continues to lack intelligence no matter how many times it's read.
Truth cannot be a fallacy.
Your response was a fallacy.
Most people require evidence.
Believing in something is not hard evidence.
And millions have been convinced over centuries.
Logical fallacies are not valid arguments.
Ad popullum is only when the truth of the argument is based on popularity
Exactly, that was your argument.
-->
@ATroubledMan
Thank you. I don't see how you showed a logical incoherence.
How and what you see is of no consequence. My explanation delineates the logical incoherence. Your unwillingness or incapacity to "see" it is your deficiency, not my argument's.
You are applying one approach to atheists and another to theists
Yes, I am. And if you've read through the thread, you'd understand the reason. Existence is epistemologically rational; nonexistence is not; therefore the burdens of each position are different. The onus of the atheist is to substantiate a logical absurdity (nonexistence;) thus invoking a paradox; theists do not have the same burden. The theist burden is to substantiate existence, which invokes no logical absurdity.
which IS the incoherence itself.
No. Regurgitating a qualifier I've used doesn't offer substance to your rebutal.
Whether subjective or objective, the same must apply to both groups, one does not get special treatment.
This isn't identity politics; the rules of logic don't conform to notions of equality. The metric of one's onus is determined by the claim itself.
False premise, God is not perceived.
Substantiate your allegation of falsehood.
False premise, spiritual beings have never been shown to exist.
Incorrect. The premise is true by reason of tautology. Therefore, it's not false.
If you have a substantial challenge rather than a mere of posit of negation, then please provide it.
CONGRATULATIONS.
You've just proved God exists.
Now the hard part. ( The Link is required )
What does believing, sorry I'll start again.
What does ( knowing a god exists ) have to do with ( being in or joining a religious group ? )
-->
@ATroubledMan
You are always free to accept anything as anything you like, but accept my answers you will.No problem, I accept it as a non-intelligent response.
You refused to explain why I was stupid.
Because you were deliberately stupid. No explanations are given when a dweeb is deliberately stupid.
That would then be a personal insult.
Then that would be you insulting yourself.
The response continues to lack intelligence no matter how many times it's read.
Then it's your poor reading comprehension. That is not my responsibility.
Your response was a fallacy.
Stupidity does not become true upon repetition.
Most people require evidence to believe.
Believing in something is not hard evidence.
Most people still require evidence to believe homer.
Logical fallacies are not valid arguments.
Neither is stupidity.
Exactly, that was your argument
No, that was your poor reading comprehension.
-->
@fauxlaw
In other words...The human appreciation of what is.
Everything is or is not random.
Fortunately for us everything is not random.
So we are aware of this and assume that it is the work of a god.....Absolutely fine...But we have no way of knowing if this assumption is correct.
The assumption isn't the issue.
-->
@ethang5
Athias is as Athias does.
And esotericism has been around for centuries and proven nothing.
-->
@Athias
So, whatever you say is the ultimate truth and everyone else is of no consequence?How and what you see is of no consequence.
Existence is epistemologically rational; nonexistence is not; therefore the burdens of each position are different.
No, the burden of proof is on the claimant.
the rules of logic don't conform to notions of equality.
Yes, they do.
Substantiate your allegation of falsehood.
You made the premise, you substantiate it. Claims without evidence are dismissed without evidence.
The premise is true by reason of tautology. Therefore, it's not false.
The claim has no evidence to support it. Claims without evidence are dismissed without evidence.
-->
@ethang5
I have accepted your non-intelligent answers as non-intelligent. If you would like me to change that, then explain your assertions. Making an assertion and then expecting the other party to accept it is not how it works.You are always free to accept anything as anything you like, but accept my answers you will.
No explanations are given
Then, your answers will remain non-intelligent assertions.
-->
@ATroubledMan
Athias is as Athias does.
And esotericism has been around for centuries and proven nothing.
Athias seems "esoteric" to you only because you're basically uneducated in comparison.
I have accepted your non-intelligent answers as non-intelligent.
OK. I told you you'd learn.
If you would like me to change that,
I could not care less.
then explain your assertions.
No amount of your begging will make me join you in stupidity.
Making an assertion and then expecting the other party to accept it is not how it works.
Is not how what works, atheist with article? It's worked fine with you.
Then, your answers will remain non-intelligent assertions.
My answers will be and remain what they are regardless of how clueless you are.
-->
@ethang5
My answers will be and remain what they are
So far, they are non-intelligent non-answers. When you actually do provide answers and explanations to your assertions, then that may change depending on whether or not you can offer intelligent answers.
-->
@ATroubledMan
So, whatever you say is the ultimate truth and everyone else is of no consequence?
You're deflecting with use of non sequitur. If you're capable of identifying a flaw in my explanation, then do so with your reasoning and your argument. Your "impression" or how you "see it" doesn't matter at all. Submitting your impressions contribute no substance to this discussion. And I won't entertain them.
No, the burden of proof is on the claimant.
This neither contradicts nor refutes my argument. I didn't argue that there were no burdens of proof, or that only one claimant bore a burden of proof. I stated that the burdens of proof were different. Once again, the burdens depend on the claims.
Yes, they do.
Your understanding of logic is inept. I'm not going back and forth with you on this.
You made the premise, you substantiate it. Claims without evidence are dismissed without evidence.
Yes, I did. And you made a counterclaim, "God is not perceived."
Evidence: God(s) is recognized and acknowledged by billions worldwide; God(s) is therefore perceived.
Where's your evidence?
The claim has no evidence to support it. Claims without evidence are dismissed without evidence.
Actually, it does. You're only displaying your response's inept grasp of logic. Do some research into the concept of tautology before your next response.
Submitting your impressions contribute no substance to this discussion. And I won't entertain them.
By the same token I won't entertain your contributions that lack substance. On that, we agree.
I stated that the burdens of proof were different. Once again, the burdens depend on the claims.
Nope. It doesn't matter what claim is made, the burden of proof is always on the claimant.
Evidence: God(s) is recognized and acknowledged by billions worldwide; God(s) is therefore perceived.
If one perceives of the mind, that does not equate to the existence of their subject. You are confusing perception with existence.
Actually, it does.
Prove it. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate your premises.
-->
@ATroubledMan
By the same token I won't entertain your contributions that lack substance. On that, we agree.
When you can demonstrate that any of my responses lack substance, I will agree as well.
Nope. It doesn't matter what claim is made, the burden of proof is always on the claimant.
You have argued non sequitur--once again displaying an inept grasp of logic. I'm not arguing against the fact the onus rests with the claimant; I'm arguing that the onus for a theist, and the onus for an atheist are different. Substantiating the claim "God(s) does exist" invokes no logical absurdity/contradiction. Contrary to zedvictor's alleged truism, it can be done because the posit of existence in any logical iteration is epistemologically rational. Everything we perceive MUST exist because we are incapable of perceiving the absence of information (nonexistence.) Substantiating the claim "God(s) does not exist" does invoke a logical absurdity because it necessitates the claimant's observation of nonexistence. How does one perceive that which is incapable of being perceived?
If you're going to make a metaphysical argument claiming that all which we perceive is encompassed in a state of being which we are incapable of perceiving, then this is nothing more than an irrational assumption. In order to substantiate it, you would have to control for the part of existence that is perceived and the part you allege is independent of perception. If you can do this, then the floor is yours.
If one perceives of the mind, that does not equate to the existence of their subject. You are confusing perception with existence.
Yes it is. Perception is existence. Perception is epistemological (known) existence. That which we "can't" know is of no consequence to matters of proof.
Prove it. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate your premises.
I already did. It is not my obligation to inform you on tautology. If you don't know what tautology is, then do your research.
Perception of the mind to understand a concept is not the same as perception of sight or hearing.Everything we perceive MUST exist because we are incapable of perceiving the absence of information
Yes it is. Perception is existence
Sure, if I give you an apple that you can see, feel and taste with your senses, then you have perceived it to exist. That however, is not the same thing as the perception of a concept of the mind that cannot be seen, felt or tasted. They are two completely different things. You will not find the qualifier of "existence" in the definition of perception.
I already did. It is not my obligation to inform you on tautology. If you don't know what tautology is, then do your research.
While a statement may be true to it's logical conclusion, that does not lead to the existence of something. Again, you will not find any reference to existence in the definition of tautology.
Since there is no hard evidence to suggest the existence of gods or spiritual beings, then it is logical they don't exist. To claim they exist by tautology is not valid.
-->
@ATroubledMan
Perception of the mind to understand a concept is not the same as perception of sight or hearing.
Prove it. (Hint: control for the rationalization of your senses which absolutely does not involve the use of your mind.)
That however, is not the same thing as the perception of a concept of the mind that cannot be seen, felt or tasted. They are two completely different things.
You continue to repeat "it's not the same thing..." yet remained reserved on explaining how they are independent. So, in other words, how are they two completely different things? (Hint: control for the rationalization of your senses which absolutely does not involve the use of your mind. That means no logic, no math, no Science, no language, no words since the aforementioned involve the use of one's mind.)
You will not find the qualifier of "existence" in the definition of perception.
I'm not arguing that it's tautologically true. One only needs to construct a logically consistent argument to come to the conclusion I have.
While a statement may be true to it's logical conclusion, that does not lead to the existence of something.
You continue to offer negation with no elaboration, or rationalization, or even consistency.
Again, you will not find any reference to existence in the definition of tautology.
Why would one find a reference to existence in tautology? You didn't do your research, did you?
Since there is no hard evidence to suggest the existence of gods or spiritual beings, then it is logical they don't exist.
Prove it. You are making the claim "there's no 'hard' evidence for the existence of gods or spiritual beings." I'll remind you that if this claim is solely contingent on a posit that theists have failed to substantiate the contrary, this would in fact impute a logical inconsistency known as argumentum ad ignorantiam notably exemplified in the aphorism, "the absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence." Be mindful of your claims.
To claim they exist by tautology is not valid.
You don't know what a tautology is; your arguments have demonstrated an inept grasp of logic. You are in no position to inform on that which is "valid."
You claimed my premise was false. I informed you that it was true by reason of tautology. Here:
"All material or spiritual beings exist."
According to Merriam Webster, to exist is to have real being whether material or spiritual.
Now let's further explore your argument's inept grasp of logic. You claimed my premise was false because you counterclaimed that spiritual beings have never been shown to exist--a claim by the way, you have yet to substantiate. Now, for argument's sake, let's entertain the truth of your counterclaim; that still would not make my premise false. "OR" is a disjunction in logic. In order for my premise to be false, both material and spiritual beings can't exist. Since you're not contesting the existence of material beings, and we both accept the truth of material beings' existence, then as far as we are both concerned my premise remains true, even if you allege that what comes after "OR" or the alternative is false.
Clearly, you're not a logician; you're just a dogmatic materialist.
-->
@Athias
Prove it.
The mind does not pop things into reality. Concepts of the mind only exist within the mind.
yet remained reserved on explaining how they are independent.
That's how logic works. Claimants have the burden of proof, I provided a link for you to read.
One only needs to construct a logically consistent argument to come to the conclusion I have
I pointed out it wasn't logically consistent.
Prove it. You are making the claim "there's no 'hard' evidence for the existence of gods or spiritual beings."
There is no hard evidence, no one has ever provided any. Gods and spiritual beings are believed to be true, but that doesn't make them true.
According to Merriam Webster, to exist is to have real being whether material or spiritual.
Merriam Webster also refers to that definition as an intransitive verb; without object.
You claimed my premise was false because you counterclaimed that spiritual beings have never been shown to exist--a claim by the way, you have yet to substantiate.
You first claimed they do exist, but you did not provide hard evidence for their existence, your claim can be dismissed.
Since you're not contesting the existence of material beings, and we both accept the truth of material beings' existence, then as we are both concerned my premise remains true, even if you allege that what comes after "OR" or the alternative is false.
No, you took the definition as an intransitive verb. That was your confusion.
-->
@ATroubledMan
The mind does not pop things into reality. Concepts of the mind only exist within the mind.
That's not proof. Present your premises; present your conclusions; substantiate your premises; substantiate your conclusions.
That's how logic works.
You have demonstrated no capacity to determine "how logic works."
Claimants have the burden of proof, I provided a link for you to read.
Once again, I'm not arguing against the fact that claimants have the burden of proof. I did not read your link because I didn't need a reminder on that which constitutes "onus probandi."
I pointed out it wasn't logically consistent.
No, you "claimed" it was logically inconsistent; you pointed out nothing.
There is no hard evidence, no one has ever provided any.
Argumentum ad ignoratiam. It isn't the obligation of anyone to substantiate the contrary. If one has not provided evidence as you allege, then your argument should be "there has yet to be evidence shown" not "there is no 'hard' evidence"--an ontological claim beyond the limits of your endeavors.
Merriam Webster also refers to that definition as an intransitive verb; without object.
I'll admit: this attempt was funny (not that my amusement has relevance.) It is intransitive. So what?
Here's an example:
I exist. The verb exist is intransitive (exist has no object.) It's also a linking verb. Do you understand the function of instrasitivity in grammar?
You first claimed they do exist, but you did not provide hard evidence for their existence, your claim can be dismissed.
The order in which a claim is authored bears no relevance. As you yourself stated:
Claimants have the burden of proof
You made a claim. So meet your burden of proof.
Furthermore, whether you consider my evidence "hard" is of no consequence. I've already informed you, your impressions don't matter.
No, you took the definition as an intransitive verb instead of a noun. That was your confusion.
Clearly, you're not a grammarian either. I'm well versed in logic, grammar, and linguistics. So this grasping at straws and details you clearly don't understand reflects your "confusion," not mine.
-->
@Athias
I'm sure that's probably a joke, unless you actually believe that people can pop things into existence from their minds?That's not proof. Present your premises; present your conclusions; substantiate your premises; substantiate your conclusions.
I did not read your link
You probably should read it considering it substantiates what I said.
"there has yet to be evidence shown" not "there is no 'hard' evidence"
They are basically one and the same.
It is intransitive. So what?
I already explained, no object. You can see that for yourself in the link you provided.
You made a claim. So meet your burden of proof.
You didn't meet your burden of proof.
Furthermore, whether you consider my evidence "hard" is of no consequence. I've already informed you, your impressions don't matter.
Neither do yours. On that we agree.
I'm well versed in logic, grammar, and linguistics.
Evidently not.
-->
@ATroubledMan
I'm sure that's probably a joke, unless you actually believe that people can pop things into existence from their minds?
Whether I believe this or not is of no relevance. You made a claim; substantiate your claim with the submission of proof.
You probably should read it considering it substantiates what I said.
I'm not arguing against what you said--i.e. claimants bear the burden of proof.
They are basically one and the same.
No, they are not. It's the difference between claiming "A blue apple has yet to be seen," which acknowledges the limitations in methods of observation, and "there are no blue apples" which claims an observation that blue apples exist absolutely no where.
I already explained, no object.
No, you did not explain. You mentioned it, as well as mentioned its noun form, which would be "existence," but you explained nothing. Furthermore, you are challenging my premise. And in your challenge, you incorporated the intransitive form as well. Not that these forms have any relevance in its tautological substantiation.
You didn't meet your burden of proof.
Even if that were true, you would still have a burden of proof. Do that which you allege I couldn't.
Neither do yours. On that we agree.
Redundant. I already told you my impressions weren't relevant.
Evidently not.
Clearly, I am. Merely negating does nothing.
-->
@Athias
substantiate your claim with the submission of proof.claimants bear the burden of proof
Since you never substantiated your claims, I need not mine. I asked you to do so and you refused, now you demand proof from me. It doesn't work that way.
"there are no blue apples"
Go back and read what I actually said rather than changing what I said.
you explained nothing
I didn't need to explain, Merriam Webster did that for me.
Even if that were true
It was true.
I already told you my impressions weren't relevant
As I said, we agree.
Clearly, I am.
If you say so.
-->
@ATroubledMan
Since you never substantiated your claims, I need not mine. I asked you to do so and you refused, now you demand proof from me. It doesn't work that way.
You've wasted enough time. Enjoy the rest of your day, sir.
-->
@Athias
Same to you. Here's an article for you to read, I hope it helps in your future debates.Enjoy the rest of your day, sir.
-->
@Athias
If he had any sense, he would be ashamed.
Lol. What a flogging.
Speaking of floggings, have you given up trying to contribute anything intelligent?
-->
@Athias
I think you will find that your reasoning is wrong.You've wasted enough time. Enjoy the rest of your day, sir.
ATroubled was making a valid point of quoting an established fact and you did not refute it, nor for that matter could you.
Brushing off someone's valid points like that I think is the height of rudeness and arrogance.
As well as indirectly conceding defeat.
-->
@ethang5
Athias and therefore athiasism has one intent.
That is the glorification and adoration of their own intellect.
I would suggest that they are really not that interested in a god.
So with no proof forthcoming, the truism remains intact.
Though the truism has never sought for proof of a god.
All that is required is for the theist to admit that there is currently no real proof of a god.