I reject your claim

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 217
Topic's author
#1
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Until you can demonstrate a claim I have no reason to accept it. Rejecting your claim is not a claim in and of itself it is merely the default position in the absence of sufficient evidence.

Can you think of any reasonable argument for accepting a proposition as true without sufficient evidence?

Likewise can you demonstrate any theistic or supernatural claim?
#2
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
why are you here?

i think you believe more than you think you do
Topic's author
#3
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
Just because I reject theistic claims doesn't mean that I do not find them endlessly fascinating.

That being said this thread is in direct response to two ideas. One is the idea that rejecting a claim is equivalent to making the opposite claim and therefore requires a burden of proof. The other is that atheists are really believers who have just lost their way. That they "believe more than they think they do" or that they are "just angry at god" or "just want to sin" and so consciously reject something that they really believe deep down.

To be clear it is impossible to prove a negative and my claim is not that there is no god(s) but only that there is no sufficient evidence for the existence of any god(s) that has been presented to me. Since I am unable to maintain a belief in the absence of evidence I do not believe in any god(s). I do not "believe deep down" or "believe more than I realize" I am not angry with any god(s) or indeed with any being or concept I consider to be fictitious and I  do not wish to be immoral.

I just reject any claim which has not been sufficiently demonstrated.
#4
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
What fascinates you about theistic claims?

And why do you keep asking for proof, knowing you woant get any?
Topic's author
#5
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
I am not asking for proof so much as trying to understand why someone would accept something for which they have no proof. Also while I do not expect any proof based on my past experience with theists I do not and cannot know that I will never receive such proof.

On a separate note I find that you are quite reasonable in your assessment of the evidence you are capable of supplying and in your expectations for convincing skeptics of your position based on the available evidence so this thread is not really directed at you though you are always welcome on any of  my threads.

#6
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Until you can demonstrate a claim I Have no reason to accept it.
Demonstrate? Don’t you mean prove? Orare those words interchangeable to you?
 
 
 
 
To be clear it is impossible to prove a negative and my claim is not that there is no god(s) but only that there is no sufficient evidence for the existence of any god(s) that has been presented to me.
So you’re agnostic then: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
 
If it is the case that you are indeed agnostic, then there is nothing and will never be anything to convince you of the existence of gods? Yes or no?
 
 
 
 I am not asking for proof so much as trying to understand why someone would accept something for which they have no proof. 
But you are asking for proof, in the FULL knowledge that none is coming. 

why someone would accept something for which they have no proof. 
It is a fair question, but you know the answer to that too, don't you.

You are just creating a merry - go - round in the knowledge and by your own conviction that "one cannot prove a negative".

I believe it is better to challenge the scriptures and have the theist explain these anomalous, enigmatic and puzzling text rather than the head on requests for a believer to prove that there is a god. It is more kinder too.


Topic's author
#7
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Demonstrate? Don’t you mean prove? Orare those words interchangeable to you?
I'm not sure. Perhaps I am not being precise but if there is no sufficient evidence then I'm not sure how we could demonstrate a proposition adequately.

there is nothing and will never be anythingto convince you of the existence of gods? 
I don't expect that there is but one never knows. Conclusive physical evidence would be a good place to start.
#8
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't expect that there is but one never knows.

You do. didn't you state clearly that "one cannot prove a negative".


Conclusive physical evidence would be a good place to start.
Again, you know there isn't any coming in the respect of there being any god as a believer understands what a god to be.

I happen to believe these things/beings were here. I have no proof other that what someone like you would probably call 'logical fallacy' that is to say invalid argumentation. So I wouldn't bother even pitching such an hypothesis, to someone such as yourself.
Topic's author
#9
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
didn't you state clearly that "one cannot prove a negative".
That is precisely my point. One cannot prove a negative one can however engage in a black swan fallacy.
Again, you know there isn't any coming in the respect of there being any god as a believer understands what a god to be
I do not know. I merely have reasonable expectations based on past experience.
I wouldn't bother even pitching such an hypothesis
Except that you just did.
#10
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
I believe God because I know that The Ultimate Reality is what the God concept is refering to. It is The Truth.

It is absurd to think you can know everything, which is what you would know if you completely knew God. I don't have to know God completely to know God is there. Existence itself is proof of God, it is the surest thing. Surer than anything.
#11
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
I do not know. I merely have reasonable expectations based on
Then you seem to be trying to goad an argument. One minute you say they a negative cannot be proven then ask for proof. And now you suggest it is only "reasonable expectation" that you know that no evidence for the existence of a god will be forthcoming. 

You are goading, there can be no other explanation for it.

Except that you just did.

Not really. Had I  pitched it to YOU as a discussion or debate I would have had to add my reasons for my beliefs, which as I have already stated, would only be described as  invalid argumentation, which I know wouldn't get me too far. My beliefs - unfortunately - could only be shared with the like minded... going by my "past experience."
Topic's author
#12
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Proving a negative is to prove that something doesn't exist. It is possible to offer evidence of existence but if something does not exist there can never be any proof. Claiming that something exists therefore requires a burden of proof while saying there is no evidence for or against the same thing does not. I'm sorry I thought you knew what I meant by prove a negative.

#13
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
I believe God because I know that The Ultimate Reality 
I do not think you have made a post that does not include the words "The Ultimate Reality". You are like a chipped record. repeating this mantra over and over again doesn't make it true.
#14
Grugore
Grugore's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 167
0
1
3
Grugore's avatar
Grugore
0
1
3
-->
@secularmerlin
It is impossible for something physical to create itself. We live in a physical universe. Therefore, the universe required a Creator.
Topic's author
#15
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Grugore
Why would the universe need to be created at all?
#16
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
Yet, it is true, and it is for this reason I must constantly call attention to it.

For if believed, nothing else is a surer proof of the abominable superstition that is God denial.
#17
Grugore
Grugore's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 167
0
1
3
Grugore's avatar
Grugore
0
1
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Are you claiming that the universe is eternal? BWAHAHAHA! GOOD ONE.
#18
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Definition of proof courtesy Merriam-webster...

"the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact"


The joke here is that no evidence will pursuade someone that God exists, because someone who doesn't believe in the truth doesn't have any standard for evidence other than personal whim. 

The problem is not that the unbeliever lacks evidence. They are surrounded by evidence. The problem is an internal one. It is a heart issue.

When the God denier demands proof, they are simply reveling in their arbitrariness. There is no proof they will accept as valid, because they will always have doubts.

Yet it is their doubt itself that even proves God, because the one who claims to know nothing at least knows that they have doubts. It is true that they have doubts. So even those who claim to know nothing believe that there is truth.

And what is God? The Most Real. The Ultimate Reality. If you believe in truth at all, you believe God exists whether or not you acknowledge God as being God.
Topic's author
#19
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Grugore
I am not claiming anything as I do notknow how the universe first came to be. However I'm not sure how you have determined that the universe is not eternal or why those would created or eternal would be the only two options.

#20
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Grugore
It is impossible for something physical to create itself. We live in a physical universe. Therefore, the universe required a Creator.
The only thing true from those assertions is what's in bold.
#21
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac

I believe God because I know that The Ultimate Reality is what the God concept is refering to. It is The Truth.
A change of tune.God is the ultimate reality has changed to the god concept is the ultimate reality. Care to explain?
#22
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
God is not a concept.

The concept of God is what points to God.

Truth is what ties it together.


And if you can make sense of that, you're not too far off from understanding the point of The Holy Trinity.

#23
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac

The Ultimate Reality is what the God concept is refering to. It is The Truth.
There is nothing consistent or coherent in the trash you preach.
Did you read "god concept"
#24
Grugore
Grugore's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 167
0
1
3
Grugore's avatar
Grugore
0
1
3
-->
@Goldtop
In that case, you should have no problem giving us a verified example of something creating itself. So, let's see it.
Topic's author
#25
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Grugore
Goldtop did not make the claim that the universe created itself, he merely rejects your claim that it must have been created. You actually have the burden of proof in this situation although if goldtop goes on to make a claim he would then have his own burden of proof. You seem to have missed the point of this thread.

#26
Grugore
Grugore's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 167
0
1
3
Grugore's avatar
Grugore
0
1
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Denying a Creator is the same as saying it created itself.
Topic's author
#27
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Grugore
That is a false dichotomy. Created itself or created by some god(s) are not the only possible scenarios.
Topic's author
#28
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Grugore
Also can you definitively prove that the universe did not create itself (whatever that process would entail)?
#29
Grugore
Grugore's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 167
0
1
3
Grugore's avatar
Grugore
0
1
3
-->
@secularmerlin
If something did not create itself then it was created. There are no other options.
#30
Grugore
Grugore's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 167
0
1
3
Grugore's avatar
Grugore
0
1
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Read about the law of causality. There's your proof. Nothing can create itself.