The default position.

Ok well have a nice day then thanks for dropping by.

Ok well have a nice day then thanks for dropping by.

Saying that the ball is not red constitutes a counter claim merely rejecting the premise that the ball is red does not. Clearly They are two different situations.

What do you.mean by incorruptible exactly? In the context it seems like a qualified statement not a quantifiable fact. 

Quantity is quality.

I can say the ball is NOT red without saying a word to you. I can go into a random bar and tell everyone else the ball is NOT red at which point I'm not countering anything and am instead instigating conversation. The burden of proof would be mine. Simultaneously, I can go into a bar, describe this situation and tell bargoers why I reject the premise that the ball is red. Burden of proof still belongs to me. In both cases, I am the moving party and so it is up to me to get other people on board with my ideas.

You think I use proper English to "obfuscate" what I'm really saying. No, I use proper English for the sake of CLARITY. Believe that.

I mean what I say. It is unchanging, is not effected by anything. It does not decay. It is eternal.

Incorruptible. Perfect. Pure. 

And what that really means in the context of physics is that it cannot be acted against. It is unmovable. If all the matter in the universe exploded, it would remain unperturbed.

Yet, everything that moves is the direct result of its omnipotence, which literally means 

All...that is omni

And

Force, power, influence.. that is potent.

That is more or less correct.

That is a claim. Claims require a burden of proof.

That us a hell of a red ball. Of course the entire observable universe is the bix and I seem to be having trouble getting the lid off.

Claims do not require a burden of proof.  That's just a rule someone made up.

I didn't make up that "rule" it is a basic tenet of intellectual debate. You can claim anything you want and you are of course under no obligation to provide evidence of any kind but in that case don't be surprised when your claim is rejected as unsubstantiated.

I require a burden of proof before I will accept a claim and I view this as very reasonable.

If there is no existence, something cannot exist.

It's really not a red ball.

If The Ultimate Reality does not exist, nothing is real.

Which is where your line of thinking logically concludes. Nihilism. Nothing is real!

Nothing is the absence of reality, it is not reality. 

You are not denying a red ball, you are denying The Truth. You accuse me using proper language to obfuscate what I'm saying, but really you accuse me of this because ifnwhat I am sayingg is true, you are not only wrong, but your beliefs are idiotic.

And you know, pride is what gets people to hold on to error when they have been proven wrong. Instead of altering your language, you stick with your guns.

Look at what you are doing. You are denying The Truth. You are saying that you won't believe in The Truth until it is demonstrated to you.

You are demanding a miracle, because if you need evidence to believe in The Truth, you are not going to accept truth as being evidence.

When it comes right down to it, something about you is perverted. It is a wickedness that cannot be dealt with through methods of reason. No, it would take a miracle.

Well, I hope one day you get out of the dark.

No sir you are expecting a miracle. Reasonable expectation from past experience leads me to expect that you will continue to be completely unable to demonstrate any reality beyond observable reality while simultaneously asserting that you understand the universe better than cosmologists who have spent their entire lives studying the subject. Also this is not the first time that I have had to remind you thay we are not arguing about wether reality exists we are arguing about what that reality entails. We cannot see past the observable universe in the same way we cannot see past the sides of a closed box and so you cannot say if there is a ball there let alone if it is red.

Just to be clear depending on what you would consider a miracle and your ability (or more likely inability) to demonstrate that what you call god was its cause a miracle may be unlikely to convince me either.

The Ultimate Reality is God.

If you don't believe in God, you don't believe in reality.

If you believe in reality, you will confess God.

Do not try to put God in a box.

No Mopac rejecting your claims about your god is not the same as rejecting reality. Your definition is prescriptive not descriptive.

I'm not sure how to put a fictional character in a real box.

Rejecting theology is very different from rejecting God.  

I have never been presented with sufficient evidence for the idea that any god(s) exist. You are welcome to present any evidence you have but honestly that is not th e only kind of claim that this thread is meant to address. Any claim that cannot be demonstrated could be referred to as a red ball statement.

Just try not to attempt putting God in any kind of box and honestly try to seek the truth.

I'm not sure how to put a fictional character in a real box. I'm not sure why it would matter if a fictional character were put in a fictional box.

Is it important to you that you believe as few false things as possible?

The best response I have yet to receive on this thread.

lol

No, in my experience the number of falsehoods one believes in is a poor metric of personal standard to prioritize in life.  I am adamant in my value of an informed society and do genuinely enjoy education, and try to be systematic for myself and the sake of others but I wouldn't say at this time that fear of falsehoods should be prioritized to limiting point.  I typically try to adhere to my limitations when it comes to spreading information though which is limiting for things like this as I end up addressing other priorities.   On the topic of faith, a true Christian will grow and learn to consider truth more in everything they do.  The idea of leading others astray is heavier in such light.

Well it is important to me that I believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible and to that end I reject any undemonstrated claim.