The default position.

A conceptual ball has no color. 

Concepts have no mass, no color, no spin, no charge.

Only occupied space has those potentials.

Irrationality is not first cause in this thread.

The default position is not position in occupied or non-occupied space.

It is conceptual figment  with no relevant significance to reality.

This is typical of many of SM's pathways.  They lead no where of relevant signifcance.

Bubble gum of the mind, at best. At worst it is ________.

I think we should just agree to disagree. Clearly you cannot demonstrate your claims or even feel the need to. Just as clearly I am not willing to accept these claims without any sufficient evidence and can't even get you to understand why a prescriptive definition is insufficient. Good day to you sir.

Does anyone have any strong objections to my moving this thread to the philosophy forum? It seems more appropriately housed there.

The religion forum will, unironically, argue for it to be there (despite you being correct) so to achieve 0 protest go religion forums.

I have no objection although my original intention (to illustrate whether rejecting a claim requires a burden of proof) seemed to belong in the debate art forum since it helps to explain how to have a reasonable discussion.

I understand. Still, I think it's probably more germane to philosophy. Given that no strong objections arose, I will move it.

At your pleasure and convenience.

Do you actually believe that I am in a better position to determine what you were thinking when you wrote that drivel I referred to as baseless than you are? 

This is just another example of you being arbitrary.

Definition of proof

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

All you have to do is stubbornly refuse to admit you are wrong, and you wouldn't be wrong to say that I haven't presented you proof! As long as you don't change your mind, you can always say, there is no proof!

So who cares if nothing has been proven to you? You don't believe in God. Your standard for truth is arbitrary.

And I think that if anyone were to understand the back and forth we have had in this topic, it should be clear that you aren't standing on anything. Your rejection of God is a reflection of your own intellectual dishonesty and unwillingness to come to terms with reality. It comes from a pride you have in yourself that you are unwilling to swallow.

And it would be much better for you if you showed some sincere humility and confess that God is your only salvation, and that by placing your trust in lying vanities you forsake your own mercy!

Repent!

Philosophy seems appropriate 

I think that I was not attempting to express any beliefs. You are the one who has made that claim. If you cannot identify the beliefs I was expressing then I will have no choice but to reject your claim.

Ok well have a nice day then. 

I pray for your God realization.

Okay nice talking with you have a nice day.

What you do is not necessarily contingent upon attempting to do it....and you are making up some sort of claim I never made now.  You also refrained from answering the central question of the post you are replying to.

Secularmerlin:What are you talking about? I wasn't expressing a belief.

Plisken:You expressed at least two or lied.

Does this not constitute a claim that I expressed two beliefs? Which two beliefs did I express? When and where? Please be as specific as possible or withdraw your claim. Or as an alternative if you cannot own up to your own words simply do not reply. There is no need to continue if you will not even address your own words.

Then I'm curious what you meant by calling me a liar but if you now assert that I expressed no beliefs this far then we can continue. Or you are free not to continue but this thread is concerning a hypothetical situation so I would appreciate we at least take a look at the hypothetical before moving on to other arguments. If you start a thread about some other concern you have with whatever view you imagine I have then I may participate in that but this thread is concerning a specific question which I believe this thought experiment illustrates.

*with all due respect.  You've not been called for being a liar but the first sentence I'm replying to also isn't true.

As your interlocutor my respect for you and my respect of any argument you make is necessarily unconnected.

Now do you believe that the ball is red?

My answer is the same as before "no"

Why not? If I have total faith shouldn't you believe me?

I don't care?

Depending on the perspective, that could be yes or no.  From a personal perspective no.  From a higher perspective, maybe.

If you don't care about the discussion then clearly there is no need to continue. Perhaps we will find a subject we can both address someday.

That's not what I was referring to.....to anyone who has actually read my original response entertaining the hypothetical, I do not care about the person''s balls or box.  The merlin''s statement here is based in false pretenses.  

Hi there, I've moved the topic to Philosophy.

Then you don't care about the discussion. The ball in this case is only a stand in for any claim which is made but not demonstrated. It's just a metaphor. Thank you anyway and perhaps someday we will find a subject we can both engage in.