Amoranemix

PGA2.0 937

[ . . . ] You can't account for the uniformity of nature - why things remain constant by chance happenstance. [ . . . ]

Theweakeredge 943

The why doesn't really matter all that much, just that it did happen, you would have to prove that someone caused it... this isn't a point against me, this is another appeal to ignorance, 3 fallacies.

PGA2.0 1177

The "why" does matter. The reason we can do science is that results are repeatable. The reason we can observe the laws of nature is that the same thing is repeatable indefinitely. I liken the uniformity of nature to rolling a dice. First, rolling a dice needs an agent. It does not roll itself. Then to constantly roll six the dice has to be fixed. The same roll, the same landing, the same result indefinitely requires intent. If there is no intent (i.e., perhaps you have weighted the dice) any number can pop up. Without fixing the dice how long can you go experientially, not in theory, before another number is rolled?[700] Not long, yet you surmise or theorize that time fixes the problem, eons and eons of time makes anything possible.[701] The theoretical is not always akin to the practical. I cannot always be lived. Then with the universe, either something came from nothing, and without agency or cause, a logical impossibility, or the universe always existed. Over and over and over again, the atheistic worldview or way of looking at the universe and what is in it is an inconsistent worldview.

Answering the why questions give reason or agency for a thing.[702]

Then you falsely charge me with an appeal to ignorance.[703] I have presented the above argument before in this thread as well as a number of other pieces of evidence for my stated claim. That appeal to ignorance would be the case if I had presented no evidence for God or for the uniformity of nature as not possible from a chance happenstance position, but I have.

PGA2.0 1202

The god of atheism is the atheist. They declare what is and what should be. The problem is that everyone is right in their own eyes, and yet their beliefs often contradict other atheists and everyone else. That is the problem when there is no absolute, objective measure or final reference point any view can be pushed as right. They are naked, and they don't know it. That is the absurdity of atheism.

Again, atheists have no god and don't believe in one.

Nevets 1199

Certainly an Atheist should feel free to express their opinions on the subject.

PGA2.0 1202

Sure, but I have never found one who can justify their belief. Instead, they continually dodge most questions. I will admit that Amoranemix is more willing to do so, but his posts are very complex that it takes a great effort to respond to. I put them aside for a while since I do not have the time to get into them.

Double_R  1201

The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim.

PGA2.0 1202

And you have made many claims here.

Double_R  1201

If an atheist claims there are no gods then the atheist does have the burden, but by that point he had already stepped outside of the definition of atheism.

PGA2.0 1202

Atheism is a claim, a worldview, and a lifestyle. The atheist lives as if no God exists. They deny God by most of the things they believe.[704] And then they get into all kinds of complicated arguments against the existence of God just like you are here. You are pushing your atheistic beliefs while denying you have any—the absurdity of it all.

Double_R  1201

There are atheist groups out there but the overwhelming majority of atheists do not belong to any such group.

PGA2.0 1202

Big deal, so what? An atheist is a person who is their own god, proclaiming what is and what should be without a clue of why their view is any BETTER than any other, other than the fact that they like it and hold it.[705] Morality, for the atheist, boils down to a preference, nothing more, since they cannot establish anything other than opinion.[706] Thanks for your opinion!

Double_R  1204

I hope you choose choice C; neither, because you can’t possibly extract enough information out of what I just gave you to make a determination. Just as we can’t possibly have enough information to determine what if anything exists beyond that which we have access to.

PGA2.0 1205

Not in the case of God. There is sufficient evidence for His existence [706], and the contrary belief cannot make sense of itself. I often point out to the atheist that not believing in God contradicts the way they live. They live as if there are right and wrong and that such a belief really matters, yet how can it ultimately matter in an amoral universe that doesn't care because it is not personal and conscious.

Double_R  1204

Characterize me all you want, claim that I think I am my own God (as silly as that is) all you want. If you actually care about understanding people who think differently than you, perhaps you should focus on that.

PGA2.0 1205

You seem to think that I don't know the pitfuls of an atheistic worldview. [ . . . ]

Best.Korea  37 :

Since you still refuse to make an argument,[20] I still have nothing to respond to.[21] My arguments remain unchallenged.[22]

Best.Korea  31 :

No. When you provide an argument, then we will be able to discuss.[17] Since I am the only one who provided arguments, there is still nothing for me to respond to.[18] I hope you present arguments soon, because I am running out of patience.[19]

Best.Korea  31 :

Since you have not presented any counter arguments, there is still nothing for me to respond to.

Best.Korea  28

Since you are unable to respond to the arguments I made, I will consider this my win until you actually make an argument.

Amoranemix 27 :

Were there arguments hidden between your bald assertions? I seem to have missed them. Could you please point them out for me?

Best.Korea  31 :

[no response]

Best.Korea  28

Since you are unable to respond to the arguments I made, I will consider this my win until you actually make an argument.

Amoranemix 27 :

[12] That is a truckload of bald assertion you unloaded there. Can you prove any of them? If so, which ones?

[13] Atheism nor Christianity can create working societies. People can.

[14] What is morality of life?

Best.Korea  28 :

[no response]

Amoranemix 27 :

[a] Back up your claims please. Demonstrate that you are not merely venting your bias.

Remember Bloody Mary (Tudor)? God punished Britain with disasters after she climbed on the throne in 1553 because she was too lenient on the protestants. So she became intolerant of them.

[15] How so?

[16] At least, so you baldly assert. Can you demonstrate as well?

Best.Korea  28 :

[no response]

Amoranemix 27 :

[a] Even if your claim were true that would not demonstrate that atheism excludes morality. Please demonstrate your claim and that atheism excludes morality.

[b] It also leaves options to do good things.

[7] You forgot to answer my question.

Best.Korea  28 :

[no response]

Amoranemix 27 :

[8] It is typical for Christians to be unable to support their claims - presumably because they are false – but atypical for them to admit that. Thank you for sharing your gratuitous statements with us, but skeptics prefer to believe in reality.

[9] Please demonstrate that atheism has killed over a billion people and caused diseases in our society. Even if you managed to do that, it still would not follow that most atheists have no moral standard. Please demonstrate they have none.

[10] I prefer to rely on the dictionary.

From www.dictionary.com:

atheism noun

the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

It appears the dictionary disagrees with your 'fact'.

Best.Korea  28 :

[no response]

Amoranemix 27 :

Please demonstrate that education and life experience can't give people morality.

Also, please demonstrate the bald assertions you added.

Best.Korea  28 :

[no response]

Amoranemix 25 :

[1] It also encourages to do evil and discourages to do good. If not, then it wouldn't be beneficial to the followers, but to others.

[2] Education and life experience can do the same.

[3] The Bible is a book. Atheists can also read books. Good books even.

[4] It makes them feel guilty all the time and scares them with Hell.

[5] Other books can also remind readers if they are read again.

Best.Korea 26 :

[3] No. The only good book is the Bible. It is the only one that offers perfect guide. Atheists are deluded and cannot learn from the Bible. Atheists as a result of that cannot have morality. Christians have the perfect morality: "Thou shall not kill" and "multiply and fill the Earth". This is the best morality of life. It is the best morality and atheists can never outmatch it. Increasing life is an idea given by God. It is the best thing to do, as life is the best thing. Atheist, by rejecting God, rejects this idea. He ends up failing in life, and teaches others to fail too. It is of no surprise that atheists are famous for homosexuality, depression and violence. It is foolish to think you can reject the creator of morality of life, and not get lack of morality as a reward. Atheist follows pleasure of the flesh. He cannot have correct morality when his wealth is in pleasure. Atheist denies the truth to make himself feel good. Atheists make morality serve them. Christians serve the morality of life. Christians benefit in this world and the next. Best countries in the world are the ones with Christian majority, such as Sweden, USA, Switzerland, Germany.[12]

Atheism cannot even create a working society. Thats why no society is atheist.[12]

You cannot have atheism and morality of life. Choosing atheism always means rejecting the morality of life.[14]

Amoranemix 25 :

[1] It also encourages to do evil and discourages to do good.[a] If not, then it wouldn't be beneficial to the followers, but to others.[b]

Best.Korea 26 :

[a] No. Atheists discourage to do good when they reject God. Thats why when atheism increases, so do violence, suicides, abominations, mental illness and sexual crimes. The best countries in the world are countries with Christian majority. Christianity results in best societies. God makes atheists mentally retarded.

[b] No.[15] Anyone who rejects God rejects the good. You cannot have good without God. Rejecting God results in rejection of morality. That results in violence.[16]

Best.Korea OP :

What are the benefits of atheism? If God doesnt exist, the religion still has all the benefits above. However, atheism has no benefits even if God doesnt exist. It has no morality.[6] It has no comfort for its followers. Atheism just makes life worse.[7]

Are there any benefits of atheism? None. The fact that Christian religion is beneficial to society means that anyone promoting atheism is harming society.

Amoranemix 25 :

[6] That is not a requirement. Atheism does not exclude morality.[a] It merely does not prescribe it.

[7] How so?

In order to benefit from Christianity, one needs to spend time on it. Atheists can spend that time on other beneficial things, like practising a hobby. In general, atheism is the absense of something, leaving room to be filled. One can fill that room with one's favourite religion, but also with useful things. Atheism leaves more options.[b]

Best.Korea 26 :

[a] No. The entire history of atheism is that of sinning and abominations.

[b] Yes. It leaves options to do bad things.

[7] [no response]

Best.Korea OP :

Best countries in the world are Christian countries. To abandon Christianity, that would be harmful for our society.[8]

Atheism is not just a lack of belief in God. Without God, you fall into lack of morality, lack of guide and lack of comfort.[9]

We need religion. It is our basis for life. The fact that life is better with religion proves that religion is correct and atheism is wrong.[10]

Amoranemix 25 :

[8] Can you provide evidence for that claim?

[9] You are mistaken. Most atheists have a moral standard.

[10] Please demonstrate that fact.

Best.Korea 26 :

[8] No. Use google. A quick google search will give you the answer you need.

[9] No. Atheism has killed over a billion people and caused diseases in our society.

[10]Atheism = abortions, homosexuality, violence, depression, diseases, trans...

Atheists = Stalin, Mao, Hitler.

Google is your friend.

Amoranemix 25 :

[2] Education and life experience can do the same.

Best.Korea 26 :

No. People get most comfort from God. There is no education or experience that can match God's word. This is historically proven. The more you reject God, the more depression you have and the less morality you have.

Best.Korea OP :

The Christian religion offers plenty of benefits to its followers. It encourages them to do good. It discourages them from evil.[1] It gives them morality.[2] It gives them the guide - The Holy Bible.[3] It comforts them in difficult times with a prayer.[4] It reminds them to think of God and pray every day. It reminds them that there is God who loves them and cares for them and expects them to do good.[5]

Best.Korea OP :

What are the benefits of atheism? If God doesnt exist, the religion still has all the benefits above. However, atheism has no benefits even if God doesnt exist. It has no morality.[6] It has no comfort for its followers. Atheism just makes life worse.[7]

Are there any benefits of atheism? None. The fact that Christian religion is beneficial to society means that anyone promoting atheism is harming society.

Best.Korea OP :

Best countries in the world are Christian countries. To abandon Christianity, that would be harmful for our society.[8]

Atheism is not just a lack of belief in God. Without God, you fall into lack of morality, lack of guide and lack of comfort.[9]

We need religion. It is our basis for life. The fact that life is better with religion proves that religion is correct and atheism is wrong.[10]

FLRW 3 :

Atheists and agnostics also reported experiencing less difficulty falling asleep.

Best.Korea 5 :

Trading your morals for 20% better sleep is a bad trade.

Stephen 17 :

And it won't be the first time the "arrogant" has slated  atheists  either.

Best.Korea 18 :

Atheists are failing in many ways.[11] You should be more concerned about the lack of morality in atheists rather than my fair words.

Proving Atheists wrong.

There are many arguments that I have used that no atheists have been able to refute yet.

Let me say once and once only, that this is only for the argument of their being a God and not a certain God.

The Domino Example:

Think of our existence like a line of dominoes. Each domino before is affecting the next representing the flow of time as well as space, where the dominos are, and matter, the dominoes themselves. The dominoes falling represents time/space/matter working.

Now Atheists usually can't explain how the universe came to be, so they usually revert to the argument that the universe has just been infinite and gone on forever.[1]

So, let's use the dominos in this example.

If the line of dominoes was infinitely long, then the dominoes wouldn't ever fall, because there would never be a beginning to start the chain reaction from.[2]

So, in order for our universe to make sense there had to have been a beginning. But whatever started that beginning had to have been more powerful than the dominoes (time/space/matter) and exist outside that reality.[3]

Take that in.

Atheism is too simple:

Atheism turns out to be too simple.[4]

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.[5]

Just as if there were no light in the universe, then therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark.[6]

Dark would be without meaning.

Theweakeredge 943

Okay... I hate to tell you this but.... cool story bro, what does that prove? Either we have an inherent purpose or we don't I say [a] there hasn't been one demonstration and that more than likely we don't. [b] You say there is and haven't proven it. Prove it. That's a neat story and everything, maybe it might have inspired some hope in me once upon a time, but now it doesn't as appeals to emotions don't move me unless your my boyfriend, and you don't seem to be him. [ . . . ]

PGA2.0  1165

[a] Again, prophecy is a reasonable demonstration that the words can be trusted in such matters, among other evidence. History confirms names, places, and events as existing and happening, being confirmed by non-biblical sources. The intricate unity of the 66 books is another. Every OT book foreshadows or is symbolic of the Lord Jesus Christ and greater truth. So, the physical history of a nation reveals a greater spiritual truth. Then there are the philosophical questions that delve into worldviews and what makes sense in the origin of things like this thread is trying to do in morality. 

[b] There are plenty of proofs. The questions are, what would you accept? Your worldview bias plays a big part in how you look at the information. Hence the thread. I am looking at one aspect of the proof, morality, as to which is more reasonable to believe.

Theweakeredge 943

[a] No, first, you would have to prove that god exists, [b] second, you would have to prove that god could do that, [c] third, you would have to prove that god did do that, [d] fourth, you would have to prove that bible is accurate. Also, no, [e] you claiming something isn't reasonable, [f] it's you making an assertion, [g] that isn't a logical argument, this is you asserting them and ad hoc declaring them to be the truth.

PGA2.0  1165

[a] Again, what proof would you accept? You accept the BB. No one was around. The Bible confirms the universe began to exist. It agrees with that premise. It differs because it does not chalk that beginning down to chance happenstance but to a necessary mindful being who exits outside the physical reality. So, there is a reasonable explanation for the universe, a reason for its existence. [ . . . ]

[b] Again, it comes to where, to what, and to whom you put your highest authority in, and what is more reasonable to believe - relative, subjective humans in regards to origins or a being that is objective and omniscient that has revealed. Which is more reasonable to your mind? Are you going to reject the latter on the premise that your authority is greater?

[ . . . ]

[e] My assertions deal with philosophical and necessary conditions for ultimate meaning and morality, as well as other offshoots brought up here regarding the origins of the universe and our existence.[690] It is logical to presuppose that morality comes from minds and that a necessary being is necessary for making sense of it as anything more than power politics. Is that reasonable to believe?[691] [ . . . ]

[f] Pot, met kettle.  

[g] It is logical. God has what is necessary for logic.[692] Logic comes from mindful being, something we experientially witness and see no acceptions to.[693]

[ . . . ]

PGA2.0 937 to Theweakeredge

Not more doubtful than disbelief in God. That unbelief is unreasonable.[A] Then you have no justification for the way things are other than sh_t happens. You can't account for the uniformity of nature - why things remain constant by chance happenstance. You have no justification for morality because morality is a mindful thing, and in a universe devoid of mind, how does life arise. Our life is meaningless in the big picture of such a universe. Why are you making it meaningful? You are not being consistent with your starting point; I am. There is no overall purpose for you in doing so. You are a tiny, insignificant human being in a vast expanse of meaninglessness once you discount God. You are trying to find meaning and reason in the meaningless. Go figure. It sounds insane to me, and people have gradually gone insane once they jettisoned God.  Life without God is ultimately dead-end meaningless.

Theweakeredge 943

[A] Let's see your reasoning for that claim.

PGA2.0 1177

Is it reasonable to believe that thinking beings derive their existence from non-living matter?[694] That is your presuppositional position when the causal tree is examined all the way to the root cause. What you find there is devoid of reason and yet you believe it gives rise to reason. Please explain how. Make sense of it. Make sense of how consciousness is derived from something lacking it. Explain how morality is possible without a fixed final reference point that is best, what is actual and real, not derived from wishful thinking that is subjective and fleeting (for it changes).[695]

On the contrary, is it reasonable to believe that reason is derived from a necessary mindful and reasoning being? Yes, there is a reason with such a being and experientially and internally consistently (two proofs of logic) that is all we witness.[696]

Theweakeredge 943

[a] Yes... because that's the only thing we can demonstrate happening, why is this unreasonable? [b] Were you hoping your crude framing of what reality is would scare me off? [c] Things happen, we don't know exactly what started the first thing, but you claiming "god" isn't proof either, its you asserting something. You are drawing a conclusion from reasoning that doesn't logically follow, Non sequitur. 2 Fallacies.

PGA2.0 1177

The physical is not the only thing we can demonstrate. [ . . . ]

[ . . . ]

[c] Again (and I am getting tired of reminding you) the premise of this thread is which position regarding morality is more reasonable to believe, the atheistic or Christian position. Can you understand that???

[d] It logically follows that the Christian position on morality is more reasonable than one that cannot account for morality as anything other than preference.[697] How does preference make something right?

The question is does it necessarily follow? Does it logically follow? Well, what would be the case for necessity? Morality is derived from mindful beings - it is a mind thing. That is necessary. It is logical to believe (some might say self-evident). We as mindful beings lack what is needed for a fixed, objective, unchanging, absolute reference point [whose human mind(s) would that be] that is the best and that has revealed what is right. There are disputes over what is right in every society. That is seen by our cultures in which the grounds of morality shift and one culture has a contrary view from another. Then in the causal chain, how does mindfulness derive from what is lacking consciousness?[698] How do things happen without intent, agency, or purpose? What was the agency that caused the BB and the chain of events that lead to humanity and reasoning mindful beings? Atheism has a longwinded explanation that has gaping holes in its logic and reason. The Christian system of thought has what is necessary.[699]

PGA2.0 1131 to ludofl3x

[a] The argument was, which is the more simple explanation. But since you raise the assertion that the biblical God is undemonstrable, I totally disagree. The evidence is reasonable for His existence.

[ . . . ]

Fact: The Bible describes our condition and why humanity is in the current situation, why evil exists, and the solution.[671]

Fact: The Bible contains hundreds of prophecies that are reasonable to believe were written before the event they describe.[672]

[ . . . ]

Fact: Many eternal writings from the time period also speak of this Messiah figure and confirm the biblical accounts.[673]

These are just a few of the many facts that confirm the biblical narrative and a belief in God.[674] I could get into a lot more depth and show the intricately connected and unified nature of every biblical writing. I could show you from history the reasonableness of these writings happening before the events prophecies. I have contended many times that the evidence for is far more reasonable than the evidence against, and if you want to get into it, I am willing. So, don't tell me there is no evidence, or it is reasonable to believe this God is mythical or magical.[675]

[b] Which is more simple...God spoke, and it was so. He said, "Let there be light, and it was so"[676]..., or somehow nothing came into existence via a Big Bang for no reason that resulted in the complexity and diversity of the universe as it evolved from the simple to the complex, also for no reason?

What is more simple, God created us as reasoning beings made in His image and likeness with the ability to reason and love, or...non-living inorganic chemical matter mixed forming molecular bonds and more and more complex molecular structures, eventually acquired consciousness (how we don't know), thus, becoming living organisms in a most basic form - one-celled organisms with complex engineered systems that move, feed, expel wastes, reproduce, and eventually die. From these common ancestors, transitions took place over billions of years of evolution through mutations and genetic engineering partly governed or influenced by the environment. The most adaptable survived, and the weak were eliminated. These mutating organisms became more and more complex, eventually resulting in us humans. [677]

PGA2.0 1153 to Theweakeredge

[d] The current model (presuming you speak of the Big Bang) does not necessarily exclude belief in God. The universe coming into being does not necessarily exclude God as the reason for its existence. At least belief in God is reasonable. A chance happenstance universe is not. There lacks a reason for such a universe.

Theweakeredge 942

You took two sources and cherry-picked specific things that would align with your version of events, these things did most likely occur, you provide no discredit besides cherry-picking and not understanding how science works. Science isn't a collection of facts, its the observation of reality, and the scientific method is a process for finding the best and most verified version of that.

PGA2.0 1153

I took the posts and noted the highly speculative language involved, the language of what if and maybe, the language of possibility, not a certainty.

PGA2.0 1153 to Theweakeredge

[b] What is illogical about the Christian God?[678] From a necessary mind comes other contingent minds. From necessary life comes contingent life. From a necessary intelligent and logical mind comes other intelligent and logical contingent minds.[679] And what do we ever witness? We see that life comes from the living, not from something non-living.[680] We see that logical beings come from other logical beings.[681] We see that beings capable of love and reason are derived from other beings with the same attributes.[682] We do not see otherwise, yet this is what you believe. Thus, it is not me who is being inconsistent and illogical. I believe it is you who created the fairy tale.

3RU7AL 1152

He might have disavowed the concept of there being a VOLTRON, but he certainly knew there was such a concept. So, he has beliefs about such a VOLTRON. He even speaks of the angry Jewish VOLTRON, or the Christian incarnation, so he was aware of this VOLTRON; he had concepts of what such a VOLTRON is like, even though he grossly misrepresents VOLTRON.  And how well does his concept stand up to the scrutiny of a VOLTRON being impersonal? 

It's important to remember that just because someone knows what a VOLTRON is, that doesn't mean they necessarily think VOLTRON IS REAL.

PGA2.0 1154

Then he would have had a belief about what "Voltron" is before he could deny the concept of such a thing as an actuality. He could not deny something he had no beliefs about. Thus, he had a belief about Voltron before he denied it. The same is true of atheism.[684] There has not been an atheist on this site I have corresponded with who did not have beliefs about gods or God (capital G meaning the Christian God as the true God) in their denial of the said gods/God. Thus, atheism is a belief system.[685] It denies one form of belief to accept another,[686] but it understands both and has beliefs about both systems of belief.

Theweakeredge

Wrong, that's one reason why I don't think it was designed, and that wasn't a bias, [a] I came to that conclusion from sorting through the literal libraries of evidence to support my case, the other major reason is that there has been no demonstrated intent behind the universe, there has been no demonstrated god either, so no that is not the only reason, but you haven't even proven that! [b] You haven't even disproven my point, all you've done is gish gallop away, content with your position that proves literally nothing, as you have not given any opposing evidence. No, this is you appealing to ignorance, a logical fallacy, this is dismissed because as another said, you are the king of fallacies. 

I don't care if you "think" my view is unreasonable, I want you to prove it's unreasonable which you haven't done at all.

PGA2.0 1154

[a] You sorted through the evidence from a particular paradigm in which God was not looked upon as a reasonable explanation. The worldview you chose avoided looking to God or understanding things from anything other than a naturalistic perspective as reasonable. Now from a Christian perspective, everything in the universe demonstrates God. You fail to see this because you don't want to know or think about God.

[b] This thread intends to show that the Christian worldview is more reasonable than the atheistic one. I can't prove something to someone that does not want to be shown proof.[687] As the NT notes Jesus saying, throwing one's pearls before swine results in them being trampled. I accomplished what I set out to do, show that the atheist is incapable of making sense of morality.[688] A preference makes nothing right;[689] it just makes it doable, as demonstrated by Hitler and perhaps thousands of other dictators throughout history, as well as with those who show that their morality is shifting and changing.

[c] That statement always brings to mind what you would accept as proof.

3RU7AL

Your decalogue is indistinguishable from a (really old) personal preference or opinion.

PGA2.0 432

Your assertion, not mine. Back it up.

Amoranemix 911

Can you provide/support such distinction with more than bald assertions ?

PGA2.0 1120

3RU7AL made a claim. It was his statement, not mine. It is his onus to back it up as anything more than an assertion.

Can you prove "it" (his statement of it - the Decalogue - being indistinguishable from other older personal preferences) is not the case with anything other than bald assertions? How does he back that up? Is he going to appeal to the Code of Hammurabi or another god? Please give me some proof that those codes or accounts did not borrow from the biblical account or that such gods are more reasonable to believe in by the evidence for them.[668]

I am appealing to logic and what would philosophically have to be the case. If you disagree, then provide another justifiable reason or argument (set of premises).[669]

[ . . . ]

Amoranemix 911

[a] So you chose God and his morality. [i] A choice, assuming free will, is subjective.

[b]That your god is necessary for morality is something you have yet to prove. My worldview allows me to explain why you haven't done so yet, because I base it on reality.

So, you choose according to what you believe meets you preference and your preference is the moral standard of someone who has what is necessary for morality. But what if Kim Jong Un or Bashar Al Assad has a different preference ?

PGA2.0 1120

[a] He first chose me to be born again in Christ. It begins with Him. Morality makes sense with God. It is reasonable to believe that morality comes from mindful beings, and a necessary being who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal meets the requirements. 

[i] A choice for humans is subjective. We do not know everything. Thus we make a judgment. But if God has revealed, we can know what is objective provided; we correctly interpret His revelation.

[b] There is an objective standard of appeal, provided the biblical God exists. It is not subjective if such a God exists, has revealed, and I correctly interpret His revelation. Agree or disagree?

keep asking you questions that you fail to answer.[670] Be honest with yourself and others and stop hiding what you believe. I am not the only one giving an account here. Do you realize that?[671] It requires two of us to test each other's worldviews. Here are some more questions concerning this very subpoint.

Is a mind necessary for morality? If so, is that mind your mind? Yes or no?[672]

If you did not exist, would morality still be possible? If so, why is your mind the necessary mind for morality's existence, or can you say it is?[673]

For you to know with certainty, would omniscience provide the answer? Yes or no?[674]

For morality to exist, does the law of logic, the law of identity apply? (A=A) If not, whose idea of the moral right is actually true to what is the case, or is there no actual case and how do you know?[675]

If there is no fixed, unchanging standard - a best - then what do you use to compare goodness or rightness to?[676]

If morality is not eternally true (truth is always the case), then how can you say something is morally right or wrong? If it is not always the case that something is right, then it can change and what was once true is now false regarding the same principle.[677] That begs why is the "now" better than the "then"? How do you get better in such a case? Who gets to determine that?[678]

Again, if moral values are not eternal, unchanging, they are inconsistent with logic. They fail the law of contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of excluded middles.[679]

Amoranemix 911 to SkepticalOne

So a good script for evasion seems to be:

1. Miss the point with a nonsensical response.

2. When confronted, admit your mistake.

3. Accept the congratulations!

PGA2.0 1120

I've lost the greater context, so I will respond to what is available.

Point three - Thank you! I realize you are the only one who can't be wrong or misunderstand something!!!

All communication requires that we get the meaning the other person is conveying to understand them correctly. Misapplying a term or not understanding it can result in a misunderstanding. You seem to think I am not allowed that benefit. Are you so perfect, or is this your way of beating up on me?

Amoranemix 911

[a] Although you have failed to answer his [3RU7AL] question, [b] you suggest that something that has what is necessary for morality, is moral (benevolent). [c] Why would that be so ?

[d] You also claim that a fixed foundation is required for morality. Can you prove that ? (Repeating how bad it is without such foundation and repeating fallacious questions do not constitute proof.)

[e] You also seem to be under the impression that asking something gives the recipient of your request the duty to fulfill it. However, that is not so according to the [f] moral standard of most of your recipients.

PGA2.0 1120

[a] I have answered how I know many times before, till I am blue in the face. I find the evidence in the Bible is reasonable and compelling to believe, and in an example like prophecy, it is confirmed on many accounts by external historical evidence. I have also argued philosophically, ontologically, metaphysically, morally, and epistemological for my case.

[b] In the biblical case, yes.

[c] As I have said before, I don't argue about other gods, so my theistic argument is about a specific God I deem meets the requirements of what is necessary, as explained in the biblical revelation/writings.

[d] If something does not have a fixed identity, how can you say it is what it is? I think it is self-evident. Do you believe that some things are self-evident? 

[e] I am under the impression that you cannot fulfill my questions or requests, so you avoid them.[670] It, to me, shows the moral and epistemological bankruptcy of your atheistic position. It can't make sense of itself with anything other than assertions and calling the kettle black. 

[f] What moral standard? Are you speaking about your preferences? How are they moral? Justify them as moral. Do you think that just because you can make something up, that means it is moral?

PGA2.0 1130 to FLRW

[About the age of the universe]

Who should I trust? You? Your data? The language above is unsure.

China is an extremely reasonable country international-relations-wise, always has been in terms of geopolitics.[10] The US however... you never can predict their next moment to stick their dick deep in your country's affairs militaristically without your consent.

[10] You are being ambiguous. I am assuming that with China you are referring to the PRC.

Are you expecting Tibet's colonised status to mean China is not very reasonable internationally?

I define reasonable, in the context it was used, as rational and proportional.[11] China has not been known to give disproportionate backlash, internationally. Can you explain how China has been an unreasonable and unpredictable nation internationally to the point it's hotheaded enough to think Pelosi had to be at Taiwan at that moment to stop a magical sudden attack?

That is literally what this OP amonaremix or whatever it is keeps telling.[12]

Ramshutu 14 :

Appropriateness is not something that’s easy to discern in international diplomacy stuff like this; as it’s all a matter of perspective and values.[8]

The best we can do, is ask whether there was geopolitical benefit to the trip; did the harms outweigh the gain.

This type of thing is all weird layers, smoke and mirrors.

So - what this was, was an obvious attempt to lend official whitehouse support to Taiwan, but be a bit less overt and obvious than a formal presidential trip.[9] That alone tempers it a little bit - they could have made a bigger statement; while it’s clear that this is 100% Biden/executive support of Taiwan, that Pelosi went puts a little distance in that support.[10]

Basti123 16 :
Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan had a good intention but was very innapropiate. By "good intention" I mean she was trying to show support to Taiwan but I think It was totally innapropiate and she could have thought about it twice before doing something that could make China angry, make Us-China cooperation dissapear or debilitate and potentially start an invasion.

RationalMadman :

Exactly, if this did anything it was motivate China to actually start the invasion early because US is decided to get cocky and publicly disrespect them like 'haha we aren't scared' that is the moment when to show the enemy to fear you.

Absolute moron move.

RationalMadman :

Entirely so. It is nothing more than a fuck you to China stirring a pot that America has no business stirring.[1]

China is not Russia, Taiwan is not Ukraine.

China is not worth pissing off for the place they call Taipei.[2]

It is just. Not. Worth. It.

Use your head. First free North Korean slaves (yes, slaves) before grandstanding with Taiwan.[3]

RationalMadman :

They have for decades, they let US have Philippenes even.

They let US brutalise Middle East and didn't encourage the world to sanction in or go 'fuck you we have allies in the Middle East'. China has respected US and its interference in other nations because US helped China remain independent of Japanese Imperial rule in WWII.[4]

China may be a corrupt place with few freedoms but this is not the same thing as Russia vs Ukraine. Putin is a maniac doing genocide, Taiwan will be taken 'forcefully' but in terms of violence they are just going to surrender and be sad and that is life.[5] They will be fully integrated into China and relatively speaking let be. China has no real intention other than to make Taiwan admit it is part of China, they will probably even allow the flags to remain for all I can predict (but insist it's called Chinese Taipei).

At the end of the day is this really, seriously the one hill to die on for US?[6] China is not the enemy to be making over this one place [7] that they kind of have more right to than US does in every sense other than 'democratic'. Taiwan doesn't want to be a US state and US isn't asking every region of China if they support CCP ruling them.

Lemming 6 :

Hm, people haven't mentioned the Uyghur in a while,

Can't say I ever made up my opinion on those claims people made there, but people 'did claim genocide on China's part.

Even without genocide, China has a history of 'disappearing people,

Of imprisonment, removal of liberty, destruction of culture, autonomy of other states autonomy.

Tibet,

Lemming 6:

I look at Intelligence_06's comments in Pelosi landed at Taiwan (debateart.com),

Intelligence_06 7 to RationalMadman :

Agreed. Even from a Pro-US standpoint this is a strategically terrible move.

Athias 469 :

[1.] Your question was already addressed in post #440.

[2.] You've corrected nothing; once again, I was not confirming your statement.

[3.] Because of the meaning of "value."

[4.'] The two aren't mutually exclusive.[98] And that's my point. You questioned the definitions I've submitted,[99] and when pressed to expand on your scrutiny, you provide rather than substantiation, more questions.[100]

"Within reason"? What would be an unreasonable choice?[101]

[4.''] Substantiate your assertion that my position is false.

Amoranemix 567 :

[1.] For clarity, here is the question from post 453 : “How does what you said about disbelief and one's private gnosis apply ?”

For clarity, here is what the question is about ('what you said'), from post 440 : “I create distinctions between "believe in" and "argue for." That is, the disbelief in God or gods as an expression of value needs not be "rationally defensible" because it's a declaration of one's private gnosis.”

First, you are missing the point, for the issue is not whether you addressed the question, but whether you answered it. You haven't.

Second, I cannot find where in post 440 you addressed the question. Please show where you have done so.

Athias 577 :

For clarity, this is what you stated:

“You say that with that disagreement you merely shared your internal gnosis”

And then I responded:

“1. No, I didn't.”

You then asked:

How does what you said about disbelief and one's private gnosis apply ?

And then I responded:

“I never stated that my disagreement with your claim was an expression of private gnosis. I stated that private gnosis on its own needs not be rationally defensible.”

You state I haven't answered your questions, but I've responded to your questions in this very long time that we've had this exchange.[113] Perhaps if you ceased quoting me out of sequence, you would've been able to find them easier.[114] But here's what I said in context of its application (here's the part that you left out):

“I create distinctions between "believe in" and "argue for." That is, the disbelief in God or gods as an expression of value needs not be "rationally defensible" because it's a declaration of one's private gnosis. As an argument, however, the proposition of a claim needs to be rationally defensible because argumentation is intended to resolve disputes between conflicting private gnoses using a consistent (not objective) standard as its measure. So, "I don't believe in God" needs not be rationally defensible; however, "God does not exist"--an argument--needs to be.”[115]

This creates a distinction between "belief" and "argument." That is the application.[116]

Amoranemix 567 :

[2.] Please demonstrate that your disagreement with the claim “In the mean time everyone agrees, either tacitly or explicitely, that the position that atheism is irrational is not a rationally defensible one.” is rationally defensible.

[3.] You are being evasive. How does the meaning of value explain why stating that a belief is based on value is redundant.

[4.'] Definitions weren't discussed in this subdiscussion.

[98] That did not stop you from using the former as an excuse to abstain from doing that latter.

[99] I did so on your request.

[100] If I have inappropriately failed to provide substantion to my questions about your definitions, please point out the pertinent cases.

[101] Typically confusing or deceptive definitions. For example, calling your dog God and then claiming that God exists.

[4.''] You forgot the magic word.

Athias 577 :

[2.] I don't have to demonstrate that my disagreement expresses anything other than a contradiction to your claim, "everyone agrees..." I have no intention of contradicting or undermining atheism in the context of "belief." As an "argument" however, well... WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING THESE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS? If you don't know at the very least my argument against the rationality of the argument "God does not exist," then WE HAVE WASTED OUR TIME.

[3.] Because the two are virtually synonymous.

[4.] No idea what you're talking about, here.

[98] Excuses? I'm not the self-admitted "sloth," here. I establish definitions; I establish arguments; your preference as to the sequence of these submissions are inconsequential.

[99] Made no such request. I had asked you if you had objections, and to substantiate them in the event that you did.

[100] Your incapacity to substantiate an unnecessary element in the definition I provided for the term exist.

[101] That is neither deceptive nor confusing; stringent definitions make for better arguments, but here I am just making "excuses."

[4.''] Forget it.

Athias 469 :

[78] This has nothing to do with what we were talking about. You claimed "knowing something about X requiring information from X" is an assumption. I rejected your characterizing it as an assumption, and then subsequently demanded that you "substantiate this assumptive characteristic."

[a] Because, "Spino" is an identifier, i.e. a name which provides information. Once you've identified "Spino," acknowledged information of its existence.

[b] No matter how many times you attempt to reciprocate in this tit for tat, "seem" is not now nor has it ever been an argument. And when you employ it in your discussions with me, I will without fail point that out.

[c'] I already did and submitted them.

[c''] Are you being facetious?

[c'''] No need.

Amoranemix 567 :

[78] Right. Let's jump passed the confusion you mangaged to sow.

In post 440 you said : “Because the nonexistent does not exist. The nonexistent provides no information.” I assumed you were trying to answer the question you were addressing, namely how Spino's nonexistence prevents one from knowing he does not exist. I tried to figure out how your response attempted to do that, which led me to believe you relied on the assumption that knowing something about X, requires information from X.

Apparently I read you wrong. You again successfully confused me.

In post 445 you said : “In order to aquire and maintain knowledge, one needs information. One can either conceive information or receive information, which ultimately is still conceived (i.e. information sustained by one's mind is irrevocably subjected to the bias of one's mind and subsequent conceptual attachments.) Your defining Spino--conceiving or "receiving" information notwithstanding--informs its existence.”

Please demonstrate the last claim.

I am assuming you were trying to support this claim from post 317 : “That is, if something does not exist, you don't know it does not exist, because it does not exist.” If not, please demonstrate that claim.[*]

[a] So, defining Spino implies conceiving Spino and conceiving Spino provides information about Spino. Yet you claimed that the nonexistent provides no information. Please demonstrate that.

[b] It would seem then that I can make you commit a red herring fallacy on demand.

You forgot to answer my question.

[c''] No.

Athias 577 :

[78] Yes, I'm the one sowing confusion.

[*] My demonstration is no longer of any consequence at this point.

[a] Same as directly above.

[b] Whatever.

Athias 469 :

[*] Yes, you most certainly have.

[**] I'm the only person in our discussion providing information to his argument. You see, I am not lazy.

Amoranemix 567 :

[*] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

[**] Providing information to this argument ≠ honouring your burden of proof.

Most people are lazy. Few people are honest enough to admit it.

Athias 577 :

[*] It's of no consequence.

[**] Inconsequential.

Tradesecret OP :

It's been my experience that Atheists love to show up to religious threads.  They get to have their say. They get to destroy their opponents.  They get to prove how cool they are in the world of philosophy.

But this is why I say they are cowards. Because they are afraid to reveal what they believe.[1] For instance, what do Atheists believe?[2]

Nothing.[3] One common doctrine.[4] God doesn't exist. An argument based on a negative.[5] That is it.[6] Nothing else. We are not allowed to know what else they believe - because there is no common factor. 

Hence why Atheists are COWARDS.[7]They criticize - but without fear of being criticized. That is not criticism. That is safe ground.  Bogus. really.[8]

Tradesecret  OP :

Are there more doctrines for the atheist than there is no God? No.   nary  a one. LOL! laughable. And weak.[9] Cowardly really. there is no other words that can account for this state of being.[10] A worldview - that is not really a worldview - a position - that is not really a position - a statement that allows no criticism.[11] Imagine if we tried to apply to that any religion?  It would be laughed out of the stadium.[12] that is why Atheism is cowardly. One rule for them. 

My view is that only people with worldviews should be allowed to contribute in a religious forum.[13] An atheist ought be rejected unless they can provide a worldview to be considered.  Unless this occurs - then there is no basis of comparing and contrasting. There is no basis for conversation.

Unless an atheist is able to come up with a worldview - then the atheist's opinions ought not be welcome.[14]

We should not be permitted to criticize others unless we have something alternative to offer. Atheists have nothing to offer - of their own admission [15] - so why ought we subject to ANY of their criticisms.[16] By admitting they have no other doctrines, they admit they use religious doctrines to live their lives.[17]

Reece101 2 to Tradesecret :

What do non-smokers believe? Nothing. This is essentially what you’re arguing. Most atheists just live their lives just as religious people do.

Tradesecret  44 :

Thanks Reece, but you are incorrect. That is not what I am asking. There is no reason for a non-smoker to come to a religious forum as a non-smoker. Atheists do come intentionally as atheists.[18] They ask questions - fair enough - they criticize - again fair enough - but when a theist starts to question the atheist - the smoke screen comes up.[19] We don't actually believe anything.[20] Not that you can pin on me as an atheist. 

Hence your comparison is flawed.

Double_R 3 :

It wouldn’t be so frustrating if you had enough evidence to meet the burden of proof you give yourself when you make a claim, such as “a god exists”.

Tradesecret 47 :

Do you mean for you or theists? I find it frustrating that atheists - choose not to give a reason. They don't think that's necessary.  And for the record,  theists give excellent reasons for why they believe in God all the time.[21] It is just that non-theists choose to believe that they are weak reasons.  That doesn't mean that the standard is not met - it only means that the atheist doesn't understand what the correct standard is.[22] It happens in jury trials all of the time.  Lawyers tend to call it bias. It's one of the reasons we like to select juries.

Reece101 50 :

Can we agree atheism and even theism to a lesser degree doesn’t represent a persons whole identity?

PolytheistWitch 51 to :

Yet the atheist come here and tell the theists all the time that that part of their life is their business and they should get to tell them that they shouldn't practice it, they shouldn't get to believe it and they're stupid and they're evil and they're mentally retarded and they're abusing their kids.

Tradesecret 63 to SkepticalOne :

This is why I find the atheist position so well cowardly. It is permitted to attack my views - which incidentally I am ok with - since it will help me understand my own views better.  Yet, it never provides an alternative - except - there is no god.  And that is it.[23]

It fails to engage properly with its own position.  So not only is it cowardly, it is stupid.[24] And self-demeaning.  Yet for whatever reason thinks it is objective, rational, and elitist.  and somehow morally superior. True not all atheists think that way.  Yet not thinking it doesn't remove it from their lips.

Tradesecret 63

But how can an idea - since it is clearly not more than that - it is self professedly not a worldview, somehow take on the persona that it can destroy entire worldviews?    It logically just can't do that.  An idea must fit within a context - a worldview to have such a self-important view of itself.  Yet as soon as it does it, it effectively destroys itself as an idea only.

secularmerlin 166 to Tradesecret :

Would it make you feel better that I no longer feel attached to the label "atheist"? Since it comes with baggage on both sides and since someone else's understanding of the term (you in thiscase) cannot change my actual position I have come to refer to myself as simply someone who does not believe in any god(s)

In any case I am more than happy to discuss MY views and beliefs so long as you understand that they are not necessarily representative of the larger community of those who do not believe in any god(s).

Tradesecret 179 :

Call yourself whatever you want.  That is a matter for yourself.  Not me.  This was not a topic about changing people's points of view. It was a topic I started out the frustration of some on this site - and wrongly I made it general.

I have never had a problem with you nor with most of the atheists on this site.   Mostly, you are agreeable even when you are disagreeing with me. It doesn't normally get to personal and helps the conversation.  I apologize I made this such a general post.

PGA2.0 428 to 3RU7AL

First, it is not based on me. I appeal to a source of revelation outside myself, a necessary personal knowing and revealing Being. What are you appealing to with your statements?

Amoranemix 911

[a] 3RU7AL is appealing to his preference and you are appealing to your preference. [b] You are blaming atheists for having only their preferences, but you have nothing more. [c] All would you have extra, if your god were to exist, would be an additional option to prefer : You could prefer your god's morality, [d] while atheists can't. [e] Polytheistic religions have an even bigger advantage though.

PGA2.0 1119

[a] If God did not exist or if I failed to interpret His moral laws correctly, yes, it would be just another preference, but that is my whole argument, isn't it?[657] I argue that the biblical God is God and that He has revealed and given evidence in His revelation, also by the created order. I argue the implausibility and even the contrary's impossibility, all the while asking atheists to give their evidence. For instance, I continually ask you why your moral preference is any better than any other moral preference and how you determine this?[658] To this query, I get many people playing tiddlywinks instead of playing the game before us - Go.

[b] Again, providing you can prove the biblical God is not God or is not necessary.[659] You have not done that. All you have done is assert that the biblical God is an invention.

[c] This is not true to a God who has revealed the truth about right and wrong. With such a God, I have an objective (universal and according to what is the case) standard and appeal.

[d] The atheist is wrong in such a case. Again, why should I prefer your moral preference? It is based on nothing concrete and fixed. 

[e] Polytheists hold many contrary views since their gods hold different views. Thus, only one god, if any, can be the true view. That one God, Christians argue, is the Christian God and with good reason.

PGA2.0 431 to 3RU7AL

Some people cannot be convinced because it runs contrary to what they want to believe.[105]

There is proof available in and for the Christian worldview that is most reasonable.[106] It comes from what is necessary for there to be morality. How is yours anything other than opinion?

Amoranemix 911

[105] as everyone who has debated Christians, you in particular, knows well.

[106] [a] Says who ? [b] You ? Why should skeptics believe you, [c] a fallacy king who cannot support his claims ?

PGA2.0 1119

I am willing to reason with you and, in fact, have been.[660] For instance, with morality, please provide me with a suitable and necessary alternative that is more than your preference or group preference. Show me why it is the actual case or more reasonable to believe.[661]

[106] [a] The argument is based on evidence from the Bible, history, logic, and philosophy via what is necessary for morality, a necessary Being. You are not that being. The subject of this thread addresses which worldview is more compelling, more reasonable.

[b] Because what I believe is more reasonable and plausible to believe.

Morality requires intelligent beings. 

Morality requires a fixed, objective, universally applicable revealed source for the right to be known.[662]

[c] Better than the fanciful emperor who has no clothes.

PGA2.0 431

The evidence is convincing and justifiable.[107] Christianity has what is necessary. I can make sense of morality. Show me your belief can too.

Amoranemix 911

[107] See [106].

PGA2.0 1119

Again, you avoid showing me you have what is necessary for morality.[662] It again avoided showing me it is capable of making sense of morality.[663]

PGA2.0 431 to 3RU7AL

You are evading the question, trying to turn it back on me to escape explanation. It is a ploy I have witnessed for those who have nothing to offer use.

Amoranemix 911

I know the feeling. On debate.org I have debated a guy who forgot to answer hundreds of questions. ;)

PGA2.0

I did not forget. I got to the point where I saw answering your posts was a futile process, the workload required too much (a barrage of detailed posts with complex explanations), and I felt it an unfairly one-sided discussion.[664] You have a habit of not justifying your own position but mainly challenging mine, a one-sided dialogue where I am required to do all the leg work and where you get to evade questions or justification.[665] Do you think that is fair? IMO, your main purpose seems like that of some other atheists I have encountered who have an agenda - make Christians look bad.[666]

PGA2.0 431

Argumentum ad populum. Truth is not true just because the majority think so.[108] What is good is so whether you believe so or not.[109]

Amoranemix 911

[108] Your fallacy of choice : the straw man. 3RU7AL did not rely on that erroneous principle. Whether everyone is an Orthodox Jew does in fact depend on the popularity of certain beliefs.

[109] Your god on the other hand seems to think something is good because he believes it. I suggest you tell him the error of his ways.

PGA2.0 1120

"If, and only if, everyone agrees" is an appeal to popularity.[667] He reasons that everyone has to agree for something, such as biblical morality, to be true. Then he says that we would all be Orthodox Jews in that situation, which is another fallacy, a haste generalization.

[ . . . ]

[109] No, He knows something is good because goodness is one of His attributes, part of His nature. He knows all things, which is another attribute of His nature.

Amoranemix 18 :

[19] That is not a feature, but a limitation, one that is easy to overlook.

[20] First, it is the side making a claim that has the burden of proof.[a] If someone makes a seemingly extraordinary claim, then it can simply be dismissed as extraordinary, no explanation required. However, if they added decent evidence, then the claim shouldn't be just dismissed as extraordinary. (Of course, personal experience usually doesn't qualify as decent evidence.) Then indeed would need to be explained why the claim is extraordinary.

How would you view or address someone's claim to have been abducted by aliens ? [b]

TheMorningsStargsS 21 :

[19] Semantic word games that ignores what the phrase "it's a feature not a bug" means. Pointless comments like this are pointless.

[a] Okay, and? The argument outlines that people claiming to have witnessed something is evidence that satisfies said burden.[27] Discourse is like a balance scale. One side puts forward an argument/evidence and the balance shifts, even if not by much. Sure, one side might have the burden, but as soon as they provide something and that balance shifts it means that their side is now more likely.[28] They can further support their arguments, shifting the balance more in their favor, but that is ultimately unnecessary. If the other side wishes to be the correct/rational side then they need to shift the balance back (either by adding weight to their own side, provide arguments/evidence, or removing weight from the other side, show the arguments/evidence of the other side are faulty).

So, making the who "the side making a claim has the burden" is an absolutely pointless statement in light of me providing an argument. [29]

[b] I would point out various reasons why such is unlikely to be true.

TheMorningsStar 16 :

That is something you need to demonstrate though. Your P1 needs justification, and I find that people rarely can justify that premise when dealing with a non-Abrahamic conception of god(s). Swinburne also argues that said P1 would never be able to be justified with god, but I don't really agree with him on that one.

Amoranemix 18 :

Gods one expects no evidence of[*] tend to be unimportant. Gods that do not impact the world, do not interact with people, are irrelevant. There may be a god in a galaxy far, far away, minding his own business. Why would anyone care, let alone argue about it ?

TheMorningsStar 21 :

[*] What type of evidence do you expect though?[30] How do you rationally back up your "if X, then evidence of X"?[31] How do you know there isn't evidence that you are just unaware of?[32]

Honestly, a proper modus tollens argues that if X then Y and then shows that there isn't Y as a matter of fact, not just that you don't see evidence of Y. [33]

For example, if there is a bottle of water on the table next to me then I should be able to see it, I should knock it down if I clear the table off, etc. These are specific, clearly tied to the nature of a bottle of water on the table, etc. You cannot just go all vague with a modus tollens.

Polytheist-Witch 33 :

I was on topic if you don't like being called out on your bigotry don't post it. [34]

And neither the person you address there is a Christian dummy, reinforce your bigotry again. [35]

Amoranemix 34 :

The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the claimant.

TheMorningsStar 35 :

The burden of proof is always on the side with the least evidence.[36] Sure, we might say that absent any evidence that the claimant has the BoP,[37] but the moment only one side has provided evidence is the moment that that side has become the rational conclusion and thus the other side needs to make an argument if they wish to disagree.[38]

It is like a balance scale, put weight on one side and the scales tilt.

What the argument in the OP outlines is that anecdotal evidence is sufficient enough to create that tilt and thus shift the BoP.

TheMorningsStar 39 to secularmerlin :

Can you elaborate?

secularmerlin 42 :

Certainly.

You could present me with any given peice of evidence and I will either be convinced by it or not. I cannot choose to be convinced when I am not and I cannot choose to be unconvinced when I am.

If you present me with one hundred pieces of evidence and none are sufficient to convince me then I will have no choice but to remain unconvinced.[39]

I do not need to meet any burden of proof to remain unconvinced.

If the options are A or B I don't need to choose B in order to he unconvinced that you are correct in thinking that the answer is A.

secularmerlin 44 :

Please detail how you would convince me of each proposition and I will tell you if I am convinced. 

1. I do not choose whether or not you have convincing evidence you either do or do not.

2. I do not need to meet any burden of proof to remain unconvinced by your claim.

TheMorningsStar 46 :

Again, convincing is not the same thing as making a rational case. You can be convinced of whatever you want, what matters to me is what is rational and likely.

secularmerlin 49 :

Soft solipsism is not something that you can resolve.

TheMorningsStar 46 :

Which axioms one makes use of is, however, important. Which view requires more axioms? Which view requires more wild/complex axioms? etc. Are your views consistent when holding to your set of axioms? All of these determine which viewpoint is preferred, and I am skeptical that your set of axioms leads you to consistent standards if you are rejecting P1, P2, or P3 from my OP. Maybe you have an extra axiom that makes it so that the argument still doesn't work somehow, but then it would be a question on what said axiom is and if it is a necessary or justifiable one to hold to.

Amoranemix 540 to Tarik :

I didn't say no one understands morality.

This thread is not about morality. Go argue about that where that is on topic.

Tarik 541 :

You did in the link you referred me to.

Amoranemix 540 :

[104] Given that your support for an example case, i.e. claiming that God does not exist is irrational, was ambiguous,[a] I assumed your support was an application of the more general principle that claiming Y (for any Y) does not exist is irrational. The reason is that you appeared to attempt to support the general case i.s.o. the example case.[b] But apparently, you don't stand by the general case. You have yet to honour your burden to prove the example case.[c]

[105] Where have I stated that ?

[106] I already gave a description of existence in post 445. More than one may apply as we are discussing more than one subtopic.

Possibility is a requirement for existence.[d] 'X is possible' means 'It is possible for X to be true or to exist.'[e]

[107] You are mistaken again. A premise is not an argument and an argument is not a premise.

[108] No. I never made that argument.

Apparently you don't stand by the argument that I concocted (and you quoted) either, even though P1 is a rephrasal of a claim you made. So, I'll drop it. You still have to prove that it is irrational to claim something impossible does not exist, but I think we are already debating that elsewhere.[f]

[a2] I don't know. How much disbelief I hold depends on what is meant with impossible. Even with lax impossibility I still disbelieve it is irrational to claim something impossible does not exist.

Athias 547 :

[a] No, it wasn't.

[b] And your assumption was correct, but it doesn't apply to the "example case" because you included the premise "X is impossible." My dispute isn't whether I support the claim Y (for any Y) does not exist is irrational as long the definitions I provided are being used; my dispute has been with your failure, unwillingness, or incapacity to provide description to the terms "impossible" and "exist."

[c] I do not have to honor the burden of an argument I did not make. The example case while attempting to extrapolate my reasoning is still presented through your argument.

[105] Where have you stated what? If you're referring to my statement you highlighted with "104," then here is where you stated it:

Athias #460 : “[104] You stated that skeptics would scrutinize the soundness of my first premise,”

Amoranemix #444 : “Under assumption A, since you stand by P1, for you that is a sound argument.

Skeptics, understandably, dispute P1.”

[106] False. I posted Post #445.

[d] Demonstrate this. (Hint: you would have to provide a description to "Possibility.")

[e] Same as directly above.

[107] No, I am not. I'm not arguing that a premise is an argument. I'm implicitly stating that a premise is an essential part of an argument, i.e. when a premise changes, the argument changes. Thus, your changing the premise changes the argument from mine to yours.

[108] Explicitly stating that argument is not required.

[f] I've already done it.

[a2] Yes, it depends on what is meant with impossible. So what do you mean by "impossible?"

Athias 469 :

Pardon. What "overlap" is that?

Amoranemix 540 :

The overlap consists of those people who fall into both categories, namely not questioning their own beliefs and always being certain of themselves.

Athias 547 :

And this was intended to inform Bertrand Russell's statement about wisdom, correct? But you haven't really demonstrated how this applies.

Amoranemix 540 :

[91] What definition is that ? If you wanted clarity you would have repeated that definition i.s.o. having me and anyone following along looking it up.

I assume you are referring to your definition from post 445 : “the absence of existence; the negation of being; nothingness; unreality, etc.”. You also provided 4 more definitions in post 440 :

exist: To have real being whether material or spiritual.

real: true or actual.

material: denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than the mind or spirit.

spiritual: relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

What does spiritual existence of God mean ? Does that mean that God exists in people's minds ?[a]

I suspect that when people claiming God doesn't exist, they are referring to physical nonexistence.[b]

[92] So, we have (with capitals) :

Everything: all things that exist

Nothing: all things that do not exist

Hence, if square circles dont' exist, then they are part of Nothing.

[93] We are not discussing the use of   'God does not exist' as a presupposition.

[94] Assuming the author is being honest, (s)he may not know and merely believe.

[95] Please demonstrate that. [Athias #469: And since the presupposition proposes that God is in the realm of nothing or nonexistence, it is presuming that nonexistence can be known.]

[96] Please explain how that is supposed to follow.

[97] Not yet.

Athias 547 :

[91] I'm interested in clarity;[109] I'm just not interested in repeating myself frequently.[110] Quote me in sequence and we can easily resolve this issue.

[a] To exemplify one's being through spiritual aspects, I suppose. As for whether God exists in people's minds, well, everything one experiences exists in one's mind.

[b] Do you "suspect" or is this what you're arguing? I'm very well aware that atheists are maintain a materialist position. Of course, the irony in this is that their materialism is substantiated by the immaterial.

[92] Square Circles by definition are illogical. That however does not speak to their "existence." You would have to demonstrate how logic and existence are necessary bi-conditions.

[93] We're not; we're speaking directly to a claimant with respect to his/her claim, which is necessary for any claim.

[94] What is the difference between "believing" God does not exist, and "knowing" God does not exist?

[95] Because the claim itself necessarily demonstrates knowledge; claims do not create themselves; claims reflect what the claimant knows or presumes to know or what is to be known (presumably by everyone.)

[96] It follows from what I stated in "[95.]"

[97] I have. Whether it has satisfied your metrics, only you know.

Polytheist-Witch 553 to Conservallectual :

The thing that really bugs atheist more than anything is service. If what they're doing doesn't somehow benefit them they want no part of it. Since religion is about service especially service to something they can't see or feel without any actual reward for them they're not interested.[111] And they believe whatever they think is right is moral whether it is or not.[112] I don't believe there's any sort of line you can cross that makes something bad even though we all know there are certainly things that happened to people that are bad and they've been done to people with the intent of being bad.

RationalMadman 12 :

LOL! Top quality comedy.[11]

So you won't call Putin a coward but will call Hungary a coward? [12]

If Hungary was as big and singularly powerful as Russia, then you can call it a coward.

China and India have been cowards during this, not Hungary, they're just biding time. [13]

So, if you accuse Hungary's leadership of cowardice, leave it at that or else you seem ignorant of this: [14]

https://dailynewshungary.com/flow-of-ukraine-refugees-unwavering-hungary-assists-foreigners-get-home/

https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/news/hungary-accepted-the-largest-number-of-refugees-per-capita-from-ukraine/

PGA2.0 382 to secularmerlin

First of all, let me give you an idea of what it is in a nutshell. Justice is equal treatment under the law. It is not being particular depending on whether a person is rich or influential. It applies the letter of the law equally regardless of persons.

Amoranemix 911

Aha. We have an objective definition for justice. [a] So far you seemed to use justice as if it were whatever is consistent with with God's personal standard of justice. [b] I presume God is exempted from equal treatment and deserves better treatment. That is self-serving favouritism.

PGA2.0 1116

[a] What the hell are you talking about?[637] Where did I mention God in my statement?[638] Is it not self-evident to you that if one innocent person is fined for breaking a law that he did not break and another guilty person is let off for breaking the same law that justice has not been served?[639] IMO, you continually manipulate words and thoughts to serve yourself and your corrupt and illogical ideas.[640]

[b] First, you assume that moral rules are above God, not part of His nature.[641] Second, you assume that moral laws apply to Him.[642] Greg Koukle raises some good points about the Ten Commandments and morality.[643] They apply to human beings, but how can they apply to God?

How can stealing apply to God? Since God owns all things and created all things, how can He steal? He is just taking what already belongs to Him. How can that be considered stealing?[644]

As a human being, do you have a right to do with what you own as you want to do (on a human level)?[645] Can you break the computer you own because you are frustrated with it? Can you give it away if you want to do so, as an adult?[646] If so, how can you deny God the same right as the owner of all things?

How can murder apply to Him?[647] He has revealed that He will not take innocent life without restoring it to a better place, so He does not murder.[648] [ . . . ]

In the stealing and ownership example, are you not being hypocritical, applying one standard to yourself and another to God?[649] And as if it should apply to Him. How can you speak back to Him as if He is unjust?[650] How do you determine this by your subjectiveness?[651] What is justice to you?[652] You required I define it. I defined my terms, yet you should also define yours, so we know we are speaking about the same thing. You always want to critique my view but seldom give justification for your own.[653]

What makes you think God is accountable to you?[654] He is under no obligation to answer you (per the Bible) but has graciously decided to anyway through the biblical revelation.[655]

PGA2.0 400

I point you to the Ten Commandments. That is the standard from which we derive many other laws for the principles focus on love for God and love for neighbour. We are not showing love when we harm our neighbours. But what does that mean outside of a fixed, final standard or measure? It would be relative and subjective. Because of that such a system of thought is incapable of providing a fixed and necessary standard.[104] Remember, I have asked SkepticalOne to provide one since he stated he has one. I am still waiting

Amoranemix 911

[104] So what ? Can any relevant conclusion be drawn from that ?

If so, why haven't you provided or demonstrated it yet ?

PGA2.0 1117

Yes. It means that morality is constantly shifting and that the law of identity (A=A) is contravened, making nonsense of meaning. Thus, two people, two groups, two cultures, can have the opposite meaning of the other for the same thing being right.* That begs which is the actual right view.

* Group A = It is right to steal.

Group B = It is wrong to steal.

Which is the actual case?

3RU7AL

These moral instincts are  universal  (relative to mammals anyway) and  unchanging.

These moral instincts predate the "discovery" of "YHWH" by Abraham.

PGA2.0 428

That is your assumption and presumption that comes from your worldview bias.

Amoranemix 911

Are you disputing that these instincts existed before Abraham ?

PGA2.0 1117

The biblical revelation does not say that Abraham invented the biblical YHWY or morality, so why Abraham is included is a mystery. 

No, I am debating that humans instincts are not what is necessary for morality. How I protect myself, my family, my property, or determine that I need to protect myself, family, or property may have a detrimental effect on those who have done nothing wrong or even on what is right and wrong.[656] It is not based upon my feelings or perceptions but upon what is right and wrong. My instinct on right or wrong may or may not meet the moral standard.

Amoranemix 18 :

People who prefer to believe some fantasy over reality often try to sell their fantasy as reality. For that they  deceive. So, yes, I find clarity about what is being said important.

Polytheist-WitchWitch 20 :

I'm so sick and tired of every bigot atheist basically saying every theist is out to deceive every single other person on the planet. It is complete b******* and an utter lie. I do not witness because my religion does not call for it and I don't think any of the gods need me to. But if someone asked me questions and I tell them answers to those questions it does not mean I'm trying to deceive them. I am telling them what I think feel and have experienced. If you feel you're being deceived that's you on your end and not mine. That's how you feel you shouldn't even be in this forum talking to any of us.

TheMorningsStartar 16 :

I would argue that "good reason to doubt" would constitute counter-evidence, but I guess it is just how each phrase is interpreted by different people.

Amoranemix 18 :

You are not arguing it. You are just using one term for both. I have given reason to make a distinction, but of course, I am arguing from a rational point of view, i.e. which approach is suitable for true beliefs, rather than desirable beliefs. Reality is not everyone's cup of tea.

TheMorningsStargsStar 21 :

Do you not know what "I would argue" means or are you just here to play word games? Because if it is the latter then this entire discussion is a waste of time.

Amoranemix 18 :

[11] No, you haven't emphasized it. I haven't even noticed you say that because there could be evidence one is not aware of, a claim is tentatively true. You also have not supported it.

[12] So you claim, but can you prove that ?

[*] I am not arguing about how people acquire beliefs. I am arguing about how to proceed to acquire rationally justifiable beliefs. I agree that some people ignore the evidence that they could missing because it would undermine their ability to hold a particular belief they desire.

For clarity, I did not say that a good reason to doubt IS that there could be counter-evidence one doesn't know about. I used 'could be'.

I am confident you can think of examples where that is indeed the case.

TheMorningsStargsStar 21 :

I used the term tentatively three times in the OP in places that would make it clear what is being argued.

"It helps with establishing the position that one should tentatively hold to."

"If none can be provided then the logical conclusion is that we should tentatively hold to theism as true."

"Counter-evidence needs to be provided or else theism is rationally concluded as true (tentatively)."

That is just where the term was explicit. It really should not have been difficult for someone to see it but yet you somehow missed it?

TheMorningsStartar 16 :

I agree, but I emphasized that theism would be held tentatively for that very reason. If I am not aware of counter-evidence then I am justified in holding to a view of something and am rational in doing so. It isn't that "there is no counter-evidence anywhere", that isn't a premise in the argument (otherwise the conclusion wouldn't be to hold onto theism tentatively).

TheMorningsStargsStar 21 :

[12] Because that is how it works. Are you denying it? Because, if so, welcome to solipsism. I can walk you through the steps on how that is reached, but it really shouldn't be necessary.

Amoranemix 18 :

[13] The problem is that the personal case is irrelevant. It are the claims of others that matter.

[14] No, that is not what C1 is about. C1 is : “If you claimed to have experienced X then, absent counter-evidence, you likely had a true experience of X.”

[15] So, in both P1 and P2 you mean there is a more than 70% chance. The problem is that you supported those premises under the assumption that 'tend to' means more than 50% chance. So you will need to amend that.

[16] If you think you can salvage the argument with multiple testimonies, then go ahead!

[17] You have yet to explain or demonstrate how they are tied together. In your argument you merely jumped from senses to experiences.

[18] It may be true for sight experiences, but C1 talks about experiences in general.

[c] That was intented to illustrate the point that followed, that which matters, that which you failed to quote and address, namely that your argument is invalid. No one as far as I know is claiming that P1 and P2 do not hold in general. You on the other hand claim they do hold in general, so the burden of proof is on you.

P3 and P3' are true in the sense that no justification for what either are about has been provided.

Assuming that what is true for you is true for everyone would be committing a hasty generalization fallacy.

TheMorningsStargsStar 21 :

[13] Sure, but so what? Having part of the argument be more personalized before moving to more general is not uncommon, the fact that you are emphasizing this point is weird.

[15] Tend to literally means more often than not. Absent any definitive numbers on how much it 'tends to' (which would take further arguments) we have to take an a priori position, and as I already showed, mathematically the average of all the 'tends to' is 75% (which is greater than 70%). So, the safe assumption is, based on the math, exactly what I was arguing. Unless you can justify that the 'tends to' should be based on a value between 50-70% then your objection is not all that great.

[17] I have no intention in going into detail on something like that when it is pointless to do so.[21] They are inherently tied together in such a way that these lines of objections constitute a pointless waste of time and the same exact line of reasoning, when applies consistently, will force you into solipsism. You are obviously not interested in an honest discussion, which is fine, but it means that there is no reason to continue the discussion with you.[22]

[13] You are not supposed to move on to the general case, but demonstrate it.

Amoranemix 10 :

The reason to doubt needs to be good and good reason to doubt is not the same as counter-evidence.

TheMorningsStartar 16 :

I mean, this just goes into how we define counter-evidence, doesn't it?

Amoranemix 18 :

Indeed. I distinguish evidence from background knowledge because I want to believe in reality.

TheMorningsStargsStar 21 :

You say that as if I don't want to believe in reality. There is no real merit in distinguishing background knowledge from evidence. Background knowledge can constitute a type of evidence.

Amoranemix 18 :

People who prefer to believe some fantasy over reality often try to sell their fantasy as reality. For that they deceive.[*] So, yes, I find clarity about what is being said important.

Intent is ambiguous. If I guess that you intended to say A and assumme you did say A, then you can easily sabotage the discussion later by denying having said A.

In this case it does not seem important though, as you do not seem to rely on Reid's principle being evidence.

TheMorningsStargsStar 21 :

[*] Have to agree with Polytheist-Witch on this part of your comment.[23] This is absolutely uncharitable and is so egotistical [24] as well that it makes it clear that you are not open to honest discussions on theism.[25] This is the last comment I am making in response to you because even if you might make a good point or two, you clearly are not here for honest discourse and thus it is a waste of time to talk to you when I can spend such time on any number of other things.[26]

RationalMadman 12 :
If you call the Russian Regime as opposed to the Russian peoplecowardly, even though Putin was voted in (several times), but refuse to give Hungarians their regime the same distinction, you are not worth my time and energy. Enjoy debating the others who think you are worth the effort.

Swagnarok 13 :
At this point the result in Hungary was to be expected. Orban's been in charge quite a while already, anyhow.
What's really interesting is France. Le Pen has a second chance at the presidency and it'll be a wild ride for the whole West if she somehow gets it.

Amoranemix 10 to TheMorningStar :

“An appearance is probably true, unless there is good reason to doubt it.”

Key here is that ‘good reason to doubt’ is more general than 'counter-evidence'.

TheMorningsStar 16 :

I would argue that "good reason to doubt" would constitute counter-evidence, but I guess it is just how each phrase is interpreted by different people.

Amoranemix 10 to TheMorningStar :

Claims should be judged not only on evidence, but also on background knowledge. Placing background knowledge in the evidence category usually implies there is counter-evidence, but it tends to be difficult to identify it as such.

A problem with relying on the absense of counter-evidence is : how does one establish that there isn’t any ? The problem with people is that they tend to be foolish : “I don’t know of any counter-evidence. Therefore, there is no counter-evidence.”

A good reason to doubt could be : There could be counter-evidence I don’t know about.[*]

TheMorningsStar 16 :

I agree, but I emphasized that theism would be held tentatively for that very reason.[11] If I am not aware of counter-evidence then I am justified in holding to a view of something and am rational in doing so.[12] It isn't that "there is no counter-evidence anywhere", that isn't a premise in the argument (otherwise the conclusion wouldn't be to hold onto theism tentatively).

[*] I disagree. You do not form views based on what could be but what is (or, at least, what appears to be what is). I feel like this line of reasoning could end up with you going straight back into solipsism. After all, there might be counter evidence you aren't aware about that the external world exists, so let's use that as a reason to doubt there is an external world.

Amoranemix 10 to TheMorningStar :

I wondered why you started from personal observations (P1 and P2) to general observations (P3) i.s.o. starting with general observations. The reason turns out to be that the personal observations are easier to support. [13]

C1 does not follow from the premises. 60% likely times 60% likely = 36% likely = 64% unlikely.[a]

Morever, you have yet to establish a relation between senses and experience. [b]

I have an alternative to P3, namely P3’ : There is no justification that the above is universal. [c]

The argument is invalid. C2 does not follow from the premises.

TheMorningsStar 16 :

[13] I mean, yes it is easier to support, but it also personalizes it and makes it so that it is easier to see what denying the premise would lead to.

[a] This is, admittedly, the weakest part of the argument, as it is an attempt to go from "I experienced X and, as I'm unaware of anything that prevents X from being real, I am justified in believing X" and trying to reach "People have said they experienced X and, as I'm unaware of anything that prevents X from being real, I am justified in believing X" (well, the argument focuses on one person rather than people, but the intent of the phrase should be obvious).[14]

70% and lower in both categories leads to the unlikely category being ~50% or higher.

I think, however, that if we define 'tend to' in the loosest sense then that would mean some value greater than 50 but less than 100 (as if it was 50% it doesn't tend to and if it was 100% it is always the case).   The average of this is 75%, which is greater than the 70% necessary to reach above 50%. This means that it isn't unreasonable to say that from a more "agnostic" perspective of 'tends to' then the conclusion follows from the premise more often than not and, thus, is more likely to be true than not.[15]

I think this is also where the argument could be expanded for multiple attestations increasing the odds (multiple accounts is used to increase the odds in both criminal trials, historical studies, etc.), which I think it is undeniable that multiple accounts exist. I just don't think it is absolutely necessary to include it in the argument, and thus I left it out.[16]

But I do expect that most pushback would come from this part of the argument.

[b] They are inherently tied together. [17]

If my sense of sight tends to be accurate then that means if I see something that said experience tends to be a true experience. [18]

I figured that I didn't have a need to go into detail considering the line of argument including solipsism, I figured most people would be able to infer this connection.

[c] I mean, I rushed through that section as it seemed, to me, like a waste of time to go into detail on it. To try and hold that it does not generally hold true to all people requires special pleading while arguing that it does generally hold true for all people does not require use of a fallacy. It gives more weight to presuming P3 is true rather than P3'.

Amoranemix 10 :

The reason to doubt needs to be good and good reason to doubt is not the same as counter-evidence.

TheMorningsStar 16 :

I mean, this just goes into how we define counter-evidence, doesn't it?

Amoranemix 10 :

[3] The claim being extraordinary would usually be a good reason to doubt it.

[4] Reid’s Principle of Credulity is not evidence. It is a guideline on how to draw conclusions from evidence.

TheMorningsStar 16 :

It is clear that you are being much more semantic on the points when the intent of what is being said is not difficult to tell. I shortened the point and used language that, while on its face is not wholly accurate, isn't difficult to interpret the intent of. Can we leave these pointless objections out as they only serve to distract from the actual point.

Amoranemix 10 :

Background knowledge can make a claim extraordinary. If you place that in the evidence category then Reids Principle rarely applies.[*] To wannabe god-believers knowing there is counter-evidence is not helpful, so they usually prefer to remain ignorant of that fact.

TheMorningsStar 16 :

[*] The point is that you cannot merely assert that a claim is extraordinary, you need to back up that categorization. You call that 'backing up' background knowledge. Then you need to provide that exact knowledge. Sure, this means that Reid's Principle of Credulity does not apply as often, sure, that is a feature though, not a bug. [19]

The point of the argument is that it shifts the onus onto the atheist or agnostic to give an argument, any argument. That very well could be to provide that 'background knowledge' and show how it works against the god claim. The argument is, in a way, a counter to the null hypothesis of the god claim line of argumentation.[20]

Amoranemix 10 :

[5] The proper application in this topic is : “That I don’t know of any counter-evidence, does not imply none exists.”

[6] The reasoning would go like this :

P1) If X is true, I expect to see evidence of X

P2) I don’t see evidence of X

C) Therefore X is false.

The kind of god that is being argued about is often the kind one would expect more evidence of.

TheMorningsStar 16 :

That is something you need to demonstrate though. Your P1 needs justification, and I find that people rarely can justify that premise when dealing with a non-Abrahamic conception of god(s). Swinburne also argues that said P1 would never be able to be justified with god, but I don't really agree with him on that one.

TheMorningsStar OP :

“In absence of counter-evidence — we should believe that things are as they seem to be.” - Richard Swinburne

TheMorningsStar OP :

P1) Your senses tend to be accurate.

P2) You are honest more often than you are dishonest.

C1) If you claimed to have experienced X then, absent counter-evidence, you likely had a true experience of X.

P3) There is no justification that the above is not universal.

C2) If someone claims to have experienced X then, absent counter-evidence, they likely had a true experience of X.

TheMorningsStar OP :

Rejection of P1 leads to solipsism, as if your senses tend to be inaccurate or are only accurate half the time then you will never be justified believing anything you observe is true. How, then, can you hold any justified beliefs about the external world? You cannot, as any piece of evidence cannot be justifiably believed.

As such, if you wish to avoid solipsism you must accept P1. This means that your senses tend to be accurate, which results in the conclusion that you should believe your senses unless you have a justified reason to doubt (counter-evidence).

TheMorningsStar OP :

Since we cannot make use of the special pleading fallacy to say that this is somehow a unique characteristic of you, we must extend this universally.[1] This means that we can conclude that "If someone claims to have experienced X then, absent counter-evidence, they likely had a true experience of X".

This means we have validated Reid's Principle of Credulity.[2]

TheMorningsStar OP :

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan [3]

The above quote from Carl Sagan is not uncommon in the online religious debate sphere, where the god claim is often called an extraordinary claim. A common rejection I have seen to the above is that Reid's Principle of Credulity might be evidence,[4] but it isn't extraordinary evidence and thus cannot be used to argue for the existence of god(s) (as the god claim is labeled as extraordinary).

TheMorningsStar OP :

What this means is that justification for the label "extraordinary claim" can only be something outside of the claim itself. Whatever you appeal to would constitute evidence that said claim is false or unlikely. This means that it isn't that the claim is extraordinary, it is just that the claim already has counter-evidence. In order to justify the label of a claim being extraordinary you will need to provide that counter-evidence, but in doing so you are already operating in-line with the argument (as it only concludes that the claim should be held in absence of counter-evidence).

TheMorningsStar OP :

I want to address one more quote by Carl Sagan as well,

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - Carl Sagan [5]

This is one I absolutely agree with. Absence of evidence alone is not evidence of absence unless you can construct a proper modus tollens. This means that, unless you provide a sound modus tollens, you cannot appeal to "lack of evidence" (using whatever criteria you give as to what evidence is) as being justification for the claim being an extraordinary one. Lack of evidence is not counter-evidence, it is only a lack. [6]

Polytheist-Witch 2 :

Where the problem lies is for some reason atheists think that religion should be debated via science even though religion has nothing to do with science.[7] Myth is not fact plain and simple, that doesn't mean it's not true.[8] Religion is an emotional based experience therefore it falls under the realm of other emotional experiences or like relationships with other people. If you say you love your wife nobody's going to tell you to produce scientific evidence that you love your wife.[9] If you say you believe in gods no one's going to present scientific evidence that you believe in gods because it's a relationship with a being whether somebody thinks that being exists or not.[10] [ . . . ]

RationalMadman 8

Let me get this straight...

You think all Hungarians back Russia because their corrupt leader does.[7] How can they democratically overthrow their leader?[8] Have you ever voted for a candidate that made a call/decision you disagree with but you like some of their other policies?[9]

Furthermore, what exactly is your definition of cowardice? Are all Russians cowards?[10]

Amoranemix 1 :

They are human dignity, human rights, democracy, freedom, rule of law and equality.

Greyparrot 9

Will Smith proved none of that shit matters when the things you care about are taken away.

Athias 469 :

[a'] Bias is not quantifiable, and therefore cannot be "reduced." Whether it's a little biased or heavily biased, bias is still bias.

Amoranemix 513 :

[j] Everything that exists, the universe.

[k] Both abstract and physical objects can exist.

[80] Your reasoning is erroneous. Whether you have a burden of proof does not depend on your obligation to (in)validate my impression.

Athias 514 :

You're late. zedvictor4 and I had already discussed this.

Athias 445 :

Perhaps you might rethink this. I don't indulge laziness.[96] If you're going to engage one in debate then you are obligated to provide your arguments the rigor they demand.[97] Otherwise, have a nice day, sir.[98]

Amoranemix 513 :

[96] You hide it well.

[97] So are you.

[98] Are you looking for a way out ?

Athias 514 :

[96] Hilarious.

[97] Redundant.

[98] Out of this regressive and vacuous dynamic you've captained?[98'] Indeed. But I don't know you, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in that you have more to contribute.

Athias 460 :

[a] "Seem" is not an argument; "seem" is a projection of one's impression via some ghost proxy which avoids assuming responsibility for one's own statements.[99] I did not "straw man" you;[100] I'm calling you out for your not taking responsibility for that which you "think."[101]

Once again, I do not argue from ignorance. Your claim hasn't been validated by my not invalidating it.[102] You've supported the argument for God's inconsistency. Explain your support.[103]

Amoranemix 513 :

[99] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

[100] The concept of straw man eludes you. Read about it here : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You keep arguing about “seem”, as if I have claimed otherwise. That way you are arguing against an argument or claim I haven't made, a straw man.

[101] What is “thinking” ? How does it differ from thinking ? What responsibility does “thinking” give ?

[102] So what ? I have neither claimed you argue from ignorance, nor that my claim has been validated by you not invalidating it.

[103] We are already arguing about my support for God's inconsistency elsewhere in this thread.

You again failed to honour your burden of proof. You claimed to have presented an argument for God's consistency, but I can't find where and you are unable to show where you have done so. Maybe you have just imagined it.

Athias 514 :

[99] Have I suggested either?

[100] No, it doesn't.

I'm not arguing against your employment of the term, "seem," because I believe you've claimed "seem" is an argument; I'm arguing against your employment of the term, "seem" in argument—period.

[101] There's a difference between stating, "I think," and "you seem." The former takes responsibility for your private gnosis, the latter does not.

[102] I'll put an end to this nonsense right now:

Athias 421 :

“Seem" is not an argument. You are welcome to demonstrate the inconsistency of these alleged claims.

[Amoranemix] I haven't claimed “seem” is an argument.

- Omniscience appears inconsistent with the inability to do something.

- God is a person. Love is not a person. Therefore, God cannot be love.

- Being perfectly loving and perfectly just appear inconsistent.

- God apparently, despite unparalleled abilities, fails to distribute perfect love and perfect justice.

- Any experimental physicist can testify that violating the laws of physics is impossible.

Omniscience appears inconsistent with the inability to do something.

- [b] "Appears" is synonymous with "seem," and neither is an argument.

-- [b] Nothing, i.e. what you presented, is not an argument either. Appearances beat nothing.

--- [b] I did present an argument; your impression of that argument is irrelevant. If you have a contention, rebuttal, counterargument, or objection, then the floor is yours.

---- [b] Where did you present an argument supporting that God is consistent ?

----- Once again, I do not argue from ignorance. Your claim hasn't been validated by my not invalidating it. You've supported the argument for God's inconsistency. Explain your support.

It's here where you either got confused or misinterpreted what was going on.[108] When I stated, "I did present an argument," I was not AT ALL referring to your proposal that I refute your affirmation.[109] In fact, I responded with this:

If you think you can make the case that all the claims I listed can apply to a single being, then go ahead. [#444]

Why would "I" make the case? Is it not your onus to substantiate your contention of inconsistency? [#445]

[g*] Because you could. Although you haven't (as far as I remember) actually claimed God is consistent, you have challenged the mere possibility that God be inconsistent.

I could but I won't, because it's not my onus. You introduced the notion of God's inconsistency into our discussion whether you've claimed it directly or by proxy. If you have no intention of substantiating this inconsistency, then why mention it?

I've had enough of this nonsense. Either explain your support, or I'm considering it a dropped point.

[103] No, I didn't. That notion is a product of your own confusion. I extend my demand above.

Athias 450 :

Your understanding of "substantiation" is to provide someone else's opinion?

Amoranemix 459 :

No.

Athias 460 :

Then why did you submit it?

Amoranemix 513 :

Because it substantiates that God is a person, which is what you asked for.

Sometimes opinions qualify as evidence. How would you establish the colour of Hulk ?[a]

When skeptics claim God does not exist, they are unlikely to be referring to a real god.[b] They are probably referring to the god the Bible or/and the one Christians are trying to sell them.[c]

Athias 514 :

If that's the case, then why did you initially state that your understanding of substantiation excluded providing someone else's opinion:

Athias 450 :

[a] Your understanding of "substantiation" is to provide someone else's opinion?

Amoranemix 459 :

No.

[b] Define "real god."

[c] Explain the relevance of this allusion. Do you support the claims of these skeptics? And if so, explain.

Amoranemix 513 :

[e] For example, you believe in Zeus.

[a] I was asking for your view. Do you doubt that with my understanding of perfect love and perfect justice, that is not what God has achieved ?

[g*] Double_R was not irrelevant when you were arguing with him and that is when he introduced the notion of God's inconsistency. If Double_R is irrelevant, then so is why I introduced the notion of God's inconsistency.

I am not aware that inconsistency requires a base.

My own measure.[h]

[81] What does that mean, informing support ?

I have the right to expect a minimal comprehension from you. If you don't understand English, then debate in a language that you do understand.[i]

Athias 514 :

[e] I do not "believe in" Zeus. I acknowledge Zeus's existence:

[quoting FLRW] Zeus  is the sky and thunder god in ancient Greek religion, who rules as king of the gods of Mount Olympus. Do you think he exists?

[quoting Athias] Yes, Zeus exists. Your objection?

Do you object?

[a] I am in no position to "doubt" if I don't know how you've defined "perfect love" and "perfect justice." So once again: define "perfect love"; define "perfect justice."

[g*] Non sequitur. My exchange with Double_R was my exchange with Double_R. My exchange with you is my exchange with you. Double_R is irrelevant to my exchange with you.[110] If you're going to make reference to Double_R's argument, and support it, then it's your responsibility to assume stewardship of that argument.

[h] What measure is that?

[81] Provide information to your support, or Explain your support.

[i] Haha, my lap is bruising from all this laughter. Are you done derailing?

RationalMadman 2 :

What precisely could the Hungarians have done?[1] How certain are you that the opposition party were not just as corrupt?[2]

You are calling all Hungarians cowards but 47% did not vote for him out of those that voted.[3]

RationalMadman 3 :

If you are going to shit on an Eastern European nation for cowardice in this war look no further than Belarus.

Belarus eagerly joined Russia until 2-3 days into the war when they realised Putin was going to keep using Belarusian infantry as frontliners, regardless of their training or experience.

Belarus has been the number 2 (after Russia) trafficking centre for humans, almost as high for drugs trafficking, ever since such trades became a thing in Eastern Europe and Belarus existed.

sadolite 4 :

All this talk of free and fair elections. Looks like someone doesn't like them when it doesn't go their way.

Amoranemix 1 :

Probably most Hungarians don’t know the long term damage they are doing. If they had, Fidesz would probably have been less successful. So it is not just cowerdice; it is also ignorance. Winston Churchill once said : “The best argument against democracy is the a five minute conversation with the average voter.”[*] There must be many average voters in Hungary.

Bmdrocks21 6 :

[*] So, you think that the majority of people in Hungary becoming single-issue voters on being pro-war against Russia would somehow indicate that they are smart? [4]

This is ludicrous. You aren't Hungarian.

You don't have any chance of dying in a conflict with Russia, so don't pretend to be some brave warrior condemning Hungary for not wanting to have their children slaughtered or to get economically decimated at the very least by being cut off from natural resources.

Amoranemix 1 :

Although Hungarian democracy has been weakened, it was still within the people’s power to oust an autocrat.[*] Thanks to the European Union that will probably still be possible in four years. Whether this result is good for Hungary (their friendship with Russia gives them safety and cheaper gas) in the long run remains to be seen, but it is bad for Europe in general and especially for Ukraine.

Bmdrocks21 6 :

[*] Oh no! A right-wing guy that cares about his country won an election! The horror!

Amoranemix 1 :

The Fidesz government handed out many presents during the election campaign and are now hoping to benefit from the Corona-fund of the EU. Of course that fund must remain blocked. It is not the EU’s duty to fund the election campaigns of parties that undermine European values.

Bmdrocks21 6 :

The values of dying natives, mass immigration, and transgenderism?[6] I wonder why they voted for this guy who doesn't share those values

Athias 454 :

[1.] I never stated that my disagreement with your claim was an expression of private gnosis. I stated that private gnosis on its own needs not be rationally defensible.

[2.] I was not confirming your statement. I meant, "No, it isn't."

[3.] Stating belief is based on value is redundant.

[4.] I remember stating this in response to your statement:

[quotes from Amoranemix 439 and Athias 440 with definitions]

And you responded:

“ Why are you referring to mind or spirit in your definitions ? Why treat mind or spirit to be the relevant alternative to physical objects ? Is a quantum wave function material ?

The sufficiency of a definition depends on its use. I won't bother substantiating objections that may be irrelevant.”

We are still in the middle of this argument, as you will see below.

[4.''] Humor me: why haven't I supported my position to your satisfaction?

Amoranemix 465 :

[1.] You forgot to answer my question.

[2.] I suspected as much. That is why I corrected you.

[3.] Why is that ?

[4.'] We are arguing about definitions while you should be supporting your claim.

It is the prerogative of the side that presents a case / argument to choose definitions, within reason.

[4.''] Because it is false.

Athias 469 :

[1.] Your question was already addressed in post #440.

[2.] You've corrected nothing; once again, I was not confirming your statement.

[3.] Because of the meaning of "value."

[4.'] The two aren't mutually exclusive.[98] And that's my point. You questioned the definitions I've submitted,[99] and when pressed to expand on your scrutiny, you provide rather than substantiation, more questions.[100]

"Within reason"? What would be an unreasonable choice?[101]

[4.''] Substantiate your assertion that my position is false.

Athias 454 :

[78] Substantiate this assumptive characteristic.

[a] I have not assumed.

[b] Seem is not an argument.

[c] We are still disputing the definition of exist (or maybe not? I haven't grasped your position on this.)

Amoranemix 465 :

[78] Name-giving is not an assumptive characteristic. In the interest of understanding I gave the substantiation of a verb form according to a method common in the English language.

[a] Your discourse in post 440 seemed to be missing the point without that assumption. I assumed you were actually trying to support your position about Spino and that appeared to be the way you were reasoning. Apparently I misunderstood. Please explain how “[b] Because the nonexistent does not exist. The nonexistent provides no information. How does one identify a "Spino" if its nonexistence renders information on itself logically incoherent?” is supposed to support that one cannot know Spino does not exist.

[b] In debates I have the habit of using words that are not an argument. I have noticed you do that too. Is that inappropriate ?

[c] If you can't find the right terms to make your argument,[c'] you may even invent terms.[c''] That is what I did with 'inverse implication'. You could for example add a qualifier before or after 'exist' or 'existence'.[c''']

Athias 469 :

[78] This has nothing to do with what we were talking about. You claimed "knowing something about X requiring information from X" is an assumption. I rejected your characterizing it as an assumption, and then subsequently demanded that you "substantiate this assumptive characteristic."

[a] Because, "Spino" is an identifier, i.e. a name which provides information. Once you've identified "Spino," acknowledged information of its existence.

[b] No matter how many times you attempt to reciprocate in this tit for tat, "seem" is not now nor has it ever been an argument. And when you employ it in your discussions with me, I will without fail point that out.

[c'] I already did and submitted them.

[c''] Are you being facetious?

[c'''] No need.

Amoranemix 465 :

[93] You have done and keep doing that. You break up sentences and omit quoting parts of sentences. I am even combining and readding fragments you have separated to put them in context. I am also usually quoting farther back to provide more context.

[94] That you (pretend to) know what you your burden is and what my burden is does not exclude your confusion. Moreover, usually people try to confuse others.

[95] Maybe. Maybe not. I have shown no unwillingness to assume my burden.[*] You on the other hand have shown unwillingness to assume your burden of proof.[**]

Athias 469 :

[*] Yes, you most certainly have.

[**] I'm the only person in our discussion providing information to his argument. You see, I am not lazy.

Athias 469 :

[a] I didn't fail to answer your question. Your question was already addressed in post #454.

[a''] What? Do you not remember this:

“[a] I asked first, but I will humour you. You would not refer to mind and spirit in your definition of 'to exist' and 'material' to avoid bias, unnecessary limitations and unnecessary complications and filling.”

[b] Stalling? Buddy, I asked you about these definitions over a month ago. And it's just in latest response that you've made a decision about them one way or another; I am not the one who's stalling.

[c] My politeness is not a subject of discussion.

[d'] You have affirmed that my position is false. Is that not based on a counterexample or counterfactual?

[d''] Is this the position you maintain? Because I'm not having a discussion with "people." I'm having a discussion with you.

[f] Then what was your point in stating that it didn't answer your question to begin with? And yes, I excluded the last sentence of the portion because that is your response, not mine. I only own that I which I state.

[g] The laws of physics or nature are inextricably tied to Mathematics--an abstract; logic is abstract. So when you state you measure "impossibility," you are applying abstracts, correct?

[81] Neither. The nonexistent does not exist, and therefore there is no "it" to imagine. And if "it" exists prior to one's imagination, then its existence is independent of one's imagination.

Amoranemix 459 :

[76'] Indeed, but more importantly, you are not honouring your burden of proof.

[76''] It is my argument in the sense that I explicated it, not in the sense that I stand by it or rely on it to substantiate my position. Since no one is willing or able to support a key premise of the argument, it does not qualify as evidence for its conclusion, which is that it is irrational to claim something impossible does not exist. I disbelieve the conclusion anyway.[a]

[83] No. Requesting something does not always require a base. That request does not.

Athias 460 :

[76'] I have no particular burden here--at least with respect to this particular portion of our discussion. You're attempting to extrapolate my reasoning and extend it using a different argument. This argument however operates on the affirmation of descriptions of both "impossible" and "exist" you believe applies but have yet to delineate--much less, explain how the two relate. Instead you're attempting to have me refute descriptions which are presumably accepted (argumentum ad ignorantiam.)[104] You stated that skeptics would scrutinize the soundness of my first premise,[105] but you have yet to submit your metrics because that would necessitate making the aforementioned descriptions which you hold applicable clear.

So for simplicity's sake, I'll ask these questions: what description of "impossible" do you believe applies to our discussion? What description of "exist" or "existence" do you believe applies to our discussion? How do the two relate--i.e. possibility and existence?[106]

[76''] It is your argument in the sense that it's your premise;[107] you however presume I should assimilate it based on how you intend to extend my reasoning. Because the argument isn't really whether I am arguing this :

A. X is impossible.

P1. For any Y, claiming Y does not exist is irrational.

C. Therefore, claiming X does not exist is irrational.

It's:

Assuming Athias maintains the same descriptions of "impossible" and "exist" as I do, if Athias maintains his premise and extends it to its logical conclusion, then said conclusion would be inconsistent with the assumed identical descriptions of "impossible" and "exist."

And that's your argument, not mine.[108]

[a] I don't doubt that you do; but how am I to understand the extent or nature of this disbelief if you're holding your descriptions hostage?

Tarik 451 :

[a] Really? Your gonna ask me to prove that claim when your the one that opened this can of worms with this claim [quote of Amoranemix 381 to Tarik] :

“Choosing normally qualifies as subjective. The standard may be objective, but not its choice.”[84]

I was just piggybacking off of it, so how about you ask yourself a similar question. How do you prove an objective moral standard?[85]

[b'] Exactly, so what was your point?

Amoranemix 459 :

[a] You forgot to answer my question. I will answer yours though. You asserted God is objective. Assertions must be demonstrated. Go ahead!

[84] You are mistaken. I didn't open that can of worms. Sadolite did.

[85] The problem with objective morality (and objective in general), is that it is vague. I have explained that in www.debate.org/forums/religion/topic/56333/

In post 223 Double_R made that distinction : he argues God's morality is subjective because it is chosen by God and anyone using it. You can disagree (with that defintion of objective), but didn't. You merely baldly asserted that God is objective. The object or entity God may be objective (assuming it exists), but that is not relevant, as anyone is objective that way. What is relevant is whether God's morality, opinion or choices are objective and if they are, whether only his morality, opinion or choices are.

Sadolite claimed atheistic morality is subjective. However, no one has presented a case supporting that the reasons why that is so don't also apply to Christian morality, i.e. that Christian morality is the exception.[*]

If choosing an objective moral standard (using some definition) is enough to have objective morality, then there can be plenty of different objective moralities, unless one relies on a contrived special pleading definition that only makes one's favourite morality objective.

[b'] See above.

Tarik 463 :

[a] [no response]

[84] That was your quote I quoted, you even admitted so when you said

“quote of Amoranemix 381 to Tarik “

[*] [no response]

Amoranemix on debate.org :

The objectivity/subjectivity of something can refer to two things : to a term or to a concept.

Tarik 463 :

You asserted this. Assertions must be demonstrated. Go ahead!

Amoranemix 459 to Tarik :

[86] No. It is not my duty to give all I have got.

[87] Assuming you are not referring to me in particular, but to people in general (i.e. “one” i.s.o. “you” and “your”), then that is indeed something that tends to confuse Christians. They sometimes make claims without knowing what they are talking about. That makes it difficult for them to back up their claims.

[88] The point you tried to make was irrelevant. It was about the preparatory work required for doing things I didn't do. The point you made was your ignorance on the concept of burden of proof.

[89] You are mistaken. Presenting a hypothetical does not require one to demonstrate its coherence.

[90] For clarity (the skeptic's friend), again, I am assuming the hypothetical is from Double_R in post 260 : “Let’s assume for the sake of argument that torturing infants for fun is objectively, necessarily immoral.” Where did you explicitely say why you took issue with it ?

Tarik 463 :

[no response]

Amoranemix on different forum :

Unlike for a circle, people don't understand what morality is, which causes them to confuse the subjectivity of the term with the subjectivity of the co

Tarik 463 :

For arguments sake let’s say your right that no one understands morality, then under that pretense how do you even know it exists in the first place?

Amoranemix 465 :

What gap are you referring to ?

Athias 469 :

Pardon. What "overlap" is that?

Athias 454 :

This is my argument:

P1: If one claims, "God does not exist," one presumes the nonexistent can be perceived.

P2: Perception of nonexistence is irrational.

P3: An irrational premise and its extensions are irrational.

C: Therefore, the claim, "God does not exist," is irrational.

Do you have a contention, query, or criticism about this argument?

Amoranemix 465 :

P1 requires demonstration.

Athias 469 :

Naturally the claim, "God does not exist" affirms the truth value of God's nonexistence. If we operate on the definition I submitted, the presupposition, "God does not exist," is tantamount to "God has no real being whether material or spiritual."[91] (I don't believe there would be any contention against God, at the very least, being spiritual.) Everything, if you remember, is all that which exists, and therefore Everything must exist; and the antipode, Nothing is that which does not exist; hence, Nothing must not exist.[92] If we take it back a bit further, the presupposition "God does not exist" [93] is also tantamount to "the author of the claim, 'God does not exist,' knows God does not exist." Or at the very least, the author is presuming to know that God does not exist.[94] And since the presupposition proposes that God is in the realm of nothing or nonexistence, it is presuming that nonexistence can be known.[95] Perception is instrument of knowledge, i.e. rationalized and cultivated information. Thus, "If one claims, "God does not exist," one presumes the nonexistent can be perceived."[96]

P1 demonstrated.[97]

Athias 450 :

[j] What is your preferred description of "the real world"?

[k] I'm not adamant; I'm certain that numbers exist. But if I'm to engage you on this point, I must first understand the distinction, ontologically, that you are creating between the abstract and a physical object, which I presume you consider "part of the real world."

[e] There's no burden of proof.[80] You made a request as to my attribution. I've submitted to you that it's in one of our previous discussions (maybe even before you joined this site.) If and when I find it, I take no issue presenting it to you.

And once again, I'm not accountable for that which "seems" to you. ("Seem" is not an argument.) If zedvictor4 wishes to clarify or rebut my characterization of his position, I take no issue retracting my statement.

Amoranemix 453 :

[j] I haven't thought about it, but I don't think I have one.

[k] Both can be part of the real world or not.

[80] Yes, there is, but if zedvictor4 is fine with being accused of having the rationale that the imagined is irrational, logically inconsistent, and nonexistent, then so am I.

Athias 454 :

[j] Then what description of the "real world" do you believe applies to this discussion--your preference notwithstanding?

[k] Explain.

[80] My being correct in my characterization of zedvictor's position is of no consequence. I'm relaying knowledge I've acquired from my experience discussing the subject with zedvictor. If zedvictor happens to point this out as an error, then I take no issue, once again, retracting my statement. But that doesn't mean I have a burden. Because, once again, I'm not obligated to validate or invalidate your impression.

Athias 445 :

In order to understand these considerations and how they apply, we must first understand the history and alleged errors on which said considerations are based, right? You introduced this to our discussion, so why wouldn't you explain the history of God from the Bible and these perceived errors in that history? [79]

Amoranemix 453 :

[79] Because I am lazy.

You seem to be more interested in that. So why don't you delineate both the history and (lack of) alleged failures ?

Athias 445 :

Perhaps you might rethink this. I don't indulge laziness.[96] If you're going to engage one in debate then you are obligated to provide your arguments the rigor they demand.[97] Otherwise, have a nice day, sir.[98]

Amoranemix 459 :

[a] If were to state that it still doesn't make “nothing” an argument, I too would be committing a straw man fallacy.

I disagree. In most debates there are other things of importance than whether “seem” is an argument.

[b] Where did you present an argument supporting that God is consistent ?

BTW, nothing is no evidence.

[c'] No.

[d*] OK.

[discourse continued further]

Athias 460 :

[a] "Seem" is not an argument; "seem" is a projection of one's impression via some ghost proxy which avoids assuming responsibility for one's own statements.[99] I did not "straw man" you;[100] I'm calling you out for your not taking responsibility for that which you "think."[101]

Once again, I do not argue from ignorance. Your claim hasn't been validated by my not invalidating it.[102] You've supported the argument for God's inconsistency. Explain your support.[103]

Amoranemix 449 :

Ask Christians.

www.compellingtruth.org/is-God-a-person.html

Athias 450 :

Your understanding of "substantiation" is to provide someone else's opinion?

Amoranemix 459 :

No.

Athias 460 :

Then why did you submit it?

Amoranemix 459 :

[continuation of discourse]

[e] Proper debating is done based on common ground, i.e. what debating sides agree upon. Initially, I am entitled to assume that you believe popular things like the earth being round, the laws of logic, speak standard English, and have a sense of love and justice similar to my own. In the mean time you have provided evidence that you have a peculiar worldview.

Observing events involving sentient life-forms, do you see any deviation from perfect love or perfect justice ?[a]

[g*] You are mistaken. Double_R introduced the notion of God's inconsistency. I merely claimed God seems inconsistent.

[81] What part of my support have you failed to understand ?

Athias 460 :

[e] Peculiar? How do you mean?

[a] Define "perfect love." Define "perfect justice."

[g*] Double_R is irrelevant. I was making reference strictly to our back-and-forth. Let's transmute that "seem" into an actual argument. On what basis would God "be" inconsistent? What measures are you applying?

[81] All of it. You have yet to inform it.

Athias 450 :

What is your preferred description of nonexistence?

Amoranemix 459 :

I haven't thought about it and I don't think I have one.[*]

Nonexistence : not real, not part of the universe. For some X that is nonexistent, the statement 'X exists' is false.[']

Athias 460 :

[*] Then what objections do you bear to the one I provided earlier? Your preference notwithstanding which definition of exist to you believe applies in matters of ontology?

['] So that begs the question: are thoughts, concepts, and products of imagination not part of the universe? If not, why?

Athias 450 :

The conclusion does follow from the premises.[82] The only contention you can possibly levy is whether the premises have been substantiated. And I did provide substantiation for my premises.

Amoranemix 459 :

[82] Claiming so, does not make it so.

Athias 460 :

I'm not merely claiming.[104] I take no issue attempting to indulge your satisfaction as long as your parameters are made clear. Hence, my attempt to have you make clear the description of existence you believe applies to this debate.

Amoranemix 42 :

There have been many cases of American values being trampled or American allies being lured away from the American camp.

There are plenty of military confrontation against weaker adversaries that have costed the USA money and lives.

There have been terrorist attacks against the USA.

There have been nuclear threats against the USA, like in 1962 in Cuba.

Many countries have produced cheap at the expense of American jobs.

Many organisations have sent refugees to the USA.

ILikePie5 43 :

That doesn’t answer my questions.[28] American values matter only in America.[29] If you’re talking about democracy, other countries can do that for themselves.[30] There’s a reason why our founding fathers didn’t intervene in the French Revolution.

As for Cuba, US was a threat to USSR. If we can have nukes close to USSR, why can’t they have nukes close to us.[31] I’m sure you understand that this example doesn’t make sense.

Ya as for labor, illegal immigration hurts a lot, and our politicians have practically allowed mass outsourcing to protect their donors. Trump actually reversed that.

Refugees wouldn’t be coming here if we didn’t mess around in the first place.[32]

Amoranemix 42 :

[b] You forgot to answer my question.

[25] If you made that up, it is understandable you won't present a source.

[27] If their case falls apart so quickly, rational people review their position. I suspect you don't.

ILikePie5 43 :

I don’t even know what you mean here. Your posting is extremely confusing. Refer to individuals when you’re commenting. You’re wasting your time and my time

Amoranemix 34 to Incel-hud :

There are worse case scenarios than that one. If you think that being remotely close to beating the American military is a requirement for violating American intests, then you should climb out from under your rock and learn some history.

ILikePie5 35 :

Wanna be more specific?[29] Cause the way I see it, as soon as NATO is invaded, Russia is dead along with us. We have zero interest in selling weapons and giving money to nation that is gonna end up losing those weapons to the Russians and the money used for corruption.

Amoranemix 28 :

[a] Whether you should care is a different issue than whether you should do something about it. I argued the former. Russia is damaging USA interests, but opposing that also has costs.

[24] I don't recall saying that.

[b] That may not be the case for you, but to most people it matters whether their interests are violated, including most Americans. It is the Americans to whome their interests matter that should care. The others could also care for moral reasons.

If in an American school a strong kid bullies a weak kid, is that something Americans should care about ?

[25] Can you provide a source for that information ?

[26] Care is not limited to one's job.

[27] What is the idea here ? If the Putin regime controls Ukraine, then there will be less corruption there, so overall that would be an improvement worth the cost ?

ILikePie5 35 :

[no response]

RationalMadman 9 to Incel-chud :

Ukrainians have democracy, genius. It is what Putin cannot stand.

triangle.128k 37 :

You can't be serious. Zelensky actively locks up political opponents and censors the media. Ukraine is doing worse than Russia in almost every metric you can think of. It's hardly an example of "liberal Democracy" that westerners drool over.

Amoranemix 439 :

Try basing your beliefs on reason and evidence. That is what skeptics do.

Tarik 441 :

Except skepticism is contrary to belief.

Amoranemix 449 :

You are mistaken. Basing one's beliefs on reason and evidence does not prevent one from having beliefs.

Tarik 451 :

No you are mistaken because that wasn’t even my argument,[93] that also isn’t what skepticism is.

Tarik 441 :

Your right that is difficult to say for certain, contrary to that second to last sentence.[74] One thing you and your boyfriend have in common is the contradictory element of your arguments and inability to comprehend logic.[75] You must be a relativist.

Amoranemix 449 :

[74] Indeed. If you based your beliefs on reason and evidence, you would not need to fear the truth coming out. You could then promote clarity in stead of confusion.

[75] Are those facts or just your personal opinions ?

Tarik 451 :

[no response]

Amoranemix 453 to Athias :

There is probably a big overlap between those who don't question their own beliefs and those who are always certain of themselves.

Athias 454 :

And that gap is?

Amoranemix 453 :

We are already arguing about P1 elsewhere.

Athias 454 :

Where elsewhere?

Athias 454 :

This is my argument:

P1: If one claims, "God does not exist," one presumes the nonexistent can be perceived.

P2: Perception of nonexistence is irrational.

P3: An irrational premise and its extensions are irrational.

C: Therefore, the claim, "God does not exist," is irrational.

Do you have a contention, query, or criticism about this argument?

Amoranemix 453 :

[1.] How does what you said about disbelief and one's private gnosis apply ?

[2.] Correction : Indeed, it isn't.

[3.] How so ?

[4.] There is something else you haven't done : support your claim.[4.'] One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to guess why.[4.'']

Athias 454 :

[1.] I never stated that my disagreement with your claim was an expression of private gnosis. I stated that private gnosis on its own needs not be rationally defensible.

[2.] I was not confirming your statement. I meant, "No, it isn't."

[3.] Stating belief is based on value is redundant.

[4.] I remember stating this in response to your statement:

[quotes from Amoranemix 439 and Athias 440 with definitions]

And you responded:

“ Why are you referring to mind or spirit in your definitions ? Why treat mind or spirit to be the relevant alternative to physical objects ? Is a quantum wave function material ?

The sufficiency of a definition depends on its use. I won't bother substantiating objections that may be irrelevant.”

We are still in the middle of this argument, as you will see below.

[4.''] Humor me: why haven't I supported my position to your satisfaction?

Athias 445 :

[*] Not an assumption.[78] In order to acquire and maintain knowledge, one needs information. One can either conceive information or receive information, which ultimately is still conceived (i.e. information sustained by one's mind is irrevocably subjected to the bias of one's mind and subsequent conceptual attachments.) Your defining Spino--conceiving or "receiving" information notwithstanding--informs its existence.

[c] You stated:

“for those who make that claim [that God does not exist] may consider that anything that failed to do the actions ascribed to Yahweh in the Bible is not God. God is also said to be omnipresent.”

In order to understand these considerations and how they apply, we must first understand the history and alleged errors on which said considerations are based, right? You introduced this to our discussion, so why wouldn't you explain the history of God from the Bible and these perceived errors in that history? [79]

Amoranemix 453 :

[78] I call what one assumes is an assumption.

You still haven't demonstrated what you have assumed.[a] You seem [b] to be relying on the principle that if one defines something, the subject of the definition exists.[c] Please demonstrate that principle.

[79] Because I am lazy.

You seem to be more interested in that. So why don't you delineate both the history and (lack of) alleged failures ?

Athias 454 :

[78] Substantiate this assumptive characteristic.

[a] I have not assumed.

[b] Seem is not an argument.

[c] We are still disputing the definition of exist (or maybe not? I haven't grasped your position on this.)

Amoranemix 453 :

You are systematically quoting out of context. That makes discourse harder to understand and can lead to confusion like who has the burden to prove what.

Athias 454 :

First, I'm not "quoting out of context."[93] I've merely regurgitated what you've stated. And there's no confusion: I know what my burden is; I know what your burden is;[94] you conveyed no willingness to assume this burden.[95]

Amoranemix 453 :

[a] I asked first, but I will humour you. You would not refer to mind and spirit in your definition of 'to exist' and 'material' to avoid bias,[a'] unnecessary limitations[a''] and unnecessary complications and filling.

Now it's your turn again.

[b] Why does your definition treat mind or spirit to be the relevant alternative to physical objects ?

[c] You forgot to answer my question.

[d] I haven't thought about it but I don't think I have a preferred use for the term 'exist'.

[f] That does not answer the question.

[g] Two cases : by measure of the laws of nature and by measure of the laws of logic.

[81] can the nonexistent be imagined ?

[h] You still have not supported your claims. What are you waiting for ?

Athias 454 :

[a] So?

[a'] Bias cannot be avoided.

[a''] That is the point of definition particularly in the context of debate. To set limitations. And since you've done all but explicitly state it, what is unnecessary about the definition I've provided?

[b] Since the scope of the description is to contain that which meet said description, the material and immaterial are included. Do you object?

[c] No, I didn't. I chose not to answer it.

[d] So then, which definition of the term, exist, do you believe applies in this discussion we're having--your preference notwithstanding?

[f] It most certainly does, especially since I've provided a parameter.

[g] So abstracts?

[81] No.

[h] We are still hung up on the definition of the term, exist. What are you waiting for?

Amoranemix 28 :

You Americans should care because Ukraine is a Western ally.[a] It may not be for long anymore.

Russia is a systemic adversary of the USA. Letting systemic adversaries violate your interests, will encourage them to continue at your expense.[b]

The USA has a reputation of abandoning allies. Abandoning Ukraine will strengthen that reputation.

The West is in part responsible for the crisis, among other reasons by putting Ukraine long in the waiting chamber for joining NATO.[c]

ILikePie5 29 :

[a] We have no treaty with Ukraine. And it’s not our job to promote democracy, nor protect anywhere but the United States. We tried doing it in the past and look where we got. No one ever talks about the bloody civil war in eastern Ukraine that has killed thousands already. Where were y’all then with the “people have the right to choose.”[24]

[b] As long as there’s a red line, it doesn’t matter. The red line is any attack on a NATO country. Even then I’d argue it’s irrelevant because NATO is pretty dumb. We have zero interests in Ukraine. Literally zero.[25] But protect democracy. That’s not our job.[26]

[c] Ukraine is within the top 5 of the most corrupt nations in the world. Just throw more money at them. Why the hell not. Putin doesn’t want a larger border with NATO. He wants a buffer.

If you’re gonna argue from a moral standpoint then troops should be key because morality has no bounds.

Amoranemix 28 :

[1] Many of today's countries were at some point in history part of a different kingdom or empire. That does not imply they are today.

Ukraine exists as an independent nation since 1991.

[2] Prior the famine organised by Stalin in the early 1930s, ethnic Ukranians outnumberd ethnic Russians in Donbass.

After Ukraine had been 'liberated' again, this time by the Soviet Union, it was payback time for their support to Germany.

[3] America's desires are no justification for invasion. That Bob wants something that does not suit Alice, does not justify Alice bullying Bob, let alone bullying Paul.

[4] It is easy to make a prediction without time frame. When will sanctions be lifted ?

Europe is affected obviously. Many eastern European countries feel threatened by Russia.

[5] Russia is attempting to conquer Ukraine, not liberate it.

[6] Personally, I am against pointing out falsehoods without pointing out their falseness.

[7] What evidence can you present to support that claim ? Volodymyr Zelenski was convincingly reelected in 2019.

[8] Was Ronald Reagan a puppet leader ? If so, who was the puppet master ?

[9] Please present a credible source supporting that 90% of Ukraine's government consists of Jews.

Russia allegedly invades Ukraine to denazify it. How can a goverment of Jews be a Nazi government ?

[10] Can you prove that is indeed all Putin wanted ?

[11] I am sad a brutal dictator has decided to conquer half of Ukraine and to overthrow a democraticly elected government.

[12] That may be all you have been reading, but there a sources with longer articles than Twitter.

If a bully bullies someone, is an argument for supporting the victim required ?[*]

Incel-chud 30 :

[1] [no response]

[8] His advisors were the puppet masters. Kinda like how biden's presidency is rule by committee.

[4] [no response]

[9] Putin is obviously referring to the genocides in Ukraine when he talks about nazification and not antisemitesm.[9'] I'm also not going to provide evidence for 90% of ukraines power players being Jewish, but numerous Jewish writers from the Ukraine show some anxiety that their success in government will be used to persecute them, and any evidence I'll provide you'll miss the point of what is being said and bitch that the true number is like 70% or some other nonsense instead of focusing on the crux of what the argument means.[9'']

[7] [none]

[10] 10 shows the hypocrisy of your unfounded statement in number 5.[10'] Putin has merely said he recognizes the ukranian seperatists regions and only invaded because the Ukraine attacked the seperatist regions[

[13] Nato keeps an open invitation to practically all nations and Ukraine can join when they want, it looks like just above 50% of the population want to join, but the government never got around to making it happen

[*] [no response]

Amoranemix 28 to Incel-chud :

[13] What is your source for that information ?

[14] What the founders wanted is irrelevant. What the current population wants is relevant.

[15] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

[16] Why is that ?

Incel-chud 30 :

[13] Nato keeps an open invitation to practically all nations and Ukraine can join when they want, it looks like just above 50% of the population want to join, but the government never got around to making it happen

[14] I think the constitution of the United States, particularly the Bill of Rights is very important and that the principles america was founded on and relies on to be the most powerful country in the world, is very important.

[15] It's a statement on ethics, so obviously yes.

[16] Because they would fight for it, the same way the people rose up and fought for Maoist China or how people rose up and fought for Pol Pot to lead their country. Americans fought and died for freedom, a lot of these people fought and died so they could make Pol Pot or Mao leader as a vote for that type of government. These people want to be persecuted, otherwise they would resist instead of fleeing to western countries and then voting for interventionist regimes like the ones they run from.

Amoranemix 28 to ILikePie5 :

You Americans should care because Ukraine is a Western ally. It may not be for long anymore.

Russia is a systemic adversary of the USA. Letting systemic adversaries violate your interests, will encourage them to continue at your expense.

Incel-chud 30 :

Worst case scenario, they reassemble the former USSR and leave the United states alone, having zero affect on it. No country is even remotely close to being able to defeat the American military so Russia will not violate American interests/

Amoranemix 28 :

[17] Learn history before you repeat its mistakes. The League Nations focussed on the protection of minorities. Nazi Germany used that as an excuse to grab some territory. The United Nations learned from that mistake. History however has several examples of regions where a population with an original majority is dominated by foreigners who have acquired a majority by force.

[18] That was in violation of international law and he has done more than that.

[19] So you baldly assert, but can you prove Ukraine attacked these independent states ?

[20] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?

[21] Read who is writing.

Incel-chud 30 :

[19] [no response]

[20] [none]

Incel-chud 25 to oromagi :

I think putin is claiming because of the genocides of ethnic russians, not because of the fact they are Jews. Putin is a zionist as well, so he isn't going to bring up Jewish stuff

Amoranemix 28 :

What evidence can you present that there is a genocide of ethnic Russians ?

Incel-chud 30 :

Russian intelligence services with spies in the area claim this is true. Do you have more first hand knowledge of what is happening in the Ukraine than government officials stationed in those areas do? [28]

Dr.Franklin23 to incel-chud :

maybe so, both countries speak virtually the same language and enjoy the same history but both Putin and Ukraine are wrong in this war. Ukraine is a cia puppet state and is deeply corrupt [22] while Putin is asiatic and sending muslim Chechens over to kill Ukrainian whites. Not to mention he is in bed with klaus schwab

white Europeans die while Putin and the Globalist American Empire reap the benefits of war [23]

Amoranemix 28 :

[22] Please present a credible source for that information.

[23] This war is bad for Putin. The sooner it ends (in his favour) the better for him.

How does this war benefit the Globalist American Empire ?

Dr.Franklin 32 .

[22] [no response]

it hurts the GAE because Ukraine is very much in bed with CIA, Biden's interests, and more. If a pro-russian president is installed, he will most likely stop this from happening.

Incel-chud OP :

It was literally the first Russian territory.[1] The parts of Ukraine that Putin recognized as independent territories, literally formed a revolution against the Ukraine, because they felt more Russian than Ukranian, which makes sense because that portion of Ukraine is Russian speaking Russian people.[2]

America literally wants to kvetch about Russia taking back a russian territory of russian speakers and russians. This is all about a port the want to deny Russia that literally has zero effect on the United STates despite being a minor strategic asset to Russia.[3]

Here is why sanctions will be lifted. Europe is dependent on Russian oil, and they are literally unaffected by this Ukranian conflict and have no business in it.[4]

I advise everyone to invest in bluechip crypto tokens immediately, because the crypto market has seen major losses due to an over reaction of Biden threatening to regulate it, and further false decline due to the russian effort to liberate the Ukraine.[5] These sanctions will also force Russian billionaires to flood the crypto market with their money. We'll see bitcoin at 100k before end of year.

It should also be pointed out that Ukraine has a puppet government.[6] It's literally a guy that used to play the president on a television show and they thought he played the part so well, they would artificially place him as the president.[7] If you ever want to see if a government has a puppet leader, always look at acting credentials first, followed by the relationships the individual has to other governments.[8]

Also if a government is 90% Jewish like the Ukranian one, but 00.2% of the population is Jews, it's pretty obvious what is going on as well.[9] Putin literally only wanted the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine that wanted their independence,[10] but I am glad the Ukranian government's reaction has made him consider liberating all of the Ukraine.[11]

Think about this, if Ukraine was legitimately in the right here, why has the press been just making bite sized headlines with very little intellectual depth, instead of making deep arguments for why Ukraine should be supported?[12]

ILikePie5 2 :

Why should we even care tbh. Until he messes with NATO or a country allied with the US, he can do whatever he wants.

Incel-chud 3 :

Ukraine refused to join Nato,[13] so really their own fault, but we should pull out of nato anyway. The founders wanted us to be isolationist.[14] Spreading democracy is just code for imperialism and is highly unethical,[15] if these people in other countries wanted democracy, they'd have it [16]

Incel-chud 3 to Polytheist-Witch :

This isn't an argument that the first people occupying it are the rightful owners. The Dunbar region is russian speaking and russian ethnically. The majority want to be russian and have revolted against the Ukraine.[17]

Putin has merely recognized them as independent states [18] and when Ukraine attacked these independent nation states, then Russia stepped in to defend these tiny nations.[19] It should be noted, that Putin has no interest in the majority of the Ukraine which is not ethnically Russian and do not speak Russian.[20]

Nice try, but stupid argument on your part and does little to address any of this [21]

Dr.Franklin 23 to incel-chud :

maybe so, both countries speak virtually the same language and enjoy the same history but both Putin and Ukraine are wrong in this war. Ukraine is a cia puppet state and is deeply corrupt [22] while Putin is asiatic and sending muslim Chechens over to kill Ukrainian whites. Not to mention he is in bed with klaus schwab

white Europeans die while Putin and the Globalist American Empire reap the benefits of war [23]

Oromagi 20 :

Don't be such   a fool.   Obviously the fake news your are propagating is that Jews make up 90% of Ukrainian power structures.   Particularly when Big Brother Putin has instructed you to believe they are all NAZIs now.

Incel-chud 25 :

I think putin is claiming because of the genocides of ethnic russians, not because of the fact they are Jews. Putin is a zionist as well, so he isn't going to bring up Jewish stuff

BearMan 26 :

Ah yes, that's why he invaded it of course...

Incel-chud 27 :

he recognized the seperatist regions as their own independent states, Ukraine attacked the seperatist regions, so it seems the invasion is merely to save lives, and once he disposes of the current regime, he'll let the people vote on new leaders and allow ukraine independence

oromagi 3 :

The most interesting article I read was some strategic analysis that basically said Putin was bluffing- what he wants is a micro-incursion, something on a small enough scale that it doesn't trigger a NATO emergency and Ukrainian retaliation.   But to get that he was counting on big support from the ethnic Russian communities and he has lost that support completely.   Putin is polling at less than 10% within the ethnic Russian communities of Ukraine.   In the University city on the border, nearly 1 in 4 people spoke Russian in public just five and six years and now nobody ever speaks Russian in public- several ethnicities have combined in their fear of Russian invaders and the loss of their newborn democracy.   Alternatively, Putin's polling amongst Russians is at an all time low and even though most Russians sort of believe that Ukraine is their cultural birthplace and of a right ought to be Russian, too many unhonored soldiers disappearing in Putin's many low-grade battlegrounds has made the notion of any new outright invasions deeply unpopular in

Dr.Franklin 11 to oromagi :

I'm not exactly in favor of Putin. I just don't think we should get involved. The whole thing is way to overhyped. Even the Ukrainian president told Biden to calm down and stop inciting tensions. Boris Johnson says Russian Mother's sons will not come home. Why are western leaders saying that?

Mharman 6 :

I’m interested in this topic to some extent but I fail to see how or why the US should care. I am in no way proposing we align ourselves with Russia, but whatever is about about to happen between these two countries, it’s not our problem. Although… European governments do have far more reason to be concerned.

Greyparrot 28 :

I have seen zero indication that Europeans are more concerned about this than the Biden administration. That alone should give Americans pause before picking a side.

Sanctions didn't work on Cuba and they most certainly and objectively didn't work on Russia. The prize of the Black Sea access is worth the price.

Amoranemix 449 :

[a] I presented “seem” as an alternative to what you presented, namely nothing. Neither of us are held accountable for nothing.[a']

[b] Nothing, i.e. what you presented, is not an argument either. Appearances beat nothing.

[c] Read the Bible.

Ask Christians.

www.compellingtruth.org/is-God-a-person.html [c']

[d*] What do you mean ?

[e] Climb out from under your rock and observe the real world.

[f] They provide strong inductive evidence that the physical laws cannot be broken.

[g*] Because you could. Although you haven't (as far as I remember) actually claimed God is consistent, you have challenged the mere possibility that God be inconsistent.

[g**] I have not made that contention. Yet I have supported it.

Athias 450 :

[a] Still does not make "seem" an argument, which is the only thing with which we ought to concern ourselves when having a debate/discussion.

[a'] We are accountable to our arguments.

[b] I did present an argument; your impression of that argument is irrelevant. If you have a contention, rebuttal, counterargument, or objection, then the floor is yours.

[c] I have.

[c'] Your understanding of "substantiation" is to provide someone else's opinion?

[d*] Perhaps, you can target "all-loving" characteristic ascribed to God, as opposed to demonstrating a literal distinction between personhood and the concept of love.

[e] I have. And this is not substantiation.

[f] They provide strong inductive evidence that anything outside of their mathematically proven framework would be inconsistent with their mathematically proven framework.

[g*] I could but I won't, because it's not my onus. You introduced the notion of God's inconsistency into our discussion whether you've claimed it directly or by proxy. If you have no intention of substantiating this inconsistency, then why mention it?

Explain your support.[81]

Amoranemix 449 :

I would say nonexistence is the negation of existence. X has nonexistence if the statement 'X exists' is false.

Nonexistence is a state, so nothingness and unreality don't seem to describe that properly.

Athias 450 :

What is your preferred description of nonexistence?

Amoranemix 449 :

Please demonstrate the conclusion follows from the premises.

Of course, rocks are irrational, as they can't reason, but I am assuming that is not the meaning of irrational you are using.

Athias 450 :

The conclusion does follow from the premises.[82] The only contention you can possibly levy is whether the premises have been substantiated. And I did provide substantiation for my premises.

Amoranemix 449 :

[76] How so ? What definition for impossible would you propose that would make it rationally defensible to assert that it is irrational to claim something impossible does not exist ?

[77] I haven't asked you to substantiate the argument, but to support (indirectly) P1 : “For any Y, claiming Y does not exist is irrational.”

Athias 450 :

[76] I am not assuming the responsibility of your onus.[76'] It's your argument, even if you're using it to demonstrate a perceived inconsistency in my reasoning.[76''] You must substantiate your premises.

Based on a premise you have yet to define and provide logical parameters, and a conclusion which extends it.[83]

Tarik 441 :

[a] Because God is objective.

[b] Seriously dude, if you don’t believe in objective morality you could’ve saved us both the time and started with that but if your arguing that objective morality exists without God then I’ll gladly like to hear your argument for that one.

Amoranemix 449 :

[a] So you claim, but can you prove that ?

[b] No one having a monopoly on X, does not imply that X does not exist. It is indeed possible to define objective morality such that Bashar al-Assad (or God) has an monopoly on it, but such definition would be contrived.[b']

Tarik 451 :

[a] Really? Your gonna ask me to prove that claim when your the one that opened this can of worms with this claim [quote of Amoranemix 381 to Tarik] :

“Choosing normally qualifies as subjective. The standard may be objective, but not its choice.”[84]

I was just piggybacking off of it, so how about you ask yourself a similar question. How do you prove an objective moral standard?[85]

[b'] Exactly, so what was your point?

Tarik 441 :

…Again seriously dude, your gonna accuse me of making assumptions about a hypothetical and not demonstrating it and you have no idea what the hypothetical even is?[70] That makes no sense,[71] before you can accuse me of anything pertaining to assumptions on a hypothetical topic knowing said hypothetical topic at hand is required.[72]

Amoranemix 449 :

[70] Maybe I should.

[71] Reality tends to give that impression to Christians.

The concept of burden of proof eludes you. Read about it here : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) [a]

The assumption I have asked you to support is that Double_R's hypothetical is incoherent. If you are unable to prove it then the most likely reason is its falsehood. That is common with Christian assumptions.

[72] Indeed, if your assumption were true, providing the assumption would help you prove it, but only then. However, you seemed to be referring to the hypothetical that that torturing infants for fun is objectively, necessarily immoral. Christians aren't as stupid as they pretend.

Tarik 451 :

[70] That’s all you got?[86] Maybe you shouldn’t, see how easy that was ?ￂﾠ

[71] That you should know what your talking about before making any claims about it?[87] I’m pretty people on your side of the religion debate would agree with that one as well.

[a] This isn’t even responsive to the point I made [88] but since you want to open up yet another can of worms I guess I’ll address it. First of all when Double_R   first introduced said hypothetical example the burden of proof was on him to prove its coherence,[89] but I guess since he’s on your side of things is why you don’t keep the same energy for him. Second I explicitly said why I took issue with the hypothetical feel free to go back and look,[90] don’t expect me to put you up to speed especially since none of this was originally directed to you to begin with.

Amoranemix 449 :

[72] You are mistaken. I have not quoted you but formulated your 'theorem' myself.

The distinction between a theorem and its proof eludes you. A theorem is a statement that can be proven. A proof is a deductive argument that establishes the truth of the theorem. If you can't prove it, then that probably means it is false. That is probably the case with your statement, in which case it is not a theorem.

[73] The fallacy you committed is the straw man, for I have not said otherwise.

Tarik 451 :

[72] [ no response]

[73] Your just being pedantic at this point dude.[91] Fact of the matter is he did more than just embrace implications, he said it was separate from the message and in the next breath said it wasn’t which is just deliberate lying on his part.[92] Read between the lines man.

Athias 436 to Lunar108 :

But why would they? If one believes one is "right" wouldn't considering a possible contradictory point undermine that?

Amoranemix 444 :

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” – Bertrand Russel

Athias 445 :

Explain how this applies.

Amoranemix 444 :

So, your argument is :

P1. If one claims “God does not exist”, one assumes the nonexistent can be perceived.

P2. It is false that the nonexistent can be perceived.

P3. A false premise and its extensions are irrational.

P4. Therefore, the premise that the nonexistent can be perceived is irrational.

C. Therefore, the claim “God does not exist” is irrational.

We are already arguing about P1 and P2 elsewhere. Please demonstrate P3.

Athias 445 :

No, this imputes contradiction. So I retract my previous statement.

This is my argument:

P1: If one claims, "God does not exist," one presumes the nonexistent can be perceived.

P2: Perception of nonexistence is irrational.

P3: An irrational premise and its extensions are irrational.

C: Therefore, the claim, "God does not exist," is irrational.

Athias 440 :

I create distinctions between "believe in" and "argue for." That is, the disbelief in God or gods as an expression of value needs not be "rationally defensible" because it's a declaration of one's private gnosis. As an argument, however, the proposition of a claim needs to be rationally defensible because argumentation is intended to resolve disputes between conflicting private gnoses using a consistent (not objective) standard as its measure. So, "I don't believe in God" needs not be rationally defensible; however, "God does not exist"--an argument--needs to be. And it isn't rationally defensible for the reasons I've mentioned.

Amoranemix 444 :

In post 289 I terminated with the claim :

“In the mean time everyone agrees, either tacitly or explicitely, that the position that atheism is irrational is not a rationally defensible one.”

You disagreed with that claim. You say that with that disagreement you merely shared your internal gnosis,[1.] which in that instance is not rationally defensible.[2.] You merely hold that belief because you value it.[3.] You now argue that you don't have to rationally defend that belief because you didn't make any claim other than sharing your belief.[4.]

However, you actually did make a claim by stating “Not everyone” in response to my claim. You even identified a particular person that counts as an exception to my claim, namely yourself.   So you claimed : “Athias did not agree, either tacitly or explicitly, that the position that atheism is irrational is not a rationally defensible one.”

Your claim needs to be rationally defensible. Subsequently you were unable to rationally defend it.

Athias 445 :

1. No, I didn't.

2. No, it isn't.

3. Redundant.

4. No, I haven't.

Amoranemix 444 :

[b] One does not identify Spino. I defined him.

You are assuming that knowing something about X, requires information from X. Please demonstrate that assumption.[*]

[c] You want me to explain the history of God from the Bible and the errors in that history ? That seems to be a lot of work. Why would I do that ?

Athias 445 :

[b] Okay.

[*] Not an assumption.[78] In order to acquire and maintain knowledge, one needs information. One can either conceive information or receive information, which ultimately is still conceived (i.e. information sustained by one's mind is irrevocably subjected to the bias of one's mind and subsequent conceptual attachments.) Your defining Spino--conceiving or "receiving" information notwithstanding--informs its existence.

[c] You stated:

“for those who make that claim [that God does not exist] may consider that anything that failed to do the actions ascribed to Yahweh in the Bible is not God. God is also said to be omnipresent.”

In order to understand these considerations and how they apply, we must first understand the history and alleged errors on which said considerations are based, right? You introduced this to our discussion, so why wouldn't you explain the history of God from the Bible and these perceived errors in that history? [79]

Amoranemix 449 :

Why are you referring to mind or spirit in your definitions ?[a] Why treat mind or spirit to be the relevant alternative to physical objects ?[b] Is a quantum wave function material ?[c]

The sufficiency of a definition depends on its use. I won't bother substantiating objections that may be irrelevant.[d]

Something useful to define seems everything.[e] Does it include nonexistent things ?[f] Does it include impossible things ?[g] The dictionary is unclear about that.

Another useful term to define is opposite, such that can be established whether X is the opposite of Y.[h] The dictionary is again too vague.

Yet another useful concept to define would be to perceive, e.g. to establish whether imagining something qualifies as perceiving.[i]

Athias 450 :

[a] Why wouldn't I?

[b] I don't; definition does.

[c] [no response]

[d] So, what is your preferred use of the term, exist?

[e] everything: all things which exist; the antipode of nothingness.

[f] Nothing does not exist. The nonexistent does not exist.

[g] Impossible in accordance to which measure?

[h] opposite: diametrically opposed; inconsistent with respect to... etc.

[i] perceive: to employ or use perception.

perception: the act or faculty of perceiving, or apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.

So yes, "imagination" would qualify as perceiving.[81]

Amoranemix 449 :

[68] I don't know. I made a suggestion though.

[b] The dictionary derives it from the verb to exist.

For concrete things, to exist is to be part of the real world.[j]

For abstract things I don't know. You, on the other hand, were adamant that numbers exist.[k]

[e] You haven't honoured your burden of proof yet. From reading the discussion your attribution to zedvictor4 does not seem to match his beliefs.

Athias 450 :

[j] What is your preferred description of "the real world"?

[k] I'm not adamant; I'm certain that numbers exist. But if I'm to engage you on this point, I must first understand the distinction, ontologically, that you are creating between the abstract and a physical object, which I presume you consider "part of the real world."

[e] There's no burden of proof.[80] You made a request as to my attribution. I've submitted to you that it's in one of our previous discussions (maybe even before you joined this site.) If and when I find it, I take no issue presenting it to you.

And once again, I'm not accountable for that which "seems" to you. ("Seem" is not an argument.) If zedvictor4 wishes to clarify or rebut my characterization of his position, I take no issue retracting my statement.