You Have Nothing to Add
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-02-2012, 10:17 PM
RE: You Have Nothing to Add
(18-02-2012 10:16 PM)Thomas Wrote:  The William Lane Craig argument: "If atheism cannot be proven to be true, then God must exist".

False dichotomy.

The argument is this simple:

Theists make the truth claim that God exist.
A truth claim must be proven by the claimant or it is false.
Theists cannot prove the claim is true, therefore it is false.

Now I have nothing to add.

Now that you've pwn'd him so most excellently, I wonder what religion he'll start next?

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Erxomai's post
18-02-2012, 10:19 PM
RE: You Have Nothing to Add
(18-02-2012 10:16 PM)Thomas Wrote:  A truth claim must be proven by the claimant or it is false.

No, that is the same logical error. A truth claim not proven is merely not proven.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
18-02-2012, 10:27 PM
RE: You Have Nothing to Add
(18-02-2012 10:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-02-2012 10:16 PM)Thomas Wrote:  A truth claim must be proven by the claimant or it is false.

No, that is the same logical error. A truth claim not proven is merely not proven.

Not quite. If you make a claim than cannot be proven, it is not an unproven standing claim. It must be withdrawn.

There is also the argument error of making a non-falsifiable claim as well.

Both ways the claim is rejected as an argument because the argument is not possible.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2012, 10:32 PM
RE: You Have Nothing to Add
(18-02-2012 10:16 PM)Thomas Wrote:  The William Lane Craig argument: "If atheism cannot be proven to be true, then God must exist".

The word god exists as concept, Lane. Anything else is being god. Only in the name of the Gwynnies, with that stuff. Wink

But she's real, the living god; and we can worship each other, the image of god, and all is more than well. And no one goes to hell. Wink

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
18-02-2012, 10:47 PM
RE: You Have Nothing to Add
You know, it dawned on me: If you aren't going to admit that there is a chance God does not exists, we really don't have anything to talk about.

You can say you believe God exists, but that doesn't mean anything in terms of whether or not He actually does exist. In other words, who cares what you believe?

The fact is you have no counter-argument. There is no theist argument, and you know it.

Unless you make that claim, there's nothing to debate. All you do is end up making ridiculous demands like: "Please show me two peer-reviewed documents that God doesn't exists."

A beliver just needs to go about living his or her life and shut up.

Now gtfo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Jakel's post
18-02-2012, 11:11 PM
RE: You Have Nothing to Add
(18-02-2012 10:27 PM)Thomas Wrote:  
(18-02-2012 10:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-02-2012 10:16 PM)Thomas Wrote:  A truth claim must be proven by the claimant or it is false.

No, that is the same logical error. A truth claim not proven is merely not proven.

Not quite. If you make a claim than cannot be proven, it is not an unproven standing claim. It must be withdrawn.

There is also the argument error of making a non-falsifiable claim as well.

Both ways the claim is rejected as an argument because the argument is not possible.

No, these claims are still merely unproven and not false. You said they were false, and that is not correct.

This is three-state logic: true, false, undecided. The middle is not excluded.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
18-02-2012, 11:16 PM
RE: You Have Nothing to Add
(18-02-2012 10:32 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(18-02-2012 10:16 PM)Thomas Wrote:  The William Lane Craig argument: "If atheism cannot be proven to be true, then God must exist".

The word god exists as concept, Lane. Anything else is being god. Only in the name of the Gwynnies, with that stuff. Wink

But she's real, the living god; and we can worship each other, the image of god, and all is more than well. And no one goes to hell. Wink

Good to have you back, Doc HoC. Smile

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
18-02-2012, 11:49 PM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2012 11:53 PM by Starcrash.)
RE: You Have Nothing to Add
(18-02-2012 09:49 PM)Egor Wrote:  You know, it dawned on me: If you all aren't going to flat out deny that God exists, you really don't have anything to talk about.

I just don't think you understand skepticism or the point of having it. We can't be absolutely certain that any God claim is untrue. Do you believe in Allah? If not, is it because you've disproven the Qur'an? Do you believe in Zeus? How about the Triple Goddess? There are literally too many religions existing now (not to mention possible Gods that can just be made up) to have to disprove them all in order to take a stand on what is likely to be the truth.

I just don't think you understand the burden of proof. A man accused of a crime does not have to prove that he didn't commit the crime, nor does the prosecution expect him to attempt it --- he is given the presumption of innocence, because that is where skepticism lies (it's much more probable, statistically, that a person did not commit a crime than did). Does it matter if he can prove that he's innocent? A judge would say "no", and would only care about if he can be proven guilty. Let me clarify this analogy --- you do not have to prove the other religions wrong to say that they are false, but you do have to prove that your own religion is right. The burden of proof is still yours, just as it is up to Wiccans to prove the existence of a goddess in nature or for a Muslim to prove that Islam is the one true religion.

You can live in denial and simply ignore the fact that you have the burden of proof, but you certainly won't convince us because we know better (and you haven't even made a case for us needing proof). Perhaps it is the case, because you want to shift the burden of proof instead of making a sound positive case for your religion, that you have nothing to add.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2012, 11:59 PM
RE: You Have Nothing to Add
Eyegore!... What's up buddy!

Hey ... Ya know .. I almost missed ya.. almost but I searched long and hard into my black heart and didn't feel a damn thing.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -- Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like ddrew's post
19-02-2012, 12:29 AM
RE: You Have Nothing to Add
don't feed the trolls, or the retards

even the smartest man in the world is an idiot
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: