The Atheist's Burden of Proof (Exposing Intellectual dishonesty)

[The_Cosmos]

No all you guys do is shift the burden of proof. By repeatedly asking people for evidence. When people can just reverse this and ask you for evidence.
Where is the evidence for the non-existence of God?:siilaanyolaugh:



This is just empty rhetoric.

This doesn't prove or disprove of the existence of God.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.[

You are in effect presenting an argument from ignorance stating that since the proposition has not be falsified, the burden of evidence also lies on the the skeptic. This is logically absurd and stagnates any form of discussion. The philosophical burden of proof IS a well established position that theists tend to reject.

 

[Dhabaal]

That doesn't even make sense? Why would I need to provide evidence against the existence of God when I have not made a proposition in favour of it? I ask the theist for evidence because they support the proposition that god exists. It's logically absurd to demand evidence to disprove something with which whom you have shown no inclination or support. For example, if someone came to you and said "whenever People aren't around I could fly," would you demand evidence for such a claim or not?

You don't have to provide evidence but you cannot shift the burden of proof onto Theists. by repeatedly asking for evidence.The theist can just reverse the argument and ask you for evidence.

Do you see the faulty reasoning.

It hasn't been invalidated! A few philosophers disagree which is the case for everything but it's still a well held position. The reason why it's so strong is because it follow basic judicial and scientific standards. He who makes a claim must provide evidence. This is the case on science and the judicial system and I see no reason why this can't also stand here.

I would agree that it is strong in the Anti-God Atheist community. However there is evidence against the teapotism.

Alvin Platinga states:

Clearly we have a great deal of evidence against teapotism. For example, as far as we know, the only way a teapot could have gotten into orbit around the sun would be if some country with sufficiently developed space-shot capabilities had shot this pot into orbit. No country with such capabilities is sufficiently frivolous to waste its resources by trying to send a teapot into orbit. Furthermore, if some country had done so, it would have been all over the news; we would certainly have heard about it. But we haven’t. And so on. There is plenty of evidence against teapotism.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?_r=1

 

[Jujuman]

@Realwarya Your pleas have fallen on deaf ears

 

[The_Cosmos]

You don't have to provide evidence but you cannot shift the burden of proof onto Theists. by repeatedly asking for evidence.The theist can just reverse the argument and ask you for evidence.




I would agree that it is strong in the Anti-God Atheist community. However there is evidence against the teapotism.

Alvin Platinga states:

We're literally moving in circles here. In court and in science we require the proponent to back their claims and I'm making the exact same demand. Why is it any different? The theist makes a claim and I'm asking for evidence.

Alvin Platinga is laughably putting himself in a hole here because the exact same question can be made for the opposite view. If there was any evidence for god we would have known about it. Plus, it misses the point that the teapot illustrates. The teapot is an illustration for the burden of proof and not the authenticity of its claim.

 

[Dhabaal]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof


You are in effect presenting an argument from ignorance stating that since the proposition has not be falsified, the burden of evidence also lies on the the skeptic. This is logically absurd and stagnates any form of discussion. The philosophical burden of proof IS a well established position that theists tend to reject.

Can you point to where i assumed something was true or false? You are using ad ignoramium falsely because for it to apply i would have to assert an argument of true and false in the absence of knowledge.

All i said is that neither sides can make any claims and neither side can shift the burden of proof. It doesn't matter whether you are skeptic or not , you cannot reportedly ask theists for evidence , when the latter can just ask you for evidence.

as your link states

A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.

 

[Bernie Madoff]

@Realwarya Your pleas have fallen on deaf ears

atleast its in the proper section

 

[Dhabaal]

We're literally moving in circles here. In court and in science we require the proponent to back their claims and I'm making the exact same demand. Why is it any different? The theist makes a claim and I'm asking for evidence.

Point me to an theist making the claim please. BELIEF is not a assertive claim or a KNOW. Learn the distinction.

All you do is run around and assume. If you ask for evidence of God, equally i have every right to reverse it and ask evidence for the non-existence of God.

Alvin Platinga is laughably putting himself in a hole here because the exact same question can be made for the opposite view. If there was any evidence for god we would have known about it. Plus, it misses the point that the teapot illustrates. The teapot is an illustration for the burden of proof and not the authenticity of its claim.

Well that particular example was flawed , we have evidence that teapotism doesn't exist.

Lastly on the burden of proof, like the example of Chamberlain's argument which is pretty straightforward, all truth claims bear a burden of proof, and the burden of proof is even greater if it takes the shape of notions like the teapot or the spaghetti monster, the parody form of it, not because of their negativity but because of the extent of their triviality.

'Just because we have not being able to solve a related problem doesn't follow that we have automatically settled the problem we set out to solve in the first place. Neither can two unknowns be equated beyond the fact that they are unknowns. Attempts to remove the first cause or negate the need to know the "cause" ends up violating everything else in our aggregated knowledge base.

 

[The_Cosmos]

Can you point to where i assumed something was true or false? You are using ad ignoramium falsely because for it to apply i would have to assert an argument of true and false in the absence of knowledge.

All i said is that neither sides can make any claims and neither side can shift the burden of proof. It doesn't matter whether you are skeptic or not , you cannot reportedly ask theists for evidence , when the latter can just ask you for evidence.

as your link states

No I have used it correctly. When a skeptic asks for evidence you're making the claim that the proponent can reverse the precise same question. "I can't prove it but.." is an argument from ignorance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Statements that begin with "I can't prove it but ..." are often referring to some kind absence of evidence.

 

[Dhabaal]

No I have used it correctly. When a skeptic asks for evidence you're making the claim that the proponent can reverse the precise same question. "I can't prove it but.." is an argument from ignorance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Yes you have it used it incorrectly and the fact that you tried to take that sentence out of context and apply it to your position says alot about your intellectual dishonesty. Asking for evidence is very valid nothing and has no connection with refrencing of absence of evidence or asserting from ignorance. Just a straightforward question. ''Do you have evidence for the non-existence of God''

(These examples contain or represent missing information.)

• Statements that begin with "I can't prove it but ..." are often referring to some kind absence of evidence.
• "There is no evidence of foul play here" is a direct reference to the absence of evidence.
• "There is no evidence of aliens, and therefore, aliens do not exist" appeals to an absence of evidence

As you can see by the examples up above in your link, asking for evidence has nothing to with reference to absence of evidence. Stating there is no evidence is.

And you wonder why i say that you guys are intellectually dishonest

 

[NoName]

No, what i am arguing against is that the Atheists shifting the burden of proof onto the Thiests . Arguing that their claim is negative, and negative claims require no justification. This is an extremely inaccurate position. Even within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, negative claims are studied, analyzed and evaluated. Several scientific studies reach negative conclusions and they justify such using evidence.

Many scientific papers are published solely to provide evidence for a negative conclusion that is against previously held conclusions and theories. If an atheist argues that negative claims require no justification, then they are in disagreement with much of the peer-reviewed academic literature who all require evidence to substantiate negative conclusions.

Did what I write in the previous post go over your head? Scientific claims are falsifiable. A negative scientific claim is falsifiable by virtue of being scientific. Metaphysical claims are not.

Secondly exposing the fact that some Atheists use defense mechanisms like Agnostic Atheism , which some fall back on when confronted after they make claims relative to God which they can't prove.

Now you are back to the mislabelling you were on about in the other thread. You can't just label a philosophical position a defense mechanism. It doesn't make sense.

First of all that is not a straw man argument because i am not misrepresenting someones argument either. I am not generalizing by saying all atheists or using anecdotes as my premise to my argument as i put ''If'' as in case.
Surely it would be incorrect ''IF" you were to claim that no atheists makes claims against God.

It's in fact a classical example of a strawman. The conditional phrase 'if this is the case' refers to testimonial evidence, which is not permitted philosophically.

Secondly. You didn't deal with the point i was making. That if Atheists make a claim against God they have to provide evidence and if an Atheist for examples states ''There is no proof of evidence against God'' to this a Theist can just that ''There is no evidence for the non-existence of God''.

I'm sure this made sense in your head, but it hardly makes any.

I don't think you know what a Strawman means since you are using it very incorrectly because you affirmed what i was saying but just worded it differently to make it appear as if the Atheist argument is more plausible. What i essentially did was flip the argument

It's a strawman. You basically reinstated the whole position with your testimonial/anecdotal evidence and then tried to refute that instead of the actual argument.

Kind like stating for example ''It is not rational to believe that God does not exist , because there is no evidence for the non-existence of God'' is perfectly valid from a rationalist viewpoint because rationality requires sufficient reason for any belief to be considered.

Now you're basically arguing the lack of a belief in God from the rationalist would amount to a belief requiring sufficient reason. You need to argue this.

Do you see how all you are doing is shifting the burden of proof and committing fallacies.

The reason why i reverse the argument against the atheist is not to frustrate them or discourage intellectual debate, but to show the atheist the deficiencies in their reasoning skills.

But so far you have failed to do any of those things. Using emoticons in the middle of the post isn't going to help you with this.

But that wouldn't make you Atheist but Agnostic. Anyways you can just reverse the argument and ''Becaus there is absence of any evidence to support the belief that god doesn't exist'' You see it doesn't warrant any dismissal or rejection because that would violate the fact that ''We don't know''.

Nope, it would actually make you an atheist. I can't even believe that I've to this out to you. But anyway, you're the one who brought up the rationality issue - and it turns out you don't know anything about that school of thought. Why am I not surprised?

Like i stated before when i replied to @Jujuman and @You using Chamberlains argument.

''Just because we have not being able to solve a related problem doesn't follow that we have automatically settled the problem we set out to solve in the first place. Neither can two unknowns be equated beyond the fact that they are unknowns. Attempts to remove the first cause or negate the need to know the "cause" ends up violating everything else in our aggregated knowledge base. One would think from purely a logical perspective that the starting point for any investigation should have focused on the "cause" or the "first cause", even if the exact nature of that cause necessitate waiting. After all we know next to nothing about nature of gravity but use it extensively as a cause in order to understand everything around us.''

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with this quote. If you think it's relevant to the argument, then explain that in your own words.

Overusing the word ''Rationality'' will not make anything you say sound more rational or logical. What kind of psuedo-intellectual mumbo jumbo is this. Less rhetoric and more coherent arguments aimed at the substance of the opponents argument.

That's rich coming from you, and again, there's a nice emoticon you got there instead of an actual argument.

Rationalist, Rationalist, Rationalist bla bla bla. Repeating Rationalist/Rationality over and over or using ad hominems is not an argument nor is it a valid rebuttal.

Now you're just losing it.

Walahi You are are a psuedo intellectual you don't make any argument or address my points. You just repeatedly emphasize that your standing is correct and that somehow makes it automatically correct by default

I answered your argument and pointed out so many issues you had in there. It seems like you have no reply... except an emoticon!

Its every bit valid painting the position i am arguing against. The point of this thread was to expose the fact that creating defense mechanisms and using cop outs are intellectually dishonest and arguing against the Atheists burden of proof..

Just because you label philosophical positions as defense mechanisms and op outs doesn't make them so. You're acting as if you're going to make this stick by repetition. And no, and I've explained many times, you can't repaint the position you're arguing against and then argue against your own painting. This is exactly what a strawman is. Look it up.

The point i am making is straight forward, if you actually care to read it instead of concocting ways obfuscate it.

It might straightforward but your arguments border on being incoherent. If you want make a good argument, make it in such a way that you're free of the many of the issues I've raised.

Nativity is your condescending remarks that neither attacks my points or my arguments intellectual manner. Because creating intellectual dishonest positions are invalid and exposing them is every bit as reasonable if we are going to have an plausible intellectual discourse.

Creating deceptive tactics by intentionally committing fallacies is unwarranted.

My point was that if the position is actually philosophically untenable, the intellectual dishonesty shouldn't matter. It appears to me the position that the atheist takes defeats you and that's why you attack the intentions instead.

I will paraphrase myself in the opening statement.

Almost all people in the new Atheists camp of this century have taken intellectual dishonest positions when it comes to the questions of existence. Thats why i have never encountered one and says more about the so called Atheist philosophers camp then it does me.

You've already become incoherent in your paraphrasing. The intellectual dishonesty that you have accused of atheists was that they took the position of making no claim and claiming the absence of belief in God. Yet you say the reason you haven't encountered any of them is because they're intellectually dishonest when it comes to the question of existence (precisely meaning they take the aforementioned position that you have just admitted to be widespread). This doesn't make sense!

Firstly some Atheists make claims relative to God then , falling back on their defense mechanism stating they are Agnostic Aheists, when that is trivial and meaningless. The only thing that matters is the claims you make and not your belief. If you make

If you make what? Now you're not even completing your sentences!

Or frequently shifting the Burden of proof by postulating that the burden of proof like you just did lies solely on Theists and not the Atheists. Because the fallacious notion ''negative claims'' don't need proof which just utter rubbish and any lay-man philosopher can pick that apart in seconds.

Again, you're not explaining yourself. You can call it rubbish, but justify it. I've no problems with this either way, but I've problem for you throwing out labels like 'fallacious' on these notions you speak of.

I made an accusation not an insult. Its more likely you are frustrated since you seem more frusrtated considering you took offense to that.Atheists have to provide evidence for the non-existence of God. Because all truth claims bear a burden of proof.

Oh, yeah a coward is not an insult? You learn something new everyday!

'Just because we have not being able to solve a related problem doesn't follow that we have automatically settled the problem we set out to solve in the first place. Neither can two unknowns be equated beyond the fact that they are unknowns. Attempts to remove the first cause or negate the need to know the "cause" ends up violating everything else in our aggregated knowledge base.

Stop throwing other people's words in contexts where they don't make sense, and use quotation marks.

Lastly my argument isn't moot i could just reverse what you are saying. The simple lack of evidence is sufficient in having a belief in God or to simply suspend Judgement.

WTF! I had to read it twice. Read it to yourself and tell me if you're making sense.

At end of the day all you are doing is shifting the burden of proof.

First of all, I haven't shifted anything. Second of all, shifting indicates that it was somewhere all alone. Is this a Freudian slip?

Yes it is unfalsifiable metaphysical question but how does that make disbelief or lack of belief in God more scientific then Lack of belief in non-existence or belief in God.

It doesn't.

Its not a false equivalence there is nothing scientific about Atheism.

First of all, that's not why it's a false equivalence. I've specifically explained it why it was a false equivalence in a syllogism. Secondly, no one made claims on the scientific standing (or lack thereof) of atheism. You're confused now.

Furthermore something being unfalsifiable just means its outside of science, it doesn't mean its disproof or evidence of anything.

No one made claims either way.

It is a complete straw-man to think i was attacking Atheism. If you still don't understand let me just summarize my points in one sentence.


Atheists and Theists have to provide evidence for the non-existence of God , their beliefs don't matter only the claims they make.

Whether you were attacking atheism or not my point still stands. As for your bold statement, the statement itself isn't that meaningful. It's when you explain it that one can extract the full meaning you intend to ascribe to it. But this is when you keep failing. Your explanations and justification are quite frankly horrible.

Lastly what the hell are you rambling on about, what the hell does these ''mysterious entire theories you don't disclose'' that have to do with my arguments or topic of Burden of Proof. Whether you are a Skeptic or not you still have to provide evidence if you are going to make a claim about the non-existence of God.

Why put quotation marks on something I haven't said? My point was to illustrate the power of skeptical thinking in philosophy. But you don't understand the basics, and if anything this post of yours indicated that you also suffer with incoherence. I mean half what you write is just gibberish. If you can't see the relationship between skepticism and the burden of proof then you have no business in proposing arguments like this.

 

[Jujuman]

@Dhabaal You're an Afairiest? How can you be so ignorant as to openly argue against the existence of Fairies. I may not have proof they exist but neither do you have proof they don't exist so stop shoving the burden of proof on me!



Saaxib, this is exactly what you've been doing this whole time.

 

[NoName]

@Dhabaal You're an Afairiest? How can you be so ignorant as to openly argue against the existence of Fairies. I may not have proof they exist but neither do you have proof they don't exist so stop shoving the burden of proof on me!



Saaxib, this is exactly what you've been doing this whole time.

He'll reply with a post that's 80% incoherent gibberish and 20% misusing philosophy terms he read on Wikipedia.

And in the end there will be a 'conclusion' sentence that says something different to what he was saying all along!

 

[The_Cosmos]

Yes you have it used it incorrectly and the fact that you tried to take that sentence out of context and apply it to your position says alot about your intellectual dishonesty. Asking for evidence is very valid nothing and has no connection with refrencing of absence of evidence or asserting from ignorance. Just a straightforward question. ''Do you have evidence for the non-existence of God''




As you can see by the examples up above in your link, asking for evidence has nothing to with reference to absence of evidence. Stating there is no evidence is.

And you wonder why i say that you guys are intellectually dishonest

Nothing I've stated is intellectually dishonest because I have applied it correctly. The intellectual dishonesty is on your part by choosing to deliberately take my point out of context.

As you can see by the examples up above in your link, asking for evidence has nothing to with reference to absence of evidence. Stating there is no evidence is.

Number 1)

There is no evidence of aliens, and therefore, aliens do not exist" appeals to an absence of evidence

this quote clearly shows that it doesn't state "there is no evidence" full stop, it states that claiming that there is no evidence therefore there is no God is fallacious and I have not made that argument. This shows you're the intellectually dishonest one.

Number 2)

Statements that begin with "I can't prove it but ..." are often referring to some kind absence of evidence.

your point was that a theist can reverse the question of evidence on me. That's literally the same thing as saying "I can't prove it but you can't disprove it either" which you endorsed.

 

[The_Cosmos]

@Dhabaal

Listen mate, I'm tired of typing. Unless you're willing for a voice chat on discord, we might as well end this roundabout and pointless debate.

 

[Dhabaal]

Did what I write in the previous post go over your head? Scientific claims are falsifiable. A negative scientific claim is falsifiable by virtue of being scientific. Metaphysical claims are not.

You just are just re-iterating a non-point. You are not saying anything new everyone knows that scientific claims are falsefiable and some metaphysical questions are not. I even stated this on a different thread http://www.somalispot.com/threads/i-have-come-back-to-the-fold-of-islam.15407/page-9#post-341840 you are not coming here with anything,.

This doesn't prove or disprove of the existence of God.

Now you are back to the mislabelling you were on about in the other thread. You can't just label a philosophical position a defense mechanism. It doesn't make sense.

It is an intellectually dishonest position to make claims about God and then fall back on stating that you are Agnostic Atheist who lack disbelief and make no assertive claim against God. Which is essentially is a cop out, since your beliefs do not matter. Only the claims that you make.

If you make a claim then you have to fork over proof. As simple as that. What part of it don't you understand?

It's in fact a classical example of a strawman. The conditional phrase 'if this is the case' refers to testimonial evidence, which is not permitted philosophically.

I don't think you know what a strawman is. Let me clarify the definition for you so that you understand: The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then refuting that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

The fact that you are attaching all sorts of misconstrues to my very simplistic straight forward arguments is infact strawmanning it.

I'm sure this made sense in your head, but it hardly makes any.

See how intellectually dishonest you guys are.

You make no arguments to my argument and do not refute a single thing. Just empty rhetoric that emphasizes that you somehow without support have a correct standing, which you have made no effort in proving.

I am right you are wrong is all you are saying thinking this makes me somehow wrong.

It's a strawman. You basically reinstated the whole position with your testimonial/anecdotal evidence and then tried to refute that instead of the actual argument.

Haye, tell me who's position did i replace and what part of is testimonial or anecdotal evidence?. Then tell what the actual argument was?

You are just tossing out terms you either don't know the meaning of or you are intentionally using them incorrectly.

Now you're basically arguing the lack of a belief in God from the rationalist would amount to a belief requiring sufficient reason. You need to argue this.
But so far you have failed to do any of those things. Using emoticons in the middle of the post isn't going to help you with this.

You didn't argue that belief in God is irrational, except just stating it is. I reversed it rhetorically to show how reasoning is flaw.

Why are you focusing on the emoticons? they are their just there to add expressions to the posts not substance to my arguments.

That's rich coming from you, and again, there's a nice emoticon you got there instead of an actual argument.

Some more rhetorical garbage. Now what you think reapeting ''emoticons'' several times is an indirect refutation?

Just keep ignoring and misrepresenting my points

Just because you label philosophical positions as defense mechanisms and op outs doesn't make them so. You're acting as if you're going to make this stick by repetition. And no, and I've explained many times, you can't repaint the position you're arguing against and then argue against your own painting. This is exactly what a strawman is. Look it up.

I reiterate
''It is an intellectually dishonest position to make claims about God and then fall back on stating that you are Agnostic Atheist who lack disbelief and make no assertive claim against God. Which is essentially is a cop out, since your beliefs do not matter. Only the claims that you make.

If you make a claim then you have to fork over proof. As simple as that. What part of it don't you understand?''

It might straightforward but your arguments border on being incoherent. If you want make a good argument, make it in such a way that you're free of the many of the issues I've raised.

Ok simply stating my arguments are incoherent ,doesn't make them such. No more than stating your matter is fat ugly cow is a true claim just because i said it.

You have to demonstrate your claims through reasoning and argumentation.

My point was that if the position is actually philosophically untenable, the intellectual dishonesty shouldn't matter. It appears to me the position that the atheist takes defeats you and that's why you attack the intentions instead.

It does matter. When one avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs.
Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion.

especially when intellectual dishonesty comes in the form defense mechanism to avoid the burden of proof. .

You've already become incoherent in your paraphrasing. The intellectual dishonesty that you have accused of atheists was that they took the position of making no claim and claiming the absence of belief in God. Yet you say the reason you haven't encountered any of them is because they're intellectually dishonest when it comes to the question of existence (precisely meaning they take the aforementioned position that you have just admitted to be widespread). This doesn't make sense!

Like i stated , repeatedly stating i am incoherent doesn't make me incoherent. Learn to use reasoning and argumentation. Not lame ad-hominems

Now you are just misrepresenting what i said. What i said was i have yet to encounter an atheist that doesn't make any claims or not hold any positive or negative beliefs about God.

Atheists simply use these defense mechanism to avoid their burden of proof, likely because they do not have any evidence to substantiate God's nonexistence. They lack tangible evidence that supports holding the nonexistence of God.

If you make what? Now you're not even completing your sentences!

If you make claim you have to provide proof for it.

 

[Dhabaal]

Nothing I've stated is intellectually dishonest because I have applied it correctly. The intellectual dishonesty is on your part by choosing to deliberately take my point out of context.

You are being intellectually dishonest, you are applying it incorrectly and now you are just trying to reverse the stick by accusing me to save face.

Number 1) this quote clearly shows that it doesn't state "there is no evidence" full stop, it states that claiming that there is no evidence therefore there is no God is fallacious and I have not made that argument. This shows you're the intellectually dishonest one.

The example itself concludes a false or truth based on lack of evidence. , ''and therefore, aliens do not exist" appeals to an absence of evidence''

Concluding aliens do not exist is an appeal to absence of evidence. Simply Asking for ''Evidence'' is not or both you and i would commit a fallacy.

I have not concluded or made reference in the absence of Knowledge. It shows you are intellectually dishonest like i first stated.

Number 2) your point was that a theist can reverse the question of evidence on me. That's literally the same thing as saying "I can't prove it but you can't disprove it either" which you endorsed.

For example '' I cannot prove it... but god doesn't exist.''' applies to example you gave. Reversing the question neither implies a proof positive or a proof negative.

Asking the question itself just shifts the burden of proof.

 

[The_Cosmos]

You are being intellectually dishonest, you are applying it incorrectly and now you are just trying to reverse the stick by accusing me to save face.



The example itself concludes a false or truth based on lack of evidence. , ''and therefore, aliens do not exist" appeals to an absence of evidence''

Concluding aliens do not exist is an appeal to absence of evidence. Simply Asking for ''Evidence'' is not or both you and i would commit a fallacy.

I have not concluded or made reference in the absence of Knowledge. It shows you are intellectually dishonest like i first stated.



For example '' I cannot prove it... but god doesn't exist.''' applies to example you gave. Reversing the question neither implies a proof positive or a proof negative.

Asking the question itself just shifts the burden of proof.

Stating there is no evidence is.

I answered the point which you made in the earlier post. I was clarifying that the example did not claim what you were stating in the quotes. You need to read better instead of just throwing accusations that don't even fit.

For example '' I cannot prove it... but god doesn't exist.''' applies to example you gave. Reversing the question neither implies a proof positive or a proof negative.

Yes but that I never made that point though did I? I never once stated that lack of evidence equals no god, that's straw man from you yet again!

You reversing the question of evidence on me is a logical fallacy as the example shows because you're positioning yourself on the pretext of "I can't prove but you can't disprove it either." That's the entire point of the reverse of the question of evidence. My example works perfectly.

 

[Dhabaal]

He'll reply with a post that's 80% incoherent gibberish and 20% misusing philosophy terms he read on Wikipedia.

And in the end there will be a 'conclusion' sentence that says something different to what he was saying all along!

You are a Pseudo-intellectual you hold zero knowledge about philosophy especially in Philosophy of science, you just pretend you do and make remarks with condescending undertones to perpetuate that.

You come here misusing philosophy by misusing the terms like Strawman which you overuse with no demonstration. By your logic everything is incoherent, strawman or irrational just because you said it.

you don't make any argument or any intentions of address the points raised . You just repeatedly emphasize that your standing is correct and that somehow makes it automatically correct by default.

I never linked any of my information from wikipedia. Most of my knowledge comes from pre-reviewed journals, books and philosophy discourse websites which i use for quick sourcing and referencing.

Like this paper on the fallacies of Logical positivism ---> http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html

Or these papers from stanford websites which i linked on unfalsifiable metaphysical questions ---> "Are properties accidental or essential?", "How does mind relate to matter?", "Do universals exist?", "How can we justify using induction itself?", "Is there an objective moral normativity?", "Do numbers and ideas have an independent existence?", "What distinguishes alive and dead matter?", "What does it mean to know?"

which i have previously argued are unfalsifiable and therefore outside of the domain of science.

 

[The_Cosmos]

You are a Pseudo-intellectual you hold zero knowledge about philosophy especially in Philosophy of science, you just pretend you do and make remarks with condescending undertones to perpetuate that.

You come here misusing philosophy by misusing the terms like Strawman which you overuse with no demonstration. By your logic everything is incoherent, strawman or irrational just because you said it.

you don't make any argument or any intentions of address the points raised . You just repeatedly emphasize that your standing is correct and that somehow makes it automatically correct by default.

I never linked any of my information from wikipedia. Most of my knowledge comes from pre-reviewed journals, books and philosophy discourse websites which i use for quick sourcing and referencing.

Like this paper on the fallacies of Logical positivism ---> http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html

Or these papers from stanford websites which i linked on unfalsifiable metaphysical questions ---> "Are properties accidental or essential?", "How does mind relate to matter?", "Do universals exist?", "How can we justify using induction itself?", "Is there an objective moral normativity?", "Do numbers and ideas have an independent existence?", "What distinguishes alive and dead matter?", "What does it mean to know?"

which i have previously argued are unfalsifiable and therefore outside of the domain of science.

You can make an argument for the question of God being a metaphysical question but if we're talking about the Abrahamic god, then I can dismiss him as highly improbable based on the reliability of the claim made by Abrahamic theology.

 

[Dhabaal]

​

Dhabaal : ''If you make a claim about the existence of God then you have to fork over proof. As simple as that. All truth bear a burden of proof ''

NoName: ''You are incoherent and lack rationality, because i said so.''



Classic ad-hominem: Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.. By appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem