Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1118725442.056246.40250@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1118714274.619465.199240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:pfsra1p24r9pg4ltlr46bnqrhdqn6bgf1j@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:13:03 -0400, "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Ricky Ticket" <not@given.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BED30C5B000160F02F6F46C0@news.east.earthlink.net...
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 0:01:02 -0400, The Chief Instigator wrote
(in message <szkhdg2hpmp.fsf@eris.io.com>):
It is not my job to prove it.
It's not your job to support your babbling? Congratulations.
You've
just
confirmed that anything you claim can be dismissed.
There are quite a few of these "I don't have to prove it" idiots
running
around this group. :D
And, they are atheists I noticed.
We don't have to prove it moron,
While you insist that people who disagree with you prove their stance?
Simple. The people that disagree with their position are taking an
affirmative stance, and thus have the burden of proof for their
position.
The stance I took in this thread is that non-existence can be proven, and
i
already provided at least one link to show it.
But the link did not support your stance.
Yes, it did, liar.
No, it did not. A list of links that of web pages that happen to
contain those 4 words proves nothing except that web pages exist with
those 4 words.
A list of Google hits is
useless. You need to be more specific, and use something that is an
authoritative site on the subject.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=proof+of+non+existence&tab=Web&fr=my-vert-web-top&btn=Yahoo%21+Search
OK. You have a list over 2 million web pages that have the words
"proof", "of", "non", and "existence". So what? That has nothing to
do with the discussion. The words could be scatter all over those
pages and nowhere near each other.
Now, where is your proof that the nonexistence of a deity can be
proven? A list of links to web pages that happen to contain those
words does not support your position.
You can't prove your stance so I am in no way obligated to prove my
stance
to you.
Yes, you are obligated.
I already proved my affirmative assertion that non-existence can be
proven.
No, you have not.
I sure did.
No, you have not. A list of links to web pages from a general web
search proves nothing of the kind. I have no idea what web page you
are referring to.
However, a quote and/or link to an authoritative website that covers
that topic does support such a position. Preferably more than one.
For example:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm
"proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for
his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist
(e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth,
etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations,
such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot
prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of
ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of
existence must come from those who make the claims."
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
Argument from Ignorance
(argumentum ad ignorantiam)
"Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven
false, it is therefore true."
By the way, these support my position, and destroy yours.
Nor have you proven that your deity exists.
When did I try to?
You seem to think that it can be proven to exist.
You are taking the affirmative position in the
debate, and thus you have the burden of proof.
I already proved my affirmative assertion.
No, you have not.
I did.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=proof+of+non+existence&tab=Web&fr=my-vert-web-top&btn=Yahoo%21+Search
No, you did not. A list of web pages that happen to contain those 4
words somewhere in them only proves that people use those words in what
they write. There is no way to know from that list which specific
pages you are talking about, or which points on those pages. Your
"logic" and your argument are completely missing.
Those have nothing to do with your assertion that the nonexistence of
deities can be proven, as you contend.
They do not have to
prove that there is an absence of objective evidence supporting their
position,
Absence of objective information to prove their position is precisely why
they are unproven
Actually, it supports their position.
It defeats it.
Nope. It defeats YOUR position.
As they ask for objective evidence from others
who make the affirmative assertion, and thus have the burden of proof.
they fail to
produce any to prove their assertion,
Because the negative assertion does not require any proof. That is
basic to logical debate.
therfore they are defeated by their
own standard.
Not at all. Those that support the negative assertion do not need to
support their position. Only those with the positive assertion need
to.
They fail to measure up to their own standard so they are
defeated by their own requirement.
Not at all. Those that make the affirmative assertion are defeated
because they cannot support their assertion objectively. Those that
make the negative assertion do not have anything to prove.
Excepting themselves from proving their
assertions via their own demands for evidence is very hypocritical of them.
Not at all. It is simply applying the rules of logical debate as they
have existed for thousands of years. Those that make the affirmative
assertion must support their position. Those that make the negative do
not, since the negative cannot be proven, only disproved. This is
something that is learned in the first couple weeks of any course in
logical debate.
However, these statements show that you have never studied logical
debate, as you have claimed. Or if you did, you do not remember even
the most basic of the lessons from it.
and why if they want people to believe their position they
must prove it somehow.
No.
You're very untrustworthy, imo.
However, your opinion is worth nothing. Everyone else that knows me
thinks of me as being highly trustworthy.
They do not need to prove their position,
They are required to prove their assertions via their own demands for proof
they try to place upon others.
Correct. They need to prove any affirmative assertions that they make.
Negative ones need not proof.
Otherwise, they are hypocrites.
Not at all. Negative assertions to not require proof because they
cannot be proven.
since the negative
assertion does not need to be proven.
A false and illogical and hypocritical standard.
Prove it using MORE than your own statements. Try authoritative
sources on the subject of logical debate.
It is the positive assertion
that needs to be proven,
Your hypocrisy is evident.
You misspelled "nonexistent." I have said nothing that is false or
hypocritical, as viewed by an intelligent and knowledgeable third
party. Your opinion is known to be skewed and out of touch with
reality.
and the people that assert that deities exist
cannot provide any objective evidence to support their position.
Which is another assertion that you have not proven.
It is not for me to prove. It is for you to disprove by providing
objective evidence to support the existence of deities.
because such a thing is effectively impossible.
Do you think they enjoy being in such a position?
Why not? It is the stronger position.
You sure?
Yes.
The fool's position is stronger?
No. That is why your position is weaker, fool.
If what you are telling me is correct, we are headed to some lean times.
We are already in them, with the republicans controlling the White
House and Congress.
YOU have to
provide objective evidence supporting your position.
I already provided objective evidence of my assertion that non-existence
can
be proven.
No, you have not.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=proof+of+non+existence&tab=Web&fr=my-vert-web-top&btn=Yahoo%21+Search
So, where is you proof? All you have done is give a list of links to
web pages that happen to contain those 4 words. It does not support
your position that the nonexistence of a deity can be proven in any
way, shape, or form. All that it proves is that people write articles
and web pages that happen to contain those words somewhere within them.
A Google listing is rarely proof of anything. Your
proof needs to be far, far stronger than that. Your assertion is that,
in general, a negative philosophical assertion of the nonexistence of
something can be logically proven.
Where did I say in general?
That is what the discussion is about.
I said non-existence can be proven because I know non-existence can be
proven.
But ONLY in specific, limited circumstances. You, however, have
continuously taken the position that the nonexistence of something in
general, such as deities, can be proven. You have tried to generalize
something that is a specific and narrow exception.
I did not say non-existence can be proven in all cases,
But which was implied in your statements since you did not clarify it,
and you were trying to apply that concept to the general case, where it
does not work.
and I also did not
say that it could not be proven in all cases.
Again, you implied it continuously.
I am not adopting the position that commits the fallacy of generalization.
Yes, you have been, because you never limited your position. You have
always argued from the general position, and you have tried to
generalize those specific instances where nonexistence of a single
element in a defined set to the general argument.
You have been committing the fallacy of generalization all through this
thread. Your assertion that people have to prove the nonexistence of
deities is an example of the fallacy of generalization. Your entire
position is an example of the fallacy of generalization.
You have yet to support your
assertion.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=proof+of+non+existence&tab=Web&fr=my-vert-web-top&btn=Yahoo%21+Search
Nothing there supports your assertion that the nonexistence of deities
can be proven.
Actually, a list of links of web pages proves nothing except that
people have used each of those 4 words somewhere in their articles
and/or web pages. Nothing else.
we're not claiminmg anything outside
the deluded fantasies of those who imagine that Santa Claus is real.
You are claiming non-belief to be valid.
It is valid.
I know, because I do not believe their false statement that non-existence
can not be proven.
The statement that the nonexistence of a deity cannot be proven, and
does not need to be proven, is a factual statement.
You are assuming that an unproven statement is fact?
That is the basic stance of this type of debate. The affirmative
assertion is the one that has the burden of proof.
Whether or not you
believe it or not does not change that fact.
You are assuming an unproven statement as fact.
No. I am assuming that the negative assertion is the fact in the
absence of facts disproving it. The basic stance in almost any logical
debate.
I suggest if you want to profess non-belief then you may as well go
ahead
and stop believing that you are on earth.
Why? There is no reason for him to do so, when it is obvious that he
is. What's more, your evasion has nothing to do with you supporting
your position that a deity exists.
Please provide a quote of my words in this thread where I asserted that a
deity exists.
"why is it
that history has no real record of civilizations which precede those of
the
Biblical account with the exception of other accounts of other
societies
which go back only about 6000 years, if that much? "
This is a date that is ONLY used by closed-minded biblical "scholars".
The records of societies and man go back much farther than that.
Where did I say a deity exists?
Read what I wrote, as well as what you wrote. The use of that date is
only use by those that are overly religious and uneducated.
"Evolution is very faulty and attributes much dishonor to the human
species."
Only ignorant, overly religious (usually Christian fundamentalists)
people make such an unsupported claim.
Well, since I demonstrated my superior knowledge and intelligence already,
No, you have demonstrated your inferior intelligence and knowledge.
I
am content that many will see you as the one who is holding to an erroneous
position which anyone can see is ladened with stereotyping.
You are describing yourself, not me. Try not looking in mirrors when
you type.
"Why would you dispute the existence of Jesus or Yahweh then?"
That sure sounds like you are saying that a deity exists.
Is that what I typed?
Yes.
"Isn't it more reasonable to accept it, or to surrender, and go on when
there
is no proof of non-existence of the things to which their is abundant
evidence to support their existence? "
Then provide your so-called proof.
Where did I state that they can be proven?
That entire quote. If there is abundant objective evidence to support
the existence of something, then that means that there is proof of that
things existence. From the evidence flows the proof.
There is no objective evidence to
support the proof of any deity, much less "abundant proof", as you
claim.
Where did I write "abundant proof"?
You said "abundant evidence to support their existence", which implies
abundant proof.
"Atheism has shown me no proof of their stance.
Threfore, I do not believe it."
This is a direct claim that you believe in a deity.
How do you come to that conclusion when my commet was with regard to
atheism?
If you do not believe in atheism, i.e. that there are no deities, then
you must, by process of elimination, believe in at least one deity,
possibly millions.
And Atheism does
not require any proof.
But they are required to prove their stance.
Ok. "There is no objective evidence that any deities exist that anyone
has been able to present." There, their stance is proven.
You obviously know nothing about logical debate.
For them to challenge theists with the burden of proof makes them hypocrites
when they refuse to prove their stance.
Not at all. Theists are making an affirmative stance. Therefore, by
the rules of logical debate, they have the burden of proof to support
their position. The negative assertion does not need to be proven,
because it cannot be.
You have made plenty of assertions that show that you believe in at
least one deity.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Therefore, you are the one that is making the
positive assertion, and therefore the burden of proof is on you.
Your life sucks, huh?
It is far better than yours is.
So, when are you going to support your assertions? You have not proven
that in a general logical debate, the nonexistence of something can be
proven.
Mark Sebree
.
