Sparkup wrote:

"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:tcfVjQbVjVWLEA20FC16qHENqTAdcrzP@www.420humbolt.com...

sparkup wrote:

"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message

It may be valid in your view, but from a logical standpoint, it is
completely invalid.

Please show the logical argument to support that assertion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ logical argument

It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.

BZZZT!

Nothing of what you said has anything at all to do with any
principles of anything at all, the least of them being logic.

Unfortunately for you, it has everything to do with logic, as the
farting badger theory I put forward clearly demonstrates.

Here is why:

A) There is no evidence either for or against any metaphysical X.
Thus no metaphysical X can be either proved or disproved.

I agree.

B) If A) is correct then it is irrational to demand evidence of
something that cannot be proved or disproved.

Why can it not be proved?

<shakes head>

You just agreed with A. A states there is neither evidence nor
proof and that any metaphysical X can be neither proved nor disproved.

Yet in the very same breath, you ask why it can't be proved? Pardon
me for a moment, please...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! *WHEEZE* *CHOKE* *COUGH* *SPLUTTER* *WHEEZE*

Sparkup wrote:

"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:tcfVjQbVjVWLEA20FC16qHENqTAdcrzP@www.420humbolt.com...

sparkup wrote:

"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message

It may be valid in your view, but from a logical standpoint, it is
completely invalid.

Please show the logical argument to support that assertion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ logical argument

It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.

BZZZT!

Nothing of what you said has anything at all to do with any
principles of anything at all, the least of them being logic.

Unfortunately for you, it has everything to do with logic, as the
farting badger theory I put forward clearly demonstrates.

Here is why:

A) There is no evidence either for or against any metaphysical X.
Thus no metaphysical X can be either proved or disproved.

I agree.

B) If A) is correct then it is irrational to demand evidence of
something that cannot be proved or disproved.

Why can it not be proved?

<shakes head>

You just agreed with A. A states there is neither evidence nor
proof and that any metaphysical X can be neither proved nor disproved.
Yet in the very same breath, you ask why it can't be proved? Pardon
me for a moment, please...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! *WHEEZE* *CHOKE* *COUGH* *SPLUTTER* *WHEEZE*

Richard S. Crawford wrote:

TehGhodTrole wrote:

sparkup wrote:

"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message

It may be valid in your view, but from a logical standpoint, it is
completely invalid.

Please show the logical argument to support that assertion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ logical argument

It is part of the principles of logical argument.
The negative is assumed until evidence is produced of the positive.

BZZZT!

Nothing of what you said has anything at all to do with any
principles of anything at all, the least of them being logic.

Here is why:

A) There is no evidence either for or against any metaphysical X.
Thus no metaphysical X can be either proved or disproved.

Fair enough.

B) If A) is correct then it is irrational to demand evidence of
something that cannot be proved or disproved.

I'm not certain that "irrational" is an appropriate word to use here
("impossible" is probably a better word).

Inconsistent argument can be considered irrational argument. The
word irrational is not intended to convey an notion of mental
illness, even if some people think it is. See:

Irrational \Ir*ra"tion*al\, a. [L. irrationalis: cf. F.
irrationnel. See In- not, and Rational.]
1. Not rational; void of reason or understanding; as, brutes
are irrational animals.

2. Not according to reason; absurd; foolish.

Not just impossible, but irrational.

However, you can also infer from A,

B1) If A) is correct, then it is impossible to present evidence for a
metaphysical X, regardless of whether X exists or not.

That should have gone without needing to be said on the grounds that
it is the atheist position being pointed to as being irrational
when evidence of the unprovable is requested.

C) If B) is true then it is wholly valid to request that the
the atheist who demands evidence first establish that he
has a coherent position.

I don't understand how this follows, though; if you accept A, then it
is "irrational" to demand evidence for the NON-existence of
metaphysical X (by inference from A to B).

It's valid if A is valid. It means that if the atheist must first
show that he has a rational argument if he asks for evidence
or proof.

One way of establishing coherency and consistency is to
request a coherent reason as to why God should not exist.

Thus it is wholly valid to force the atheist to establish
coherency of argument, unless one enjoys "logical discussion"
with the blatantly incoherent and irrational.

If this is true, it is equally irrational for you to assert that there
are logical arguments *for* the existence of God.

See above. That's not in dispute.

Unless you are admitting the rationality of those points of view,
kindly be quiet.

D) It is not logically possible for anyone to assert their own
rationality and remain consistent.

What does this mean?

It means you don't know about Godelian mathematics or understand
basic philosophy.

If this is true, then shouldn't we reject your
own set of syllogisms out of hand because they are "rational" and,
therefore, inconsistent?

No. You should analyse them and come to the correct logical
conclusion. Even though I state it is correct, I can't force you
to think, so you have the right of disagreeing with it even
if you don't understand it, but that does not imply I will
listen to an irrational argument, which most of your inferences
below are... impossible <> irrational.

I'm not certain I understand what D means,
or how it follows from A (even through B and C, which I'm not
convinced are valid inferences).

It's related to Godel's Incompletness theorem. Look it up. this
isn't dayschool for twits.

If A) is correct, B) naturally follows
If B) naturally follows then C) is valid
D) is a corollary of A)

For all A), B), C) and D): Reference the Epimenides Paradox
and Incompleteness Theorems

http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/GODEL.html
www.miskatonic.org/godel.html
www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/vantil-list/archive-May-1998/msg00073.html
hatteraslight.com/navy/Objectivismhall/read.php?f=25&i=28&t=28
www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/5999-1.html

It's now your job to show that argument, and the supporting
references as being invalid and inapplicable. Either that or
you can shut the ***** up yourself.

By your own arguments, you admit that it is impossible ("irrational")
to demand such evidence.

I did not say impossible since atheists do it, therefore it is
possible. Ratioanlity is a different thing. Not only do you not
understand the basic logic behind the argument, you cannot
distinguish between absurdity/foolishness and possibility.

Likewise, you admit

.... nothing at all, since you clearly cannot make
more than one or two valid inferences in a row without
falling flat on your face.

Go and learn a few things before you decide remove any doubt
about your ability to sinply think. Start with the Godel
Incompleteness theorem. Of course, you'll probably come
back with deep misconceptions and then accuse it of not
being applicable. You won't be the first.