Athias

[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] 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] 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 ?

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

[c'] No.

[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 ?

[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 ?

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.

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

[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.

A. X is impossible.

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

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

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.

I literally said I'm part of the minority earlier on so idk what receipt you want.

Except I don't, it's just those that I block certainly include those that can be whiny and obnoxious which is often the very reason I blocked them.

Well, you're one of them,

I've only ever seen you arbitrarily play some circular logic

around 'a god'

but never once seen you argue beyond that for your religious outlook or ethics etc.

The reason I personally avoid it for my own beliefs is I genuinely don't give a shit if others don't realise it, I may release a book when I'm an old or older-middle-age guy.

Alright, you're clearly very confused about what you're stating/claiming and what reality itself is.

Either you are playing mind games with me or I am forced to point out your own insanity

at this point I am reminded why I blocked you.

You just type things and don't realise that sometimes what seems to make sense to you has zero impact at all on reality.

To prove this, can you explain why you named only 2 of the 4 I named and called them 'entertainers' and 'cartoons'?

Yeah, it does?... Lol?

Plenty if you mean debating it and actually engaging the atheists on the matter, yes, don't wanna name them all though.

You're not some smart guy shitting on clowns

you're the clown

shitting on world-renowned intellectuals

right now and going as far to say it's not your opinion but a 'fact' that they're 'cartoons'.

In fact, when it comes to debating, you named the 2 best at it

out of the four and classified them as 'cartoons'.

Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett are no more debate specialists than Hitchens and Dawkins are.

Majority, not entirety,

sure yeah I know that but she was clearly asking where Theists turn up to debate atheists and the answer is they consistently (for the majority) don't, they're afraid to (wisely afraid).

3/4 matchups are conceded… dang

Exactly. Atheists can fare well in both arenas

Theists only in the one where enough of the crowd cheer and support them (obviously not all, I even believe in a deity myself but I am talking about arguing for organised religion).

Cartoon is signing up to a tournament, being the one to suggest the topic, forfeiting before your opponent even uttered a word despite having 5k-7k more characters to type your argument out than the other debate pairs had (Wylted vs Benjamin only had 8 chars per Round, you had 15k)

and thinking you have some fucking right

to call intellectual debate masters

like Hitchens and Dawkins 'cartoons'.

At this point you're arguing just to argue because you don't like me.

And that's fine but I'm not engaging with you anymore at this point on this particular topic you stated what you think I understand I'm done thanks.

Perceived facts ARE facts because there is no objective basis.

We already know atheists post here.

The question was the theist do you post in sections of forms that would be considered atheist in nature.

I don't care what your opinion is of here

I know how here works.

Again  you don't seem to understand the question. 

Question doesn't have anything to do with here it has to do with other forums please go back and reread the question if you don't understand it I'll try to explain it better.

I'm curious if any of the other theists that are here do go to those spaces and engage with atheists in their territory LIKE THEY DO HERE.

If an atheist showed up to Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennet (in their prime) for a debate, they'd get bodied so hard they wouldn't know what they'd walked into. You can hate the player but at least appreciate their skill at the game.

The reason why Theists stay away from science and atheistic/secular forums is that they get murked when they try to debate.

I'm curious if any of the other theists that are here do go to those spaces and engage with atheists in their territory like they do here. Are there even spaces set up like that? I can't imagine there isn't a single forum on the internet set up specifically for atheists. I would like to add that at the pagan forum there are no Christians.  There are a couple of Christians in the witchcraft forum. But since most of the post revolve around spell work you really don't know someone's a Christian if they don't come right out and say so, the witchcraft forum also has a section for Christians in the deity area. Most christian-oriented posts are kept there.

Exactly what are you referencing here?

As I would like to recap , before I might comment.

I haven't seen zedvictor4 claim that the imagined is irrational, logically inconsistent and non-existent.

No, he has only concluded as much based on his reasoning.

[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 ?

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

We are already arguing about P1 elsewhere.

If I understand correctly, the presumption of the nonexistent being perceptible counts as an irrational premise. Claiming “God does not exist.” counts as its extension. P3 seems plausible.

In the statement

If A, then B

B is the implication of A.

I don't the term for the inverse relation, so I will call it inverse implication.

A is the inverse implication of B.

Therefore 'claiming A' counts as the extension of B.

A general formulation of your argument :

A1. If person X knows A, then B.

A2. X claims A.

A3. B is irrational.

P_1. X presumes B. (from A1)

P_2. Claiming the inverse implication (i.e. making an extension) of an irrational premise is irrational.

C. Therefore, claiming A is irrational.

Under reasonable assumptions (like X is not lying), that seems valid and P_2 is plausible under reasonable assumptions.

So that leaves P1 or A1 to be demonstrated for the particular case of claiming God doesn't exist.

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.

[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.

Is that indeed your argument ? If so, please demonstrate P1.

You forgot to answer my second question : Can you prove that everything that is perceptible exists ?

First, let's define exist:

exist: To have real being whether material or spiritual.

Let's also provide some supplementary definitions:

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.

Do you object to the descriptions as delineated by these definitions? If so, substantiate your objection.

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.

One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to guess why.

78] I call what one assumes is an assumption.

You still haven't demonstrated what you have assumed.

You seem

relying on the principle that if one defines something, the subject of the definition exists.

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.

[a] I asked first,

[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.

by measure of the laws of nature and by measure of the laws of logic.

[81] can the nonexistent be imagined ?

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

[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.

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.

He didn't challenge whiteflame to it.

yeah any time you challenge someone.

It's by design.

Hmm... not sure. My guess is that there's some issue with sharing it before it is accepted. I'd like to see what happens after ComputerNerd accepts it, but I'll see what I can do in the meantime.

Yeah still not working. 

Whiteflame you know whats going on?

Was the debate deleted?

This is a drug that is so dangerous that a licensed medical staff must administer the drug and watch you for side effects.

So why does an unlicensed politician get to mandate that you must have it?

Why are you referring to mind or spirit in your definitions ?

Why treat mind or spirit to be the relevant alternative to physical objects ?

The sufficiency of a definition depends on its use.

Something useful to define seems everything.

Does it include nonexistent things ?

Does it include impossible things?

Another useful term to define is opposite, such that can be established whether X is the opposite of Y. 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.

[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.

For abstract things I don't know. You, on the other hand, were adamant that numbers exist.

[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.

I presented “seem” as an alternative to what you presented, namely nothing.

Neither of us are held accountable for nothing.

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

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.

I have not made that contention. Yet I have supported it.

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.

Please demonstrate the conclusion follows from the premises.

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.”

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?

[68] I am not. I put God in a different category than numbers. Physical may not be the right word.

The meaning of the term existence or the verb to exist for concrete things like God is clear.

[b] I am not referring to any definition.

[e] Where has zedvictor4 concluded that the imagined is irrational, logically inconsistent and non-existent ?

Imaginary entities are not abstract

Nonexistent is different from abstract.

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

- Omniscience appears inconsistent with the inability to do something.

- God is 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.

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

If I understand correctly, your argument is the following :

P1. Nonexistence is the absence or void of everything.

P2. Nonexistence does not and cannot provide anything to rationalize.

C. Therefore, nonexistence is irrational.

[69] You are mistaken. You also gauge the rationality of claims.

A valid argument is the following.

A. X is impossible.

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

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

Under assumption A, since you stand by P1, for you that is a sound argument.

Skeptics, understandably, dispute P1.

Please demonstrate it is irrational to claim impossible concepts do not exist.

“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

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.

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.]

[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 ?

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.

Everyone is waiting on you. I understand you are on CPT, but you are holding up the tournament 

Have you guys started yet?

"new study shows that my political opponents were molested and abused as a kid"

I love Science!

But I'm not sure he's even active. If he doesn't log in for a week, who do I debate?

Oh I mis read that. He will be back soon he is active 

A number of patents on “coronaviruses” are being used as proof by conspiracy-minded people online that the COVID-19 coronavirus was made in a laboratory

The word “coronavirus” does not identify a single virus but rather an entire subfamily of viruses

and all of these patents are related to the SARS coronavirus or to coronaviruses that affect birds or pigs

THERE WAS NO COVID-19  VACCINE UNTIL 2020.

there's still a non-insignificant gap between "best-guess-risk" and "actual-risk"

I don't doubt this especially since this virus received its first patent almost 30 years ago

Lol   💀 You can't learn everything on Wikipedia but you can learn this. 

They were afraid more people could die than were actually at risk; the data was incomplete.

Vaccines for similar viruses have been in development for 20 years. 

However I am more than happy to blame Trump and his administration's role in Operation Warp Speed if you prefer that answer. I guess he is p̶a̶r̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶  the leader of the global conspiracy then, right? 

Because the less people you're around, the less opportunity for an airborne virus to transmit. 

Link me to the research that shows the enormous benefits of vitamin D on Covid that accounts for additional variables.

If you don't know offhand I'm sure you can go ask someone on Reddit. 

Is the supplement industry somehow immune from manipulation and lies?

Most likely the result of incomplete data and faulty models. How did you learn the real number of deaths?   

On the contrary they have been talking about the immuno compromised, elderly and obese being the most at risk groups non-stop

I don't know anything about that fact and I have no interest in looking it up, to be honest. If you want to link me info I'll read about it at some point. 

"The media" is pushing the vaccine because the world's top medical professionals are pushing the vaccines and it's the media's  job to report that. I put media in quotes because I assume you're going to pretend that conservative media doesn't exist for the sake of your talking point. 

I know unvaccinated people that died from Covid. What's your point? 

Yes it is - and yes they do - but unfortunately if you breathe something in, you can't wash it off with soap and water. 

It's interesting that you read pathology books as a child though. That checks out lol. 

That's like someone saying "I have eyes - why do I need glasses?" I acknowledge the efficacy of the vaccine is waning which was the prediction all along, thus the early push for quick vaccination and booster shots. I won't sit here and justify every government, media or pharmaceutical action. I don't agree with all of them.  What I will do is challenge the prolifically stupid conspiracy theories (when I'm in the mood to do so).  As I said to YYW, you can resist the policies without giving credence to the people who think this entire thing is a hoax or elaborate lie. It's one thing to be resistant to mandates or challenge limited research; it's another to believe that hospitals were really empty and the whole world is  conspiring to make up fake deaths to "control the population." It still hasn't been explained how that was achieved since the majority of the country went back to life as normal a long time ago. 

I asked why   every single country, including our enemies, would espouse the same lies and how they could convince the overwhelming majority of the science community across the globe to go along with it. You said that I assume the entities are separate. That is true. I assume that countries are separate. I don't see how your observation about what US doctors wear on their lab coats (lol, I can't) remotely even attempts to answer that question.

If you think it's connected then please explain it in plain terms if you feel so inclined. I do see countries and scientists as separate from one another often with separate, competing goals.  But maybe I'm wrong.

Some other unanswered questions: Does Dr. Fauci control Kim Jung Un?

Did our Deep State force Russia to develop their own vaccine?

How did China benefit from locking down their population at the expense of a trillion+ dollars?

How did this achieve any type of mass population control when the most significant effect was a vaccine mandate in 3 cities that is barely enforced?

Once you start asking specific questions

Admittedly this Scamdemic one is more believable than the prolifically stupid idea that Jan 6 was a false flag not carried out by Trumpkins but I digress. 

that sounds reasonable

That broad population wide 1% number - doesn’t really mean anything - it’s too broad to have use. When we break down that risk in far more detail with more detailed risk factors with more accurate sampling: where age, co-morbidities, obesity, etc - are factored in; then expressing your risk as a member of that smaller and more granulated population, for which causation is better understood -  is still not expressing your exact specific personal risk based on all your factors - but It is a much more reasonable estimation of your risk because the most common influencing factors that could substantially change your risk have been factored in - leaving fewer factors and fewer conditions that could cause a deviation.

it's a critical point

your chances of PICKING a blue ball at random may very well be 95%

this is much different than claiming that each ball has a 95% chance of being blue

the blue balls have a 100% chance of being blue

the "not blue" balls have a 0% chance of being blue

ecological fallacy, in epidemiology, failure in reasoning that arises when an inference is made about an individual based on aggregate data for a group.

are you suggesting that individual risk is informed by group risk ?