Total posts: 3,192
-->
@3RU7AL
Any statement that is scientifically verifiable (and or logically necessary) is a REAL-TRUE-FACT (Quanta).An OPINION is, by definition, PRIVATE-PERSONAL-INFORMATION (GNOSIS, Qualia) and is therefore NOT scientifically verifiable (and or logically necessary).Please challenge my axioms (or definitions) and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
So once again, I ask: is scientifically verifiable the same as truth?
Because there is no way to verify the "truth" (and it can't properly be considered "true" without scientific verification and or logical necessity)
So the "truth" is that which is "scientifically verifiable" and/or logically necessary?
it is inaccurate to call it a "true-prediction" UNTIL AFTER "THE FACT".
Not correct. If the prediction turns out to be true, after being scientifically verified, then it was always true. Case in point: you, I, and some other visit an old, abandoned, Victorian home to which we've never been. In there we find a locked chest. Each of us render an opinion on the content of that chest. You state that there might be emeralds, rubies, and diamonds in the chest; I state that I believe there to be nothing but red corsets, the other companion states that there are old family photos. It turns out that our companion was correct--there were old family photos. Was it inaccurate to state that family photos were the content of that chest? No. Because before "verification," old family photos being the content of that chest was true. So making the opinion that there were old family photos in the chest was "true" or accurate independent of verification.
At which point it is no longer an OPINION. At that point, it is a simple statement of FACT.
You still have not substantiated how "Real, Fact, and/or True" is necessarily scientifically verifiable (and/or logically necessary) and how "Real, Fact, and/or True necessarily excludes opinion. You've argued that opinion is indistinguishable from Gnosis (private information/subjective experience) and you've argued before that objectivity is logically incoherent. So where does "Real, Fact, and/or True" lie?
Only that it contains some inescapable, undeniable truth(s).We cannot conclude that it is 100% true.
How can you conceive a proportion when your claim is that you cannot perceive the whole?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
An OPINION can never be simultaneously BOTH an OPINION (AND) a FACT.
Substantiate this.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
The mind either functions or it does not.Therefore the mind is either self-evident or not, as the case may be.
To concede this point is to concede that the content of the mind either is self-evident or not, and given this argument by 3RU7AL:
Not all thoughts are created with equal validity (efficacy).
I don't think that's a point 3RU7AL is willing to concede just yet.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not necessarily. I have no way of determining your sincerity and even if I accept your sincerity prima facie, I have no way of determining if and or when you might "change-your-mind" (invalidating your previously stated opinion).
That doesn't change the fact that one (or you) can know the opinion of another. Sure, a person can "lie" or be "insincere"; a person can also be forthcoming and sincere. You're hung up on empirical verifying the opinion through your own subjective experience. But under the circumstances where a person who shares an opinion is being sincere, you'd know the opinion. You may not be able to verify the sincerity through experience, but that doesn't change that the person was being sincere.
A professional opinion is not a "fact". A patient may or may not get well or respond positively to prescribed treatment.
I never suggested that it was a fact. I'm countermanding your posit that an opinion is necessarily excluded from fact. And your second sentence supports that contention.
A prescription is a HYPOTHESIS. It's basically a prediction, which isn't "true" in-and-of-itself.
Correct. But its truth is consequential: if it it worked, then it's "true;" if it didn't, then it's not.
"The Mind" is a logical necessity.It's contingent (IFF) you can doubt (THEN) you can think (THEREFORE) something (non-nothing) must be thinking (we choose to call this source of thinking "The Mind").We can't actually say anything else about "The Mind". We can't say where it is or what it consists of. All we KNOW is that it "thinks".
Yes, and because we can "think" and "doubt," we can posit a priori that "the mind is" is a true, right?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Logic. An OPINION is something that's exclusively known to the person holding the OPINION.
That's not true at all. Perhaps "experienced" is the better term. Because if I were to tell you of an opinion I hold, you'd know it. I still don't understand how subjective judgement necessarily is excluded from "truth." You did state that by verifiable you mean scientifically verifiable. Is scientifically verifiable the same as real, fact, and "true"?
So, for example, if a physician were to prescribe a regimen in accordance to his professional opinion that would help one deal with pain management, its being an "opinion" necessarily excludes it from truth?A professional opinion, like a legal opinion, is only verifiable in as much as it is written or spoken.
The "truth-value" (sincerity) of that OPINION is unverified.
I'm not speaking of sincerity. The intention is not the focus.
It's a REAL-TRUE-FACT that those specific words were submitted as a "professional opinion", but the "truth-value" (sincerity) of those specific words is unverified.
All that means is that it's not scientifically verified. Why does that necessarily exclude it from "truth"?
Are you asking if "The Mind" verifies itself?
Sort of... I'm more so asking: is the Mind self-evident?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
From where have you gotten that description?OPINION must be unverified private information
OPINION must be unverified private information (GNOSIS).(IFF) an OPINION is verified scientifically (THEN) it instantly converts to REAL-TRUE-FACT (and is no longer considered OPINION).
What about professional opinions? Doctors' opinions? Are those mutually exclusive from "truth?"
Not all thoughts are created with equal validity (efficacy).
I do not presume to entertain this metric. I merely solicit an answer to whether the posit of the mind's being a logical necessity is necessarily informed by the presupposition of the mind's veracity.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
"The Mind" is a logical necessity because you cannot doubt, or think, without it."The Mind" is a fundamental prerequisite to your experience and comprehension.
Exactly. So then, do you not presuppose the veracity of the mind because one can think, doubt, experience and comprehend?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Opinion and "truth" aren't mutually exclusive.Ok, but when your claim is regarding (pure, unverifiable) GNOSIS, it is indistinguishable from OPINION.Private information (GNOSIS) is indistinguishable from OPINION.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not exactly.Concrete is a subcategory of Abstract."Purely Abstract" denotes a concept with no Concrete component.
If concrete is a subcategory of abstract, then what is the (epistemological) significance in creating a stark distinction between the two (i.e. purely abstract and concrete)? Is it not just a value-based judgement?
The "mind" (much like NOUMENON) is logically necessary, but not empirically verifiable.
Hold on...
Each person can only verify their own mind, through direct experience (private GNOSIS).
So then, it is empirically verifiable. It may not bear the capacity to be controlled for independent of their own experience, but that doesn't mean it can't be verified. Its veracity and their direct experience are fundamentally and inextricably tied.
Attempting to verify someone else's mind is basically a subjective value judgement (Turing-Test/Voight-Kampff).
What could you verify independent or isolated from the person's experience? The mind is a logical necessity because its veracity is axiomatic, right?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The "mind" (much like NOUMENON) is logically necessary.Dubito, ergo, cogito, ergo, SUM.
That's not what I asked. I know the mind is logically necessary. Is it empirically verifiable?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Let me also ask: is the mind empirically verifiable?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
No. Even if you were to posit that all which is experienced through sensory information (vision, audition, olfaction, gustation, and somatosensation) is empirical, the distinction between the aforestated is still abstract. You can argue that this serves a practical purpose, but even practicality itself is abstract. You're attempting to argue the two (concrete vs abstract) as mutually exclusive, but the logic does not extend on a fundamental level. We can agree on definitions, but they're provisional; they are malleable; they can be challenged; they are abstract.Can we agree that the "YHWH" does NOT exist in an empirically verifiable or logically necessary CONCRETE way?
Can we agree that the "YHWH" DOES exist in an ABSTRACT and hypothetical way?
What doesn't?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Thank you.Lol. Brilliant.
I think 3RU7AL is telling you what he believes so that you can correct your beliefs.
We all here can be guilty of that. If I didn't think we could reach some sort of agreement, or perhaps change the minds of one another, I wouldn't bother entertaining this discussion this long.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I am a huge fan of pointing out logical fallacies, so I appreciate that, HOWEeveR, in this particular case, it's an appeal to COMMON-GROUND.I'm not suggesting "BigFoot doesn't exist" BECAUSE most people agree. I'm simply trying to establish COMMON-GROUND.
The fallacy isn't necessarily applied in your reference to existence. It was applicable when you stated, "Most people believe it is reasonable to say "BigFoot doesn't exist". You are the only person I've ever encountered that insists that BigFoot exists." Just because most people believe it's reasonable doesn't make it reasonable. (Not that you explained how you know the beliefs of most people.) Even if we were to entertain that you merely stated this to state it, you're essentially saying, "Most people reasonably believe that BigFoot does not exist, and you're the outlier." How does that at all establish common ground?
There doesn't appear to be a single, unified, coherent "Christian description of god".Each person I've encountered that claims to be a Christian, has their own, personal, unique and often peculiar "description of god".Which they, for some strange reason, seem to hate making EXPLICIT. I mean, god = god = god = god and if you don't know that then you must be (insert ad hominem). Which is a naked appeal to ignorance (secret-knowledge/common-sense).HOWeEver, I happen to agree about 99.999% with Mopac's (Eastern Orthodox Christian) description of god.
What is Mopac's description of God?
A real staircase will allow you to descend safely.An imaginary staircase will allow you to fall to your death.
Why do you call it a "staircase"? What does one mean when one says "descend"? What is "safety"? What is "death"? How do you inform any aforestated without your imagination?
You're conflating "nothingness" (which is impossible) with what is unverifiable.
I'm conflating nothingness with nonexistent.
In order to properly EXIST, a phenomenon must be empirically verifiable.
You're modifying existence using your preferred metric; that's fine. My arguments don't subscribe to such metrics. I merely state "God is;"
A lie is an intentionally deceptive statement (claim) that presents either an incomplete or partially or wholly inaccurate account.
How does one empirically identify "intentional deception"?
Coherent abstracts don't EXIST in the exact same sense that rocks and trees EXIST. We often say, "they exist abstractly".
Yes but they exist. We can dispute the difference between abstract and reality but the primary point is that they do exist, however you decide to modify the term existence. Now, I would argue that every subjective experience is informed and irremovable from abstractions (e.g. your reference to the staircase and falling to one's death.) The difference between life and death is abstract; the fact that you name that particular matter a staircase is abstract. The differences are informed by meaning, and meaning is fundamentally imaginative/abstract. So stating that BigFoot is abstract, and therefore he doesn't [properly] exist, would be like saying meaning is abstract; therefore it does not properly exist; and if your meaning doesn't exist, your sense or value of difference doesn't exist; and if that doesn't exist then what is it you're perceiving?
Empirical verification is no less a subjective experience. And when you reduce the argument to its fundamental premise, it's essentially one of meaning. Empirical verification has meaning, I don't dispute that. You choose a definition which coincides with that meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
Nominal GDP is simply the measure of production (or its market value) of a nation in its own currency. Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) controls for the exchange rates between nations, and measure production using a de facto international metric. I disagree that PPP is "superior." One is a domestic metric; the other is an international one.What exactly are the differences between GDP Nominal and GDP PPP?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Most people believe it is reasonable to say "BigFoot doesn't exist". You are the only person I've ever encountered that insists that BigFoot exists.
Ad populum arguments do not inform veracity, unless it's about the number of people itself.
I believe it is perfectly reasonable (if not mandatory) to believe in a logically necessary originator and sustainer of all things (NOUMENON) which I also believe is fair to call "god" (I consider myself a GNOSTIC DEIST by the way).
So your position is one against the Biblical description of God, then?
HOWeVer, I also believe it is important to very clearly distinguish between what is REAL-TRUE-FACTS and what is (indistinguishable from) PURE-IMAGINATION.
Why? What's the essential difference between the two?
I also believe it is important to very clearly distinguish between what EXISTS and what (is indistinguishable from) DOES NOT EXIST.
How can you distinguish between that which does and does not exist when its is impossible (logically incoherent) to ascertain information on that which does not exist?
I also believe it is important to very clearly distinguish between FACT and (what is indistinguishable from) OPINION.I also believe it is important to very clearly distinguish between QUANTA and (what is indistinguishable from) QUALIA.
Okay.
I also believe it is important to very clearly distinguish between TRUTH and (what is indistinguishable from) LIES.
If there isn't a logically coherent objective experience, then what is a lie?
In order to call something a REAL-TRUE-FACT, it MUST be independently and empirically verifiable and Quantifiable and indisputable and logically necessary.
All of which is informed by conception which bears no fundamental difference from pure imagination. You're essentially using pure imagination as a metric for what is real, true and fact.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Move along, sir. Enjoy the rest of your day.All you have to offer is a false narrative.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
PLease share when you can address the specifics as presented to you
No. None of that which you state is relevant. Stay on topic; if you cannot, then move on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Does your description inform what religion is about?
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Three primary types of existence and you got one of them;
I didn't get "one of them," because "types" of existence are irrelevant. My position isn't that God exists in a type of way; my position is that God exists.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Everything that is conceived and perceived has being (by definition); therefore they must exist. It's an unsavory logical consequence, but frequent mentions of "Big Foot" undermine only the arguments which propose that God exists and Big Foot necessarily must not. To my understanding, no one here has made such an argument.
Or perhaps, you're equating the belief in God to the belief in Big Foot. That is, God is an "urban legend"; this assertion is necessarily misinformed because, as I've gathered, you believe in neither; therefore, you have little understanding on what it entails to believe in either, much less equate them. In "reality," you're just equating your disbelief in God to your disbelief in Big Foot, and are attempting to hold your opponents responsible for that.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
How have you determined that "god" (or any other spiritual entity) has "actual being"?I mean, does Shiva also have "actual being"?
Yes, Shiva has actual being. You make references to mythology whether it be Hindu or Urban Legend because you're attempting to demonstrate an inconsistency in rationale. Let me spare you the trouble:
Santa Claus
The Easter Bunny
The Christian God
The Greek Gods
The Hindu Gods
The Roman Gods
The Egyptian Gods
The Sumerian Gods
The Cabalistic Gods
The Wicca Gods
The Tooth Fairy
Big Foot
Leprechauns
Vampires
Werewolves
Kristen Stewart's acting ability
Man-Bear-Pig
Ra's Al Ghul
Winds of Winter (A Song of Ice and Fire)
The Eighth Horcrux
Liberal intelligence
All of these have actual being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Children are programmed.We all have the same inherent data or a basic operating system.But postnatally we acquire data relative to a specific national or cultural environment.So basically how we respond to religious data is primarily dependant upon where we were born and consequently how intensively we were formatively programmed.Religion is simply about postnatally acquired data.
So essentially:
1. Children receive and store information.
2. The information received depends on the environment.
3. Exposure to certain information affects how we respond to it.
4. Religion is information received after birth.
I don't dispute this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Walrus
Or is the world just jealous? hm?
It's "stupid" to presume that this melting-pot experiment (globalist indoctrination) that the U.S. government has indulged over the last century informs a national and/or cultural homogeneity, where one can characterize it as a single demographic.
Created:
-->
@Christen
Whoever affirms either claim. In my judgement, it's far simpler to substantiate God's existence than it is to substantiate God's "nonexistence." To those stubbornly immersed in semantics, one learns that many of these disputes boil down to lexicon. Case in point: if we operate on the definition of exist which delineates having actual being whether material or spiritual, then God, by definition, "exists." I find this method of substantiation particularly unsatisfactory, and in my pursuit to engage those in argument over the subject, I tend to challenge the alleged boundaries of material and immaterial/spiritual/abstract.Where does the burden of proof lie, here? Do believers have to prove that god does exist, or do non-believers have to prove that god does not exist?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe that every claim and every counter-claim must be supported by a sound logical statement based on explicit AXIOMS.Pretending to shift the burden-of-proof exclusively to one side is a logical fallacy.
If no one up until that point made a counterclaim. how could they have shifted the burden? If one makes a claim, is it not enough to simply request they offer substance?
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Enjoy the rest of your evening and good luck in your future discussions.You see, I have this IMPECCABLE proof that I 100% have that will open your third eye, but I'm simply CHOOSING not to reveal it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Actually, a claim was made.
A claim was made.
My point exactly.
So let me ask you this: do you believe that the absence of a counterargument mitigates your onus?
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
This example points out the fact that the syllogism is so vague and general that it allows all statements to be true, even nonsensical ones. In other words, if you take it at face value, it doesn't mean anything. Again, this goes back to the point that just because you believe something, doesn't make it true.
Nope, you're going to have provide more substance to your counterclaim than just a mere statement to ambiguity. You stated that you were demonstrating a failure in my reasoning using the reductio ad absurdum. In order to apply the reductio ad absurdum, you would have to show that the extension of my argument to its logical conclusion is a contradiction/absurdity. You have not done this at all. You merely restated your counterclaim and made nonsensical references to face values and vagueness. Demonstrate the logical contradiction or absurdity. Nothing else.
Does the fact that there is a thought (specific pattern of neurons firing) about something mean that the thing that is being thought about automatically exists? No.
Why not?
Just like how a painting of an apple isn't itself an apple (try eating it), the pattern of neurons being fired corresponding to an apple isn't itself an apple, either.
Operating on your logic, the term apple doesn't exist. So I have no idea of that about which you're talking.
Likewise, the thought (pattern of neurons firing) of a particular god/set of gods doesn't mean that the god/gods exist(s).
Operating on your logic, your response doesn't exist. So '' '' ''' '' '' ....
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
What you're describing is called, "gainsaying". [LINK]
Brilliant. But that's not an apt description of the recent events of this thread. An argument was made. No one is claiming to have provided a counterargument. I don't believe anyone has even submitted a contradiction. All that was asked of you was to supply substance to your argument.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
I can believe that there is a 100% steel teapot that is also 100% made of ceramicTherefore I do believe that there is a 100% steel teapot that is also 100% made of ceramic
Where's the logical contradiction?
Do you know how a brain works?
No.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
If you expect others to substantiate their claims, then you should be able to substantiate your own.
I am able; engaging you on the subject is a different matter. I choose to not respond to your supplication. How many times must that be stated?
Yes, and I'm showing that it's either useless or horrible via reductio ad absurdum
You can use the reductio ad absurdum as a rhetorical device in expressing your feelings (i.e. it's horrible) or a logical one, for which you'd have to demonstrate a logical contradiction in the conclusion. Since your feelings are irrelevant, you'd have to employ the latter to make your point. Thus far, you have not done so.
What about the things people perceive during hallucinations?
Everything one perceives must exist; this is irrefutable. One cannot interact with the non-existent in any shape or form; the non-existent does not provide any information toward or description of its being because it does not exist. If "X" didn't exist, then it would be impossible for one to know "X" didn't exist, because it does not exist. Hence, everything one perceives must exist because it's impossible to perceive that which doesn't exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
The only evidence for this is unsubstantiated teleological claims. But for the sake of argument, let's entertain their veracity, the produced effect is not to the exclusion of others. So while joining or being a part of a community may be primarily about you, it is not at all about you--the point of my contention.You're right about the external, I missed that part. There is the thing about wanting to be part of the community, but that comes from an internal evolutionary instinct and subsequent strong desire that humans have for acceptance. People join the community because they don't want to be outsiders and they join the community for themselves, they want to be accepted as a part of a group. It's a survival instinct that they have very little control over.
You believe god exists because you can? You have a short circuit there which conveniently ignores all the reasons, this is quite typical.
I never said I was religious.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not necessarily. Only that "truth" can be subject to perspective. As you so aptly demonstrated, changing the "metric" changed its "truth."So are you suggesting that your idea of "truth" can include a false description?
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Assume away.Ok, then I will assume that you do not have any evidence to begin with.
Either you are seriously messed up, or the syllogism presented holds no weight whatsoever.
It's your argument. I did not invoke Hitler. I merely corrected the logical structure.
I didn't say this. 3RU7AL did.
You're right.
This means an infinite number of things exist. Ok then.
Everything we perceive must exist. This is irrefutable.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If I told you that I had a BlimGlorp, which I describe to you as a ten-story-tall, 700 ton elephant sculpture in my room, and when you came over, you found that it was actually a small plastic toy that could fit in the palm of your hand, would you consider my original claim "true" (with a false or inaccurate description)?I mean, I did indeed have a BlimGlorp, so...And it was 10 stories tall (if you compare it to a miniature skyscraper)...And it was 700 tons (if you use purely imaginary measurements)...
I believe you've answered your own question.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
No, it isn't. Belief is a component of cognition; cognition is a component of perception; perception is a component of subjective existence.Also, whether you believe something is completely irrelevant to whether or not it actually exists.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
"Our" not having the evidence is not the same as "there is no evidence." The latter is clearly ontological. You'd have to inform and substantiate that claim. But, I'm not interested in engaging beyond this point.In all of the available body or facts of information we have regarding the existence of god, we don't have any evidence that definitively, and completely, prove any one deity. If we did, then everyone would believe that god/those gods that the evidence proved the existence of. Since this is not the case, we can say that there is no evidence for any particular god/gods.
In other words, it's not an excuse to dodge my point.
I'm not dodging your point. I'm choosing to not respond.
Fine.p: I can believe that Hitler did nothing wrong.q: Therefore, I do believe that Hitler did nothing wrong.
Exactly.
If I told you that I had a BlimGlorp, which I describe to you as a ten-story-tall, 700 ton elephant sculpture in my room, and when you came over, you found that it was actually a small plastic toy that could fit in the palm of your hand, would you consider my original claim "true" (with a false or inaccurate description)?I mean, I did indeed have a BlimGlorp, so...And it was 10 stories tall (if you compare it to a miniature skyscraper)...And it was 700 tons (if you use purely imaginary measurements)...
I believe you've answered your own question.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You're right.Just like BigFoot.
Yes.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
But what we CAN do is analyze the DESCRIPTIONS of these god claims and identify multiple critical and fundamental logical incongruities.We can be quite certain that incoherent descriptions of gods are FALSE descriptions.
Or inconsistent descriptions.
And it's important to note that a false description =/= false object.
Furthermore, if something does have description, it is perceivable; if it's perceivable, it must exist.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
p: I can believe that daily human sacrifices are necessary to ensure that the sun rises tomorrow.q: Therefore, I do human sacrifices on a daily basis.Is this solid?
That's not his argument.
It's:
p: I can believe X
q: therefore, I do believe X.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
I haven't made a claim on this thread, so I have nothing to substantiate.
I never said it was this thread. It was in reference to a past thread you created, "there's no evidence for a particular god's existence." You led me to believe that you were constructing a proof that you would, as of yet, abandon, and when prompted for further information, you, as far as I'm concerned, lied. I choose whom I engage in debate over certain subjects, and I sustain a certain level of decorum.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
p: I can believe spirituality is false.q: Therefore, I do believe spirituality is false.Hack away.
Why would I hack away? Looks solid to me.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
I won't. I will not answer the supplication of one who has denied me the same courtesy.Good. Now substantiate your claims.
But, if you're curious, 3RU7AL and I did have a rather extensive discussion on the matter here:
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You can't expect someone who refuses to make a counter-claim to explicitly state their opponent is wrong.
Now, you're speculating.
For example, I someone says, "you must support your claim that BigFoot is real", wouldn't you agree that would be a de facto argument supporting the hypothesis that BigFoot is fake?
No. The "someone" in question may perhaps be an agnostic impartial to claims of either. None of that would be relevant, anyway. The goal is logical consistency. You have a burden as the author of your claim to substantiate its affirmation, not concern yourself with those who can or aren't authoring counterarguments. And if you your duty and due diligence, then constructing a counterargument would be futile.
What are they appealing to? What type of argument would you say they are making?
It's an appeal to onus probandi. As for the argument, can it be said there's an argument being made? If I state, "prove it" what is the actual argument? Is there no such thing as scrutiny in debate?
I'm suggesting that it is reasonable to infer someone's argument based on their demands.
How?
Especially if they refuse to clarify their position.
Their responsibility to their position has nothing to do with yours.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Does god exist?
Yes.
Who is that god?
Irrelevant.
Is he/she/it the only god, or are there other gods?
Other gods do exist, yes.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If the critic is unable or unwilling to make a counter-claim, then they are making a de facto appeal-to-ignorance.
No.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Here's the claim.BigFoot (spirituality and or god) is false.Here's your response.Prove it.Why on earth would you ask someone to prove BigFoot is false unless you believe that BigFoot is real?\\
Are you qualifying scrutiny using one's motives?
You claim this is a "strawman" but instead of clarifying your position, which should be quite simple, you pretend you have no opinion.
It's "simple." But, I'm not obligated to clarify my position. As the author of your claim, you are.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
TAUTOLOGICALLY.A Christian = someone who believes JESUS is real and all other religions are FALSE.
Substantiate this tautology.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Both sides should be able to make positive statements and provide logical support.This is basic.
Both sides should be able; that is not the same as both sides being bound to make positive statements and provide logical support.
If you constantly attack without making any positive statements and refuse to clarify your criticisms when paraphrased (Nuh-uh that's not what I said, go back and read the words and prove it, you can't prove me wrong!)
Non sequitur. Holding you to your burden is not the same as "prove me wrong." If you make a positive claim for which you've provided little to no logical support, then it is the prerogative of any other to criticize your claim.
you are hiding behind the massive and very blurry wall known as the ambiguity fallacy (also known as the appeal to ignorance).
This is projection based on your non sequitur.
These individuals may (or may not) have a coherent position (as they often repeatedly claim in vague terms and bald assertions), but regardless, inexplicably refuse to communicate. They mistakenly believe that the darkness gives them the benefit of the doubt.They believe that if they can merely cast doubt on certain obscure peripheral details of their opponent's argument (or pepper enough ridicule and ad hominems into their diatribe), then they are automatically proven correct without ever having to state their own argument.
More projection; no one is stating that their position is validated in the wake of one's failure to substantiate the contrary.
However, based on epistemological standards of evidence, they do not have the benefit of the doubt. You must show your logic, because without evidence to the contrary, your position is logically incoherent.
And what is that position? You're arguing against a straw man.
Created: