Fallaneze

Would newborns babies accept the claim that God exists? If no, then according to what you said about 'not accepting = rejection' should mean that babies reject the claim that God exists. There was no requirement in there about verbalizing your rejection, just simply not accepting the claim.

You do need a reason to reject my claim if you reject it to be untrue. You do not need a reason to reject my claim if by "reject" all you mean is mere non-acceptance.

"Not accepting a claim IS rejecting it." Newborns wouldn't accept the claim that God exists if someone were to proclaim it right in front of them. So you're saying these newborns are rejecting the claim?

That is a false dichotomy. Something is either X or not-X. The dichotomy is between belief and non-belief. Non-belief encompasses several different positions.

Those terms have different prefixes, specifically non- and dis-.

That's still ambiguous. You can "not believe" someone while either (A) disbelieving or (B) not disbelieving. 

"Not believing" = non-belief. Non-belief encompasses both mere non-belief and disbelief .

So newborn babies reject the claim?

Again, "not believing" is ambiguous. Lack of acceptance of a claim encompasses ignorance, disbelief, and non-cognitivism.

No it's not. No reason to believe = lack of justification for accepting the claim.

This lack of justification for accepting the claim does not give us sufficient reason to reject a claim to be untrue. That is a textbook argument from ignorance.

"I don't believe you" is ambiguous. You aren't understanding the heavy semantics game the atheist experience hosts are playing.

No reason to believe =/= rejecting the positive claim to be untrue.

"God does not exist" is a claim.

Rejecting the claim "God exists" to be untrue affirms that the claim "God does not exist" is true. Therefore, it has a burden of proof.

We would both have a burden of proof if I made the positive claim that God existed and you believed it to be untrue. You would have no burden of proof if you neither accepted it to be true nor rejected it to be untrue.

This is one thing I dislike about the atheist experience.. they're getting people confused.

That doesn't make sense logically. Rejecting the claim "God exists" to be untrue logically entails that the negation of the claim, "God does not exist", is therefore true.

There's no logical difference between rejecting "God exists" as untrue versus the positive claim that God does not exist.

So if you reject the claim "God exists" to be untrue, that would also require evidence.

I've seen some of your posts on the religion forum on DDO. Still the same racist lowlife you've always been.

I think we're on the same page. I don't require evidence that somebody believes or disbelieves something. All that requires evidence is the claim.

Why do you believe no God exists though ?

Disbelieving the positive claim also carries a burden of proof.

I largely agree, although anyone who has a view on what's true or exists must be able to rationally justify that view, regardless of whether those views are shared.

Mere non-belief has no burden of proof

Disbelief does.

I don't blame you. Whatever you think, feel, or do is beyond your control.

The dichotomy is either belief or non-belief.

Non-belief encompasses (1) mere non-belief and (2) disbelief as I talked about in my previous post.

I'm not confusing disbelief with knowledge of falsehood. I'm only talking about belief, not knowledge. 

"Not believing" encompasses (1) mere non-belief and (2) disbelief which are two different things. Colloquially people refer to "not believing" something when what they really mean is that they believe the claim is untrue (which is disbelief, a subset of non-belief). 

Skepticism is your level of confidence or doubt about whether a claim is true or untrue.

It's hypocritical for Harkrish to act concerned about religious discrimination towards Africans since he himself is racist towards blacks.

Yes. Compatibilism vs. Libertarian free will.

The best argument for free will is that it's impossible to rationally accept that free will does not exist.

It's not impossible to rationally accept that free will DOES exist.

You are conflating skepticism with disbelief.

What if your preferences are installed by deterministic forces beyond your control?

Well you're a more hardcore proponent of free will than I am if you believe even plants can choose between different options.

What evidence suggests they're making choices as opposed to blindly acting on instinct?

Humans to my knowledge are the only ones who can consider taking different courses of action. Non rational entities who act upon instincts don't possess the awareness required to choose between different courses of action.

Define "choice" and explain how a spider makes a choice.

Well it's important to keep in mind what "free will" means. 

"Free will" does not mean "desire-independent choices" or "choices independent of any contraints." 

"Free will" means the ability to choose between different courses of action. So as long as we can do that, we have free will. We don't always act in accordance with our desires.

[1] Decipher the most basic difference between theism and atheism.

[2] Define the word "God" in a way that would satisfy the minimally required difference between theism and atheism so that if one were true, the other would be false.

[3] Establish whether the atheist :

(A) neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God or

(B) whether the atheist disbelieves in God, as they cannot hold both positions simultaneously.

If the atheist is in group (A), then they don't have a stance on the issue that would require any rational justification as to whether God does or does not exist. If they had a rational justification for believing that God does not exist, then this would warrant disbelief and the atheist would not be in group (A) because in order to be in group (A) the atheist must *not disbelieve* in the existence of God. If the atheist has rationally justified grounds for believing that God does not exist, but has no rationally justified grounds for believing God DOES exist, and the atheist still considers themselves to be in group (A), then they are irrational. It is irrational to have evidence supporting disbelief and no evidence supporting belief while still neither believing nor disbelieving the in the existence of God since the most rational approach is to base your beliefs on the preponderance of the evidence.

Since the atheist in group (A) has no evidence against God's existence, any amount of evidence indicative of God's existence would rationally justify belief that theism is true and consequently, that atheism is false. In this instance, any amount of evidence would rationally justify belief in God's existence because the evidence would be net positive. 

If the atheist is in group (B), they have a burden of proof to show why disbelief in God is rationally warranted. They must provide evidence against the existence of God. If the evidence against God is greater than the evidence in support of God, disbelief is rationally warranted. 

[4] the theist must provide the evidence that supports their view, and, if the atheist is in group (B), they must also provide the evidence that supports their view too.

[5] depending on the preponderance of evidence provided in the previous step, this will determime whether believing the claim is rationally warranted or not, or, depending on whether the atheist in group (B) provides counter-evidence, whether disbelief is rationally warranted.

If free will does not exist, your beliefs were not rationally accepted.

Choosing between toast or eggs for breakfast.

AI programs adhere to the algorithms they were programmed with. No, AI program are not enacting their own will. 

"Our inability to turn the clock back is independent of whether free will exists or not. seems like a red herrring to me"

I agree.

The ability to take a different course of action.

The problem is that the belief selection process would be determined, entirely, by non-rational forces.  

It wouldn't be a problem for something that causes a belief to be an inanimate object.

Imagine a hammer that hits nails on it's own volition. Now imagine a person who, on their own volition, uses a hammer to hit nails. In both instances the hammer is striking the nail so the cause is the same but the chain of events do not begin from the same place.

I think this conversation is too nuanced. I 

Why do you define "God" as "the ultimate reality" when clearly you're defending "Christian theology"?

This just tells me you lack the ability to rationally justify Christianity. Please include this as your signature:

"In logic, equivocation is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion."

So you believe determinism that can be rationally accepted even though all beliefs would be installed by mindless, non-rational processes? How does that make any sense?

I believe determinism cannot be rationally accepted if it is indeed true.

This is the original claim I was talked about. 

"Determinism cannot be rationally accepted if the position is indeed true. Agree or disagree?"

You said you disagreed with this. I made no mention of the word choice here.

They're not mutually exclusive but they are two different things. Since you objected to my claim as it was originally written you should justify your objection to my original claim. I prefer if you would keep the phrase "rationally accept" rather than switching it out with words that have different meanings.

The formation of rational conclusions versus rationally accepting a belief are two different things. My claim was as follows:

Determinism cannot be *rationally accepted* if the position is true.

You disagreed with the above statement but have not yet explained how it's compatible with determinism.

Your opening sentence is a non-sequitur.

The claim is that determinism cannot be rationally accepted if the position is true. Changing the subject to whether rational thoughts exist is muddying the waters.

For the sake of argument let's assume a deterministic universe. How does this change the logical implications that I've talked about? 

Under determinism, no. If determinism is false, yes.

Because under determinism, all beliefs that people accept would be the result of mindless forces and since mindless forces cannot rationally accept beliefs, our beliefs could not be rationally accepted.

Here is my claim: if determinism is indeed true, nobody could rationally accept it.

I don't see how pointing out that conclusions are either rational or not rational solves the problem.

.