Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[leroy]

I know exactly what it means, it's you who is leaping to the unevidenced SUBJECTIVE assumption it means there is a "fine tuner". That subjective assumption represents ignorance of what it means.

I do understand it, it is you who can't see the subjective conclusion you are reading into the term.

Yes I agree, all conclusions are subjective, whats your point?

It is only true that the universe has a very narrow set of parameters that if changed even a miniscule amount, would make the carbon based life we see on earth impossible

.
Agree,

How do you know any other kind of universe is even logically possible, how do you know life as we see it, is the only kind of life that is possible, these are just two obvious assumptions inherent in your subjective assumption the universe had to have a fine tuner deity.

(Red letters added by me, please let me know if this addition changed the neaning of your quote)

Agree these are assumptions, but they seem to be valid assumptions.....
Do you disagree with any of these assumptions. Or is it an other case where you dont afirm nor deny anything, you just keep your view vague and ambiguous.

...... so we seem to agred with everything, care to explain where is our point of disagreement?

Like people who think the big bang involved an actual bang, or people who think survival of the fittest refers to physical fitness or brute strength. Now you owe me one irony meter, new in the box please.

I dont see your point...
Nobody is claiming that FT automatically implies design / additional arguments are typically provided in order to arrive at that conclusion .

So once again this shows that you are not familiar with the argument which means that you shouldn't reject it untill you understand it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do whatever you want, present the evidence or ignore ykur burden

This shouldn't be dependent on how "polite " i am.

I have no burden if you cannot enter into a proper discussion. But the sad thing is that you seem to know that you are wrong. You try to win the debate by cheating. That goes against your own religious beliefs.

Can you be polite? Can you ask proper questions? That is not too much to ask of you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I agree, all conclusions are subjective, whats your point?


.
Agree,


(Red letters added by me, please let me know if this addition changed the neaning of your quote)

Agree these are assumptions, but they seem to be valid assumptions.....
Do you disagree with any of these assumptions. Or is it an other case where you dont afirm nor deny anything, you just keep your view vague and ambiguous.

...... so we seem to agred with everything, care to explain where is our point of disagreement?


I dont see your point...
Nobody is claiming that FT automatically implies design / additional arguments are typically provided in order to arrive at that conclusion .

So once again this shows that you are not familiar with the argument which means that you shouldn't reject it untill you understand it.

Starting with a Tu Quo Que fallacy. Not a good sign.

 

[leroy]

[QUOTE="Valjean, post: 7601310, member: ]
He doesn't understand what evidence is, where it comes from, or how to evaluate it.[/QUOTE]
Ofcourse i dont understand what evidence means (according to atheists) that is why I keep asking @Sheldon to explain what he means by evidence so that I can judge if something counts as evidenc or not.........but I was told that testimonials/claims / assertions are not evidence so if all you have is testimonials/claims/assertions then I have no alternative but to conclude that there is no evidence that stegosaurus ever existed.

 

[leroy]

I have no burden if you cannot enter into a proper discussion. But the sad thing is that you seem to know that you are wrong. You try to win the debate by cheating. That goes against your own religious beliefs.

Can you be polite? Can you ask proper questions? That is not too much to ask of you.

Where is the evidence that stegosaurus ever existed?

Whatpart of the question is impolite ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

[QUOTE="Valjean, post: 7601310, member: ]
He doesn't understand what evidence is, where it comes from, or how to evaluate it.

Ofcourse i dont understand what evidence means (according to atheists) that is why I keep asking @Sheldon to explain what he means by evidence so that I can judge if something counts as evidenc or not.........but I was told that testimonials/claims / assertions are not evidence so if all you have is testimonials/claims/assertions then I have no alternative but to conclude that there is no evidence that stegosaurus ever existed.[/QUOTE]
There you go again. Not "according to atheists". It is according to scientists. Scientific evidence is a well defined concept. Why so many blatantly false claims about others in your posts?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where is the evidence that stegosaurus ever existed?

Whatpart of the question is impolite ?

That is not what you asked earlier. And even in that one the use of the word "ever" is rude.

 

[leroy]

So hypothetically, if something had limitless power, it can probably do some stuff.

Profound....

Yes you finally understood

If Harry Potter were real, and omniscient, he could have created the universe. What do I win?

That harry potrer hypothesis and stegosaurus are not analogous (the analogy is false)

 

[leroy]

There you go again. Not "according to atheists". It is according to scientists. Scientific evidence is a well defined concept. Why so many blatantly false claims about others in your posts?

Well i didn't know that "evidence" was exclusive for science but ok, all I am asking is for a useful definition of evidence that would allow me to judge if something counts as evidence or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well i didn't know that "evidence" was exclusive for science but ok, all I am asking is for a useful definition of evidence that would allow me to judge if something counts as evidence or not.

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis

 

[leroy]

That is not what you asked earlier. And even in that one the use of the word "ever" is rude.

1 yes that is and has always been my question

2 what is impolite about the word "ever" how should I ask this question?

 

[Subduction Zone]

1 yes that is and has always been my question

2 what is impolite about the word "ever" how should I ask this question?

Drop the word "ever" for a start. Remember, you have almost always been shown to be wrong here. You should have far less attitude.

EDIT: And no, that was not what you asked earlier:

"Ok so where is the evidence that stegosaurus ever existed? Testimonials claims and assertions dont count as evidence (or do they?)"

You added a false implication at the end. Any question with a false built in implication is rude.

 

[leroy]

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis

From your article

This suggests that there is no unitary concept corresponding to the different theoretical roles ascribed to evidence, i.e. that we do not always mean the same thing when we talk of evidence

.

So I am correct the concept of evidence is not always the same. .....so asking @Sheldon what exactly does he mean by "evidence " when he asks for "evidence for God" is an appropriate question that requires an answer.

 

[leroy]

Drop the word "ever" for a start. Remember, you have almost always been shown to be wrong here. You should have far less attitude.

EDIT: And no, that was not what you asked earlier:

"Ok so where is the evidence that stegosaurus ever existed? Testimonials claims and assertions dont count as evidence (or do they?)"

You added a false implication at the end. Any question with a false built in implication is rude.

Your ability to circumvent an issue and avoid a direct answers is amazing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From your article
.

So I am correct the concept of evidence is not always the same. .....so asking @Sheldon what exactly does he mean by "evidence " when he asks for "evidence for God" is an appropriate question that requires an answer.

Now you are grasping at straws. Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your ability to circumvent an issue and avoid a direct answers is amazing.

And this is projection on your part.

It very often appears that you are trying to make a joke of yourself. A little honesty goes a long way.

 

[leroy]

Now you are grasping at straws. Try again.

Really care to explain which "staws" are you talking about?

O wait i forggot, you dont answer questions

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really care to explain which "staws" are you talking about?

O wait i forggot, you dont answer questions

We were talking about scientific evidence and you change the topic to Sheldon's post for no reason. Perhaps I should have pointed out that that was a red herring too. At any rate it does reek of desperation.

 

[leroy]

We were talking about scientific evidence and you change the topic to Sheldon's post for no reason. Perhaps I should have pointed out that that was a red herring too. At any rate it does reek of desperation.

Some context for your information

Sheldon: there is no evidence for God just claims and assertions.

LEROY: what do you mean by evidence/ what would accept as evidence?

Leroy: (sarcastically) there is no evidence that stegosaurus ever existed all we have are claims and assertions.

Sheldon: no I wont explain what I mean by evidence (+some exuseses here and there)

Then you jumped to this conversation...

Then you provided a source that explains the concept of evidence

Then I pointed out that according to your source the concept of evidence is not universal (people mean different things according to the context)

Which shows that my original request is valid, asking what do you mean by evidence is a valid requirement.

Then you falsely accused me for straws and redherrings

My theory is that you jumped to this conversation without understanding the context (which is ok forums tebd to be chaotic)


So with this context in mind , do you have anything to comment on?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Leroy: (sarcastically) there is no evidence that stegosaurus ever existed all we have are claims and assertions.

You may find it useful to know that, based on your track record here, there's nothing in you saying the sentence "there is no evidence that stegosaurus ever existed all we have are claims and assertions" that would suggest it was meant sarcastically.

If you meant it sincerely, it would be far from the wildest thing you've said here.