Burden of proof

[Link]

It is inherent in any claim, especially in a debate forum. Making a claim in a debate forum and ignoring this, creates an obvious inference.

Sure, but if the other side, shows no willing to understand and just argue, then there is no point to continue.

 

[Sheldon]

It is inherent in any claim, especially in a debate forum. Making a claim in a debate forum and ignoring this, creates an obvious inference.

Sure, but if the other side, shows no willing to understand and just argue, then there is no point to continue.

If what you offer is not understood, that does not mean the person reading is not attempting to understand you, and in a debate the obligation to be understood is mainly with the writer, not the reader. Also argument is a prerequisite of debate, it is in the definition.

I will never understand why people fear polemic.

 

[Brian2]

Which people?

Those who reject the existence of God because of lack of evidence, which usually comes down to lack of proof.

Do you have any evidence of this outside of what is written in the Bible?

It seems evident for most people who believe in God and have no proof.
Their God does not want to give absolute proof but probably still wants people to accept it's existence.

 

[Brian2]

So then knowing God is by revelation through spirit and not on rational basis.

As for faith I would want to have good reasons to put faith into anyone or anything.

So I would have to still qualify the revelation as being worthy of my faith.

At some point it has to be actual reality to have faith in it.

Certainly God convinces through His Spirit but the Spirit also uses evidence of the reality. It is no good believing in some stupid thing or person that did not happen or exist.
Plenty of people say they cannot believe in Jesus who did not exist or Jesus whom history shows did not do what the Bible says etc.
Reality or at least the possibility of reality of the belief is important.
Hence all I can do is give evidence for the reality and read all the rebuttals from people who don't to know and prefer the evidence against the reality.

 

[Brian2]

That's all anyone can do, but this is a debate forum, so anyone making a claim by voicing a belief carries a burden of proof. I am an atheist myself, so I don't believe in any deity or deities, however if one exists and wants to make me aware of that fact I am ready and waiting, but I won't accept claims a deity exists based on subjective anecdote alone, as i wouldn't do this for any other claims either.

People usually believe things based on anecdotes.
I don't know what makes anecdotes subjective.
But I can see that a commitment to a belief might require more evidence than just someone telling a story.
Without actual proof a belief in God is going to subjective however and you probably won't be able to prove it to others through showing evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

Those who reject the existence of God because of lack of evidence, which usually comes down to lack of proof.

I have yet to see an atheist here or elsewhere demand the misnomer of absolute proof, so I find this claim dubious as well. However I have noticed that theists expend far more energy claiming to have compelling evidence than they ever do demonstrating it. For example why not offer the best most compelling reason you think you have right at the start of the conversation?

It seems evident for most people who believe in God and have no proof.

Just like the flat earth society then. Do you know what an argumentum ad populum fallacy is? What you are offering is a version of that.

Their God does not want to give absolute proof but probably still wants people to accept it's existence.

I see two claims, but no attempt to evidence them.

 

[Sheldon]

Plenty of people say they cannot believe in Jesus who did not exist or Jesus whom history shows did not do what the Bible says etc.

Actually there is a scholarly consensus that Jesus existed, and was crucified. Though when you consider how common the name and the punishment during that epoch, this isn't saying much. However claims about what Jesus portrayed in the gospels is supposed to have said and done, amounts to little more than second hand hearsay at best, and from unknown authors.

Reality or at least the possibility of reality of the belief is important.

Possible must be demonstrated with sufficient objective evidence, one cannot simply assume it, least of all for extraordinary claims.

Hence all I can do is give evidence for the reality and read all the rebuttals from people who don't to know and prefer the evidence against the reality.

What is the best evidence you think you have for any deity? That should at least be a good a start.

 

[BilliardsBall]

A larger problem would be that other theists make the identical claim, and commune allegedly with a different deity or deities.

That's not a problem at all. My worldview includes demonic entities who make false claims (and inspire internet forum posts).

 

[ppp]

That's not a problem at all. My worldview includes demonic entities who make false claims (and inspire internet forum posts).

Does it include your being one of those who is listening to demonic entities and someone having it right?

 

[Trailblazer]

It seems evident for most people who believe in God and have no proof.
Their God does not want to give absolute proof but probably still wants people to accept it's existence.

The reason God does not prove He exists is because God wants our faith. If God proved He exists then we would no longer need faith.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

We must first believe that it is possible for God to exist, and that requires faith since no man has ever seen God.

God will reward those who earnestly seek Him with the evidence they need to believe, but God will not force anyone to accept the evidence. That is a choice.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
A larger problem would be that other theists make the identical claim, and commune allegedly with a different deity or deities.

That's not a problem at all. My worldview includes demonic entities who make false claims (and inspire internet forum posts).

For those of us don't believe in imaginary nefarious demons, it remains a problem.

 

[Link]

If what you offer is not understood, that does not mean the person reading is not attempting to understand you, and in a debate the obligation to be understood is mainly with the writer, not the reader. Also argument is a prerequisite of debate, it is in the definition.

I will never understand why people fear polemic.

It's true, sometimes a person is debating and sincere, but that is rare. Very few are debating to reach a conclusion but just trying to score points and argue for the sake of argument.

The fact humans are insincere to truth is not because it's natural to be, but because the infection from Iblis in that regard has passed generation to generation, and has not gone away.

If a person is blind and comes to argue, you do as the Prophet (s) did, turn away from him, as it's not upon the Prophet to purify such an arrogant soul and of course would never turn away from someone striving for the truth.

We maybe wrong sometimes, but, usually, you can tell if a person sincerely is seeking to know or just wants to debate.

Those who lead astray are the problem, not those who guide to the truth.

Sometimes a person can make better effort and make it easier to facilitate truth that people understand the reality which is hard to put in words, but it's mostly the fault of listeners who haven't realized the truth, since they are ever playful, don't care about their fate in the next, deny the truth on conjecture, and are taking risks without fear of consequences of their ways.

Whatever effort a person makes to cure those with a disease in their hearts and make them hear the wisdom is an act of generous compassion, wanting to guide them out of their error so that they maybe spared the hell-fire.

The grief of those who care about others fate and those with knowledge, is intense grief, as expressed in Quran "so it maybe that you kill yourself out of grief for them that they will not believe in this narration ever"

 

[Sheldon]

argue for the sake of argument.

That is the very definition of debate?

We maybe wrong sometimes, but, usually, you can tell if a person sincerely is seeking to know or just wants to debate.

They are not mutually exclusive.

Sometimes a person can make better effort and make it easier to facilitate truth that people understand the reality which is hard to put in words, but it's mostly the fault of listeners who haven't realized the truth, since they are ever playful, don't care about their fate in the next, deny the truth on conjecture, and are taking risks without fear of consequences of their ways.

That's a no true Scotsman fallacy. If you want to convince me that what you believe is true, then you would need to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence, and or cogent rational argument. making sweeping subjective unevidenced assertions is meaningless.

 

[Link]

Sheldon, you are lost in your own words. I can't guide you out of that, you have to do it yourself.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon, you are lost in your own words. I can't guide you out of that, you have to do it yourself.

More subjective unevidenced assertions, you just don't have the vaguest grasp of what constitutes a cogent compelling argument in a debate sorry. I think you want to preach to me, and I have zero interest in being preached at. Again the idea anyone who does not share your beliefs is lost or needs your help is just your subjective opinion. You might learn to think critically for yourself if you used an open mind, but I doubt you're anywhere near that realisation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Does it include your being one of those who is listening to demonic entities and someone having it right?

To the clean, all things are clean.

 

[BilliardsBall]

For those of us don't believe in imaginary nefarious demons, it remains a problem.

But you adhere to imaginary metaphysical concepts like justice, love, logic and math.

Is the Law of Noncontradiction always true? Then you believe a metaphysical absolute.

Is rape always wrong? Then you believe in an intangible, metaphysical moral absolute.

Have you a brain despite not having seen it? Then you are not a dialectical materialist.

Are you thinking about what I wrote? Then you have a conscience.

Will you respond thoughtfully or viciously to my post? Then you exercise free will.

 

[Link]

More subjective unevidenced assertions, you just don't have the vaguest grasp of what constitutes a cogent compelling argument in a debate sorry. I think you want to preach to me, and I have zero interest in being preached at. Again the idea anyone who does not share your beliefs is lost or needs your help is just your subjective opinion. You might learn to think critically for yourself if you used an open mind, but I doubt you're anywhere near that realisation.

You are to obsessed with repeating evidence and proofs that a proof that reminds you of God would go over your head. God's light is his light and connected to him. When we remind of God's sight with respect to who we are and his light and judgment, you can look at yourself and see that you are in his vision defined by him and remember only he can see you or run away.

You see, good and evil with respect to faith is not just about how smart you are, but how sincere you are. Satan tricked himself out of faith and tricks others too through his own trickery to himself. He is cunning, but outsmarted himself out of the light into the darkness.

 

[ppp]

To the clean, all things are clean.

What a silly thing to say. 1) If all things were clean to the clean, then there would not need to be a word for clean. 2) You are not clean.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But you adhere to imaginary metaphysical concepts like justice, love, logic and math.

Oh okay, so you're saying that demons exist in the same sense that love and math exist? Which is to say, abstractly? Is that what you're attempting to say? Or do you believe in actual, physical demons?

But wait, math is demonstrable. Logic is demonstrable. Can you demonstrate demons?

Is the Law of Noncontradiction always true? Then you believe a metaphysical absolute.

This is comparable to your claims about demons, how, exactly?

Is rape always wrong? Then you believe in an intangible, metaphysical moral absolute.

Nope. I can explain why rape is wrong.
Can you explain what a demon is and where we can find one?

Have you a brain despite not having seen it? Then you are not a dialectical materialist.

Nonsense. We can observe brains. I have seen various scans of my own brain, as well as others' brains.
Can we observe demons?

Are you thinking about what I wrote? Then you have a conscience.

Thinking requires a brain. Brains are physical, measurable, observable, etc.
Do you have physical, measurable, observable evidence for demons?

Will you respond thoughtfully or viciously to my post? Then you exercise free will.

Again, to understand and think requires a brain, which is a physical thing.
Can you show us a demon?