But they COULD have knowledge that could not be 'demonstrated' to your satisfaction.
But they DON'T have knowledge. They don't present anything that convinces objective minds. That's not a bias, that is just how the rules of logic work. And these rules do work.
And you have no way of proving that they couldn't. So it's YOU who is making the false assertions by your own criteria.
Nope, I am not responsible for anything others claim, especially when those claims fail at the basic level, like ZERO evidence. Theists need to be more careful about what they claim. I notice you don't tell them to think about what they claim, only that atheists should lay off.
Because their knowledge does not require your participation.
See how your bias works here? You are referring to a bad claim of knowledge AS IF it is actual, valid knowledge. You're not on the side of truth. You are on the side of theists against atheists.
From your perspective, logically, their assertion is not "incorrect", it's only unsupported That's an irrational basis leading you to an unsupported conclusion. Do you understand this?
You are giving the claim way too much credibility. It's not as if Jim claims to have eaten a ham sandwich for lunch, and he just doesn't have support for that claim, at least it's plausible. We are talking about a definitive claim by a theist that they KNOW a God exists. that's an extraordinary claims that goes way beyond a mundane claim. But your bias assumes it is plausible. Atheists are just more discriminating. We recognize it is fantastic and no one in history has even demonstrated any Gods as existing outside of human imagination.
But they made no "error" that you can 'demonstrate'. They only made an assertion that they did not support to your satisfaction.
Their error is to make a false claim. Their act is the EVIDENCE. I am just observing their error.
The reason I'm pointing this out is that you have painted yourself in a very big "cat-bird" seat in presuming that YOU are the arbiter of what constitutes "evidence", and of what constitutes "convincing" evidence. And of who is supposed to be proving their claims to whom, and so on. And I think you've gotten so used to presuming yourself to be the goalkeeper in these discussions that you don't realize just how much irrational bias has been able to creep into your perspective.
False. I am applying the rules of logic on them, and you. If a person assumes a formal position like making a truth claim, then they are obligated to demonstrate their claim is true with adequate facts and a coherent explanation. Short of that they have failed to follow the rules. I am not an arbiter, just an observer. You are trying to make this about me. The claimant made an error that any objective thinker can witness. Me pointing it is is just me pointing it out.
One is a metaphysical claim, and the other is a physical claim.
It doesn't matter to logic. If a person makes a claim it needs to meet a certain standard of credibility. Metaphysical claims are notoriously unsupported and dubious.
Are demanding physical evidence for a metaphysical claim? Because that would be quite irrational.
Then those making metaphysical claims had better not claim they have knowledge, or truth. Truth claims fall under the domain of logic, and when theists fail to follow the rules of logic, their claims fail too.
Physical claims can be demonstrated using physical evidence. But metaphysical claims have to be demonstrated using logical reasoning because metaphysical claims are conceptually derived.
No, metaphysical claims assume a divine or supernatural, and this is an assumption that isn't acceptable in logic.
