There are about 1000 gods. Is that evidence against God?

[Subduction Zone]

Ra


And your proof that what I presented is nothing but rambling and is dishonest is what? You saying so? LOL.

HOW does you merely SAYING that the more I continue to post the more evidence appears showing that I am dishonest and ignorant ACTUALLY PROVES it’s a FACT the more I continue to post the more evidence appears showing that I am dishonest and ignorant? Because you said so? LOL.

It was an observation based upon your posts. No real "proof" is needed. The evidence is still there.

 

[Nivek001]

The burden of proof is upon the person making a positive assertion.

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

If he claims not to believe there is really not that much more needed as "proof". You could ask questions to see if there was a contraindicator that he actually did believe in god or gods, but I doubt if you would be successful if you did that. You on the other hand state that a specific being exists. You need to show evidence that that being really does exist. The Bible is all but useless in this because it is the claim and not the evidence.

He made a claim to disagree. That is making an affirmative claim. Now he could affirm that his decision to not believe is based either on his belief or on fact.

If he claimed that his claim to not agree was not based on his belief then he would have to prove it BECAUSE proof is what makes a fact a fact. If he cannot provide the proof then the logical thing to do is to claim that his claim to not agree was simply based on his belief.
However, I stated that I BELIEVE a specific being exists. I didn’t state it’s a fact that a certain being exists.

The burden of proof lies with the one who is claiming fact BECAUSE proof is what makes a fact a fact.

How do you figure it makes sense for a person who is claiming to believe that they must provide proof showing that what is believed is not their belief but is instead a fact?

 

[Subduction Zone]

He made a claim to disagree. That is making an affirmative claim. Now he could affirm that his decision to not believe is based either on his belief or on fact.

If he claimed that his claim to not agree was not based on his belief then he would have to prove it BECAUSE proof is what makes a fact a fact. If he cannot provide the proof then the logical thing to do is to claim that his claim to not agree was simply based on his belief.
However, I stated that I BELIEVE a specific being exists. I didn’t state it’s a fact that a certain being exists.

The burden of proof lies with the one who is claiming fact BECAUSE proof is what makes a fact a fact.

How do you figure it makes sense for a person who is claiming to believe that they must provide proof showing that what is believed is not their belief but is instead a fact?

What did he disagree with? Did he say "I don't believe you/" That is the sort of positive assertion that one needs to accept on face value unless a person can demonstrate otherwise by the claimants actions. And as I said I doubt if you could do that.

And I have not been following the debate if you just claim to believe that also has to be accepted on face value. But if you try to claim that your being is real then you do take on a burden of proof. Most believers tend to claim that their God is real. You may be an exception.

 

[Nivek001]

The burden of proof is upon the person making a positive assertion.

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

If he claims not to believe there is really not that much more needed as "proof". You could ask questions to see if there was a contraindicator that he actually did believe in god or gods, but I doubt if you would be successful if you did that. You on the other hand state that a specific being exists. You need to show evidence that that being really does exist. The Bible is all but useless in this because it is the claim and not the evidence.

You are basing your point on Wikipedia? How does Wikipedia shows that the burden of proof applies to claims of belief not fact?

 

[Nivek001]

It was an observation based upon your posts. No real "proof" is needed. The evidence is still there.

And your proof that what you observed is accurate is what? Your observation? Your observation established zero facts here. What you gave here is your opinion that the burden of proof applies my claims based on belief. You did not actually prove that is the case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are basing your point on Wikipedia? How does Wikipedia shows that the burden of proof applies to claims of belief not fact?

I could find other sources, but there is nothing wrong with Wikipedia for such a claim. This is a rather basic claim and for those sort of claims Wikipedia is a very good source.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And your proof that what you observed is accurate is what? Your observation? Your observation established zero facts here. What you gave here is your opinion that the burden of proof applies my claims based on belief. You did not actually prove that is the case.

Tsk tsk tsk. You cannot argue properly. Since I only made reasonable demands and supported my claims where you had nothing but denial I can see why you were put on ignore. Just because you have nothing does not mean that others suffer from the same lack.

Your turn to support a claim for once.

 

[Nivek001]

What did he disagree with? Did he say "I don't believe you/" That is the sort of positive assertion that one needs to accept on face value unless a person can demonstrate otherwise by the claimants actions. And as I said I doubt if you could do that.

And I have not been following the debate if you just claim to believe that also has to be accepted on face value. But if you try to claim that your being is real then you do take on a burden of proof. Most believers tend to claim that their God is real. You may be an exception.

He did not agree with what I believed. Even after I pointed that out he did not refute that point, so why are you refute that point.

Also, how is that even relevant to whether or not the burden of proof applies to claims based on belief? That is where he was still arguing that it does and that I was applying the strawman argument of his argument, which he failed to prove.

Also, it would be a good idea to read over what was said fully before you jump into responding about what was posted.

 

[Nivek001]

I could find other sources, but there is nothing wrong with Wikipedia for such a claim. This is a rather basic claim and for those sort of claims Wikipedia is a very good source.

And your proof that there is nothing wrong with the Wikipedia definition is what? You saying it’s a very good source? How does you saying it’s a very good source prove it’s a very good source?

 

[Subduction Zone]

He did not agree with what I believed. Even after I pointed that out he did not refute that point, so why are you refute that point.

Also, how is that even relevant to whether or not the burden of proof applies to claims based on belief? That is where he was still arguing that it does and that I was applying the strawman argument of his argument, which he failed to prove.

Also, it would be a good idea to read over what was said fully before you jump into responding about what was posted.

You protest a bit too much. I already said if that was the case you may have a valid claim. But with all of your protesting and poor debating techniques that does not appear to be the case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And your proof that there is nothing wrong with the Wikipedia definition is what? You saying it’s a very good source? How does you saying it’s a very good source prove it’s a very good source?

Now you appear to be trolling. Surely you know how to vet a source. If you do not then you should not be debating.

 

[Nivek001]

Tsk tsk tsk. You cannot argue properly. Since I only made reasonable demands and supported my claims where you had nothing but denial I can see why you were put on ignore. Just because you have nothing does not mean that others suffer from the same lack.

Your turn to support a claim for once.

How does you saying I cannot argue properly prove I cannot argue properly? What is your proof that your demands are in fact reasonable? HOW were your claims supported?

All you have given so far is your opinion about the burden of proof and the validity of the Wikipedia definition. Your opinion does not support anything other than the point that you posted your opinions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How does you saying I cannot argue properly prove I cannot argue properly? What is your proof that your demands are in fact reasonable? HOW were your claims supported?

All you have given so far is your opinion about the burden of proof and the validity of the Wikipedia definition. Your opinion does not support anything other than the point that you posted your opinions.

You need to learn the difference between observations and arugments.

 

[Nivek001]

Now you appear to be trolling. Surely you know how to vet a source. If you do not then you should not be debating.

How is my pointing out you are basing your argument on nothing but your opinion must mean I am trolling? Because you said so?

Surely you know how to vet a source since and you are the one who said that the Wikipedia definition is reliable definition even though you failed to establish that the Wikipedia definition even addresses claims based on belief then you need to back that claim up regarding Wikipedia.

 

[Nivek001]

You need to learn the difference between observations and arugments.

You are the one who is going on about you don’t need to explain the validity of what you posted because you observed as if that was all the explanation you need to validate what you posted.

Just because you observed does not mean you observed accurately. In order to do that you need to prove that your observation actually validated what you are saying.

 

[Nivek001]

You protest a bit too much. I already said if that was the case you may have a valid claim. But with all of your protesting and poor debating techniques that does not appear to be the case.

How can you determine I have poor debating skills if you haven’t fully observed what was said? What is your proof showing what I posted shows poor debating skill? Is it your incomplete assessment?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is my pointing out you are basing your argument on nothing but your opinion must mean I am trolling? Because you said so?

Surely you know how to vet a source since and you are the one who said that the Wikipedia definition is reliable definition even though you failed to establish that the Wikipedia definition even addresses claims based on belief then you need to back that claim up regarding Wikipedia.

You are the one who is going on about you don’t need to explain the validity of what you posted because you observed as if that was all the explanation you need to validate what you posted.

Just because you observed does not mean you observed accurately. In order to do that you need to prove that your observation actually validated what you are saying.

Once again, learn the difference between an observation and an argument. The observation of poor debating technique was not an argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can you determine I have poor debating skills if you haven’t fully observed what was said? What is your proof showing what I posted shows poor debating skill? Is it your incomplete assessment?

Because I have observed your failures. If you want to debate, then debate. If you do not like the observations change your behavior or ignore the observations.

 

[Nivek001]

Once again, learn the difference between an observation and an argument. The observation of poor debating technique was not an argument.

Once again prove that I don’t know the difference between observation and argument. You saying I don’t know the difference does not prove I don’t know the difference.

You are the one who is claiming I don’t the difference between observation and argument and you did not claim that it’s your belief that I don’t know the difference, so that means the burden of proof is on you.

 

[Nivek001]

Because I have observed your failures. If you want to debate, then debate. If you do not like the observations change your behavior or ignore the observations.

And your proof that what you observed are in fact my failures is what? If you don’t like my questioning the validity of what you observed you don’t have to answer them, but just because you post observations does not mean I cannot question their validity.