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

[Nivek001]

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted.

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.
Source: Straw man - Wikipedia

This is my claim.


I made that claim in objection to what you think is a teaching in Christianity; "a God who wants us to rely on faith instead of evidence."



So, in your post #250, all you did was gave a strawman argument, nothing that actually addressed my claim. So like I said, I don't have the burden of proof on a claim that I never made.

And I never claimed that "proof" matters. I have no problem taking on honest challenges. I don't take on dishonest challenges, but will expose it as being dishonest.



There's no need to take up your dishonest challenge, I already gain some knowledge about you and your character. Hopefully you learned something from this experience. But if you ignore what I said here, then you're going to remain ignorant of the truth regarding this issue.



Much knowledge can be gain from what you said here, knowledge of your dishonest character and your lack of understanding of logic. It's the same with some people I've encountered. They're being dishonest with others and themselves by
making that excuse because they don't care about whether or not what they believe is actually true. They just want what they believe in, to be true. The burden of proof lies on whoever makes a truth claim. We don't claim "facts," we present "facts" because they are true.
If you claimed that what you believe is true, then the burden of proof still lies on you. You still made a truth claim, claiming that your beliefs are true.

So, let’s get this straight. You objected to what I my claim based on belief that is a claim.

You did NOT indicate that your objection is merely based on your belief. When you failed to do that it does make it appear that you are claiming that your objection is not based on your belief. That only leaves to one other basis and that basis is your claim of objection is based on fact.

That IS an affirmative claim that does require you to provide proof otherwise you would have proclaimed it’s your belief.

Nothing points out that you made no such claim quite like you just saying you made no such claims instead of proving it. My your position is ridiculous.

I pointed out clearly that my claim was based on belief that the claim is true. Why would I need to prove a belief? It’s clearly pointed out that it’s a belief, and it’s a belief in what is true that cannot be proven for the whole world to see, so one can understand just what it is because a belief is not a belief if there is evidence to back it up.

That is except for you who insists that a claim based on belief is not a claim based on belief but is based on fact in which I have the burden of proof to establish that what I claimed is not what I claimed.

That makes absolutely no sense. You are the one with the affirmative claim here that is NOT based on belief. That claim is your objection to my beliefs. Since you did NOT establish that your objection is based on your belief, that means the burden of proof is actually on you.

 

[thomas t]

I wanted to answer you in the other thread first, so this answer comes a bit late.

I wasn't comparing gods with bigfoot. I was comparing the likelihood of both in context of evidence.

So I'll rephrase the question such that you can't play this game of changing the actual point:

you wrote "how are gods different?".
So to me, it did not come across as talking about likelyhoods. (You could have written: how is the likelihood of a god different.)
But you are rephrasing your question.
I opened another thread and answered you there...

If it would, we wouldn't be having this conversation because at that point, the origins of the universe wouldn't be an unknown.

That's a just-so story in my opinion.
You could as well say: We are here because God set the universe in motion, I guess.

Or to put it more bluntly:
You don't have evidence that a natural cause set nature into motion at t=0 without the assistance of a Higher Force.
Nature isn't reported to be able to produce anything at t=0.

Well I did mention it from the get-go. But you seem to have a habit of ignoring the bits that don't suit your narrative.

rest assured, I don't have this habit.

 

[Baroodi]

Bold empty claim.

If a boat has two captains, it will sink
(Say: If there are Goddesses, The universe will rot) Quranic phase

 

[Tiberius]

How do you figure I failed to realize you said you already did that when I pointed out it’s a my word (a claim of doing that ended with positive results) vs. your word (a claim of doing the same thing that produced negative results) scenario? Your reading comprehension needs work.

So you are suggesting that I am lying? I know what my experience was, and my first hand experience is far more convincing to me than your repeated promises that I'll get the results if I do as you suggest.

Of course, it seems to me like you just think I did it wrong or something because I didn't get the results you think I should have gotten.

Anyhoo, like I pointed out if there is a third party who wants to find out who is right here between you and me, there is a way to do that, and it’s not by way of looking at available evidence.

Of course, because you don't have any actual evidence. All you have is strong opinion and appeals to emotion.

That is because this deals with belief in a God who wants us to rely on faith instead of evidence the whole world can see, which would mean that it’s possible that the reason for there being a lack of available evidence is due to such a God withholding that evidence on purpose. After all, if you have such evidence then there is no faith to rely upon.

And no reason at all for God to hold faith so high and evidence so low, especially when he gave us the ability to use reason, and when that ability to reason has shown us so many facts and truths about the universe. Our ability to reason has helped us cure disease, provide technology, and show us the deep secrets of the universe, and yet now you claim this wonderful tool is just not sufficient in one particular case? And instead he wants us to rely on something which, in every single other case, has proven itself to be unreliable and practically worthless in finding objective truth?

It seems to me that the only reason you argue this is the case is because you know that it's the only way to keep yourself in the game.

So, if there is a third party who wants to know who is right and honest in their claims, then the only way for that third party to know is to act on faith for themselves in study and trying out the teaching that are believed to have come from such a God. This even includes seeking assurance from that God if such a God is there and the teachings are true through prayer and then that third party can then see for themselves who is right.

And if they, like me, try it and conclude that God is not real, are you going to tell them they did it wrong?

 

[Nivek001]

So you are suggesting that I am lying? I know what my experience was, and my first hand experience is far more convincing to me than your repeated promises that I'll get the results if I do as you suggest.

Of course, it seems to me like you just think I did it wrong or something because I didn't get the results you think I should have gotten.



Of course, because you don't have any actual evidence. All you have is strong opinion and appeals to emotion.



And no reason at all for God to hold faith so high and evidence so low, especially when he gave us the ability to use reason, and when that ability to reason has shown us so many facts and truths about the universe. Our ability to reason has helped us cure disease, provide technology, and show us the deep secrets of the universe, and yet now you claim this wonderful tool is just not sufficient in one particular case? And instead he wants us to rely on something which, in every single other case, has proven itself to be unreliable and practically worthless in finding objective truth?

It seems to me that the only reason you argue this is the case is because you know that it's the only way to keep yourself in the game.



And if they, like me, try it and conclude that God is not real, are you going to tell them they did it wrong?

How do I know you are not lying? What is your proof that you are not lying?

I don’t know whether you did it wrong or if you are flat out lying because you brought nothing to the table to show that you are sincere.

I am not telling people to just take my word for it unlike you. If there is a third party who wants to know who is right one doesn’t have to take my word for it unlike you. One can try out the Gospel and act on the promises that one can get assurance of truth and then see what happens.

How do you figure it is reasonable to conclude that a God whose Gospel emphasizes reliance on faith would present irrefutable evidence for the world to see so that you don’t have to rely on faith? Because you simply insist that it somehow does and we should just take your word for it?

How is something proven to be unreliable when you haven’t presented any proof that something is unreliable?

How does every other case apply to the same conditions as to whether or not there is a God who wants us to rely on faith instead of relying on established evidence? Because you insist that it just somehow does without bothering to prove your point? My you are the hypocrite.

It’s also rather ironic that instead of encouraging others to at least try something that you claim overwhelmingly will bring no results, and therefore backing up what you claim, you insist that we should just take your word for it and not bother trying out acting on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and asking God in prayer to see if one can get an assurance of truth. What are you afraid of?

Also, it’s ridiculous that you include again your word that many others have done as you did and got nothing since there are also many others who have did as I did and got positive results.

Again, it’s your word vs. mine, but unlike your word a wondering third party doesn’t just have to take my word for it.

 

[Tiberius]

How do I know you are not lying? What is your proof that you are not lying?

I don’t know whether you did it wrong or if you are flat out lying because you brought nothing to the table to show that you are sincere.

I am not telling people to just take my word for it unlike you. If there is a third party who wants to know who is right one doesn’t have to take my word for it unlike you. One can try out the Gospel and act on the promises that one can get assurance of truth and then see what happens.

How do you figure it is reasonable to conclude that a God whose Gospel emphasizes reliance on faith would present irrefutable evidence for the world to see so that you don’t have to rely on faith? Because you simply insist that it somehow does and we should just take your word for it?

How is something proven to be unreliable when you haven’t presented any proof that something is unreliable?

How does every other case apply to the same conditions as to whether or not there is a God who wants us to rely on faith instead of relying on established evidence? Because you insist that it just somehow does without bothering to prove your point? My you are the hypocrite.

It’s also rather ironic that instead of encouraging others to at least try something that you claim overwhelmingly will bring no results, and therefore backing up what you claim, you insist that we should just take your word for it and not bother trying out acting on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and asking God in prayer to see if one can get an assurance of truth. What are you afraid of?

Also, it’s ridiculous that you include again your word that many others have done as you did and got nothing since there are also many others who have did as I did and got positive results.

Again, it’s your word vs. mine, but unlike your word a wondering third party doesn’t just have to take my word for it.

You don't know, but then again, I'm not trying to convince you. The only person to convince is me, and my own experience already has me convinced.

Of course, if you are to cast doubt on my motives, let me cast doubt on yours. How do we know you aren't just trying to boost the number of people following your religion? How do we know that you aren't like the salesman who peddles a shoddy product simply because it will look good for him in the end-of-month sales figures, and he'll get the bonus?

 

[Nivek001]

You don't know, but then again, I'm not trying to convince you. The only person to convince is me, and my own experience already has me convinced.

Of course, if you are to cast doubt on my motives, let me cast doubt on yours. How do we know you aren't just trying to boost the number of people following your religion? How do we know that you aren't like the salesman who peddles a shoddy product simply because it will look good for him in the end-of-month sales figures, and he'll get the bonus?

You don't know, but then again, I'm not trying to convince you. The only person to convince is me, and my own experience already has me convinced.

Of course, if you are to cast doubt on my motives, let me cast doubt on yours. How do we know you aren't just trying to boost the number of people following your religion? How do we know that you aren't like the salesman who peddles a shoddy product simply because it will look good for him in the end-of-month sales figures, and he'll get the bonus?

Really? How do you I’m not like a sales person selling shoddy product? You have already been claiming that I have been selling shoddy product saying you tried to act on faith and prayed for assurance of the truth of Gospel and did not get anything. You need to keep track of what you have been posting. You are not sincerely asking anything of me at all because you already have made up your mind.

it’s a shame too, but then again I’m not trying to convince you of anything either.

I was pointing out that if there is a THIRD PARTY who wants to know who is right that third party can act on faith in trying out the teachings in the Gospel and ask God in prayer for assurance of truth and see what happens.

Why are you arguing here? What you are doing is illogical. If you really are certain any third party will get nothing out of taking that challenge then you would have been fine with me encouraging others to act on faith and pray for assurance of the truthfulness of the Gospel. What are you afraid of?

Instead, you keep arguing here that you are right and I am wrong because you say so instead of actually providing evidence proving that is the case even though you also claim to rely on reason and on evidence. Way to go there Tiberius Hypocrite.

 

[Tiberius]

Really? How do you I’m not like a sales person selling shoddy product? You have already been claiming that I have been selling shoddy product saying you tried to act on faith and prayed for assurance of the truth of Gospel and did not get anything. You need to keep track of what you have been posting. You are not sincerely asking anything of me at all because you already have made up your mind.

You're like the salesperson promoting a miracle cleaner.

I'm the guy who bought it yesterday and is now saying, "Hey, I tried the miracle cleaner and it doesn't work."

I was pointing out that if there is a THIRD PARTY who wants to know who is right that third party can act on faith in trying out the teachings in the Gospel and ask God in prayer for assurance of truth and see what happens.

And I once was that third party. I saw what happened. And what happened was nothing.

Why are you arguing here? What you are doing is illogical. If you really are certain any third party will get nothing out of taking that challenge then you would have been fine with me encouraging others to act on faith and pray for assurance of the truthfulness of the Gospel. What are you afraid of?

Instead, you keep arguing here that you are right and I am wrong because you say so instead of actually providing evidence proving that is the case even though you also claim to rely on reason and on evidence. Way to go there Tiberius Hypocrite.

I'm not afraid. But I gotta ask you - if you're convinced that your way is the way to go, what does it tell you when people try what you say and don't get the results you claim they should?

 

[Nivek001]

You're like the salesperson promoting a miracle cleaner.

I'm the guy who bought it yesterday and is now saying, "Hey, I tried the miracle cleaner and it doesn't work."





I'm not afraid. But I gotta ask you - if you're convinced that your way is the way to go, what does it tell you when people try what you say and don't get the results you claim they should?

And your proof that you even bought the product to begin with, let alone actually tried it out as directed is what? You saying you did? LOL.

Again, if there is a third party who wonders if the my claim is correct or if your claim is correct there there is one way to find out and that is to try out the Gospel in their lives and even seek for assurance if it’s true by asking God in prayer if the Gospel is true and good.

Again, why are you still arguing here when you claim that everyone who does the challenge will not get any results?

If you are not afraid why are you arguing here instead of just being confident that anyone who takes to acting on faith and seek for assured guidance through prayer will get nothing?

When other people claim as you do they are doing just that. Claiming. Who knows if any of them really did as recommended just like with you. But unlike you one doesn’t have to just take my word for it.

How do you feel when those who also claimed to do as recommended and did get positive results?

After all, there are more converts to the Gospel than myself?

Again, this all boils down to your word vs.mine and once again, unlike you who insists that you are right just because you said so, that is not the same for me. One doesn’t have to just take my word for it. One can try out the Gospel through acting on faith and ask God in prayer if that Gospel is true and then see the results personally if one does get an assurance of the truthfulness of the Gospel.

 

[Tiberius]

And your proof that you even bought the product to begin with, let alone actually tried it out as directed is what? You saying you did? LOL.

Again, if there is a third party who wonders if the my claim is correct or if your claim is correct there there is one way to find out and that is to try out the Gospel in their lives and even seek for assurance if it’s true by asking God in prayer if the Gospel is true and good.

Again, why are you still arguing here when you claim that everyone who does the challenge will not get any results?

If you are not afraid why are you arguing here instead of just being confident that anyone who takes to acting on faith and seek for assured guidance through prayer will get nothing?

When other people claim as you do they are doing just that. Claiming. Who knows if any of them really did as recommended just like with you. But unlike you one doesn’t have to just take my word for it.

How do you feel when those who also claimed to do as recommended and did get positive results?

After all, there are more converts to the Gospel than myself?

Again, this all boils down to your word vs.mine and once again, unlike you who insists that you are right just because you said so, that is not the same for me. One doesn’t have to just take my word for it. One can try out the Gospel through acting on faith and ask God in prayer if that Gospel is true and then see the results personally if one does get an assurance of the truthfulness of the Gospel.

First of all, you are misrepresenting my position. I never claimed that everyone who does the challenge will get no results, did I? I only ever said that I got no results. Some people will get the results you claim. Others will get different results again. That is to be expected when your claims of God do not match reality.

Secondly, it's hypocritical of you to dismiss my experience because I've just got my word on what happened, when you are totally incapable of providing anything but your word about your claims. If someone does your challenge and they find you are wrong, will you similarly dismiss them by saying, "You can't believe them, all they've got is their word"? And yet if a person does your challenge and agrees with you, you'll hold them up as evidence that you were correct, I'm sure.

Oh, and the fact that people convert to a particular religion is not evidence that that particular religion is correct. More people are leaving their faith behind these days, yet do you consider that as evidence that atheism is correct? I doubt it.

 

[night912]

So, let’s get this straight. You objected to what I my claim based on belief that is a claim.

Because it was a claim. And you reassured that it was a claim by saying.....

I am referring to belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ from which teachings include:

You did NOT indicate that your objection is merely based on your belief. When you failed to do that it does make it appear that you are claiming that your objection is not based on your belief. That only leaves to one other basis and that basis is your claim of objection is based on fact.

That IS an affirmative claim that does require you to provide proof otherwise you would have proclaimed it’s your belief.

I said it before and I'll say it again, I don't have the burden of proof for a claim I did not make. You gave a strawman argument and demanded that I give evidence to support the claim in your strawman argument, that is a logical fallacy. Then I provided the definition for a "strawman argument," and explained why it was a strawman argument using evidence showing why it is.

Nothing points out that you made no such claim quite like you just saying you made no such claims instead of proving it. My your position is ridiculous

This points it out.

There's no teachings that say that one should abandon/ignore evidence.

Did I say anything about ignoring faith? No, therefore, I didn't claim what was in your strawman argument.

Saying that, "it's only my belief," and/or along those lines, is a dishonest tactic that the person is using in order to avoid having the burden of proof. What they don't realize is that, their statement is dependent on the content/context of the discussion. You didn't just state your beliefs, you made a claim that your beliefs are the truth. And what evidence do I have to support that? The evidence is your response to what I said. Instead of saying that you were merely stating your beliefs, you went ahead and gave a strawman argument to try show that i was wrong.

Dishonest comments are not hard to trace back and show what, where, why it's dishonest to the one who made it.

 

[Nivek001]

First of all, you are misrepresenting my position. I never claimed that everyone who does the challenge will get no results, did I? I only ever said that I got no results. Some people will get the results you claim. Others will get different results again. That is to be expected when your claims of God do not match reality.

Secondly, it's hypocritical of you to dismiss my experience because I've just got my word on what happened, when you are totally incapable of providing anything but your word about your claims. If someone does your challenge and they find you are wrong, will you similarly dismiss them by saying, "You can't believe them, all they've got is their word"? And yet if a person does your challenge and agrees with you, you'll hold them up as evidence that you were correct, I'm sure.

Oh, and the fact that people convert to a particular religion is not evidence that that particular religion is correct. More people are leaving their faith behind these days, yet do you consider that as evidence that atheism is correct? I doubt it.

First of all, where are you getting that I said

First of all, you are misrepresenting my position. I never claimed that everyone who does the challenge will get no results, did I? I only ever said that I got no results. Some people will get the results you claim. Others will get different results again. That is to be expected when your claims of God do not match reality.

Secondly, it's hypocritical of you to dismiss my experience because I've just got my word on what happened, when you are totally incapable of providing anything but your word about your claims. If someone does your challenge and they find you are wrong, will you similarly dismiss them by saying, "You can't believe them, all they've got is their word"? And yet if a person does your challenge and agrees with you, you'll hold them up as evidence that you were correct, I'm sure.

Oh, and the fact that people convert to a particular religion is not evidence that that particular religion is correct. More people are leaving their faith behind these days, yet do you consider that as evidence that atheism is correct? I doubt it.

And your percentage of those who will see nothing in the challenge is what? Just what percentage are you figuring when you posted:

“And no reason at all for God to hold faith so high and evidence so low, especially when he gave us the ability to use reason, and when that ability to reason has shown us so many facts and truths about the universe.”

If it’s only some without any figure in mind, why are you so into the position that it’s unlikely that one can get positive answers from acting on faith, especially when you equate humanity in general has having reason?

How is it hypocritical of me to point out that one doesn’t have to take my word for it when I cannot provide proof for the world to see but that third party can try to act on faith for themselves?

My point was that neither you or I can provide irrefutable evidence for the world to see, and yet you expect me to take your word as being of higher value than mine evidence-wise saying it’s hypocritical of me to consider otherwise? How does that make any sense?

You STILL miss the point that unlike your position, which all you gave us just your word, I keep pointing out that one does not have to take my word for it but they can find out for themselves. Since you claim that you and so many others have acted on faith and asked God in prayer and got nothing out of it, you shouldn’t have a problem with others acting on faith and seeking for answers in prayer.

However, you still insist on arguing my point claiming I am being hypocritical of dismissing your claim when I am actually putting your claim on the same level as my claim. Like I said your reading comprehension needs work. Just like you equating my point that I was not alone in my position in response to your argument about how I feel towards others who claim like you, because I am not alone in my position either, to mean that I was claiming proof that my position was correct. If I were saying that, why would I be declaring I believe instead of saying my position is fact?

Truth is truth despite how many or how few accept that truth.

 

[Nivek001]

Because it was a claim. And you reassured that it was a claim by saying.....




I said it before and I'll say it again, I don't have the burden of proof for a claim I did not make. You gave a strawman argument and demanded that I give evidence to support the claim in your strawman argument, that is a logical fallacy. Then I provided the definition for a "strawman argument," and explained why it was a strawman argument using evidence showing why it is.


This points it out.


Did I say anything about ignoring faith? No, therefore, I didn't claim what was in your strawman argument.

Saying that, "it's only my belief," and/or along those lines, is a dishonest tactic that the person is using in order to avoid having the burden of proof. What they don't realize is that, their statement is dependent on the content/context of the discussion. You didn't just state your beliefs, you made a claim that your beliefs are the truth. And what evidence do I have to support that? The evidence is your response to what I said. Instead of saying that you were merely stating your beliefs, you went ahead and gave a strawman argument to try show that i was wrong.

Dishonest comments are not hard to trace back and show what, where, why it's dishonest to the one who made it.

I’ll said it before and I’ll say it again. How does you merely saying you don’t have the burden of proof actually proves you do not have the burden of proof?

You were not indifferent or had no opinion regarding what I believe. You disagreed with what I believe. That is an opinion and you posting that opinion means you made a claim regarding what I believe.

Since you STILL have not clarified that your disagreeing with what I believe is based on your own belief then that does leave the indication that your disagreeing with what I believe is based on fact. So, where is your proof that what I believe in factually backs up your disagreeing with what I believe, which is in a God who wants us to rely on faith instead of evidence the whole world can see?

Also, you saying that what I posted was a logical fallacy does not prove that it was a logical fallacy and you defining what a strawman argument is does not automatically prove I gave a strawman argument. You have to show HOW what I posted fits the definition.

Also, HOW does you simply saying it’s a dishonest tactic to point out claiming a belief does not require proof because it’s a claim of belief prove that is the case? Because you said so and we just have to take your word for it? That’s another claim you made in which you did not state is based on your own belief, so where is your evidence?

Nothing shows how I am the one who has the burden of proof, even though I am claiming belief while you do not have that burden of proof even though what you claim is not your belief, quite like because you said so and that’s all there is to it. Now that’s reasoning for you. LOL.

It’s ridiculous to state that one doesn’t just claim belief when one states that what they believe in is the truth. What would be the point of believing in something in the first place if you did not also believe that what it is you believe in to be true?

You also did say something regarding faith BECAUSE you disagreed with what I believe in and what I believe in deals with relying on faith.

 

[night912]

I’ll said it before and I’ll say it again. How does you merely saying you don’t have the burden of proof actually proves you do not have the burden of proof?

I said it before and I'll say it again, I don't have the burden of proof for a claim I didn't make. I don't have the burden of proof for a strawman argument.

You were not indifferent or had no opinion regarding what I believe. You disagreed with what I believe. That is an opinion and you posting that opinion means you made a claim regarding what I believe.

So you agree, I made a claim that what you believe to be true, is actually not true. So why continue to whine about what we both agree on?

Since you STILL have not clarified that your disagreeing with what I believe is based on your own belief then that does leave the indication that your disagreeing with what I believe is based on fact. So, where is your proof that what I believe in factually backs up your disagreeing with what I believe, which is in a God who wants us to rely on faith instead of evidence the whole world can see?

Hebrews 11
1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is considered to be evidence.

Also, you saying that what I posted was a logical fallacy does not prove that it was a logical fallacy and you defining what a strawman argument is does not automatically prove I gave a strawman argument. You have to show HOW what I posted fits the definition.

And I already did. Where did you address my claim in your strawman argument? Nowhere.

Also, HOW does you simply saying it’s a dishonest tactic to point out claiming a belief does not require proof because it’s a claim of belief prove that is the case? Because you said so and we just have to take your word for it? That’s another claim you made in which you did not state is based on your own belief, so where is your evidence?

Demanding that I give evidence and saying that I have the burden of proof for your strawman argument is not dishonest? Now that's also being dishonest.

Nothing shows how I am the one who has the burden of proof, even though I am claiming belief while you do not have that burden of proof even though what you claim is not your belief, quite like because you said so and that’s all there is to it. Now reasoning for you. LOL.

I never said that you have the burden of proof. I said that I don't have the burden of proof for a strawman argument. Now that's some honest and logical reasoning for you.

It’s ridiculous to state that one doesn’t just claim belief when one states that what they believe in is the truth. What would be the point of believing in something in the first place if you did not also believe that what it is you believe in to be true?

Exactly. Hence why I said that you made a claim. You agree with me, so why are you whining about it?

BTW,
You just proved that you were being dishonest by saying what you said in the last paragraph. Look at what you just said and use that logic for what you said earlier.

The burden of proof lies with one who claims fact, and that is not what I claimed. I claimed what I believe to be true.

Congratulations, you just called out yourself for being dishonest.

 

[Nivek001]

I said it before and I'll say it again, I don't have the burden of proof for a claim I didn't make. I don't have the burden of proof for a strawman argument.


So you agree, I made a claim that what you believe to be true, is actually not true. So why continue to whine about what we both agree on?


Hebrews 11
1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is considered to be evidence.




And I already did. Where did you address my claim in your strawman argument? Nowhere.


Demanding that I give evidence and saying that I have the burden of proof for your strawman argument is not dishonest? Now that's also being dishonest.


I never said that you have the burden of proof. I said that I don't have the burden of proof for a strawman argument. Now that's some honest and logical reasoning for you.


Exactly. Hence why I said that you made a claim. You agree with me, so why are you whining about it?

BTW,
You just proved that you were being dishonest by saying what you said in the last paragraph. Look at what you just said and use that logic for what you said earlier.



Congratulations, you just called out yourself for being dishonest.

I’ll say it before and I’ll say it again HOW does you saying the burden of proof is not on you prove the burden of proof is not upon you if you are not claiming to believe?

HOW is my argument a strawman argument? You simply saying that it is doesn’t establish HOW.

Where did you get that I agreed that you made a claim on what I believe to be true is not actually true? You posted an opinion regarding what I believe, which also happens to be your claim regarding what I believe because an opinion is a belief.

So then we are in agreement that your conclusion is just your own opinion or belief just like my claim is based on my belief and because they are claimed beliefs and not claimed facts. Therefore, they are not subject to the burden of proof?

How does evidence not seen mean the same thing as what I pointed out regarding evidence that the whole world can see? Because you pointed to the word “evidence” and that just somehow covers every aspect of evidence even though the scripture specifically says “...evidence of things not seen”?

HOW does you saying you already did PROVES that my argument is a strawman argument? Because you said so? LOL.

You said the following regarding what I posted:

“Saying that, "it's only my belief," and/or along those lines, is a dishonest tactic that the person is using in order to avoid having the burden of proof.”

That means you are claiming that I have the burden of proof. Otherwise you wouldn’t be claiming that my claim based on belief is a dishonest tactic to avoid burden of proof.

So, while we are on this HOW is my point that my claim is based on belief a dishonest tactic and that I really do have to provide proof that my belief is not really a belief but a fact? Because you said so? LOL.

So just to be sure we are in agreement that your conclusion is based on just your belief and not on fact like mine is?

HOW does my last statement saying that the burden of proof lies with the one who claims fact and not belief prove I am being dishonest? Because you said so? LOL.

Fact = Proof the the world can see. Otherwise it’s not a fact.
Belief = No proof the world can see. If the proof was there it would not be a belief. It would be a fact.

 

[night912]

I’ll say it before and I’ll say it again HOW does you saying the burden of proof is not on you prove the burden of proof is not upon you if you are not claiming to believe?

HOW is my argument a strawman argument? You simply saying that it is doesn’t establish HOW.

Where did you get that I agreed that you made a claim on what I believe to be true is not actually true? You posted an opinion regarding what I believe, which also happens to be your claim regarding what I believe because an opinion is a belief.

So then we are in agreement that your conclusion is just your own opinion or belief just like my claim is based on my belief and because they are claimed beliefs and not claimed facts. Therefore, they are not subject to the burden of proof?

How does evidence not seen mean the same thing as what I pointed out regarding evidence that the whole world can see? Because you pointed to the word “evidence” and that just somehow covers every aspect of evidence even though the scripture specifically says “...evidence of things not seen”?

HOW does you saying you already did PROVES that my argument is a strawman argument? Because you said so? LOL.

You said the following regarding what I posted:

“Saying that, "it's only my belief," and/or along those lines, is a dishonest tactic that the person is using in order to avoid having the burden of proof.”

That means you are claiming that I have the burden of proof. Otherwise you wouldn’t be claiming that my claim based on belief is a dishonest tactic to avoid burden of proof.

So, while we are on this HOW is my point that my claim is based on belief a dishonest tactic and that I really do have to provide proof that my belief is not really a belief but a fact? Because you said so? LOL.

So just to be sure we are in agreement that your conclusion is based on just your belief and not on fact like mine is?

HOW does my last statement saying that the burden of proof lies with the one who claims fact and not belief prove I am being dishonest? Because you said so? LOL.

Fact = Proof the the world can see. Otherwise it’s not a fact.
Belief = No proof the world can see. If the proof was there it would not be a belief. It would be a fact.

Go read up on logic, specifically about the burden of proof and strawman argument fallacy before we move forward with this discussion.

 

[Nivek001]

Go read up on logic, specifically about the burden of proof and strawman argument fallacy before we move forward with this discussion.

Go try to explain HOW it is logical to conclude the burden of proof is on the one who is claiming belief to prove their belief is not a belief but is actually fact.

While your at it explain how it is you saying your proved your point actually proves your point instead of you just saying.


log·ic
/ˈläjik/
Learn to pronounce
Filter definitions by topic

See definitions in:
All
Technology
Philosophy

noun

1. 1.
   reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
   "experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic". Merriam Webster
   
   How is you saying you proven your argument that my argument is illogical a valid point when you presented no evidence to support that conclusion?
   
   
   Logical Fallacies
   Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others.
   Perdue Online Writing Lab
   
   What are the errors in my reasoning? HOW are they errors? How is my proclamation that my conclusion is based on belief not enough evidence to establish that my conclusion is based on belief?
   
   Definition of belief
   
   
   1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing her belief in God a belief in democracyI bought the table in the belief that it was an antique.contrary to popular belief
   2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed an individual's religious or political beliefsespecially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group the beliefs of the Catholic Church
   3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence belief in the validity of scientific statements
   Merriam Webster
   
   opinion
   noun
   
   opin·ion | \ ə-ˈpin-yən \
   Definition of opinion
   
   
   1a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter We asked them for their opinionsabout the new stadium.
   b: APPROVAL, ESTEEMI have no great opinion of his work.
   2a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge a person of rigid opinions
   b: a generally held view news programs that shape public opinion
   3a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert My doctor says that I need an operation, but I'm going to get a second opinion.
   b: the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based The article discusses the recent Supreme Court opinion.
   
   
   Straw Man Fallacy
   A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.
   Excelsior Online Writing Lab
   
   How is the following an exaggeration or a distortion?
   
   Fact = Supporting evidence (Burden of Proof)
   
   Belief= Something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion :
   
   Opinion does not = Evidence the world can see as as being a requirement.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

 

[night912]

Go try to explain HOW it is logical to conclude the burden of proof is on the one who is claiming belief to prove their belief is not a belief but is actually fact.

While your at it explain how it is you saying your proved your point actually proves your point instead of you just saying.


log·ic
/ˈläjik/
Learn to pronounce
Filter definitions by topic

See definitions in:
All
Technology
Philosophy

noun

1. 1.
   reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
   "experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic". Merriam Webster
   
   How is you saying you proven your argument that my argument is illogical a valid point when you presented no evidence to support that conclusion?
   
   
   Logical Fallacies
   Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others.
   Perdue Online Writing Lab
   
   What are the errors in my reasoning? HOW are they errors? How is my proclamation that my conclusion is based on belief not enough evidence to establish that my conclusion is based on belief?
   
   Definition of belief
   
   
   1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing her belief in God a belief in democracyI bought the table in the belief that it was an antique.contrary to popular belief
   2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed an individual's religious or political beliefsespecially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group the beliefs of the Catholic Church
   3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence belief in the validity of scientific statements
   Merriam Webster
   
   opinion
   noun
   
   opin·ion | \ ə-ˈpin-yən \
   Definition of opinion
   
   
   1a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter We asked them for their opinionsabout the new stadium.
   b: APPROVAL, ESTEEMI have no great opinion of his work.
   2a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge a person of rigid opinions
   b: a generally held view news programs that shape public opinion
   3a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert My doctor says that I need an operation, but I'm going to get a second opinion.
   b: the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based The article discusses the recent Supreme Court opinion.
   
   
   Straw Man Fallacy
   A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.
   Excelsior Online Writing Lab
   
   How is the following an exaggeration or a distortion?
   
   Fact = Supporting evidence (Burden of Proof)
   
   Belief= Something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion :
   
   Opinion does not = Evidence the world can see as as being a requirement.
   
   
   
   
   
   

Rambling that doesn't address what I said, won't dismiss your dishonesty or your ignorance of logic. In FACT, the more you continue with your rambling, the more you evidence you show your dishonesty and ignorance.

So you're going on my ignore list.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’ll say it before and I’ll say it again HOW does you saying the burden of proof is not on you prove the burden of proof is not upon you if you are not claiming to believe?

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.

 

[Nivek001]

Ra

Rambling that doesn't address what I said, won't dismiss your dishonesty or your ignorance of logic. In FACT, the more you continue with your rambling, the more you evidence you show your dishonesty and ignorance.

So you're going on my ignore list.

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.