Why I am a good proof that there is a God

[74x12]

Seeing something that isn't there is not the same as not seeing something that isn't there.

Well you're assuming the point here. You're already claiming that it is or isn't there. That's a form of circular reasoning.

To use the Black Cat Analogy...
Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.
Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there.
Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there, and claiming you found it.
Science is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat by turning the light on.

Cool story. God is light and in him is no darkness at all.

 

[74x12]

I seriously doubt if you do. In fact you do not even appear to understand who the burden of proof is upon. The burden of proof is upon those claiming that God exists.

Not necessarily. You're claiming I'm delusional right? I'm okay with that. I don't care. But, your claim needs proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well you're assuming the point here. You're already claiming that it is or isn't there. That's a form of circular reasoning.

No. You may misunderstand. When someone cannot provide evidence the proper way to treat claims is as if they are false. It does not necessarily mean that they are false, but history tells us they they probabaly are.

Cool story. God is light and in him is no darkness at all.

Cool story. Too bad that you cannot seem to provide any evidence for it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not necessarily. You're claiming I'm delusional right? I'm okay with that. I don't care. But, your claim needs proof.

Did I say that? No, you are merely misinterpreting events. You appear to have no evidence for your beliefs. If you seriously believe that you talked to God and he talked back it is rather easy to show that claim is very very probably wrong.

 

[74x12]

Did I say that? No, you are merely misinterpreting events. You appear to have no evidence for your beliefs. If you seriously believe that you talked to God and he talked back it is rather easy to show that claim is very very probably wrong.

Any such claim would be mere opinion and not what I would accept.

 

[74x12]

So is everything you can't see a delusion, or is it just the diety you want to believe you see, but can demsonrate no objective evidence for? What about mermaids. dragons and unicorns, one assumes you don't see these? Are you deluded about that?

Hilarious...

Yes it is hilarious. I took his own argument and used it from my perspective. It's a pointless argument and just as ridiculous from either side. You only speak and understand from your own perspectives.

 

[KWED]

I’ll be your son. I need a Dad.

Go tidy your room!

 

[KWED]

I do understand the concept of evidence. I'm waiting for atheists to present their evidence that what I see is just delusion and doesn't exist. That's what has been claimed so far.

The argument is that hearing disembodied voices in your head that you believe are gods or other external sources is better explained by psychotic episode than by a god (for whom there is no evidence) talking to you.

I feel like that one guy who ended up in the land of the blind and they thought his eyes needed to be removed. Weird bulbous protrusions on his face that made him delusional; he talked about things like sunlight and other bizarre things. Maybe it's just cancer or something. Get rid of them!

Are you ok?

 

[KWED]

Well you're assuming the point here. You're already claiming that it is or isn't there. That's a form of circular reasoning.

Not so.
As far as evidence and rational argument are concerned, there is nothing there. There may be something there, but it is indistinguishable from nothing.
Therefore it is entirely reasonable to see nothing there.
If you claim that you do see something there, you are required to provide some evidence for it. Otherwise your claim can be dismissed.

IOW, I have walked into the dark room and turned the light on. I see no black cat.
You are standing next to me claiming that you can see a black cat.
Therefore you need to point to the black cat.

 

[74x12]

You created an unevidenced subcategory of "blind people" from your group of all people, in order to preserve your claim all people should clearly see god, against the testimony of others that they do not. That could not be a clearer example of a no true Scotsman fallacy. I don't know whether you really can't see that, or are being deliberately obtuse.

No that's just abuse and over use of the no true scotsman's fallacy. Typical atheist.

I'll give you an example of a real no true scotsman's fallacy and then a false one.

real example:
I say no bicycle is red.
You say: I have a red bicycle.
I say it's not a true bicycle.

So clearly a bicycle can be red. So of course it's false that no true bicycle is red. Because being a certain color is not an integral part of being a bicycle. In fact it's irrelevant to being a bicycle. That's a real no true Scotsman's fallacy because color was not an integral element of being a bicycle.

But if I were to say no true bicycle has more than two wheels because then why is it called a "bi" cycle? Then, that's not a no true scotsman's fallacy. Because I bring up a legitimate question of definitions. Is it debatable? Maybe, because someone might claim that definitions of bicycles have changed. But they can't accuse me of a no true scotsman's fallacy. That's out of the question.

The unevidenced assumptions you are adding, that a vastly complex and unknowable deity using inexplicable magic, is a less complicated scenario using less unevidenced assumptions, than acknowledging that we don't know something, is risible. You're on the wrong side of Occam's razor, whether you realise it or not, though it's hard to believe anyone can not grasp something that obvious.

I'm sure you believe that that but I don't. I meant from my perspective I am on the right side of Occam's razor. Not that I think Occam's razor is infallible anyway.

I have never made any such claim. Atheism is not a claim, it is the lack or absence of belief in one claim.

From my perspective it's a claim and I reject it.

You have demonstrated no objective evidence for your no true Scotsman assumption that I am blind. Posing it as a question is therefore meaningless, as it gets the same epistemological response, what objective evidence, beyond pure irrational assumption, can you demonstrate for the claim?

What evidence? I can't show you anything. You won't see it. You're blind and can't see.

 

[Sheldon]

ell you're assuming the point here. You're already claiming that it is or isn't there. That's a form of circular reasoning.

Except that's not what he said, he premised the difference between the two claims.

Seeing something that isn't there is not the same as not seeing something that isn't there.

You are claiming not seeing something is a delusions, so is everything you don't see a delusion? People claim to have seen mermaids, are you deluded or do you see them as well? Your rationale seems ludicrous here. It is of course yet another attempt by a theists to reverse the burden of proof.

 

[Sheldon]

No that's just abuse and over use of the no true scotsman's fallacy. Typical atheist.

Hand waving, it was a no true Scotsman fallacy. Abuse, what on earth are you talking about?

I'm sure you believe that that but I don't. I meant from my perspective I am on the right side of Occam's razor. Not that I think Occam's razor is infallible anyway.

More hand waving. Ocam's razor posits that explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more. Yours is adding a vastly complex unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic, quod erat demonstrandum.

From my perspective it's a claim and I reject it.

Now you're contradicting the dictionary, atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deity, expending energy on this kind of sophistry and semantics, just shows how desperate a theist is to distract attention from their "empty bag".

What evidence? I can't show you anything.

Finally, for someone who has nothing to offer you took a long painful time to say it.

You're blind and can't see.

That's just the same no true Scotsman fallacy trimmed down.

You: Everyone can see a deity.

Atheist: I can't see a deity.

You: atheists are blind.

Note the subcategory introduced to preserve the original claim.

 

[74x12]

Not so.
As far as evidence and rational argument are concerned, there is nothing there. There may be something there, but it is indistinguishable from nothing.
Therefore it is entirely reasonable to see nothing there.

But you are saying you do see. That's the problem.

If you claim that you do see something there, you are required to provide some evidence for it. Otherwise your claim can be dismissed.

Then dismiss it.

 

[Sheldon]

Well you're assuming the point here. You're already claiming that it is or isn't there. That's a form of circular reasoning.

So do you assume everything you can't see is there until someone proves the contrary?

I'm dubious, and that argument is now coming perilously close to an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Any such claim would be mere opinion and not what I would accept.

Which tells us that you are not reasoning rationally. You do not even know the methodology used and you are already denying it. And it also confirms that your belief is not rational either. If your belief is wrong you just said that you would keep believing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes it is hilarious. I took his own argument and used it from my perspective. It's a pointless argument and just as ridiculous from either side. You only speak and understand from your own perspectives.

But you didn't. You only demonstrated that you did not understand the argument.

You failed.

 

[74x12]

Which tells us that you are not reasoning rationally. You do not even know the methodology used and you are already denying it. And it also confirms that your belief is not rational either. If your belief is wrong you just said that you would keep believing.

You have insisted that every claim should be rejected as false; unless it has proof. Now you say I should just accept your opinion. At least be consistent.

 

[74x12]

Finally, for someone who has nothing to offer you took a long painful time to say it.

Show you what? You're blind. What will you see?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have insisted that every claim should be rejected as false; unless it has proof. Now you say I should just accept your opinion. At least be consistent.

"Rejected" is a bit harsh. And no, what is needed is evidence not "proof" but then you probably do not understand either concept. Would you accept the fact that I have an invisible blue dragon in my garage without evidence? If not why not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Show you what? You're blind. What will you see?

Now, now, No false accusations. You can get in trouble for that. If you claim that he is blind you are taking on a burden of proof. How will you prove that he is blind? And you do not get to assume that your beliefs are correct.