Positive proof?

Holy Crap!
Post Reply
User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 39911
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu Jul 02, 2015 12:14 pm

Seth wrote:
JimC wrote:
Seth wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:You can't prove that a supernatural god doesn't exist. That's what BG is properly referring to.
Begging the question fallacy. Your argument fails on the premise that "god" is "supernatural," a claim for which you have absolutely zero evidence in support of but which you assume is true as a premise of your argument. That's pure tautology.
Theists themselves insist that their god is supernatural, by any reasonable definition of the word; they assert he is not bound by the natural laws of the universe.
According to them. Why would you build an argument on such a silly premise?
If 'you' means Jim, then he isn't building an argument on supernaturalism, but characterising the object of certain types of claim made on the behalf of supernatural agents by theist (etc). If 'you' means atheists, then ditto.

Defining a claimed-for thing as 'supernatural', that is; 'beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature; beyond comprehension or perception', does not oblige the rational individual to withhold a conclusion about the claim, and if you think otherwise then you've simply failed to demonstrate exactly why unevidenced claims for supernatural agents or entities are essentially different to all other kinds of unevidenced claim, such that they carry the necessary rational burden of an evidenced dismissal.
So, if atheists are to look at the issue, we can hardly be blamed for using the definition supplied by believers...
Of course you can be blamed. You're not supposed to be an idiot, you're supposed to be a rational being capable of making rational and logical arguments. That you would accept such a claim as a premise for any sort of argument is an insult to reason.
But generally atheists are not making a claim about God or gods ,whatever you say, they generally withhold proportioning assent to the claims of theism (etc) - which renders them 'atheist' by common convention.

"There are no deities" is not a position in itself, for it first requires some claim or claims for a deity or deities. Similarly, "There are no supernatural agents" is not a proposition that can be rationally taken to stand alone, divorced from the context of claims for supernatural agents. You're implementation of another double-standard sees you regularly applying a rhetorical wedge between statements made with reference to a particular realm of discourse (context), and the context itself.

Now while this, along with the erection of spurious discursive conditions, may be techniques expounded in various tracts on the art of always being right, employing them is neither rational nor logical, or even concerned with those concepts as applied to honest discourse, and does neither you or your argument any favours.

Jimc wrote:

Show me where on the forum any atheist has alleged that. Even when talking about a very nasty religion indeed, with an active, murderous small minority (Islam), most of us would support the contention that a large majority of muslims are just ordinary folk, who do not wish harm on others. Even if one thinks or says that their belief system is deluded, it is not saying that they are bad people.
Seth wrote:

Oh horseshit. Attacking theists, particularly Christians, and especially Catholics is a regular pastime here and you know it.
Attacking the belief system, sure. Attacking the hierarchy of the catholic church for its appalling inaction about child abuse, sure (and note that such a critique is done just as vigorously by mainstream catholics and secular authorities)

But generalised attacks on theists or catholics? I think not...
I think so.
Then point it out, so that we can assess whether your categorisation is a reasonable one. Surely, failing to afford people's ideas, beliefs and opinions automatic respect is not something you would insist applies to the religious individual but should not be applied to the atheist? That would be applying a double-standard, yet again.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13756
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Where ever you are, Goethe was a Poet.
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by rainbow » Thu Jul 02, 2015 1:58 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:
rainbow wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:Lol, what the fuck are you on about?
Would you accept as evidence for God the testimony of people that have "felt the power of the Holy Spirit"?

If not, why not?
What does this have to do the logical inability to prove a supernatural god doesn't exist, or that you logically can prove that something exists?
Nothing, since we've shown that to be nonsense and moved on.

How about answering the questions?
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60702
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Jul 02, 2015 2:14 pm

Um, no "we" haven't proved that to be nonsense. You've had a troll, and think you are clever or something. If you need a refresher on logic, just let us know and one of us will school you.

Answer the question? I don't think so, troll. The question has nothing to do with what we were discussing. It's just another attempt by you to troll. Address the points already made and then perhaps we will answer your "questions".
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 39911
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu Jul 02, 2015 4:38 pm

Seth wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote: For one, that's a blind assertion from a self-serving and partisan definition which does not fit the general theistic view that God (the national deity of the ancient Israelites) is a personal being who acts as a participatory agent in the material world. And for two, Huxley knew what he meant.
And Huxley's trumpeting of the Atheist's Fallacy makes his argument valid how, exactly?
Slicing your own words off the top of the post to make it appear as if you retort had something to do with the matter at hand, eh?

What you said was....
Seth wrote:Huxley's construct fails on the premise that God is unknowable because God is not a "material phenomenon,"...
Which is a blind assertion that presumes it's conclusion: the existence of God as a non-material phenomenon. But, moreover, you've ignored the point, which is that Huxley wasn't offering a description or definition of God, but responding to those who asserted knowledge of God.
Seth wrote:... which is not a rational conclusion because a) he bases his presumption on human descriptions of God(s)...
Er, what other kind of description can there be
A true one based in scientific observation and analysis of course...
So that would mean we should be relying only on a human science description of God(s) then?. Could you perhaps furnish us with such a scientific description of God(s), or at least tell us how one would be possible?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 39911
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu Jul 02, 2015 5:13 pm

Seth wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:Now that the red herrings have been filleted, if you'd care to address the topic at hand, and along with it my charge, that your requirement of an evidenced dismissal to an un-evidenced claim as being a rational obligation for validating any such dismissal, and that this should form the basis of a normative epistemic practice, is bunkum, then I await your reply in earnest and eager anticipation.
Now THAT is a strawman argument. Once again, it's not about "dismissal" of anything. You may dismiss anything you like as unevidenced, just as anybody else can. But dismissal by you does not provide even a shred of actual critically robust evidence supporting a conclusion that your dismissal equates to the non-existence or falsity of the dismissed claim. It's just your opinion, which like your asshole, everyone has.
It can't be a strawman if in responding to my remarks you describe or define exactly what I was saying - which you did. You are proposing a normative epistemic practice - time to bully up.

You're erecting another double standard here, obliging atheists to provide some kind of evidence for the non-existence of a claimed-for entity, and declaring this a rational condition by which you will personally validate any atheist's rational dismissal of the claims - except, of course, you cannot and will not validate any rational dismissals of god-claims because you scrupulously avoid providing any rational basis by which that which is claimed-for without evidence can be dismissed evidentially. What evidence can we hope to provide to prove the non-existence of an unevidenced but claimed for thing?

So, declaring that claims for supernatural agents cannot be rationally dismissed on a lack of evidence, but that atheists conclusions thereon can be, and indeed should be, rationally dismissed on a lack of evidence, is a double-standard plain and true.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by Seth » Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:43 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:
Seth wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:You can't prove that a supernatural god doesn't exist. That's what BG is properly referring to.
Begging the question fallacy. Your argument fails on the premise that "god" is "supernatural," a claim for which you have absolutely zero evidence in support of but which you assume is true as a premise of your argument. That's pure tautology.
Um no, actually your rebuttal is begging the question. I don't claim god is anything as I don't contend that god exists. But God in almost all religions is defined as a supernatural being. Most certainly so in Christianity, Islam and Judaism. BG is clearly referring to those. There's no begging the question. He's referring to a pre-defined god.
Atheist's Fallacy incarnate.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by Seth » Fri Jul 03, 2015 12:02 am

Brian Peacock wrote: If 'you' means Jim, then he isn't building an argument on supernaturalism, but characterising the object of certain types of claim made on the behalf of supernatural agents by theist (etc). If 'you' means atheists, then ditto.

Defining a claimed-for thing as 'supernatural', that is; 'beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature; beyond comprehension or perception', does not oblige the rational individual to withhold a conclusion about the claim, and if you think otherwise then you've simply failed to demonstrate exactly why unevidenced claims for supernatural agents or entities are essentially different to all other kinds of unevidenced claim, such that they carry the necessary rational burden of an evidenced dismissal.
You're confusing counterclaim with dismissal again. If someone says that God is "beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature; beyond comprehension or perception" it is perfectly rational to dismiss the claim and move on. What is not rational is to argue (either explicitly or implicitly) that because (according to science) nothing is beyond scientific understanding, outside of the laws of nature or beyond comprehension, therefore a god so described cannot and does not exist. This is a tautological construct and therefore irrational.
So, if atheists are to look at the issue, we can hardly be blamed for using the definition supplied by believers...
Of course you can be blamed. You're not supposed to be an idiot, you're supposed to be a rational being capable of making rational and logical arguments. That you would accept such a claim as a premise for any sort of argument is an insult to reason.
But generally atheists are not making a claim about God or gods ,whatever you say, they generally withhold proportioning assent to the claims of theism (etc) - which renders them 'atheist' by common convention.
We disagree. My long, long, loooong experience with "...therefore God does not exist" emerging from the mouths and keyboards of Atheists convinces me otherwise. The only time the vast, vast majority of Atheists qualify their above statement is when they are directly challenged regarding their logic and reason, as I am doing here. And my take on that is that it's a convenient "who? Me? Not ME!" evasion when someone gets caught making such claims, pretty much just exactly like you are doing right now.
"There are no deities" is not a position in itself, for it first requires some claim or claims for a deity or deities.
Don't be ridiculous, it is exactly and precisely a "position" and a positive claim about the non-existence of deities.
Similarly, "There are no supernatural agents" is not a proposition that can be rationally taken to stand alone, divorced from the context of claims for supernatural agents.


Incorrect. See above.

But, presuming arguendo that "there are no deities" and "there are no supernatural agents" are responses to a claim that deities or supernatural agents exist, you're still wrong because the positive assertion "there are no..." is a counterclaim which necessarily demands critically robust evidence to support it. Without such evidence in support, it becomes just as irrational a statement as the original claim.
You're implementation of another double-standard sees you regularly applying a rhetorical wedge between statements made with reference to a particular realm of discourse (context), and the context itself.


It's not a double standard, it's a single, unified and widely accepted standard of logic and reason. If I call you on imprecise use of language when you meant something different, it's up to you to make the correction to your rhetoric. My duty is to analyze your statements for logical and rational strength and consistency and be critical when you fail to achieve the basic standards of rational discourse.
Now while this, along with the erection of spurious discursive conditions, may be techniques expounded in various tracts on the art of always being right, employing them is neither rational nor logical, or even concerned with those concepts as applied to honest discourse, and does neither you or your argument any favours.
It's not my fault if you cannot form a rational argument, and I am under no obligation to overlook that faulty reasoning. Look upon it as a favor to you and your rhetorical skills. If you can formulate an argument that I cannot find a flaw in, you're doing things correctly. If you can't, then take the opportunity to examine your own arguments and discover how they might be strengthened and improved.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by Seth » Fri Jul 03, 2015 12:04 am

rEvolutionist wrote:Um, no "we" haven't proved that to be nonsense. You've had a troll, and think you are clever or something. If you need a refresher on logic, just let us know and one of us will school you.
This should be highly amusing! Didact away my good man!
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74133
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by JimC » Fri Jul 03, 2015 12:14 am

Seth wrote:

But, presuming arguendo that "there are no deities" and "there are no supernatural agents" are responses to a claim that deities or supernatural agents exist, you're still wrong because the positive assertion "there are no..." is a counterclaim which necessarily demands critically robust evidence to support it. Without such evidence in support, it becomes just as irrational a statement as the original claim.
Believers in a particular god claim with absolute certainty that their particular god exists. In most cases, they also claim that all humans should believe in that god, as well as following the laws of that religion, and that failing to do so has undesirable consequences, up to and including hell fire.

As everybody here tells you with monotonous regularity, atheists do not claim with absolute certainty that a god, whether generalised or specific, does not exist. We simply do not include ourselves as part of the group of people who have an active belief that a god in general (or, much more often, a god with very specific properties) exists, and needs to be worshipped.

The two positions are not logically equivalent at all.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by Seth » Fri Jul 03, 2015 12:21 am

JimC wrote:
Seth wrote:

But, presuming arguendo that "there are no deities" and "there are no supernatural agents" are responses to a claim that deities or supernatural agents exist, you're still wrong because the positive assertion "there are no..." is a counterclaim which necessarily demands critically robust evidence to support it. Without such evidence in support, it becomes just as irrational a statement as the original claim.
Believers in a particular god claim with absolute certainty that their particular god exists. In most cases, they also claim that all humans should believe in that god, as well as following the laws of that religion, and that failing to do so has undesirable consequences, up to and including hell fire.
And you give a rat's ass what they say why, exactly? How is their irrationality and unreason justification for yours? Aren't you better than that?
As everybody here tells you with monotonous regularity, atheists do not claim with absolute certainty that a god, whether generalised or specific, does not exist. We simply do not include ourselves as part of the group of people who have an active belief that a god in general (or, much more often, a god with very specific properties) exists, and needs to be worshipped.

The two positions are not logically equivalent at all.
If what you say were even remotely true I'd agree, but it's not.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74133
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by JimC » Fri Jul 03, 2015 12:47 am

Seth wrote:

And you give a rat's ass what they say why, exactly? How is their irrationality and unreason justification for yours? Aren't you better than that?
What an utterly meaningless statement. There are several reasons why it might be useful to care about their position. One is that, in many cases, they make assertions about the nature of the material world that are demonstrably false, and deserve to be countered. Another is that they have the arrogance to assert that their putative deity wants me to worship him. I have every right to dispute assertions made that supposedly affect me. Other than that, are you claiming that all adherents of religion are irrational? A rather broad generalisation, that even Richard Dawkins may hesitate to make...
Seth wrote:

If what you say were even remotely true I'd agree, but it's not.
I presume you are referring to this:

"atheists do not claim with absolute certainty that a god, whether generalised or specific, does not exist"

The vast majority of atheists on this forum who bother to argue with you say this, or words to that effect, over and over again. Not believing in a god is not logically the same as an assertion that one is certain that no god exists.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60702
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by pErvinalia » Fri Jul 03, 2015 3:02 am

Seth wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Seth wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:You can't prove that a supernatural god doesn't exist. That's what BG is properly referring to.
Begging the question fallacy. Your argument fails on the premise that "god" is "supernatural," a claim for which you have absolutely zero evidence in support of but which you assume is true as a premise of your argument. That's pure tautology.
Um no, actually your rebuttal is begging the question. I don't claim god is anything as I don't contend that god exists. But God in almost all religions is defined as a supernatural being. Most certainly so in Christianity, Islam and Judaism. BG is clearly referring to those. There's no begging the question. He's referring to a pre-defined god.
Atheist's Fallacy incarnate.
Made Up Fallacy fallacy.

BG is referring to a supernatural god. Therefore it's perfectly accurate to discuss the logical process involved in proving or disproving supernatural gods. What you are on about, only God (supernatural or not) knows.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 39911
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Jul 03, 2015 5:22 am

Seth wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote: If 'you' means Jim, then he isn't building an argument on supernaturalism, but characterising the object of certain types of claim made on the behalf of supernatural agents by theist (etc). If 'you' means atheists, then ditto.

Defining a claimed-for thing as 'supernatural', that is; 'beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature; beyond comprehension or perception', does not oblige the rational individual to withhold a conclusion about the claim, and if you think otherwise then you've simply failed to demonstrate exactly why unevidenced claims for supernatural agents or entities are essentially different to all other kinds of unevidenced claim, such that they carry the necessary rational burden of an evidenced dismissal.
You're confusing counterclaim with dismissal again...
You are conflating the dismissal of a specific claim with a claim in its own right.
Seth wrote:... If someone says that God is "beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature; beyond comprehension or perception" it is perfectly rational to dismiss the claim and move on. What is not rational is to argue (either explicitly or implicitly) that because (according to science) nothing is beyond scientific understanding, outside of the laws of nature or beyond comprehension, therefore a god so described cannot and does not exist. This is a tautological construct and therefore irrational.
The anatomy of this claim runs like this:
  1. God exists (as a supernatural entity of some sort or kind) beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature; beyond comprehension or perception.
  2. if the claim cannot be said to be true then it can be said to be false, under the logical principle that not-true = false.
  3. it is perfectly rational to dismiss the claim if it relies on a blind assertion (Brian Peacock) and/or relies on a circular definition (Seth).
  4. the claim relies on a blind assertion and a circular definition (3).
  5. The claim cannot be said to be true (4), therefore;
    • Theist: maintains belief in the claim (by faith, or necessity, or social obligation or tradition, or whatever) negating (2)(3)(4)(5).
      Atheist: disbelieves the claims because:
      1. (5), therefore;
      2. Conclusion: (to all intents and purposes) God does not exist.
No counter-claim is needed or has been issued. The atheist's conclusion is 'perfectly' rational an logical within the context of the claim, and only within that context. The conclusion does not touch on the actual-factual existence of God, but dismisses the claim in its own terms, which justifies opposing (dissenting/negating/rejecting) the claim. To divorce the conclusion from that context by declaration (semantic sleight-of-hand; strawmanning) or by simple misapprehension is a failure in reasoning which renders any and all subsequent, dependent arguments invalid.
Seth wrote:What is not rational is to argue (either explicitly or implicitly) that because (according to science) nothing is beyond scientific understanding, outside of the laws of nature or beyond comprehension, therefore a god so described cannot and does not exist. This is a tautological construct and therefore irrational.
This is not a specifically scientific definition of 'supernatural', just a general one taken from an online dictionary. Science does not generally maintain, as you suggest here, there are no things which are not beyond its understanding. In fact, science admits that there are many things beyond its understanding, either currently or potentially, but that does not render those things, as you again suggest here, necessarily 'supernatural'. What science and reasonable people do not admit is that a blind assertion for the existence of a thing, which is, by definition, "beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature; beyond comprehension or perception" is a good reason to proportion assent to a claim for that thing's existence.

Your position is epistemologically challenged. By your lights, we may grant the existence of a thing (provisionally) on the grounds that not being able to demonstrate the thing's existence does not mean the thing itself does not exist - does not touch on the actual-factual extant status of the the thing itself. But your argument goes further to propose a particular epistemic normativity, that is; you go beyond a plain admission that, in a particular realm of enquiry, 'we know what we do not know'. You maintain a global thesis that we cannot foreclose on any unevidenced claim to knowledge as the nature of the claim (unevidneced) says nothing about the extant status (the existence, or not) of the thing claimed-for unless we can demonstrate evidentially that the thing which is claimed-for does not exist. This is called shifting the burden. And it is shifting the burden because it requires a level justification of dissentors which is not required of claimants. In this particular realm it acts an an injunction against atheists coming to a reasonable conclusion about god-claims on the grounds that 'atheists cannot even know what they do not know' in the face of assertions for something which is, by definition, beyond knowing. The upshot of this is that defining something as essentially unknowable is now no bar to knowledge, that is; defining something as essentially and fundamentally unknowable ('supernatural') can now act as a legitimate justification for a claim to knowledge - and the justification for this epistemic practice is the defined unknowable nature of the claimed-for thing. This is called Feathering one's nest. And it is nest feathering because it is a formulation that serves the claimant alone, immunising their justification against, and insulating it from, the reasonable, rational, logical challenges of others while foreclosing on any and all dismissal.
Seth wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:
Seth wrote:
So, if atheists are to look at the issue, we can hardly be blamed for using the definition supplied by believers...
Of course you can be blamed. You're not supposed to be an idiot, you're supposed to be a rational being capable of making rational and logical arguments. That you would accept such a claim as a premise for any sort of argument is an insult to reason.
But generally atheists are not making a claim about God or gods ,whatever you say, they generally withhold proportioning assent to the claims of theism (etc) - which renders them 'atheist' by common convention.
We disagree. My long, long, loooong experience with "...therefore God does not exist" emerging from the mouths and keyboards of Atheists convinces me otherwise.
So your argument is your say-so. But that does not, and did not, address the point...
Seth wrote:The only time the vast, vast majority of Atheists qualify their above statement is when they are directly challenged regarding their logic and reason, as I am doing here. And my take on that is that it's a convenient "who? Me? Not ME!" evasion when someone gets caught making such claims, pretty much just exactly like you are doing right now.
Again, your say-so is not an argument.

Atheists qualify their justification for not proportioning assent to the claims of theists (etc) all the time. What you have slipped into is divorcing what they offer by way of justification from the context of the claim, in an effort to make a conclusion about the claims of others stand as a claims in their own rights. Your 'challenges' regarding the logic and reason of withholding assent to god-claims are therefore invalid, because they address the conclusion as a claim rather than addressing the reasons for arriving at that conclusion - the justification of the claim itself. As I have already said...
First comes the claim; then the deliberation thereof; then the conclusion thereon. If the claim cannot be said to be true it can be said to be false, under the logical principle that not-true = false, until or unless something else is brought to the claim's justification.
The context of the conclusion is the claim itself. By all means challenge the reasons for atheist arriving at that conclusion, as that will invariably focus on the robustness of the justification for the claim itself, but to declare the atheists conclusion errant ('illogical and irrational) simply because it does not proportion assent to the claim, or to declare that conclusion an unjustified claim itself, or to assert that such a conclusion is not and cannot be rationally justified, is a failure in reasoning which renders any subsequent, dependent arguments invalid
Seth wrote:
"There are no deities" is not a position in itself, for it first requires some claim or claims for a deity or deities.
Don't be ridiculous, it is exactly and precisely a "position" and a positive claim about the non-existence of deities.
Show how such a declaration as "There are no deities" can ever stand as a claim in its own right in the absence of any claim to the effect that "Deities exist" and you might have a point.

Again, you are divorcing a conclusion about a claim from the context of the claim itself (as well as divorcing the sentence above from the general point!). After all, it is not a conclusion plucked from thin air is it(?). It is a "position" (as you put) with reference to a particular claim made within a particular realm of enquiry. I fear you must address this head on if you wish to progress your argument.
Seth wrote:
Similarly, "There are no supernatural agents" is not a proposition that can be rationally taken to stand alone, divorced from the context of claims for supernatural agents.

Incorrect. See above.
Again, your say-so is not an adequate justification.
Seth wrote:But, presuming arguendo that "there are no deities" and "there are no supernatural agents" are responses to a claim that deities or supernatural agents exist, you're still wrong because the positive assertion "there are no..." is a counterclaim which necessarily demands critically robust evidence to support it. Without such evidence in support, it becomes just as irrational a statement as the original claim.
You are divorcing the conclusion from the context of the claim, and relying on a semantic sleight-of-hand (strawmanning) to support your case. It is absolutely implicit, in referencing the conclusion on a claim, that "there are no..." does not entail a positive assertion but a dismissal/negation/rejection of a particular claim within a particular realm.
Seth wrote:
You're implementation of another double-standard sees you regularly applying a rhetorical wedge between statements made with reference to a particular realm of discourse (context), and the context itself.


It's not a double standard, it's a single, unified and widely accepted standard of logic and reason. If I call you on imprecise use of language when you meant something different, it's up to you to make the correction to your rhetoric. My duty is to analyze your statements for logical and rational strength and consistency and be critical when you fail to achieve the basic standards of rational discourse.
It is a double-standard precisely because you drive a wedge between a claim and the conclusion thereon.

If your are to maintain your claim to be engaging in rational discourse, it is your duty to meet the challenges of others also, not to simply declare them errant by dint of a failure to accept your self-asserted position as the sole arbiter of reason and logic. Please address the points as made rather than recasting them to suit your argument alone. This is called intellectual honesty, and without it rational discourse cannot proceed.

You maintain that the atheist's conclusion on the claims of theists (etc) is a stand-alone claim that requires specific and particular justification.
I challenge that by maintaining that the atheist conclusion about the claims of theists (etc) is:
  1. only 'rational and logical' in the context of that specific types of claim, and
  2. cannot therefore be considered an independent claim itself - as without the claims of theists (etc) no atheistic conclusion would be forthcoming, or required and, more generally, any declaration to the effect that some un-claimed-for thing did not exist would have no 'rational and logical' basis; it would be incoherent, effectively meaningless.
Seth wrote:
Now while this, along with the erection of spurious discursive conditions, may be techniques expounded in various tracts on the art of always being right, employing them is neither rational nor logical, or even concerned with those concepts as applied to honest discourse, and does neither you or your argument any favours.
It's not my fault if you cannot form a rational argument, and I am under no obligation to overlook that faulty reasoning. Look upon it as a favor to you and your rhetorical skills. If you can formulate an argument that I cannot find a flaw in, you're doing things correctly. If you can't, then take the opportunity to examine your own arguments and discover how they might be strengthened and improved.
I do not hold you responsible for my failings, only for your own, and we might even cover some ground on this basis if it wasn't apparent that your chief concern is being seen to be correct on all matters.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13756
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Where ever you are, Goethe was a Poet.
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by rainbow » Fri Jul 03, 2015 7:30 am

rEvolutionist wrote:Um, no "we" haven't proved that to be nonsense.
Prove it!
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60702
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Positive proof?

Post by pErvinalia » Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:07 am

Fuck off troll.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests