PoE isn't a positive argument for atheism. It's an argument that if god exists he's a shithead.

Mick wrote:The opposing side would have to offer evidence if they took the position that such three-headed goblins do not exist. Typically, fellas, I'd agree with you on this. but the context of the debate and question demands the opposing side support a negative existential claim. There's no presumption in their favour.

I'm not too sure what the point of the PIU is, since i'm not in a debate and i'm not trying to show anything to be the case. heck, i could disbelief it for some entirely fallacious reason. who cares? it's besides the point.

Am I the only one having a problem interpreting that?

Thommo wrote:PoE isn't a positive argument for atheism. It's an argument that if god exists he's a shithead.

Well, yes, if the PoE is correct, then that conditional is true. But the idea of 'God' here is that he has certain attributes which are incompatible with being a shithead. Thus, even the theist will allow: if God is a shithead, then God doesnt exist. Hence, the two premises where the pronoun 'he' refers to god is this:

if god exists, then he's a shithead.
if god is a shithead, then he doesn't exist.

yields:

thence, if god exists, then god does not exist.
therefore if god doesnt exist then god doesnt exist.
god doesnt exist.

This is an argument for atheism under the presupposition that theism pertain to monotheistic god of the abrahamic faith which has dominated Western philosophy.

MrGray wrote:

Mick wrote:The opposing side would have to offer evidence if they took the position that such three-headed goblins do not exist. Typically, fellas, I'd agree with you on this. but the context of the debate and question demands the opposing side support a negative existential claim. There's no presumption in their favour.

I'm not too sure what the point of the PIU is, since i'm not in a debate and i'm not trying to show anything to be the case. heck, i could disbelief it for some entirely fallacious reason. who cares? it's besides the point.

Am I the only one having a problem interpreting that?

Sorry, i wrote that quickly.

Basically I said this:

I affirmed that the opposing side to the existence of such goblin would have to offer positive evidence for the non-existence of this goblin. I affirmed this given the question asked (Does a 3-headed goblin exist?) and the context of the debate since the opposng side is commited to supporting a negative existential claim (there is no instance of a 3-headed goblin). If you consider the negation of the affirmation that 'a 3-headed goblin exists', you'll see that it amounts to just this.

As for the latter part, i expressed uncertainty as to why my reasons for denying the piu matters in this discussion. After all, i'm neither in a debate nor am i trying to show that the piu does not exist. Hell, my reasons for denying the piu might be totally fallacious or inept. But whether they are or not, what difference would that make?

To reinforce my point, take a look at what logician Richard L. Epstein has to say in his 'The Pocket Guide to Critical Thinking':

"[W]hen we don't have good reason to believe a claim, that does not mean we have reason to believe it's false.We might have no evidence that it's true or that it's false, in which case we should suspend judgement....not believe =/= believe is false...lack of evidence =/= evidence it is false." p.19.

So the take-home message of the last few pages is this: Craig's success in debates is based in large part on the wording of the question. He can make the opponent's case virtually impossible simply by framing the debate in a way that puts the atheist in the position of having to prove an existential negative.

Have I mentioned lately how completely laughable this whole business is?

Mick wrote:To reinforce my point, take a look at what logician Richard L. Epstein has to say in his 'The Pocket Guide to Critical Thinking':

"[W]hen we don't have good reason to believe a claim, that does not mean we have reason to believe it's false.We might have no evidence that it's true or that it's false, in which case we should suspend judgement....not believe =/= believe is false...lack of evidence =/= evidence it is false." p.19.

How many fucking times does this have to be retorted? Is there a reason to believe that there are invisible pink unicorns which seem to contradict the very definition of their existence? Is there a reason to believe that there are xenophobic bunnies on Alpha Centurion planning to obliterate all known forms of life in the known universe? Is there a reason to believe that there is a rather prominent pimple on the buttock of a Norwegian man housing an omniscient being waiting patiently for its fatalistic demise occurring at the hands of his recalcitrant host?

PhiloKGB wrote:So the take-home message of the last few pages is this: Craig's success in debates is based in large part on the wording of the question. He can make the opponent's case virtually impossible simply by framing the debate in a way that puts the atheist in the position of having to prove an existential negative.

Have I mentioned lately how completely laughable this whole business is?

No, that's incorrect. Negative existential claims can be 'proven'. For instance, Craig and many of us would be willing to accept the non-existence of God if it were ever shown to be the case that one of God's properties is a self-inconsistent or contradictory. The same would apply if it were shown that one of God's properties is not compossible with some other property of God or even some external fact. Likewise, we can also 'prove' a negative existential claim with inductive/abductive reasoning. It's not a mathematical or deductive proof, no doubt. But, so what? It's a weaker sense of the word 'prove' such like that found in the court of law.

PhiloKGB wrote:So the take-home message of the last few pages is this: Craig's success in debates is based in large part on the wording of the question. He can make the opponent's case virtually impossible simply by framing the debate in a way that puts the atheist in the position of having to prove an existential negative.

Have I mentioned lately how completely laughable this whole business is?

You got it.

And it's partly an atheist's debators fault, for agreeing to debate with a dishonest manipulative slimeball like Kraig in the first place, or for not backing out when Kraig prearranges the title and setting of the debate (but then, they would look cowardly).

But I can sympathize with the atheist's feeling that Kraig must not be allowed to crow to his followers that he is so superior that no atheist will even attempt to debate him anymore. Some people are willing to take the chance of being drowned by his flood of garbage if, in the process, they can get off a few key shots against him.

Mick wrote:

PhiloKGB wrote:So the take-home message of the last few pages is this: Craig's success in debates is based in large part on the wording of the question. He can make the opponent's case virtually impossible simply by framing the debate in a way that puts the atheist in the position of having to prove an existential negative.

Have I mentioned lately how completely laughable this whole business is?

No, that's incorrect. Negative existential claims can be 'proven'. For instance, Craig and many of us would be willing to accept the non-existence of God if it were ever shown to be the case that one of God's properties is a self-inconsistent or contradictory. The same would apply if it were shown that one of God's properties is not compossible with some other property of God or even some external fact. Likewise, we can also 'prove' a negative existential claim with inductive/abductive reasoning. It's not a mathematical or deductive proof, no doubt. But, so what? It's a weaker sense of the word 'prove' such like that found in the court of law.

Woo. You don't want to agree, you want to assert and expect the same special pleading you grant it.

MrGray wrote:

How many fucking times does this have to be retorted?

I don't think the quote has been given elsewhere within this thread.

Is there a reason to believe that there are invisible pink unicorns which seem to contradict the very definition of their existence?

Well, um, I see no reason to believe that there are pink invisible unicorns.

Is there a reason to believe that there are xenophobic bunnies on Alpha Centurion planning to obliterate all known forms of life in the known universe?

Well, um, None that I'm aware of.

Is there a reason to believe that there is a rather prominent pimple on the buttock of a Norwegian man housing an omniscient being waiting patiently for its fatalistic demise occurring at the hands of his recalcitrant host?

Well, um, None that i'm aware of.

glad we got that out of the way.

hotshoe wrote:
And it's partly an atheist's debators fault, for agreeing to debate with a dishonest manipulative slimeball like Kraig in the first place, or for not backing out when Kraig prearranges the title and setting of the debate (but then, they would look cowardly).

I wasn't aware that the title was "prearranged" by craig. perhaps you can tell me why you think this.

Mick wrote:

PhiloKGB wrote:So the take-home message of the last few pages is this: Craig's success in debates is based in large part on the wording of the question. He can make the opponent's case virtually impossible simply by framing the debate in a way that puts the atheist in the position of having to prove an existential negative.

Have I mentioned lately how completely laughable this whole business is?

No, that's incorrect. Negative existential claims can be 'proven'. For instance, Craig and many of us would be willing to accept the non-existence of God if it were ever shown to be the case that one of God's properties is a self-inconsistent or contradictory. The same would apply if it were shown that one of God's properties is not compossible with some other property of God or even some external fact.

Lying bullshit.

MrGray wrote:

Mick wrote:

PhiloKGB wrote:So the take-home message of the last few pages is this: Craig's success in debates is based in large part on the wording of the question. He can make the opponent's case virtually impossible simply by framing the debate in a way that puts the atheist in the position of having to prove an existential negative.

Have I mentioned lately how completely laughable this whole business is?

No, that's incorrect. Negative existential claims can be 'proven'. For instance, Craig and many of us would be willing to accept the non-existence of God if it were ever shown to be the case that one of God's properties is a self-inconsistent or contradictory. The same would apply if it were shown that one of God's properties is not compossible with some other property of God or even some external fact. Likewise, we can also 'prove' a negative existential claim with inductive/abductive reasoning. It's not a mathematical or deductive proof, no doubt. But, so what? It's a weaker sense of the word 'prove' such like that found in the court of law.

Woo. You don't want to agree, you want to assert and expect the same special pleading you grant it.

Come again?

Mick wrote:

hotshoe wrote:
And it's partly an atheist's debators fault, for agreeing to debate with a dishonest manipulative slimeball like Kraig in the first place, or for not backing out when Kraig prearranges the title and setting of the debate (but then, they would look cowardly).

I wasn't aware that the title was "prearranged" by craig. perhaps you can tell me why you think this.

Which debate title do you have in mind, Mick ? Which debate title do you psychically perceive that I had in mind, Mick ?

Theists, ferchrissake, they're all fucking mindreaders, aren't they.

hotshoe wrote:

Mick wrote:

PhiloKGB wrote:So the take-home message of the last few pages is this: Craig's success in debates is based in large part on the wording of the question. He can make the opponent's case virtually impossible simply by framing the debate in a way that puts the atheist in the position of having to prove an existential negative.

Have I mentioned lately how completely laughable this whole business is?

No, that's incorrect. Negative existential claims can be 'proven'. For instance, Craig and many of us would be willing to accept the non-existence of God if it were ever shown to be the case that one of God's properties is a self-inconsistent or contradictory. The same would apply if it were shown that one of God's properties is not compossible with some other property of God or even some external fact.

Lying bullshit.

What's the bullshit? I really don't understand, fella. Michael Martin and Jordan Howard Sobel are argue for the non-existence of God with such arguments. In fact, Sobel's recent 'Logic and Theism' puts out many such arguments. Mackie did the same with his PoE and some so-called "quasi-logical" laws.

hotshoe wrote:

Mick wrote:

hotshoe wrote:
And it's partly an atheist's debators fault, for agreeing to debate with a dishonest manipulative slimeball like Kraig in the first place, or for not backing out when Kraig prearranges the title and setting of the debate (but then, they would look cowardly).

I wasn't aware that the title was "prearranged" by craig. perhaps you can tell me why you think this.

Which debate title do you have in mind, Mick ? Which debate title do you psychically perceive that I had in mind, Mick ?

Theists, ferchrissake, they're all fucking mindreaders, aren't they.

You tell me. What title did you have in mind? I'm not aware of Craig prearranging any title.

Mick wrote:

hotshoe wrote:

Mick wrote:

PhiloKGB wrote:So the take-home message of the last few pages is this: Craig's success in debates is based in large part on the wording of the question. He can make the opponent's case virtually impossible simply by framing the debate in a way that puts the atheist in the position of having to prove an existential negative.

Have I mentioned lately how completely laughable this whole business is?

No, that's incorrect. Negative existential claims can be 'proven'. For instance, Craig and many of us would be willing to accept the non-existence of God if it were ever shown to be the case that one of God's properties is a self-inconsistent or contradictory. The same would apply if it were shown that one of God's properties is not compossible with some other property of God or even some external fact.

Lying bullshit.

What's the bullshit? I really don't understand, fella. Michael Martin and Jordan Howard Sobel are argue for the non-existence of God with such arguments. In fact, Sobel's recent 'Logic and Theism' puts out many such arguments. Mackie did the same with his PoE and some so-called "quasi-logical" laws.

My point exactly. The lying bullshit is that you pretend that you (or Kraig) would be willing to suspend belief in your god if there are arguments against god. But there are arguments against god as you just mentioned, and it turns out you aren't willing to suspend your belief.

You of course are free to go on repeating your bullshit. How could I stop you, and why would I care to anyways ? But these two posts of yours show the true colors of the determined theist.



Edit added a phrase to clarify.

Mick wrote:

hotshoe wrote:

Mick wrote:

hotshoe wrote:
And it's partly an atheist's debators fault, for agreeing to debate with a dishonest manipulative slimeball like Kraig in the first place, or for not backing out when Kraig prearranges the title and setting of the debate (but then, they would look cowardly).

I wasn't aware that the title was "prearranged" by craig. perhaps you can tell me why you think this.

Which debate title do you have in mind, Mick ? Which debate title do you psychically perceive that I had in mind, Mick ?

Theists, ferchrissake, they're all fucking mindreaders, aren't they.

You tell me. What title did you have in mind? I'm not aware of Craig prearranging any title.

Good, I'm glad to hear you're not a mindreader after all.

hotshoe wrote:

My point exactly. The lying bullshit is that you pretend that you (or Kraig) would be willing to suspend belief in your god if there are arguments against god.

I presume you mean if it were shown to be good arguments against God's existence rather than there simply being arguments against God's existence. For the latter isn't sufficient to show anything. After all, all such arguments might be horrible. As for the point, I'm unsure if Craig would actually give up his belief or not given such a successful argument. He implies he would, and so I take his word for it.

But there are arguments against god as you just mentioned.

Yes, there are. Yet, the objection was that such arguments could not prove their conclusion.

You of course are free to go on repeating your bullshit. How could I stop you, and why would I care to anyways ? But these two posts of yours show the true colors of the determined theist.

If you say so. The idea that arguments against God's existence are possible is also found in Lowder's writing. Here's a great article: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... negep.html