hotshoe wrote:

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.

So, will you support your claim? I suspect you won't, and I suspect i can correctly guess why.

Mick wrote:

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.

I see no reason to believe in an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omni[insert adjective from your ass] being.

Also,

"[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.

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.

"[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.

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.

"[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.

Mick wrote:

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

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

So, will you support your claim? I suspect you won't, and I suspect i can correctly guess why.

Because I didn't make a claim, that's why. Eagerness to play "Gotcha" with an atheist could be what deluded you into thinking that. Go back through to the original post and re-read it, this time with comprehension, Mick.

It's a fucking hypothetical, Mick, in the situation where it's partly the atheist's fault for agreeing to debate a known slimeball like Kraig (for whatever reason) but in the hypothetical situation where one agreed in ignorance or good faith the atheist might not be willing to back out when he/she realized that Kraig could manipulatively prearrange the title, one possible example of "framing the debate" as PhiloKGB says. (And the reason why an atheist might not want to back out when realizing that is, perhaps, not wanting to be seen as cowardly).

I tried to give you a chance to back down by pointing out that you did not know what I was thinking. But you apparently felt you should keep attacking me.

So now you can apologize to me for the slur implied in your "I suspect I can correctly guess why".

MrGray wrote:

I see no reason to believe in an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omni[insert adjective from your ass] being.

Great. what's your point?

Also,....[post continues]

Right. You asked whether there was reason to believe x [the various claims]. I stated, "well, um, I don't see any." I'm not saying that there aren't any and i'm not stating that such is false. Rather I'm simply stating that I am not aware of any such reasons. All I'm saying is that I don't know of any: I'm confessing ignorance to the answer of the question.

It's important to notice the context for which you asked me this question. I didn't herein accept the question as a resolution for debate. You just simply asked me it, and I confessed my ignorance.

Mick wrote:you all know very well that there are great positive arguments for atheism (in the sense of a negative existential claim).

Even if that's true, that's not evidence.
.

Mick wrote:

MrGray wrote:

I see no reason to believe in an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omni[insert adjective from your ass] being.

Great. what's your point?

[snip]

The point was to retort,

[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.

Comprende?

hotshoe wrote:
Because I didn't make a claim, that's why. Eagerness to play "Gotcha" with an atheist could be what deluded you into thinking that. Go back through to the original post and re-read it, this time with comprehension, Mick.

It's a fucking hypothetical, Mick, in the situation where it's partly the atheist's fault for agreeing to debate a known slimeball like Kraig (for whatever reason) but in the hypothetical situation where one agreed in ignorance or good faith the atheist might not be willing to back out when he/she realized that Kraig could manipulatively prearrange the title, one possible example of "framing the debate" as PhiloKGB says. (And the reason why an atheist might not want to back out when realizing that is, perhaps, not wanting to be seen as cowardly).

You said:

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).

in response to the claim that the "take-home message" was bullshit. There's no hypothetical given here. We have the claim that it's partially the atheist's fault for x, or it is partially his fault for not backing out when Craig prearranges y and z. This is a simple disjunction. This latter disjunct could have been meant to be a past tense sentence which would then render 'prearranges' to 'prearranged' or a sentence conveying simple present. if the former, then we're talking about a past event. If the latter, then we're talking about general habits, customs, truths, etc. Thus, either the implication is that Craig did or does these things.

A clearer way to convey what you allegedly meant is this:

It's partially Shook's fault for agreeing to debate Craig or if Shook knew that Craig prearranged the debate topic (and whatever), then it is partially Shook's fault for not backing out of the debate.

MrGray wrote:

Mick wrote:

MrGray wrote:

I see no reason to believe in an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omni[insert adjective from your ass] being.

Great. what's your point?

[snip]

The point was to retort,

[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.

Comprende?

Not quite. But I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you.

murshid wrote:

Mick wrote:you all know very well that there are great positive arguments for atheism (in the sense of a negative existential claim).

Even if that's true, that's not evidence.
.

It's not evidence for what?

Mick wrote:Not quite. But I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you.

Mick, I love you.

Mick wrote: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.

I do wish I lived in this world wherein Christian thinkers writ large valued the primacy of logic and evidence. Instead, we get apologetics nonsplaining the Trinity, how God can be both perfectly merciful and perfectly just, and the various idiosyncrasies between omni-attributes. So, yeah. There are some precisely-defined entities whose existences are disprovable. God, however, as ought to be blindingly obvious by now, is not such an entity.

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.

Again, it's almost as if you have become temporarily amnesiac with respect to hundreds of years of theology and philosophy.

Mick wrote:

hotshoe wrote:
Because I didn't make a claim, that's why. Eagerness to play "Gotcha" with an atheist could be what deluded you into thinking that. Go back through to the original post and re-read it, this time with comprehension, Mick.

It's a fucking hypothetical, Mick, in the situation where it's partly the atheist's fault for agreeing to debate a known slimeball like Kraig (for whatever reason) but in the hypothetical situation where one agreed in ignorance or good faith the atheist might not be willing to back out when he/she realized that Kraig could manipulatively prearrange the title, one possible example of "framing the debate" as PhiloKGB says. (And the reason why an atheist might not want to back out when realizing that is, perhaps, not wanting to be seen as cowardly).

You said:

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).

in response to the claim that the "take-home message" was bullshit. There's no hypothetical given here. We have the claim that it's partially the atheist's fault for x, or it is partially his fault for not backing out when Craig prearranges y and z. This is a simple disjunction. This latter disjunct could have been meant to be a past tense sentence which would then render 'prearranges' to 'prearranged' or a sentence conveying simple present. if the former, then we're talking about a past event. If the latter, then we're talking about general habits, customs, truths, etc. Thus, either the implication is that Craig did or does these things.

A clearer way to convey what you allegedly meant is this:

It's partially Shook's fault for agreeing to debate Craig or if Shook knew that Craig prearranged the debate topic (and whatever), then it is partially Shook's fault for not backing out of the debate.

Sweetie, your insistence on winning this hypothetical point just makes you look desperate. Good luck and best wishes !

PhiloKGB wrote:

Mick wrote: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.

I do wish I lived in this world wherein Christian thinkers writ large valued the primacy of logic and evidence. Instead, we get apologetics nonsplaining the Trinity, how God can be both perfectly merciful and perfectly just, and the various idiosyncrasies between omni-attributes. So, yeah. There are some precisely-defined entities whose existences are disprovable. God as described by the apologists, however, as ought to be blindingly obvious by now, is not such an entity.

(I added the words in color for clarity)

You and I seem to be on the same wavelength here. It's sickening how the professional apologist can wibble-wobble away their own contradictory views (much less the contradictory views of the multitude of sects and official dogmas), all the while pretending to value logic and evidence.

Only such logic and such evidence as can be twisted to fit into their temporary rationales



Edit: apologists

Mick wrote:

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.

Right, like I said, it's not a positive argument for atheism.

Mick wrote: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.

Well, this isn't true.

Craig's God has three parts (the father, the son, the holy spirit) and also the parts of Jesus (his hair, his teeth) and NO parts. That's a contradiction.

All that happens is the goalposts get shifted.

God has no consistent positive characteristics in the first place.

1 John 4:8 (NLT) - "God is love." 1 Corinthians 13:4 (NLT) - "Love is not jealous." Exodus 20:5 (NLT) - "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God

hackenslash wrote:1 John 4:8 (NLT) - "God is love." 1 Corinthians 13:4 (NLT) - "Love is not jealous." Exodus 20:5 (NLT) - "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God

Matter : settled. God of he bible = does not exist.

Rumraket wrote:

hackenslash wrote:1 John 4:8 (NLT) - "God is love." 1 Corinthians 13:4 (NLT) - "Love is not jealous." Exodus 20:5 (NLT) - "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God

Matter : settled. God of he bible = does not exist.

And happily, Mick assures us, that such a contradiction will result in his/her deconversion along with William Lane Craig's and all those other scrupulously honest apologists! Happy days!

Mick wrote:

murshid wrote:

Mick wrote:you all know very well that there are great positive arguments for atheism (in the sense of a negative existential claim).

Even if that's true, that's not evidence.
.

It's not evidence for what?

Evidence for the non-existence of god. What I was trying to say is that mere arguments doesn't prove anything. We need evidence to back it up; and positive evidence that god (or the celestial teapot) does not exist would be almost impossible to get.