X
Xzcvzv V
Guest
i was having the old "whos job is it to provide evidence?" debate with a christian.
i claimed that since you cannot prove a negative, and since god is his concept, and not mine, that it was his job to provide evidence, and then my job to respond to it.
he said a lot of convoluted nonsense about premises and clauses and proofs blah blah blah, and actually ended up saying the following..
"since you cannot prove that god does not exist, therefore he does"
i was not under the impression that this guy was a complete moron, but clearly this kind of logic leaves much to be desired.
of course, i explained that he should be able to see where his logic fails if he replaces 'god' with 'invisible elephant', but it did not work.
how are we to deal with these kind of people?
"Funny how all you atheists refer to anyone who believes in God as a "theist." Please research "theism," and when you understand the difference, come back and ask your question again because those of us who are actually educated don't know who you're asking."
theist - one who believes in the existance of a god.
unless you would care to elaborate, you look very much the fool.
"I see what you are doing. You are making the existence of God a purely religious issue so you can ignore it. You would last 5 seconds in a refereed debate. "
utter nonsense. god IS a religious issue.
"And the replacing 'God' with 'invisible elephant' is a logic error too. The number of folks claiming the former is in the billions; the latter, in the hundreds at best. The fact that you have to pick a contrafactual argues against you. Virtually no RATIONAL person maintains the 'invisible elephant' and this is about rationality, isn't it."
1. appeal to numbers actually IS a logical fallacy. the truth isnt decided by majority decision.
2. when discussing the logical validity of an argument, you (being a genius) will know that content is irrelevant.
i claimed that since you cannot prove a negative, and since god is his concept, and not mine, that it was his job to provide evidence, and then my job to respond to it.
he said a lot of convoluted nonsense about premises and clauses and proofs blah blah blah, and actually ended up saying the following..
"since you cannot prove that god does not exist, therefore he does"
i was not under the impression that this guy was a complete moron, but clearly this kind of logic leaves much to be desired.
of course, i explained that he should be able to see where his logic fails if he replaces 'god' with 'invisible elephant', but it did not work.
how are we to deal with these kind of people?
"Funny how all you atheists refer to anyone who believes in God as a "theist." Please research "theism," and when you understand the difference, come back and ask your question again because those of us who are actually educated don't know who you're asking."
theist - one who believes in the existance of a god.
unless you would care to elaborate, you look very much the fool.
"I see what you are doing. You are making the existence of God a purely religious issue so you can ignore it. You would last 5 seconds in a refereed debate. "
utter nonsense. god IS a religious issue.
"And the replacing 'God' with 'invisible elephant' is a logic error too. The number of folks claiming the former is in the billions; the latter, in the hundreds at best. The fact that you have to pick a contrafactual argues against you. Virtually no RATIONAL person maintains the 'invisible elephant' and this is about rationality, isn't it."
1. appeal to numbers actually IS a logical fallacy. the truth isnt decided by majority decision.
2. when discussing the logical validity of an argument, you (being a genius) will know that content is irrelevant.