burden of proof

excuse for debate club fags and defendents in court, amirite?

If you make an absurd claim, the burden of proof is on you.

It's that simple.

... because if that's NOT true, then I just pulled Gilgamesh out of my anus, and he's standing right here, ready to smite anyone I please, 'cuz he's all up in your bidness like dat.  And there's nothing you can say about it since it's up to YOU to prove that I didn't just pull Gilgamesh out of my ass.

>>2
it's a cop out in an argument so one side can avoid having to give evidence, and pretend they're correct just by dismissing each piece of evidence that is thrown at them, rather than giving a valid proof.

the burden of proof is on whoever wants to see a decisive and clear end to the argument, not just to whoever made the claim.

no it isn't

The scientific process dictates that the opinion that is backed up by the most (and best) evidence, experimental and observational, is the correct one to hold. If some other claim is produced that is contrary to this opinion, then it must have better proof than the one before for rejection and acceptance to occur. This is the burden of proof from a philosophical context.

You're not listening, #3.  You made the claim, hence you MUST have the closest access to proof.  Why should others search for something you already have in hand?  I mean, you MUST have the evidence of your claim, because otherwise you're just talkin' out of your ass?

At any rate, it's billions of times easier to make an absurd claim -- like "I just pulled Gilgamesh out of my ass" -- than it is to produce evidence of such an absurdity.  Claims are not evidence.

Making a baseless claim is the VERY DEFINITION of a "cop out".  Sorry if that truth is like a sharp fucking stick in your asseye.

P.S.  Furthermore, fucko, a REAL argument is not made by claims, as you claimed.  An argument is determined by evidence.  If you make claims and produce no evidence in support, you're not arguing anything rational.

sage for repeated failure to understand differences between science and a logical argument.

>>6
You don't *have* to do shit.  It's pretty fucking simple.  You don't have to believe it, you don't have to think it's right, you don't have to support it, but you can't say it is incorrect without proof that it is untrue.

Furthermore, dipshit, I never said an argument was made by claims, you ILLITERATE PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT.  Youre such a douchebag.  No one fucking thinks making a claim is an argument.  You're just too stupid to realize that a claim isn't untrue just because someone pulled it out of their ass, and you can't say it's wrong just because it's unproven.  That's not how it fucking works.  QED END OF STORY.  Read a fucking book on logic, if you can read anyway

#8, you're continuing the abide by the doctrines of FAIL.

Harken well to my use of words:  When you make claim, surely you have evidence to support it since SOMETHING rational must have convinced you.  If it didn't, then you're just making things up.

And the followup:  ABSURD CLAIMS require immediate proof or they are rightfully dismissed out of hand.  (I.e. there is no Gilgamesh.)

HENCE (and follow along, here) ... when someone comes along and claims to have made an engine that runs on water alone, we are entirely rightful to dismiss those claims if PROOF OF SUCH A FUCKING ABSURDITY DOESN'T IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW.  I don't need to "prove" engines don't run on water as a fuel since any fucking educated person knows they don't (or they should).

So, I must state it again:  It's entire correct to state (without evidence) that an absurd claim is untrue SINCE IT'S FUCKING ABSURD AND UNSUPPORTED!

If people don't abide by that rule, then they are prone to believing things like a big Jew in the sky, or that 4chan builds knowledge, or that voting a party line is good for the country.

Finally, learn the differences in what we're discussing, jackhole.  I can't rationally dismiss a claim if that claim is rational.

>>9
I thought that 4chan was the big Jew in the sky?

Well, all that fapping must be a form of worship.  Shall I anoint the spread word, then?  {spurt splt spoot}

>>11
MOAR

squirting load

you're so fucking out of it.

>>9
"When you make claim, surely you have evidence to support it since SOMETHING rational must have convinced you."

You don't need to be convinced of something to make a claim.
Claim:  There's life on mars.
See?  Could I pull anything out of my ass?  Yep!  Doesn't make it wrong though, just made up.  There's a huge difference, and you're failing hard at seeing it.

"ABSURD CLAIMS require immediate proof or they are rightfully dismissed out of hand."

Former Claim: The Earth revolves around the Sun.
This claim had been made prior to the technological ability to provide accurate data that agrees with it.  There were times when this was not scientifically "provable".  Since no evidence or proof could be given, you say to dismiss it.  It was right all along though, which is an example of why, logically, it would have been fallacious to dismiss it as wrong.

"when someone comes along and claims to have made an engine that runs on water alone, we are entirely rightful to dismiss those claims if PROOF OF SUCH A FUCKING ABSURDITY DOESN'T IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW."

Wrong.  You're right to ignore those claims, or act as though they're not correct, or anything like that.  But youre NEVER NEVER NEVER right to say that claim is incorrect without having proof that it is incorrect.

"I don't need to "prove" engines don't run on water as a fuel since any fucking educated person knows they don't (or they should)."

Laughable.  How exactly does an educated person know this without proof?  I'm not disagreeing that people don't know this, but rather that they couldn't know it without proof.  You dont KNOW anything until its proven.  You might accidentally be correct, but you don't KNOW it.  Try to tell me how you know engines (I assume you mean combustion) dont run on water without providing a proof, go ahead.

If you want to say an engine can't run on water, go ahead.  If you wan't to say you know that an engine can't run on water, you better give a damn proof.

"So, I must state it again:  It's entire correct to state (without evidence) that an absurd claim is untrue SINCE IT'S FUCKING ABSURD AND UNSUPPORTED!"

Outstandingly stupid.  This is a logical fallacy that has been explained several times in several threads on this board.  You have seen why this is wrong many times.  This is terrible terrible "reasoning" and any logician would laugh directly in your face for saying it so pompously.

"If people don't abide by that rule, then they are prone to believing things like a big Jew in the sky, or that 4chan builds knowledge, or that voting a party line is good for the country."

Wrong, if people DO abide by that rule, then theyre prone to believing thsoe things.  You have everything backwards.  You're wrong.

"Finally, learn the differences in what we're discussing, jackhole.  I can't rationally dismiss a claim if that claim is rational. "

How about you learn some god damn logic and stop making things up.

quit feeding the troll

>>15
but its so cute

not /sci/, gtfo etc.

not a troll, genuinely disagreeing with the rampant inability of people to understand logic.

#14, thank you for admitting that nothing rational provoked you to make a claim.  Having a concrete example to work with, and having that example be non-absurd to begin with, then the claim can then be evaluated by other means ... such as streams of evidence from Mars probes.

Yeah, how fucking failsome is THAT, assface?

As for your (I assume you meant) example of the "sun revolved around the Earth" prior claim, again you fail it.  Common evidence did indicate that that was true ... but relatively soon, cracks appeared in that evidence, and there were centuries of resistance to THAT follow-on evidence.  Again, it was a cultural gayfaggotry that kept the claim alive ... just like the claims of a giant alien space monster persist in our society due to the same mental gayfaggotry.

There is a huge pack of steaming fail here, and it's in YOUR majority view of your society as being fucking infallible and eternal in most of its assumptions and standards.  THAT is what set off this thread in the first place.  The OP fag was trying to enforce the unfortunately widely-held view that the burden of proof belongs on those who have to dispute claims, no matter how absurd those claims are.  But that's not how the BoP operates on a purely logical level.  Claims require evidence.  PERIOD.  Either put up the evidence to support your claim, or retract your claim as the stupid gayfaggotry that it really is, or suffer the shame of being marked as a baseless-claim gayfaggot.  There is no fourth option, you gayfailer!

*bold*

_bold_
<b>bold</b>
bold

>>19
you still dont fucking understand logic.

you can not say a claim is false without proof that it is false.

if you dispute this, you are wrong.  there is no argument here.  look at any logic book, talk to any logician, even just think about it.

>>22
I do what I want to do, or my name ain't Junkyard Willie

#22, once again you rely on a very narrow definition of logic.  It's perfectly logical to expect, say, evidence of Unicorns, Faeries and Elves, when such an outrageous claim of their existence is made, and if such evidence is not forthcoming, then the very outrageousness of the claim demands that the claim be rejected.

A common claim backed up by common evidence is perfectly fine, and anyone who denies such things is engaging in the illogical behavior as you identified.  But absurd claims?  These require evidence since their very absurdity denies their validity!

Say it over and over until you understand it:

The absurdity of claims denies their validity!

Hence, we come back to the real point of the matter:  Those who insist that divinities exist are wrong, since those divinities have produced no proof while they should have done so all over the fucking place.  It's irrational to claim that giant alien space monsters exist, and even if they did, those who detect them are RESPONSIBLE for presenting that proof.

You're just wrong.  Good day.

ITT:
Different standards of what claims are acceptable.

>>24

this thread wasn't about religion, so that's not the "point of the matter".  it's about people failing to understand logic.

also, no, i'm not relying on a narrow definition of logic.  you're wrong.  get over it.  read a logic book; it's incredibly clear that you haven't ever done so.  on the offchance that you've ever had even the slightest fleeting brush with any kind of symbolic logic, i'll provide an example.



I make a claim, A.  i'm not assuming A, i'm not assuming ~A, just do the following

Prove ~A.  Prove A is false.  Do it.

Protip: you can't do it.  Because you want us to either assume ~A because its absurd, or to say, hey, theres lots of evidence that suggests B, which I understand to be in conflict with A, so we must have ~A.  I'll draw that out for you:

you either want
Assume ~A
~A
Q.E.D.

or

assume B implies certain evidence
assume we have this certain evidence
assume this certain evidence implies B
assume B implies ~A
~A

i'll let you tell me whats wrong with that, though.

((P -> Q) /\ ~Q) -> ~P

am i doin it rite?

>>27

you're doing it right, redcream is doing it wrong, like always.

This thread is about the BURDEN OF PROOF, you fucking chanfags!  In the real world outside a textual treatment of logic, absurd claims do NOT justify themselves by challenging you to find their suspiciously missing proof!

It's better in most cases to be approximately right than exactly wrong.  Chanfag #26 is using extreme precision to achieve the exactly wrong result in the broader argument.  In the broader argument, "debate club fags and defendents in court" cannot make absurd claims without providing evidence for their assertions.  PERIOD.  If you fuckasses really think differently, then good luck on your day in court.  I herd u liek jail.

Strange, all I hear is "bawwwww".

The whole point of logic is that there are no absurd propositions.  Only true ones, false ones, and undecidable ones.

It happens to be one of your axioms that any statement for which there is no evidence is false.  This is not a widely held proposition among logicians.

The court system, for the pragmatic reason that it has to make a decision, places "the burden of proof" on an arbitrary party, in effect assuming that all undecidable propositions are false (innocent until proven guilty) or true (vice versa).  It has nothing to do with your ill-defined concept of "absurdity."

The whole point of logic is that is has a system of rules that only guide our social actions.  In practical terms, we have many shortcuts, and the judgment of "absurdity" is merely one of those.  (BTW, absurdity is not "ill-defined".  Find me a fucking Unicorn or Jewgod and then we'll talk about how easy it is to get around absurdity.)

Logicians are NOT the people who run much in society.  They are academics and perform their function in that fashion.  The wise man makes use of what academics discover, but doesn't let the same academics run things.

You used a great word there, #31, that you're obviously discounting:  PRAGMATIC.  It's not pragmatic to let people make any ol' claim they want and make the rest of us disprove it, since people lie a LOT and that would completely bog down social systems.  Claims require evidence, and often it's the case that common claims have common evidence that is not onerous to collect positive or negatively.  But the absurd claims are an affront to social operation, and anyone who thinks absurdists deserve credit is being absurdly impractical himself!

We're not talking about social policy, dipshit- we're talking about the truth. Practicality and common sense are fucking worthless when it comes to actually verifying claims.

goddamnit

#33, the dipshit here is YOU.  Unsupported claims that REQUIRE evidence by their very absurdity is the very essence of truth.  If we DON'T abide by that principle, then I'll just pull Gilgamesh out of my ass (hey, PROVE HE DOESN'T EXIST, cocko!) and inevitably he'll make the pronouncement that you HAVE TO DIE.  Here comes the guy with a gun.  What do you think about your "i herd u liek lojik" bullshit NOW?

You can hole up with your fucking semen-stained Hurley textbook and tell yourself that precision gets you everywhere, but you ONLY miss the target precisely.  The world of the ivory tower only has TACTICS for us, but not STRATEGY.  I'm talking the latter, and you're insisting on the former.  Confusing the two is a great way to LOSE battles and wars, fucko!

Goddamn.  What, are you in your fucking twenties or something?  Get wise.

>>35

Calm the fuck down. If I claim that it rained in Baltimore today, that claim is subject to the exact same burden of proof as your overused Gilgamesh example. "Absurdity" is an arbitrary quality and has nothing to do with burden of proof, and now you're blathering some vague shit about "tactics" and "strategy?" Please. Just stop before you hurt yourself.

Dead wrong, #36.  Rain is a common entity in Human existence; so are Human cities; and as well, Baltimore exists.  In extreme and high contrast, no one has produced evidence of Gilgamesh.  The difference between the two is that ABSURDITY thing that you falsely claim is so fucking difficult to determine.  Gilgamesh's existence is therefore held to a HUGE standard of proof over "it rained in Baltimore today".

Once more, we clearly see that your chanfaggotry has hobbled your ability to form cogent arguments.  If you got a college degree out of your I-Are-Passing-Logic-Klass deal, got get your fucking money back since you're filled with a doltish, EGGHEAD-LIKE FAIL.

Like I said before, you're probably just some twentysomething who's so enamored by academic pursuits that you're literally unable to apply intellectual details to the real world.  Outside the textbook and the ivory tower, the details of REALITY are far too messy to be so precisely categorized and used.  That's why WISDOM is so useful.  WISDOM in fact is a tool for detecting the limits of INTELLECT.

♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫ ... I'm fucking waiting for your stupid answers, dickeaters.

>>37

Do you even know what burden of proof means, fuckwit? I still have to PROVE that it rained in Baltimore in order for my statement to be justified, just as you have to PROVE your Gilgamesh BS. The fact that the evidence for my assertion is much easier to come by DOES NOT MAKE A FUCKING DIFFERENCE- if I don't have this evidence available to me, and if I have no past knowledge of the climate in that region in order to at least make an educated guess, then my assertion is meaningless. It doesn't matter how familiar a statement is to collective human experience, or whatever other bullshit excuse you want to make; all statements are subject to the same burden of proof, period.

Now why don't you get your head out of your ass and try reading a book? Oh, sorry, I forgot- books are those nasty little things used by twenty-something ivory-tower eggheads who don't know anything. You're WAY too good for reading, aren't you? You've got WISDOM and everything. WISDOM! (All caps make it EXTRA IMPORTANT!)

Egads, fucknutball!  If you insist on playing this fucking stupid, then I'm going to have to keep treating you like an assball.

Let's make the comparison between proving rain in Baltimore and proving Gilgamesh.  Hmm!  A quick check at www.weather.com for Baltimore and ... WE HAVE FUCKING PROOF IN SECONDS!  A quick check at www.proofofgilgamesh.com ... OH WAITAMINNUT!  There just isn't any fucking proof for fucking Gilgamesh, which any fucking retard would have fucking known SINCE IT'S FUCKING ABSURD!

You keep dancing around the requirement, but sensible men challenge other men to produce evidence of their crazy fucking assertions.  The ones who can't put up the evidence have to literally shut the fuck up while being drowned in the howls of laughter at their stupidity.  Absurdity (which I proved above is eminently classifiable) shifts the burden of proof.

The absence of proof for what should be a very provable assertion is more than enough rational evidence itself for the reasonable man to reject the assertion OUTRIGHT.  Yes, that's right, bitch!  I just said the absence of proof IS PROOF!  For something that should be shitting out megatons of proof, absence of such proof is assuredly good enough to say "ah it doesn't fucking exist".  Elephants don't fucking TIPTOE or LEVITATE, you stupid fuck!  No elephant tracks = no fucking elephant!

You academic twentysomething CHILDREN obviously don't like that, but thank Gilgamesh that you don't run the fucking world.  (What a fucking travesty THAT would be if it happened!)

P.S.  Look, bastard, books are filled with lies.  I can go to any bookstore and get thousands of books filled with lies, usually culled from sections labeled "fiction", "religion" and "investing".  That's yet another reason why I howl with laughter when the goddies produce A BOOK as their evidence for their particular giant alien space monster.  More than ever, Gilgamesh just SCREAMS the requirement for GREAT GOBS OF PROOF.

No wonder America is seeing a rise of religious stupidity.  You fuckfaces actually think you can rely on baseless claims since some stupid "Logik Kourse" told you it was OK.  Well, it's not OK, fuckfaces!  Keep saying absurdity has credit in the proof game, and I'm going to keep laughing your foolish asses out the door!

>>40
Capitalizing RANDOM words makes your argument VALID.

>>40

*sigh*

Okay, troll, you are now on the point of:

1. Continually inventing dumber and more meaningless insults ("fucknutball?") and screaming them at me as if they meant something, a true mark of someone who has run out of real arguments (even on 4chan).

2. Completely fucking ignoring my point that I still need to prove it rained for my assertion to be valid, instead spewing some nonsense about "HURR HURR LUK HOW EZ IT IZ 2 PRUV, DATZ DA SAME AZ NOT HAVIN 2 PRUV IT AT AL!" Do you even listen to yourself?

3. Confirming my suspicion that you hold "logik" and REAL scientific methodology (yes, the academic kind) in the highest contempt, and have a deep-seated fear of books. This results in your complete inability to defend anything other than your disturbing, warped views of reason and justifiability.

Go ahead, troll, continue sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming that I'm wrong- I'm done feeding you. Head over to the bowl of dicks thread if you're hungry.

>>29
"absurd claims do NOT justify themselves by challenging you to find their suspiciously missing proof!"

correct and you're missing the point, they are not justified, but that doesn't make them wrong.  there are three options:
a) a claim is true
b) a claim is false
c) the truth of a claim has not been determined.

option c is where you are until you either prove or disprove it.

"In the broader argument, "debate club fags and defendents in court" cannot make absurd claims without providing evidence for their assertions.  PERIOD.  If you fuckasses really think differently, then good luck on your day in court."

Somewhat correct and missing the point.  Inability to provide proof in many practical and life situations leads to things like "Assumed innocent until proven guilty." and "guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt".  You don't understand what proof is.  Also, debate club fags and defendents can make absurd claims all they want, there is no cosmic force stopping them.  They're just making shit up that may or may not be true, and not being able to verify it probably won't help their case.

>>32
"The whole point of logic is that is has a system of rules that only guide our social actions."

You don't know what logic is.  You've never had a logic class.  You've never read a logic book.  You've never had a higher level math class.  These are all claims I would bet are likely.  But I can't prove them.

"Logicians are NOT the people who run much in society."
I don't disagree.  Unfortunately for you, they are a good source to talk to about what is and what isn't logical, since they've studied logic, a subject somehow entirely foreign to your "reasoning"- for lack of a better word.

"Claims require evidence..."
No.  Claims do not "require evidence".  Maybe YOU require evidence to believe a claim, but a claim is not something which requires evidence, unless it is to be believed true or untrue by a person.  Also, no one here is retarded enough to believe absurd claims.  The difference is, you're a retard and you believe the opposite of a claim without proof just because you think it's absurd.  I see an absurd claim and say, "well, thats probably not true, given what I take myself to know currently, but I haven't seen any direct proof against it, so it's a possibility."  You can ask me things like whether or not there are unicorns, I will tell you that I do not know, or that I do not think so.  I will never tell you no, there are absolutely not any unicorns.  I don't have proof of that.

>>35
I'm in my twenties.  If you're older: read a damn logic book.  If you're younger: read a damn logic book.  If you're the same age: read a damn logic book.  Stop embarassing yourself.

>>37
I'm not 39, 36, 33, or 31, not that I can prove that or you need to believe me, but just putting it out there.

If I show you a picture of me holding a dog, and I tell you that I have a dog, is that an absurd claim?

Protip: your answer should be no, because lots of people have dogs and its not unreasonable to think that I do, especially when I've provided some evidence.  Oh wait, the answer should be yes it is absurd, because I don't have a dog.  Hey!  Your plan fails this experiment, and now you're being unscientific too!

>>40
"but sensible men challenge other men to produce evidence of their crazy fucking assertions."
I agree.  Do you know why they do it?  Because they want to make sure you can prove your claims before they consider them seriously.  If you can't prove your claim is true, that doesn't imply that it is false however.  Deal with it.

"I can go to any bookstore and get thousands of books filled with lies, usually culled from sections labeled 'fiction', 'religion' and 'investing'."
I'm not disagreeing.  I'm not sure why you would say this though, since it's not very relevant to you failing at understanding what truth is.

"No wonder America is seeing a rise of religious stupidity.  You fuckfaces actually think you can rely on baseless claims since some stupid "Logik Kourse" told you it was OK.  Well, it's not OK, fuckfaces!  Keep saying absurdity has credit in the proof game, and I'm going to keep laughing your foolish asses out the door! "

Here's your fundamental failure.  You think, just because I'm telling you that something isn't untrue when its not proven, that I believe it.  I'm the same atheist you keep being wrong about again and again.  You still make the same mistakes, and you still argue like shit.  You don't understand truth or proof, and you just make up random crap to respond to.  I never said absurdity "has credit".  I never said you should believe a claim when its not proven.  If you had half a clue, you would realize that I was saying the exact opposite: that you SHOULD NOT believe something is true without proof.  So you shouldn't believe "I have a dog" is true without proof, and you shouldn't believe "I do not have a dog" is true without proof.  Do you get this yet?  Or do you want to keep embarassing yourself.

#42, when you act like a fucknutball, expect to be called a fucknutball.  Your ghei whining at a perfectly valid labeling event is fairly sad, but about the speed of some BOOKWORM who knows nothing of practical application.

You still failed to demonstrate anything to the contrary, and what I said hold utterly true no matter what some fucking academic thinks otherwise, to wit:

1. We are completely correct in rejecting ridiculous assertions that are also devoid of proof even when sought.  Humans are busy and lie a lot, and gay logic theories don't account for dishonesty and practicality.  If logic texts were followed to the letter, nothing would get done in society.

2. The very nature of some of these ridiculous assertions is that they would be producing huge amounts of evidence, hence the existence of ZERO evidence is itself evidence that denies the assertions summarily.

My personal library would astound you, but just go right on ahead and keep thinking that somebody who reads a lot can actually disagree with your limited views.  You exhibit excessive academic bias.  That's the very worst thing about academics -- the more they study, the less able they become for detecting their own biases (at least, outside of identification of sources of experimental error).

REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK REDCREAM LIEKS TEH CAWK

"Absurdity (which I proved above is eminently classifiable)"

"(BTW, absurdity is not "ill-defined".  Find me a fucking Unicorn or Jewgod and then we'll talk about how easy it is to get around absurdity.)"

A proof to rival the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra in its sheer rigor and elegance.

"The absence of proof for what should be a very provable assertion is more than enough rational evidence itself for the reasonable man to reject the assertion OUTRIGHT."

Fermat's Last Theorem - Conjectured in 1637, proven in 1994.  NEVAR FORGET

Since your particular ax to grind seems to be religion, though the topic was about logic, let's talk about that.  Deducing physical principles from evidence is a small portion of the logic that the human brain performs.  Even a field as closely related to scientific thought as mathematics deals with rigorous definitions of concepts which can't be said, in any strict scientific sense, to "exist," and what follows from those concepts.  The question of evidence already becomes moot when one strays as far from science as mathematics.

Even logic becomes severely limited as an intellectual tool when one enters the realm of value judgments.  A statement as fundamental as "it is good for a person to be alive" cannot be supported logically or by any kind of evidence, unless one passes the buck by defining "good" elsewhere.  So, the entire construct of value judgments (a given condition is desirable) relies, at its core, on axiom, though anon confesses a preference for systems with as few axioms as possible, and most of the main tenets following from the axioms by logic.  A system of value judgments is pointless if not applied to the practical question "given a set of conditions S, (restricted to those physically possible or even to those above a certain threshold of probability), what action should I take in order to achieve the 'best' set of conditions S'?"  That additional layer of logical complexity makes our system of value judgments into a "morality."

A popular method of constructing morality among Western and Middle Eastern cultures seems to be first defining "good."  As an example:  "it is good to be able to do things (potency)," "it is good to know things," "it is good to desire good for all of one's society, not just oneself (benevolence)."  After defining all of these attributes and assuming them to have an order relation, said culture than hypothesizes the existence of a being maximizing all of them.  From that hypothesis, morality is left as attempting to determine, through logic, what such a being would have Person A do when confronted with S.

Since most people familiar with formal logic realize that morality and mathematics are only two of many intellectual disciplines requiring the practitioner to make "baseless assumptions (PROTIP:  it's called "choosing axioms)," they don't have problems with what certain people choose as their axioms for everyday living.  In fact, they find bluster about evidence and logic in topics to which neither applies irrelevant and ultimately annoying.

>>35-46
Ack, tl;dr
@__@
naptime

>>46
i like you, lets make lemma babies.

also,
for the tl;dr:

redcream thinks truth is just a matter of practicality, and he makes baseless claims without proof while arguing against making baseless claims without proof.

>>48
the proof is in the pudding

great troll op

>>49

THIS IS ABSURD.  I'VE NEVER SEEN PROOF IN PUDDING.  THEREFORE THERE IS NO PROOF.  AND IF THERES NO PROOF THERES NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS PROOF.  WITHOUT EVIDENCE YOU ARE MAKING MEANINGLESS CLAIMS.  I REJECT YOUR MEANINGLESS PROPOSAL THUSLY.

>>51

I CONCUR
IPSO FACTO
QED
SPQR

>>51
that is nonsense many people say that they have proof in puddings so i see no reson to doubt that i have pudding so your conclusion is based on faulty premises and must be wrong since there is clearly pudding

http://blacksnake.com/ seems like theres a lot of pudding there so all you naysayers can decide

I propose, to the goddies, a challenge. Prove that the universe was not shat out of an obese, invisible, purple magical dragon named Fnodwabb who poops out universes every five minutes.

>>55
I propose, to the athiests, a challenge. Prove that the universe was not shat out of an obese, invisible, purple magical dragon named Fnodwabb who poops out universes every five minutes.

>>56
If the goddies can say there's an invisible man with superpowers who magicked the universe into being, and not have to back that up, I should be able to say that there is, in fact, an invisible dragon who shat the universe out of it's magical anus, and not have to back that up. And since these are both equal possibilities, the godtards would have to be pretty arrogant to tell me that I'm wrong and they're right.

I was having an argument with my father today. He is into various spiritual rubbish and believes prayer has power.

I cited a study that indicated prayer had no positive effects on those in hospital with long term illness.

He merely argued thus:
>1. The benefits of prayer are such things as health and well-being which cannot be measured and therefore are outside the realm of any evidential or statistical analysis.
>2. Therefore, any study is flawed and its results can simply be dismissed as rubbish.
>3. Hence, because prayer could not be proved to be powerless by evidence it must be true.

It's awful to see because he is otherwise a sensible and logical guy and yet every step in this fallacy contains so many logical flaws that I can't be bothered listing them.

I would say the burden of proof is on us BOTH (otherwise the argument has no conclusion either way) but he is playing dirty by using illogical arguments that shit all over intelligent thought.

/rant

>>57
i'm one of the main posters in this thread arguing against redcream's idiocy, and i agree with your post, except that perhaps the probabilities of the universe being created by some god or some invisible dragon may vary.  Probability is usually an estimation made when you lack certainty though, and when all information is known, those probabilities might both be 0.

you don't have to back up shit, unless you want me to believe it.  but until i see proof against invisible barney's universe manufacturing bowels, i can't say it's not true, just as much as i can't say it is true without proof, regardless of how stupid it sounds.

>>58
Have him write out his argument.

Then, go through and pick apart every logical inconsistency thoroughly.

No, it won't convince him, but you'll feel better.

>>58
Are we going to have to go all through this again, stupid fuckwad?  Follow along as well as your college-created mental blocks allow:

FACT: The evidence for a universe-shitting bowel is ZERO.

FACT: The probability of detecting such an enormous aberration is ONE.

THEREFORE:  Those facts PROVE there is no such thing as a "universe-shitting bowel".

There are no huge invisible, levitating dragons tiptoeing through your garden at night, leaving no footprints, you fucking MORON!  The absence of evidence MEANS that such an OUTLANDISH creature doesn't exist!

This is the same point I make over and over and over and over and over and over to you stupid twentysomething fuckos, but you continue to insist (from your college-structured brain-damage) on a precise definition of so-called logic that simply doesn't apply ... and will never apply when the object in question should be HUGELY OBVIOUS AND SWAMPING US WITH EVIDENCE!

IN SHORT ... things that EXIST are EVIDENCE-PRODUCERS.  Anyone who insists otherwise are not only deranged but FAIL FAIL FAIL since applicable logic says that they are using evidential procedures to make the claim in the first place!

>>61
you pointed to the wrong post, but anyway..

I'll make a small concession.  The fallacy I refer to often is that people assume something is false when they have not seen evidence of it.  It is a fallacy.  It is wrong to do that.  I'll admit, however, that if you knew that there is absolutely no evidence of something anywhere, then you could say it doesn't exist, or that it's existence had no effect anyway so it's existence didn't matter.  This is what you've been arguing; that there is no evidence anywhere ever of certain claims, so they're not true.  So the problem may not be the fallacy so much as something else.

Ah, yes, the problem is you probably don't fucking know if there isn't any evidence that we haven't found in the entire universe of something.  Here, let's check your latest argument, which relies on two claims.

"FACT: The evidence for a universe-shitting bowel is ZERO."

(1) Please, explain how you know there is no evidence in the universe of a universe-shitting bowel.

"FACT: The probability of detecting such an enormous aberration is ONE."

(2) Please, explain why this would be true, or why detecting something is necessary for it to be true.  There is a difference between something existing, and people correctly noticing and attributing it's effects.

Here's the thing: if there were a universe shitting bowel that swallowed and shit out the entire universe every 5.3912×10-44 seconds in a manner that preserved the relative positions and masses and physics of everything we see, you wouldn't have a fucking clue.
(3) What would constitute evidence of this?
(4) Can you say there is 0 evidence that this is currently happening?
(5) What would be the probability of us detecting this?
(6) Can you say, with complete certainty, that this is not what is happening currently in our universe?

So please, do answer those 6 questions.  Please number your responses for clarity, if you don't mind, sir.  Note: 2 and 5 are the same question, so you can skip one.  Since your omniscient, my challenge shouldn't be too difficult.

>>62
Why on Earth do you people insist on the same pointless point?  Follow along:

You make the absurd assumption (that a "universe-shitting bowel" exists, even for the sake of argument) then challenge me to produce evidence.  THERE'S NO FUCKING EVIDENCE ... that's why I HAVE NO EVIDENCE.  HAVING NO EVIDENCE is the primary indicator that THERE'S NO FUCKING EVIDENCE.  We live in an evidential civilization, where people in all walks of life investigate things and produce megatons of evidence ... so it's not like we're not looking!

On top of THAT farce (of yours), anything of cosmological significance should produce cosmological evidence.  We're sitting on top of mountains of evidence of the Big Bang, which means the probability of detecting it is ONE.  Big Bang = cosmological event.  "Universe-shitting bowel" = cosmological event.  YET ... there's NO FUCKING EVIDENCE of the latter.  We're inescapably back to the previous problem (of yours)!

When you fuckos (or ANYONE) find the bit piece of corn or nut in the alleged giant turd that is our universe, THEN I will have to admit the Bowel Theory will have merit.  But there's been no sighting of any such cosmologically huge piece of corn or nut, nor of any intergalactic-space-filling fartgas, nor of a puckered godbung visible as a wall across the universe.

(At this point, someone needs to butt in and make a joke about "what about Dark Matter".  Lulz will abound.)

In conclusion, all this was rather pointless overall since you essentially admitted I was right:

"I'll admit, however, that if you knew that there is absolutely no evidence [...] then you could say it doesn't exist, or that it's existence had no effect anyway so it's existence didn't matter."

P.S. Note well the omission "[...]" from your comment.  I deleted that useless and academic CRAP since if you had to wait for complete information, you'd never make a decision.  There are 10⁸⁰ particles in our universe, so it's foolish to make the extreme demand that we must know if something DOESN'T EXIST at every point in the universe.  By the time you'd closely investigated 0.001% of the universe, the universe's expansion would be so large that you'd never finish taking your survey of the remaining 99.999%.  Remember, part of what I've said over and over is that we're talking PRACTICAL results, not ACADEMIC ones.  There's no point in asserting calculations that cannot be proven (which is why so much of physics today is in trouble, with string theory).

>>63
Having no evidence is not an indication that there is no evidence, it's simply a necessary condition.  It is not, in any sane man's consideration, sufficient.

You still fail to understand what truth is.  It doesn't matter what sort of society we live in, or what is practical, or how we tend to do things.  Truth is what is, not how we choose to interpret it, or what we consider convenient.  Nothing I've said has been farcical.  However, your retarded anthropocentric view truth values is.

I never admitted you were right.  You think significant qualifiers are academic nonsense.  I simply admitted that you might not be committing one particular logical fallacy, but instead you may just be a general retard.

You can make a decision all you want, it's just possible that you've made the wrong one if you don't have proof.  Your inability to grasp simple concepts is laughable.  You absolutely must know that there is absolutely no evidence anywhere at any time in the entire universe for you to know that the thing does not exist.  There is no compromise to this if you want to know the truth value of "There exists an object with such and such properties."  Please, please, do not pretend that I've considered you correct.  You are anything but so.

Now, again, I ask you simply to answer the numbered questions, since you've failed to do so.

I see three problems with this argument:

1. Absurdity is in the mind of the asserter. If I said that it rained in Baltimore, you would say that that's perfectly plausible, but if I said Baltimore jumped off of a cliff, you would most likely dismiss that as absurd, unless you knew that my pet lemming was named Baltimore, at which point you might either feel sorry or relieved (Baltimore was a real asshole).

2. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because there aren't any cookie crumbs on my couch doesn't mean that I never eat them there. We had no proof that North and South America existed until 1492, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist before then.

3. You're trying fit square pegs in round holes (or HUGE black cocks in tiny virgin loli pussies, if that analogy suits you). What Mr. HH0MyTyD argues works out fine in theory, but RedCream's arguments apply to the real world. Just because 1 - 1/3 = 2/3 is easy doesn't mean the Black Death was too. Or that since 3,000 is a small fraction of 8,200,000, 9/11 doesn't matter that much. Either RedCream argues without a real world bias, or HH0MyTyD does the opposite. Otherwise, there is a better chance of Pedobear raping your grandmother than you two agreeing.

BTW, Gilgamesh probably existed around 2500 BC, as the fifth king of Uruk.

Apply his reasoning to any other example but God and you'll see it's not good for determining truth in any situation.

Science does not prove things.  Observation does not provide proof.  The only way it could is if you could apply induction to what you've seen, or if you assume causality and can guarantee every variable.  Scientific theories are models and predictions that have been repeatedly tested and not yet contradicted.  Newton's physics were never correct, but they were repeatedly tested and supported by evidence.  The concepts in general relativity wouldn't have been knowingly supported by evidence in the 1700s, even though they were as equally evidenced as they are today.  People just didn't know.  One day we could test them and we demonstrated that Newton's physics were inaccurate all along.  The laws of nature never changed, but our scientific theories did.  They had been useful, but they had been wrong.

Say one day you're wandering out in the woods and you find a clearing and some kind of haphazard shelter made of fallen tree parts.  You move in and live there for years, and one day a friend visits.  The friend asks who built the shelter.  You tell him that no one built it, it was like that when you found it.  He argues that someone must have built it.  You tell him, no, I've never seen any construction workers or architects out here, certainly no one working on this shelter, I simply found it as it is, the trees just happen to fall in this way.  It's possible that you're correct.  But it's also possible some crazy dude built a crappy shelter out of fallen tree parts and has been spying on you since you moved in, and when you're old or you go to leave, he's going to show up and judge you based on the decisions he saw you make while you lived there, and either kick your ass or give you some money.

You've never seen him.  It seems possible that everything just happened to be that way when you showed up.  It seems like you have no evidence that anyone built that shelter.  Yet tell me, how do you know that there's no man hiding behind in the trees?

Reminder for Redcream: I'm not a theist, just a mathematician.  So try to address the argument, rather than calling me religifuck or christfag or something, as you are wont to do.

no sir i have not heard dat scientific method

>>63
Nobody ever said anything about never making a decision (other than yourself).  Decisions do not require absolute knowledge (which is why we frequently make mistakes).  Even if we were perfect, rational beings, we would still make many decisions even without absolute validity of our assumptions.

Given: absurd claim without evidence

Religifag's response: worship claim
Normal response: decide claim is meangingless, ignore it, and postpone further judgement until new evidence appears
RedCream's response: deny possibility of claim

The problem with RedCream is that:

1. He tries to use an approximation as the proof that defines a claim to be true or false.

Since he is not omniscient (no human being is), he cannot know everything.  He keeps insisting that since he has seen no God, it doesn't exit.  Out of his personal experiences,  he's seen that 100% of the time there is no God.  But, he has not collected every piece of evidence since he is not omniscient.

I'll provide a mathematical analogy:  In this case, we believe a "A(x) is smaller than B(x) for all x" to be false.  We can say, "Well, clearly, A(x) is bigger than B(x) for all 0 > x > 100,000, so B(x) is smaller than A(x)"  But, unless we prove it inductively, we can never be certain.  There have been cases in the past where something appears to be have worked for a significant amount of evidence (0 > x > 100,000) but has then been shown to be otherwise when considered more evidence (x > 100,000).  An inductive proof is taken as truth because it proves it for every possible value within the universe of discourse.

To prove there is no God, or shitting dragon (wtf who created this example?  I think that anon that first supplied it was RedCream since he used the word 'goddies'), you'd have to consider every thing in the universe.  No human can.  Until you can, you're just making an approximation that "There is no God" and calling it truth.  An approximation always has the potential for failure and flaws, as anyone can see.

If RedCream can't admit it he might be wrong in saying "There is no God or shitting dragon", while comparing his argument to a mathematical analogy, he is truly slow and afraid his precious worldview will come crumbling down.  Regrettably, a mind intelligent to know so many impressive words is tainted with insecurity; we'd respect you more if you considered the chance you may be wrong.  No one is gonna respect Mr. Internet Toughguy.

So, in closing, "I can't find any truth" does not imply that the statement is false.

Personally, I was atheist until I read this thread, but have changed my view to agnostic.  It's safer for me, intellectually, to be agnostic, in case one day I'm ever proven wrong.  That'd be almost as embarassing for me as it is for RedCream to make his arguments.

This is the most simple shit ever.

The OP composes an argument and provides proof. A critic then points out a flaw in the OP's reasonning and/or questions the proof provided. The next person to criticise should do the same as the 1st critic.

If anyone strays from this course then the entire argument is a troll flame and leads nowhere.

Example.

*1*
troll: NIGGERS ARE INFERIOR
critic: prove it
troll: LOL TEH BURDAN OF PROOF IS ON U KIKE!!!

troll: NIGGERS ARE INFERIOR
critic: LOL TEH BURDAN OF PROOF IS ON U KIKE!!!

>>70
>>71

The critic is a moran, troll's assertion is self-evident

troll: NIGGERS ARE INFERIOR
critic: prove it
critic: im only looking to win an argument here
critic: without providing a counterargument
critic: i hope you can just contradict yourself while i spurt this magical phrase that makes me seem intelligent because i can spot a lack of evidence instead of clarifying what it is
critic: seriously

I've just come back to this tiring thread and, sure enough, people are still trying to justify believing in Gilgamesh despite that there's ZERO evidence (and that there SHOULD BE).  The point can only be made again that when you postulate the existence of a very existential thing, there'd better be a lot of evidence around or you look like a mental retard.  Gilgamesh (or "God") is something that would produce piles of evidence ... much like suns produce gravity and photons to advertise their presence.  It only stands to reason that one of the most important components of the universe would demonstrate that it exists by virtue of some (probably a LOT of) evidence.

Contrast all that with the fact that there's absolutely ZERO evidence for the existence of this Gilgamesh character.  And it's not for the want of looking, either.  Furthermore, biblical stories don't count, since if they did, then we'd also expect things like flying broomsticks and peculiar "semetaries" where buried pets would come back to life.  The existence of Human fiction doesn't prove anything except that Humans like a good yarn.

So, we're back to the hard nugget of truth that puts all the popular bullshit right to bed.  Your outlandish claims not only require evidence, but if they're too outlandish (having universal applicability) then by the very nature of such outlandishness the lack of evidence disproves your claims summarily.  In short, come back with evidence, fool.  Come back with live video of that 900FT-tall Jesus with his flaming sword and only then will your outlandish, outrageous, farcical claims even start to have any merit whatsoever.

Superstitious morons.

<b>what</b>

also, <bold>

<b>what</b>

>>74
Oops!  That 900ft tall Jesus with flaming sword is really Satan in disguise!  How will we ever know (assuming God doesn't appear to do something about it; even if he does, how do we know it's God and not Gilgamesh in disguise?)?!

>>77
This nonexistent "Satan" character is a derivative of the same nonexistent Judeo-Christian semi-pantheon.  By using a divine power to disprove a divine power, you'd still be fulfilling the requirement for proof.  However, there are no examples of divine power, so all that's pointless anyway.

Seriously, are you 14 years old or something?  What you said isn't even a point of argument.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand once again, our dear RedCream fails to even understand the topic- confusing the relative simplicity of proving or disproving something, with the burden of proof itself.

There is a big difference, a goddamn five-year-old could understand it, but alas, for RedCream that simple distinction is maddeningly elusive.

Go away and talk to Gilgamesh for a while, the grown-ups are going to discuss BASIC FUCKING LOGIC and we wouldn't want you to hurt your little brain trying to comprehend it.

>>79
A goddamn 5-yr-old knows full well that this god character is full of shit since there's no evidence, and THERE SHOULD BE MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE.

Boy, there's a stark difference between your book learnin' and what applies in the REAL WORLD.  Like it or not, outrageous claims rightfully provoke demands for evidence, and the more outrageous the claims, the stronger the need for evidence, until the most outrageous claims DISPROVE THEMSELVES since the evidence for them should be obvious and pervasive.

We were ALWAYS discussing the practical meaning of the burden of proof, but like all the other overeducated twentysomethings, you just don't want to fucking hear it.

The only thing "elusive" here is that you refuse to accept the truth of practical application.  That's why colleges have filled up with "book learners" who blanch whiter than ghosts (note: which don't exist, since there's NO EVIDENCE for them, and there SHOULD BE A LOT) when asked to find solutions instead of babbling inanely about some inapplicable theorem.

Go get another degree.  Go read another book.  Those are about all you're fucking good for, brainwaste.

>>79
P.S.  Fuckbag, the older generation had a great saying for the con artists who routinely afflicted Humankind with their outrageous claims:

"PUT UP OR SHUT UP!"

That rock-solid sensible rule was never revoked, no matter how many mal-educated worthless worms crawl out of the colleges.

>>81
Yeah? Well Bangbros. has a name for people like you. Wanna know what it is? Too bad, your penis could not handle the fury.

>>82
Well, at least you're getting somewhere, since Bangbros at least exists.  The rest of your claim can be investigated on the sufficiency of that basis.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

FUCK YOU TWENTYSOMETHING FUCKOS

dear redcream,

most people here aren't trying to justify believing in gilgamesh, or god, or whatever, you're just really fucking retarded and dont understand that you're accusing others of doing what youre doing, and that there is a big difference between "no reason to believe something is true" and "reason to believe something is false"

sincerely,
non-retards united

>>85
All this retaliation against RedCream is just going to make him think he's a genius.
Therefore, I shall proceed to suck his dick.

>>78
HUMOR, do you speak it?

The point of the humor was to question the accuracy of whatever evidence is used, even if you do get some.  Is what you see really what is there?  Is what you hear accurate?  Is everyone within a mile of you simultaneously hallucinating the same thing?  You constantly demand proof/evidence, but how do we know the proof or evidence we get is proof/evidence?

I claim butterflies exist.  You demand proof.  I give you a picture of a butterfly.  You claim it's shooped.  I give you a living butterfly.  You claim it's a mechanical imitation of something that doesn't exist.  I dissect the creature.  You claim it's a genetically engineered monstrosity.  I show you 1000 butterflies.  You claim it's mass production...  The uncertainty continues infinitely.  Nothing is ever certain.

>>78
Nobody is this blatantly oblivious. Nobody. Not even a monkey.

>>87
Butterflies are common.  The burden of proof is therefore nowhere near what's required for what I was talking about.  The assertion of a butterfly isn't an outrageous claim.  GILGAMESH IS.  Yet, millions upon millions of people believe in this Gilgamesh (or God, or Allah, or whatever) and get very hot under their collars when you bring up the simple point that there's NO EVIDENCE and that THERE SHOULD BE.  There's just NONE.  There are no pictures.  There are no living examples.  There's nothing to dissect.  There's no START of the process of examination.  THERE'S JUST NOTHING!

And for the other hosers who insist this has nothing to do with Gilgamesh, you must have fucking blinders on.  The goddies have asserted the existence of their imaginary friend on this message board for some time.  CHECK.  THE.  THREADS.

The thing that all your motherfuckers keep running away from is that my points demand that you admit your god/s are false.  Put down those crucifixes, stars, crescents and all the other paraphernalia.  Produce evidence RIGHT THE FUCK NOW or admit you're effectively just a Rozen Maiden fan club with ZERO applicability to real life.

white man's burden of proof of concept car pool's closed

>>89
again, you can't read.  you're the only person seriously acting like someones trying to prove gilgamesh exists.  you keep making this have to do with gilgamesh, so i'm not going to lie and say its completely unrelated.  the central argument has continually been that not having evidence does not necessarily imply negation of an existence.

yes, your points demand that people admit whatever god is false, but your points are retarded and illogical.  we tell you this again and again, we tell you why they're wrong, and you keep posting the same terrible reasoning and embarassing yourself and several other people.  if you weren't completely retarded, you'd understand that our points demand that people admit they're not certain that their god exists either, unless they have some proof we don't know about.  again, though, you're too fucking retarded.

>>87
It is reasonable to assume it is certain.

>>91
I can only repeat, using your words as a base, what is perfectly true which you twentysomething rubes cannot wrap your minds around, to wit:

"Not having evidence does not necessarily imply negation of an existence unless that existence should be providing a preponderance of evidence."

I keep making that point over and over and over and over and over and over but you rubes continue to ignore it.  What I said is perfectly valid.  The Gilgamesh thing is only one of the leading examples of WHY what I said is true.

I'm right, and I'm never going to stop until you infantile rubes go away or admit that I'm right.  There is no god.  I don't care if that fact makes you simpering wimps cry yourselves to sleep every night as if your own fathers died; I'm right and the truth must prevail.

>>93

listen, you're powerfailing.  no one's arguing with what you just said in bold in that last post, we're arguing with your application of fallacious reasoning to pretend your assumptios are somehow obvious or self-evident.

what you just did is the following:

Assume [(god exists) implies (we have evidence of god)]
Assume [We do not have evidence of god]
Therefore, god does not exist.

this is
Assume A implies B
Assume not B
Therefore not A

This is fine, this is a valid argument.  But we don't know that it is a sound argument.  We don't know that the premises are true.  If you could demonstrate that the assumptions are true, then maybe you'd get somewhere.  However, you just take them as given.

so, back to asking questions you'll never answer:

1) how do you know that god's existence implies that we would necessarily and knowingly have evidence of god?

2) how do you know that we don't have evidence of god currently, and either misinterpret it, or do not recognize it at all?

the most annoying thing about you is you don't even understand what it is that we say you're wrong about.

>>93

"I'm right, and I'm never going to stop until you infantile rubes go away or admit that I'm right.  There is no god.  I don't care if that fact makes you simpering wimps cry yourselves to sleep every night as if your own fathers died; I'm right and the truth must prevail."


OK, so you've been reduced to arguing by persistant assertion, like a whiny child. This, of course, makes you no better than the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" types.

I'm strangely comfortable with that.

>>93
>>94 addresses most of my complaints, but I would like to add a little more.

1) We don't know that <insert divine entity> necessarily has to provide a preponderous amount of evidence.  You have so far claimed either a) all the divine entities the religifags believe in do provide a preponderous amount of evidence (which is generally true) or b) if such a divine entity doesn't provide evidence, then it's meaningless (you made an amusing example of pulling gilgamesh/something else out of your ass and having it sit on our shoulders, never to allow notice of its existence).  This is a moot point, as you're unwilling to discuss this any further.

2) I'm going to modify this by asking Are you absolutely sure we NECESSARILY have to have evidence for something that generates a preponderous amount of evidence?

Before you answer, consider neutrinos.  They were predicted ~1930, and there were supposed to be tons of them.  In fact, we now know that there are some 5x10^13 passing through us every second (good enough for your "preponderous amount of evidence"?).  They could not be detected, and indeed, after a number of years, the theory was dumped.  What if all the experimenters searching for them were just so astronomically unlucky that they never encountered a single neutrino in the duration of their experiments?  It's unlikely, but it can't be discounted.  This reasoning, though not inherently false, is unproductive, and hence the theory was set aside (you would be screaming that neutrinos don't exist).  Later, in 1956, they finally found evidence for these things, and the theory was resurrected.

tl;dr:
My point?  If you fail to find evidence, the most you can say is that you can't prove its existence.  It does NOT disprove existence, because it is still possible for people in the future to find evidence.  If you can prove that nobody in the future can EVER find evidence for <insert divine entity>, then you win.  Else, no further conclusions can be drawn, and <insert divine entity> will remain unlikely, but possible.

>>93
And every other post by RedCream is a troll. Isn't that obvious?

>>93
Will you go suck a cock already?

>>96
We'll start with you since you're more open to the concept that you're wrong, unlike the other guys who are too busy sucking some professor's or priest's cock.

Firstly, we do know about the significance of preponderance of evidence since we have common experience with evidentiary things.  The larger something is in all senses, the more evidence it leaves behind or around.  It then ONLY STANDS TO REASON that something as pervasive as Gilgamesh would leave evidence literally everywhere.  There would be at least a few bits of evidence.  (But no, we have ZERO.  Absolutely none.)

Once again, we're back to you making an outlandish claim:  that you offer an example of something that is definably huge but leaves no evidence.  Give me another example of that in real life, other than Gilgamesh (for which there's no evidence so I don't know why people think that's a valid example in the first place).

Allegorically, I'm telling you to stop asserting that there's a bird that doesn't leave feathers all over the place, which is the common experience, unless you can provide evidence of a bird that doesn't do that.

If you continue to assert that it's intellectually valid to claim that the MOST IMPORTANT thing about the universe can be undetectable, then there's nothing more you can say.  It's a silly assertion and I hope you stop promoting it.  Anything so undetectable (say, how did YOU find out about it, anyways?) would have no consequence to the universe in the first place.

Secondly, you didn't learn your own lesson about neutrinos:  the delay between proposal and detection was only about 25 years, and the truth of them was only important to about a thousand people in the world.  In huge point-making contrast, the delay for this god-thing is about 9000 years and hasn't ended yet, despite the rather involved searching by perhaps 50 billion people over that time.  Hmm!  25000 man-years, versus 450 trillion man-years.  Now, really.  How big does the latter number have to grow before you finally relent and admit you're chasing something that doesn't exist?

So, finally, we're back to my assertion.  If you fail to find evidence for something that must have dropped a lot of evidence around, you're going to have to admit you're chasing something that doesn't exist.  Humans are also well-exampled with their foibles, emotional misconceptions, and outright frauds.  The search for "god" is just a search for the Human lie.

The battle to chase "god" out of the Human mind continues.  Sadly, we're still fairly far from an acceptable victory in that matter.  Divinity remains an Human fiction but Humans loooove their fiction.

100th post, RedCream is a fucktard

>>99
Before any further confusion, I should point out that I am not claiming that any of these "outlandish claims" are valid or invalid.  I only claim that they might be valid, ie the claim is indeterminate under current circumstances (the lack of evidence suggests something, but it doesn't prove anything).  I certainly do not want government funding diverted to searching for evidence of divine entities, but at the same time we should allow for the possibility of evidence showing up later.

1.1) Cosmic black holes are huge things, and regardless of how much evidence they actually generate, we have relatively little evidence for them because they're so far away.  Just because evidence exists, does not mean we can access that evidence.  Why does size even matter?  Who claimed that Gilgamesh was large/pervasive?

1.2) Your request is probably impossible by definition, since I assume you define "real life" as the set of all things that have evidence.

1.3) No such claim or similar claims were ever made.

1.4) I'm not promoting it.  You've repeated what I mentioned: this point is meaningless, and there's nothing more that can be said.

2.1) The delay in this god thing is probably a lot older than 9000 years.  I'm under the impression that humans have conceived of some variant of divine entity hundreds of thousands of years ago.  You say that there is currently 0 evidence of divine entities, yet humans have recorded tons of "claims of evidence" for divine entities.  That means you reject all such claims as lies, superstition, hallucinations, or technological inferiority ("omg I survived the plague, it must be God" is terrible evidence).  If that's the case, then the window of time in consideration shrinks to roughly 500 years.  So if we chase after neutrinos for 500 years and phail, then they don't exist?  What if we find them on the 501st year?

other) So far, we've only addressed 2 possibilities for divine entities: a) they drop loads of evidence, or b) they drop 0 evidence.  What if they drop an intermediate amount of evidence?  If God were some alien a million light years away, we would currently have 0 evidence for God.  If we were to visit that place, we would have all the evidence we need/want.  Can such a situation be proven/disproven?  Not for a very long time.  Is this claim outlandish?  Yes

You also completely ignored the statistical possibility I suggested.  I'm surprised you didn't at least mock it for being absurd.  Just for consideration: what if by random chance, we just happened to never be in a position to observe the tons of evidence a divine entity is supposed to shed?  I can also make the absurd claim that "my monkey typed the 1st page of Hamlet by pushing random buttons on a keyboard".  Nobody will ever believe such an absurd claim, but can you say it's impossible?  If you do claim it's impossible, then what is the border between possible and not?  1%?  10^-15%?

tl;dr: I claim that all this divine nonsense is indeterminate.

you'll notice: redcream failed again to answer any specific questions, but instead rehashed the same bad argument without further justification.

>>102
Yes, I did notice that.  I find troll feeding entertaining, though he started losing his creativity some time ago.

>>103

Shut up, faggot

>>104

GB2 bed, RedCream, we know it's you

if i was farmer i'd prolly farm corn

>>105

Don't call me RedCream, fucknut. Anonymous does not forgive.

>>107

You're just mad that I found you out. You know that you've completely failed at this and every other thread, and now you're trying to hide behind the good name of Anon. I can see right through your bullshit, RedCream- it's not going to work.

>>108

Shut up, RedCream.

>>1-109
Shut up, RedCream

>>110

Oh shi-

This is most excellent and fine.  Not only are the twentysomething overeducated wankers still trying to justify their ghei belief in a nonexistent godthing, but they've gotten so hot under their collars that they're blaming other anons for being me.  SWEET!

Well, to be fair, although a case of mistaken identity, at least that's a sane conclusion.  We have evidence of the existence of a RedCream, and it's rational to conclude that a RedCream can exist on this board.  In high contrast, there's ZERO evidence for a giant alien space monster, and there should be GREAT GOBS of it ... hence there's no giant alien space monster anywhere.

Now that's the cue for one of the twentysomething overeducated wankers -- deep in their mewling fear of a godless universe -- to step in and wave a book on logic as if it will magically bring their desired divinity into existence.

And Americans still wonder why their education systems suck 'nadbag.

P.S.  Puff the Fucking Magic Dragon doesn't exist, either, for utterly the same reasons why Jehovah doesn't.  Big dragons leave evidence around of their existence.  Therefore ... ah, you've all heard that before.

>>112
so, this will be my last post in this thread, and i'll use it to remind you that i do not believe in god, and that redcream is still embarassingly wrong and entirely incompetent.

later guys, have fun rehashing the same points.  i'll join you in the next thread where redcream is terribly stupid.

>>113
Yeh, run away, bitch.  That happens when the pain of pure pwnage can't be further withstood.

It only stands to reason and vast practical experience that something that exists has evidence for its existence.  (After all, if you assert that it exists, then you MUST have detected it, right?  Otherwise, you're just making up stories.)  This is the hard nub of truth that you twentysomething college retards can't get around.  It remains also true that by virtue of all that, it's time for you all to kiss my ring!

>>114
m-m-m-m-monster fail

>>115
The monster fail is within the guys who run from the truth.  You don't see me running, do ya, bitch?

{extends out ring hand}  You know what to do.

>>116
i see you running into brick walls again and again

PWNED BTW

>>117
That sounds like a fragment from a song.  Which one?

Oh, BTW:  BUMP!

bump

bump

I'm feeling really keen, for some of that good ol' green

Marijuana MUST be legalized.

HOLY SHIT I LOVE ICECREAM

WEED SHOULD BE LEGAL

4:2⁰ HOMEY

^{Marijuana MUST be lega}lized.

_{BBCode ^{MASTERS smoke WEED!}}