burden of proof

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

>>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.