burden of proof

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

>>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