What I have found out about God.

[WelshBloke]

My invisible pink unicorn likes to joke about how silly the idea of a god sounds.

But noses exist! So God! (Apparently there's a logical link there somewhere)

 

[sdifox]

But noses exist! So God! (Apparently there's a logical link there somewhere)

Oh God!
Oh nose!

 

[Marius Dejess]

Let's talk about burden of proof.

Atheists have this idea that the burden of proof is on the party making a claim.

That just shows again that they don't really know what they are talking about.

A claim can be positive or negative, of course atheists don't know that, because they just swallow all kinds of semantic deficiencies from their idols of deceit.

In a related connection their idols of deceit teach them that a claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, that is another semantic deficiency and trickery from the part of atheists' masters of deceit, they are also all the time into semantic obfuscation.

Coming back to burden of proof, the truth is that any member of the tribe homo sapiens making a claim whether positive or negative has the burdent of proof.

That is the whole business of burden of proof, namely, it is incumbent upon anyone making a claim, whether positive or negative.

So atheists not acquainted with negative claims, they are missing 50% of reality in human affairs - but that is typical of atheists: they either miss the big complete picture of reality or they only have a distorted picture of reality.

You ask me for an example of a negative claim, here it is:

Two prisoners occupy the same cell, one morning the guard found one of them dead, and on close examination there is physical injury on the deceased prisoner.
The live prisoner claims that he did not kill the deceased companion.

What do you guys say? Do you now know that anyone making a claim whether positive or negative has the burden of proof?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Let's talk about burden of proof.

Atheists have this idea that the burden of proof is on the party making a claim.

That just shows again that they don't really know what they are talking about.

A claim can be positive or negative, of course atheists don't know that, because they just swallow all kinds of semantic deficiencies from their idols of deceit.

Attacks against your opponents nice. Do you continue this because you think it will prove your hypothesis?

In a related connection their idols of deceit teach them that a claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, that is another semantic deficiency and trickery from the part of atheists' masters of deceit, they are also all the time into semantic obfuscation.

It's interesting that someone who's yet to prove their hypothesis is concerned about someone else "tricking" someone buy requesting evidence.

Coming back to burden of proof, the truth is that any member of the tribe homo sapiens making a claim whether positive or negative has the burdent of proof.

That is the whole business of burden of proof, namely, it is incumbent upon anyone making a claim, whether positive or negative.

Great, so it's incumbent on you to provide proof for your claim.

So atheists not acquainted with negative claims, they are missing 50% of reality in human affairs - but that is typical of atheists: they either miss the big complete picture of reality or they only have a distorted picture of reality.

Seems here you are claiming big numbers for a thing with little self reflection about higher power believers distorted picture of reality. I do find this quite entertaining. It's like listening to myself when I was 10 years old and head underwater in God and religion. Man, what arrogance we had.

You ask me for an example of a negative claim, here it is:

Two prisoners occupy the same cell, one morning the guard found one of them dead, and on close examination there is physical injury on the deceased prisoner.
The live prisoner claims that he did not kill the deceased companion.

What do you guys say? Do you now know that anyone making a claim whether positive or negative has the burden of proof?

Investigators would immediately lock it down and look for evidence. You know, that pesky little thing that you haven't provided. Did you know that God believers make the claim? Provide evidence.

 

[Marius Dejess]

Dear atheists here, please say something at all about burden of proof, except that the person making a claim bears the burden of proof.

What I notice about you atheists is that you don't have anything to say that you will explain to mankind, but that you are always into evading any chance to proclaim something at all, that you hold to as your most certain position on the issue "God exists or not."

I can't ever seem to get to talk with an atheist at all without the atheist going AWOL sooner than later.

 

[WelshBloke]

I can't ever seem to get to talk with an atheist at all without the atheist going AWOL sooner than later.

Thats because you dont actually address any points that anyone makes, so its fairly pointless replying to you. Luckily for you most people are in some form of lockdown so they have plenty of time on their hands.

 

[Marius Dejess]

Thats because you dont actually address any points that anyone makes, so its fairly pointless replying to you. Luckily for you most people are in some form of lockdown so they have plenty of time on their hands.

Please then say something about burden of proof at all.

 

[WelshBloke]

Please then say something about burden of proof at all.

You're claiming that something exists, its down to you to show that it exists not for other people to disprove it in the absence of any evidence of its existence.
You are asking people to disprove that something exists when you haven't even defined or described the thing that is under debate.

 

[Mai72]

A Christain who became an athiest. He lays it all out. And, gives great examples on why he lost faith in Christanity.

 

[Marius Dejess]

Dear atheists, have you read this post from me? Reproduced below.

I already am telling you that you have a wrong because deficient idea about burden of proof.

So, please for the love of self-education, you are missing 50% of reality, with repeating that the burden of proof is on the party making a claim.

Let's talk about burden of proof.

Atheists have this idea that the burden of proof is on the party making a claim.

That just shows again that they don't really know what they are talking about.

A claim can be positive or negative, of course atheists don't know that, because they just swallow all kinds of semantic deficiencies from their idols of deceit.

In a related connection their idols of deceit teach them that a claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, that is another semantic deficiency and trickery from the part of atheists' masters of deceit, they are also all the time into semantic obfuscation.

Coming back to burden of proof, the truth is that any member of the tribe homo sapiens making a claim whether positive or negative has the burden of proof.

That is the whole business of burden of proof, namely, it is incumbent upon anyone making a claim, whether positive or negative.

So atheists not acquainted with negative claims, they are missing 50% of reality in human affairs - but that is typical of atheists: they either miss the big complete picture of reality or they only have a distorted picture of reality.

You ask me for an example of a negative claim, here it is:

Two prisoners occupy the same cell, one morning the guard found one of them dead, and on close examination there is physical injury on the deceased prisoner.
The live prisoner claims that he did not kill the deceased companion.

What do you guys say? Do you now know that anyone making a claim whether positive or negative has the burden of proof?

 

[Marius Dejess]

Okay, dear atheists, tell me something you atheists hold dear in your heart and mind, say, what about in not over 50 words?

 

[UsandThem]

Okay, dear atheists, tell me something you atheists hold dear in your heart and mind, say, what about in not over 50 words?

 

[sdifox]

Eris pads her chest!

 

[ch33zw1z]

A Christain who became an athiest. He lays it all out. And, gives great examples on why he lost faith in Christanity.

A great video, thanks for the link. Doubt the OP will bother, it's pretty obvious that the OP just likes the clicky clack of the keyboard.

 

[WelshBloke]

Thats because you dont actually address any points that anyone makes, so its fairly pointless replying to you. Luckily for you most people are in some form of lockdown so they have plenty of time on their hands.

I'm sticking with this.
You don't get to ask people to post their opinions then ignore those opinions and pretend no one said anything.
Earlier posters were correct. Your posts are absolutely worthless and you should be put on ignore.

 

[sdifox]

I'm sticking with this.
You don't get to ask people to post their opinions then ignore those opinions and pretend no one said anything.
Earlier posters were correct. Your posts are absolutely worthless and you should be put on ignore.

Go to first page to see the tags

 

[Marius Dejess]

Of course you can repeat forever that I am not replying to your posts, that is your instinct when you are writing unworthy posts, in order to avail yourselves of a cover for your unworthy posts.

You want to avoid telling me about what things you hold to be dear to your heart and mind, as atheists, that is all right with me.

What do I hold dear in my heart and mind as a God knower?

Here it is the privilege of writing here in Anandtech on such thoughts as that my theory of everything is existence.

See if you can write what you think about my theory of everything, and that it is existence.

First and foremost man cannot talk about anything at all unless (a) he exists, and (b) the thing he is talking about exists, at least in his mind.

 

[sdifox]

Eris pads her chest!

 

[ch33zw1z]

Of course you can repeat forever that I am not replying to your posts, that is your instinct when you are writing unworthy posts, in order to avail yourselves of a cover for your unworthy posts.

You want to avoid telling me about what things you hold to be dear to your heart and mind, as atheists, that is all right with me.

What do I hold dear in my heart and mind as a God knower?

Here it is the privilege of writing here in Anandtech on such thoughts as that my theory of everything is existence.

See if you can write what you think about my theory of everything, and that it is existence.

First and foremost man cannot talk about anything at all unless (a) he exists, and (b) the thing he is talking about exists, at least in his mind.

Well that's quite convenient for your ego. How extremely narrow minded of you. After this post, I'm unwatching the threads and done here, you obviously don't care to backup your claims and just think others challenging you are below you.

You exemplify what is wrong with believers.

 

[Marius Dejess]

Let's all talk about existence, is that okay with you?

Because unless we are sure that we exist, it is useless to talk about anything else, do you understand that?

Here, I say I exist because when I touch my nose I feel it.

What do you guys here say?

There, that is a very sensible launching pad for us to talk about anything at all, but in particujlar on the topic of the OP, What I have found out about God.

I regret but it is my observation, you guys have nothing of any shade of honest intelligent productive thinking and writing, but it is not too late to start anew.

 

[Marius Dejess]

Dear my opponents here, you are complaining that I am not answering your posts, but I tell you that your posts are not deserving of any answer from me, unless I am like you, into dishonest un-intelligent un-productive thinking.

Still you are making a false claim, that I am not answering your posts, have I not answered your posts where you tell me that it is my burden to prove what I claim to exist, namely, God - because of the principle that the party making a claim has the burden of proof?

I answered you guys who bring up that routinized false principle from wrongly insrtructed atheists, namely: The party making a claim bears the burden of proof.

The correct principle on burden of proof is that any party making a claim whether positive or negative, this party has the burden of proof.

Tuesday at 4:51 PMM #828
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Let's talk about burden of proof.

Atheists have this idea that the burden of proof is on the party making a claim.

That just shows again that they don't really know what they are talking about.

A claim can be positive or negative, of course atheists don't know that, because they just swallow all kinds of semantic deficiencies from their idols of deceit.

In a related connection their idols of deceit teach them that a claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, that is another semantic deficiency and trickery from the part of atheists' masters of deceit, they are also all the time into semantic obfuscation.

Coming back to burden of proof, the truth is that any member of the tribe homo sapiens making a claim whether positive or negative has the burden of proof.

That is the whole business of burden of proof, namely, it is incumbent upon anyone making a claim, whether positive or negative.

So atheists not acquainted with negative claims, they are missing 50% of reality in human affairs - but that is typical of atheists: they either miss the big complete picture of reality or they only have a distorted picture of reality.

You ask me for an example of a negative claim, here it is:

Two prisoners occupy the same cell, one morning the guard found one of them dead, and on close examination there is physical injury on the deceased prisoner.
The live prisoner claims that he did not kill the deceased companion.

What do you guys say? Do you now know that anyone making a claim whether positive or negative has the burden of proof?

 

[sdifox]

Eris pads her chest!

 

[Marius Dejess]

Dear my opponents here and atheists:

I submit that you have this instinct of self-preservation by which you invent principles but false ones, like party making a claim bears the burden of proof, the correct principle is any party making a claim, whether positive or negative, bears the burden of proof.

Here is another wrong idea with you my opponents and atheists, namely, that man cannot prove a negative: as you deny God exists which denial is a negative, wherefore you are dispensed from proving the non-existence of God.

Very convenient, but totally counter-productive to the search for genuine knowledge.

The correct idea or principle is any party in a controversy can and must prove a negative, when the negative is within the access ambit of all parties in the controversy.

Access of ambit means that the controverted object being determined to exist or not exist, it is surrounded by the circumstances of the five w's and one h, namely: who, what, where, when, why, and how.

Here is an example of the possibility and necessity to prove a negative, namely, the certainty that there is no zebra in your house attic now.

Lesson to learn: When arguing with atheists, one must always scrupulously examine their so-called to themselves, self-evident truths, like with one Richard Dawkins, that the world or universe is complex and therefore God its supposed creator cause should also be complex, and as the more complex an entity is, the more improbable is its existence, and voilà it is improbable that God exists.

To rebut Dawkins, one just has to remind Dawkins that scientists have come to the discovery: that the universe had its beginning some 13.8 billion years ago - so don't bother with complexity and improbability blah blah blah.

 

[sdifox]

Eris pass her chest!

 

[peonyu]

My view is that if there really was a all powerful super duper deity that literally created everything and knows everything at all times, we would all know it as a absolute undisputed fact that there was a God and it wouldn't be a question at all. Such a all powerful being would be impossible to not be known, but we don't have that, and instead have various religions that tend to fight each other over whose unproven God is greater.