Simple concept: I said "belief is rationally warranted, I am not trying to prove God exists, just that belief is rational," then I make an argument; and the atheist say "your argument didn't prove God exits."
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
Second bait and switch that atheists pull. I go "I argue for rational warrant for belief, not absolute proof." Sometimes they go "I don't think religion is irrational." Sometimes not but the thing they always do is wind up the argument saying things like "there's no proof for your God, you didn't prove it."So every single athist the thread did exactly what I said they would do. They pull the old switch and argue "your argument didn't prove God exists."
I say "I don't argue for proof" and they say "you didn't prove it." Does anyone see the problem with the picture? they are switching the goal of the argument from warrant to proof.
Now the ball is in the other court. I've given good solid logcial reasons why I believe in God. They are not reasons why the atheists believe, or course not. They don't have to be. they my reasons. They can't disprove that to me. nothing they say is going to make me think that God is not real.
They are going to come and say "O but have the burden of proof."
NO I don't for two reasons:
(1) I have met my prmia facie burden by providing a rational warrant
(2) atheist ideology depends upon demonstrating the superior rationality of atheism over belief in God. If my prima facie warrant stands they have failed because I've proved it's rational to believe, which their ideology says it's not.
don't let them pull the switch and say "It's your burden of proof" I didn't argue proof.
Essentially they have to now show why my prmia facie stand is not good enough.
Documentation on the validity of PF case:
Prima Facie Justification.
heory of Knowledge lecture notes.
Philosophy, UC Davis
originally posted under the Thomas Reid Project
"Far from concluding that our senses are "fallacious," Reid placed them on the same footing as memory and reason, though they are "undervalued" by philosophers because "the informations of sense are common to the philosopher and to the most illiterate. . . . Nature likewise forces our belief in those informations, and all the attempts of philosophy to weaken it are fruitless and in vain."
"Reid pointed out that when we fall into error regarding the objects of sense, we correct our errors "by more accurate attention to the informations we may receive by our senses themselves." So the "original and natural judgments" that are made on the basis of our constitution lose their original justification in the presence of additional information. Contemporary philosophers call this kind of justification "prima facie," a term from law which describes an initially plausible case that could prove to be entirely implausible given further evidence. A belief of common sense, then, is justified "on the face of it."
"According to the doctrine of prima facie justification, one is justified in accepting that things are the way they appear, when
* it does appear to one that they are that way, and
* there is no reason to think that something has gone wrong.
"But if there is such a reason, one's justification is "defeated." Thus prima facie justification is "defeasible."
"For Reid, our beliefs about physical objects are justified by sense-experience, which he took to be a product of the interaction between the senses and physical objects. Twentieth-century philosophers have been somewhat more cautious, however, and have followed more closely the account of perceptual knowledge given by Reid's predecessors such as Descartes, Locke and Hume: that what justifies our beliefs about physical objects is a mental state such as:
* looking like something is red
* a sensation of red
* seeing red-ly"
"For example, what justifies a person in believing that he sees something red is that it looks to him as though there is something red. The mental state of that person is one in which there is an appearance of red, and just being in this mental state is enough to give prima facie justification to the belief that he really sees something red. On the other hand, what confers justification might be a belief about how things appear."
The following will hopefully illustrate for you, by way of parable, why the "rational warrant for theism" line of reasoning fails to live up to its billing for so many of us:
I posit that mankind communes with the lesser animals by way of a connective spirit force called the tiergeist. The tiergeist pervades all aspects of our existence and explains why humans and animals have been such great cooperators throughout their respective histories. Without getting in touch with this spirit force, our lives are devoid of fulfillment and we suffer for it. The tiergeist allows for connectivity with animals at a spiritual level, and this demonstrates that it is a core element of all consciousness in the universe. Getting in tune with one's connection to the tiergeist can have enormous, quantifiable benefits in one's life, such as improved health and happiness.
After telling you all this about the tiergeist, your reaction is simple: "Bu*****t."
I insist that it is true, but you demand evidence.
Very well, then....
I point you to the work of the Baker Medical Research Institute in Melbourne, where they conducted a study of more than 5,000 people and showed that those who own pets have significantly lower cholesterol and blood pressure than those who don't. Furthermore, "pet therapy" is a common practice in the professional long-term care of senior citizens, as a means to increase their daily exercise and ease their sense of loneliness. As if to put the case to bed, I refer you to a 2003 study published by the Gerontological Society of America, that shows an exceptional increase in longevity and a resistance to cancer among dog owners versus the general population.
Now, I grant none of this is direct proof of the tiergeist - no such proof could ever be had, of course - but clearly I have provided a rational warrant to believe in it.
Or have I....?
okay... but so what? i don't find a belief in something that has no evidence of it's existence to be really rational, even strings has some sort of maths supporting it even if it is all theoretical.
what has your god got again? oh yeah nothing, at least nothing that would point to god as an answer over something natural. even your studies can at most show that mystical experiences affect lives which after all your repeats of posting the same drivel over and over, no one doubts.
whether they support a rational warrant of belief is a matter of something outside the belief, namely the gods existence. without that the belief is not above the level of believing elves affect farm equipment if you pave over their homes.
no matter how hard you push, believing in something that has no evidence isn't ever going to be rational, you call holler and bad mouth me all you like, beliefs don't magic god into existence.
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
that's begging the question. I have demonstrated over and over that there are good logical reason to bleieve. you have not show any of them down. to show me that they aren't good you must shoo them down. when will you do it? you haven't yet!
stop the truth by stipulation and prove soemthing.
lol what? i don't think you have a clue what begging the question means, in fact i'd say all of your claims either are begging the question or special pleading.Meta:
If you really understood those terms you would show me by laying the argument and demonstrating it. You wouldn't just do this chest thumping thing I am I am so smart. I am better than you. If you were really better you would make the argument.
You can't prove any of that. My arguments are not begging any questions are. you come out and say "there's' no proof for your God" I just gave you ne and you did not answer it. that's you begging the question.
you say "there are not arguemnts for God" I just go through winning two. no one disproved TS or the sublime, throughout that the tread right up to this day 90% of what they said is "i don't understand this." So how can they beat it when they don't understand it? you did not make an argument that beat it. no you did not!
THAT IS YOU BEGGING THE QUESTION!
anyone can thump his chest and say "your arguments are just x y and z" proving it is another matter. You are afraid to debate me 1x1. you didn't take my challenge so you really don't believe you can beat my arguments.
oh and no, you haven't demonstrated any good logical reasons to believe, again you use fallacious arguments and brow beating attacks to make your case.
PROVE IT! PROVE IT! if we tried to talk all our opponents to death what war would we have won? You don't prove it, if you could you would have a don't have an argument
you don't make a single argument, you spout the same lame slogan over and over.
howling how you have 200 studies and we have none, doesn't prove anything you say right,
that's silly. that just saying empirical scientific data doesn't prove anything. I know you really believe it doesn't. you don't believe in scinece you don't believe in proof. these are just Little games to play while you mock and ridicule. you only care science when it supports you.
what kind of a thinker would say "your studies don't prove nut'n!??" hu? that's just saying "science ant no good it support me." The studies prove what they say. So my premise form which i made my arguments is proved, becasue my premise is what the studies prove, the one's you are too lazy to read, remember?
so science disproves your world view and you don't have the integrity to even check it out! you have the Gaul to say that I'm betting the question!
it merely means you have 200 studies that can be used or twisted to anyone liking since none of them attempt to support what you want them to.
you don't know that you are only assuming because they disprove your junk world view. You don't have the integrity to even read one. I doubt that you really care what scinece says.REVENG
also other than saying you have 200 studies and a few flawed logical arguments such as your argument over necessity of god, which is flawed when you comprehend what time is at its core, why arguments do you really have?Meta:
that's not an argument. you are making proclamations not arguing. snow me why.
why should i? i'm not claiming anything,
Originally Posted by CaptainObvious View Post
Is this meant to be taken seriously?
Since major logicians take Stephen Toulmin seroiusly why can't you? It's Toulmin who said there's a warrant. It's Toulmin who said you don't need to prove an hypothesis if you have a warrant to believe it. Why si that so teerible?
you don't have an argument against any of my arguments. all you ever do si spout the same incredulity your brain washed comrades also spout. do you really expect me to take you seriously?
*you are afraid to debate
*you can't make an argument
*every argument you makes is based upon begging the question
*the only argument you can offer is that of incredulity
*you have not a single specific disproof of any of my arguments
*too lazy to read one single study.
you expect to must mouth a bunch clap trap about "your arguments aren't any good" that's suppossed to prove something even though you have no argument to back it up.
you expect me to take that seriously?
every single atheist in this thread has done exactly what I predicted.
(1) they beg the question assuming there just can't bea god so no God argument could ever be good.
(2) not one of them gives a specific reason why my arguments fail
(3) the argument incredulity and make a bunch of proclaimations about it
(4) they call my arguments names.
(5) most importantly, they do the bait and switch they say "your arguments don't prove God."
a couple tried to assert that ratinoal warrant is not good but they can't really say why.
Look at the one that just goes "do you exect us to take this seroiusly." Obviously, that's nothing but incredulity. Everyone in the thread is like that.