How to reply to a flaw in logic?

How to reply to a flaw in logic?

Today I had this rather stupid conversation about if god is real or not and when it came down to evidence I said that I don't need any evidence because I'm not the one saying that there is a god. The general reply was that I am ignorant because that I don't have evidence for my own claim that there is no god. I told them that the burden to prove something is within the one making a claim and that before I can doubt the existence of a god, someone had to claim that there is one and I even gave the example of me claiming that someone's gf is cheating and that I would have to present evidence and not the guy I'm telling his partner is cheating, that this is not the case.
They didn't get the difference.

How do I reach these kids?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

...

I don't know if you're trying some atheist bait, but most people's belief systems don't rely on proof. Your belief that God doesn't exist is no less taken on faith than someone who does. There's no burden of proof, because neither one of you can actively prove what you believe

Well, to start with you can not reply to logical fallacies with your own logical fallacies. You can't disprove god and you have no evidence against his existence. You find it extremely unlikely that he exists and you don't let him influence your life, sure, but you can't know for certain and you cant disprove him without resorting to the same kind of fatih your opponents does.

There should be one if someone makes a claim, or not? Not even baiting.

But why the heck would I need to prove that there is no god when the claim that there is one was claimed way before my own one and never bee proven itself? Seriously, I think there is indeed a logical flaw.

When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.

So making an argument because you assume the claim of the existence of a god is an argument of ignorance even though there is evidence that debunks almost everything of a religion but the existence of the godess itself?

>But why the heck would I need to prove that there is no god
Why not? It doesn't matter who talked first. They can't prove their claim and you can't prove yours. You're in the same boat and you're both resorting to faith and not knowledge.

It sounde like your sole belief strays from an Argument from ignorance to be honest.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

if this isnt bait you need to get a job

Uuh, are you literally retarded?

It's called the burden of proof of it lies with the person making the claim. The problem lies in the fact that you are arguing logically against people who hold an illogical ideology. They will never be able to see the argument from your perspective because their reality is warped around their belief system. You may be somewhat successful arguing against specific theisms by using their books contradictions to trap the opponent in an inescapable way i.e. the bible condones slavery an lays out specific guidlines to practice it. If I rewrite the bible and remove slavery then I ha just written a more moral book than god himself. So while it is easy to debate specific theisms it in neigh impossible to debate the existence of God itself in the deistic sense.

If you want to see a master of logic beat th shit out of theists just watch some video of Matt dillahunty debating.

That's not how the burden of proof works. If we are both standing in an empty room and you say there's an invisible and untouchable horse in the corner and I say there isn't, who is making a claim?

The person claiming the invisible horse of course. God is no different.

Will check him out, thanks!

>The problem lies in the fact that you are arguing logically
No, he isn't. They're both resorting to common logical fallacies.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

religiousfags detected

If he is actually stating "there is no god" then yes he is illogical I will admit.

You cannot prove somethings non-existence.

Which is exactly what he did.

You aren't very smart

I still don't get how claiming that there is no god is as much a fallacy as claiming there is one when it is clear to see that one comes before the other. There is no "chicken or egg" question in this scenario which makes it as illogical as the claim that there is a dinosaur living in my basement. If you say there is no dinosaur the chance of you being right is pretty high.

>You cant argue with someone that is as one would put it "mentally deficient".
They believe the exact same thing as people that believe the universe was created by physical mass just exploding from 1 singularity. The only difference is they think god itself was the cause and not just density and mass basically exploding. For some reason nothing can create god, but he can create all. Which is exactly the same as the singularity created all and nothing created it, just from different point of views one being a architect, and one being a random event. It makes them feel better knowing that something may have created it and was intelligent design and there life isnt completely shit and meaningless, alot of people can't cope with that thought or feeling.

Don't try to use logic with religious people. Their minds are already too far gone. Stop trying to debate them and move on with your life.

I think we can both agree he needs more study before he actually attempts to argue.

>How to reply to a flaw in logic?
Nice answer, user

Did you actually spend time to photoshop that?

God is illogical..like homosexuality logic cannot reason it!

Google: Bertrand Russell's Flying Teapot.

There's nothing illogical about homosexuality. Go fuck yourself.

Why humans insist on using logic when they themselves are Illogical is in itself ...Illogical.

of course it is illogical.

Ok this is why you canot prove somethings non-existence.

Prove to me unicorns aren't real. How would you go about it? You may say "well there are no fossils of unicorns" and I can reply "we just haven't found one yet". You can then counter with "well then why has no one ever seen one?" to which I reply" how do you know that no one has ever seen one? How do you know they aren't hiding really really well?".

In short by stating that unicorns don't exist you have made a unfalsifiable claim.

gr8 b8 m8

Why do you care so much? You're just another face in the crowd faggot and your opinions mean no more than anyone elses.
Everyone thinks that their beliefs are the only ones that matter and will consider themselves above everyone else that disagrees.
Spot acting like such a pretentious tool and maybe just listen for once instead of dismissing someones beliefs even if you don't agree with it, that way maybe you'll make some new friends that don't just sit around circle jerking to the same shit over and over.

>I still don't get how claiming that there is no god is as much a fallacy as claiming there is one when it is clear to see that one comes before the other.
I don't get why it matters that one came before the other. Can you shine some light on that for me, please? In my eyes both arguments are as void of knowledge and logic as the other.

>the chance of you being right is pretty high.
But we're not talking guesswork here. We're talking facts. There's a huge difference between the two.
Now, I do not believe in gods existence and I never think of it. But I do not claim to have 100% undeniable knowledge and proof about something that is without a doubt unprovable.
The only logical solution to reach when something is unprovable is to accept that it might exist, no matter how unlikely it may be.

>I don't get why it matters that one came before the other. Can you shine some light on that for me, please? In my eyes both arguments are as void of knowledge and logic as the other.

Honestly I really don't want to teach philosophy and critical thinking 101 here so simply Google "burden of proof" and "bertrand russels flying teapot".

It isn't about who made a claim first. It matters who is actually making a claim and who isn't.

Remember that there is a large difference between these two statements

>there is no god.
and
>i see no convincing evidence of a god's existence.

The first is is claim, the second is a statement.

Yes but we have to try

It matters because it is obvious that the concept of a god is a man made thing that has never been proven and therefor doesn't need to be disproved. It matters because religion claims special rights in society, law, etc. and the acceptance of that on the basis of a very, very unlikely scenario is crazy and needs to be debunked.
It matters because of the teapot and how to make people understand who are even dumber than myself.

There are 4 axioms by which humans derive logic.

1. The Universe exists
2. We can learn something from this Universe
3. Models which can predict are better than those which cannot
4. Models which use less assumptions are better than those which use more (Parsimony, or "Occam's Razor"

Here's how the argument for God fails:

>Beliefs in a God requires faith (there's no current evidence to prove it)
>Justification of faith requires both arguments from ignorance (because God hasn't been disproved) and an assumed conclusion (because beliefs in a God assumes the possibility of God)
>Arguments from ignorance and assumed conclusions are logical fallacies

>Belief in a God or Gods is irrational and illogical.

/thread

Thanks!

no problemo. Don't let religitards try and confuse you with circular nonsense.

Why even engage them at al? You won't change their mind and you will look like a sperg to everyone else who's listening even if they agree with you.

Keep your atheism to yourslef.

Because it is inhuman to leave them alone with such cruel doctrines. Their brain is is wired to agency overdetection - they can still be decent people.

>Honestly I really don't want to teach philosophy and critical thinking 101 here so simply Google "burden of proof" and "bertrand russels flying teapot".

There's no need. All of this has been covered in this thread already. I was simply asking you to explain why one unprovable argument is right because another unprovable argument came first.

>>It isn't about who made a claim first.
Actually, that's exactly what you said and I wanted you to explain your line of thought. Why all the backtrack?


>Remember that there is a large difference between these two statements
>>there is no god.
>and
>>i see no convincing evidence of a god's existence.
>The first is is claim, the second is a statement.
I am well aware. It was also covered in this thread earlier, by me in fact.

Never try to convert religious people to atheism. It's pointless, they will just probably get offended.

The only thing we can do is to wait and hope that one day at least most of people will start to think by themself. It's already happening. More and more people are not believing in gods.

It matters to me personaly because I thought about the concept of the state of nature and yes, I will also admit that my idea of it actually being a matter which came first was wrong.

Good that they get offended. I get offended by their ignorance.

>It matters because it is obvious that the concept of a god is a man made thing that has never been proven and therefor doesn't need to be disproved.

This is wrong. While the existence of god has never been proven and if someone claims he does the burden of proof lies with him, claiming that you don't need proof to know the opposite is true is a common logical fallacy called "An Argument from Ignorance". This was explained as well as linked in an earlier post.


>It matters because religion claims special rights in society, law, etc. and the acceptance of that on the basis of a very, very unlikely scenario is crazy and needs to be debunked.
Uuuh, this is nothing but your opinion. It has _nothing_ to do with why one argument is more correct than the other.


>It matters because of the teapot and how to make people understand who are even dumber than myself.
If you truly want knowledge you need to learn how to wield it. Read wikipedias list of common logical fallacies and you'll learned something useful today, since you seem to be enjoying debates but definetly need more practice.

>you seem to be enjoying debates but definetly need more practice

Nail on the head. And you can bet that I will read through some articles after this thread.

>I was simply asking you to explain why one unprovable argument is right because another unprovable argument came first.

Well first off, if an argument is unprovable then it is by definition not an argument. At that point there is no way to move forward with debate. This is why you cannot argue with the idea of a deistic god.

>Actually, that's exactly what you said and I wanted you to explain your line of thought. Why all the backtrack?

I never said that and I never backtracked.
Burden of proof is laid on the person making a claim. Very simple. I could reverse my invisible horse model.

If we are both standing in an empty room and I say there is no invisible and untouchable horse in the corner and you say there is, who is making a claim?

The person claiming the invisible horse of course.

It doesn't mater who spoke first. It matters who makes the claim and the claim is "there is an invisible and untouchable horse", not "there is no invisible and untouchable horse".

One is a claim and one is a statement.

DAT PUSSY MEN :P

doesnt it matter because religion had some few 1000 years time to come up with evidence for their theory and didnt?

Further clarification:

We also need to acknowledge that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. My statement "there is no invisible and untouchable horse" is not an extraordinary claim. We have no reason or evidence to believe that invisible and untouchable horses exist, therefore the burden of proof falls on the person claiming the horse exists.

Making more sense now?

Well, I'm not religious, but I think there was a creator. The thing is, you are, therefore how did you get there. If there was not a creator, how did anything exist. Or do things exist purely because it was improbable for them to exist - therefore, we are here because it was so improbable for us to have existed in our current forms.

>I never said that and I never backtracked.

I'm gonna go ahead and quote some stuff you posted earlier in this thread.
>I still don't get how claiming that there is no god is as much a fallacy as claiming there is one when it is clear to see that one comes before the other.

Is this not you?

>Well first off, if an argument is unprovable then it is by definition not an argument. At that point there is no way to move forward with debate. This is why you cannot argue with the idea of a deistic god.

Well your opening post contains an argument that is indeed unprovable. Why did you bother writing it if you're just gonna debunk it yourself? Seriously, are you backtracking or are you just some douchebag who decided to respond to questions that was meant for someone else?

>Burden of proof is laid on the person making a claim
No one has claimed otherwise but you seem to bring it up. Why?

it takes more faith to believe we are some kind of magical poof in nothing from nothing. Thise claims have little to no scientific evidence to back up the theory. I also dont believe its an intellectual or humanoid creature that lives either in or outside our universe an looks down at us. Its more a primordial goop made from us, and made up of all the consciousness and "life forces" or "souls" within our universe and they gather and recycle into one another. Slowly but surely evolving through out time and space. So you are god or at least part god. By continuing living and growing our consciousness when we die we then give the next group that much better of a chance to evolve subconsciously for better suited life.


My evidence is basic knowledge of physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change forms. We are made from this energy, our consciousness is also made from this. If you believe in science and biological evolution for better suited life, then how can it be that difficult to believe our consciousness wouldn't evolve for better suited life in this current age?

>Is this not you?
Nope

>Well your opening post contains an argument that is indeed unprovable. Why did you bother writing it if you're just gonna debunk it yourself? Seriously, are you backtracking or are you just some douchebag who decided to respond to questions that was meant for someone else?

See Explains why "the is no invisible and untouchable horse" =/= "there is an invisible and untouchable horse".

>>>Is this not you?
>Nope

Then why the fuck did you respond? I asked that guy to explain his views and instead you butt in to answer this question for him, with your own views at that? No one asked you. The question was clearly directed at someone else.

Despite that, you proceeded to "teach" me about stuff that I already posted earlier in this thread... Try to focus before you start posting, please. This entire convo with you have been a waste.

The guy you tried to talk to was me and I still read it and you definitely helped me to get some things right so it was no waste of time.

Actually I was making fair and valid points. Sorry if you don't like who said then. Furthermore , you want a one on one discussion t don't post an an anonymous message board you daft twat.

>666697