Pseudoskepticism and logic

[qs]That's quite correct, logically speaking. People usually think that a negative claim is much better than a positive one. But look at the moon conspiracy. They claim we didn't go to the moon.Your opening message seems completely sound as it's easily provable.The problem is that most people, UNLIKE you, don't study logic to any meaningful "standard", because they are more interested in their ideology, and biases. Good point.One point of interest is that a similar example of a kind of counter intuitive position, is again the moon claim.Although it is more "likely", by most standards, that we didn't go to a foreign planet, rather than simply the easy option of faking it, the negative claims of the conspiracy theorists are still false nevertheless. There are many here, who take the easy position of sitting there and merely attacking everything anyone offers, without actually doing any work for themselves. They will provide facts to support their popularly accepted arguments, because somebody else has done all the work for them.They get frustrated, and sloppy, and strawmans and ad hominem attacks usually follow.Good to read you, I will read more of the topic now.

Want to try being me? ....Seriously though, it makes me glad when I hear things from TRUE neutralists such as you and RAZD, and agnostics who are truly honest and fair, and unbiased. Good work guys.

Your post is moot for several logical reasons.First of all the immaterial pink unicorn is KNOWN to be fabricated for the purpose of atheist-argument. But this also shows that you have no knowledge about composition, and the fallacies of composition.The problem with the simpleton-argument of the IPU is that compositionally it is a completely moot position, and also it is the fallacy of the undistributed middle term.What this shallow view actually shows us is the immaturity of those that have never had a faith, because they can only conflate faith with shallow concepts known for their silliness.Logically, this does not mean that our beliefs are 1.Shallow, or 2. Sily. What it does allow us to infer is that you THINK our beliefs are silly and incredulous.Well, an argument from incredulity is also fallacious, so it is quite irrelevant what you say if it is from 1. Ignorance, and 2. Incredulity.Have you nothing better than the same regurgitated ad nauseam argument, in response to RAZD, a giant of thought in comparison to such nonsense?Do you really think someone as intelligent as RAZD will not see the many errors in such childish, sneering comments?

"Evidenced possibility". Wow. Show us some stuff that show us this possibility.You do realize that there are many "possibilities"?

No, compositional error. You can only assume they are all the same based on a generic premise.The undistributed middle is indeed happening in this example, because if I believe in God, that an IPU shares invisibility, is only one thing it shares, compositionally, therefore you can't conclude logically that they are "identical".It would be like saying that apple is fruit, orange is fruit, therefore an apple is an orange, or the same as it or identical.The only property the IPU shares with God, is that it is immaterial. Then the comparison proceeds based on the full characterictics.Making up characteristics for the IPU is posteriori, and will not prove that God's characteristcis are made-up or similar.All you have is vacuous shallow argumentation, that an immature "belief-concept" is somehow supposed to be the equivalent of faith.This only tells us things about those with a lack of faith, because logically, nothing has been stated about any specific God. LoL. Glad I got the effect I was hoping for, from someone as predictable as you.All I done was evaluate what he had said, and responded in support of the sound logic he used.If you can't take that, nobody is forcing you to read my posts. When are you going to learn that I do know what i'm talking about.You come up with a dumb IPU which is shallow, known to be made-up, and think that this means God was made up, because you assigned an immaterial attribute to something.here's an example;Hitler was a nasty pasty, but my imaginery friend is a nasty pasty, therefore Hitler didn't exist.(The point is to show how YOUR reasoning leads to a false argument, not to actually argue that line of reasoning.)So if the IPU, a posteriori concept, shares invisibility with the historical God of the bible, what can we can conclude, that they are "identical".Your own words proved your use of the undistributed middle. The "middle" term you asked for is "immaterial".So you have an immaterial made-up concept.My inference is; so what. How on earth can that can compare to the Lord, having read any of the psalms at all?I'm afraid you do not prove anything by saying that invisible made-up things can't be proven to not exist, when any rational person concludes they don't exist based on a shallow and vacuous composition. This does not mean that God is 1. Made-up, 2. shallow, 3.silly.It does tell us that atheists believe God is made-up, shallow or silly.Again, logically, I still have the right to say; so what, you have told me nothing about anything except your silly IPU, and you have told me nothing about my faith, or my God.Goodbye.ps. To clarify, I believe the argument is;IPU is immaterial and ??silly/madeup unprovable negative??
God is immaterial therefore silly/madeup etc...and is identical to the IPU.At best you have a line of reasoning based on reductio ad absurdum, but it's not solid enough because it's only one property. Why is this relevant logically? Because there are immaterial things that exist, which are not silly, etc..Logical positivism states that nothing exists until there is a positive, but does that mean everything we don't know wabout is silly?If God does exist, that some gods are clearly silly or obsolete myths, doesn't say anything about God.You seek to say that God does not exist even if you can't prove he doesn't. But the reasoning is tenuous because the IPU is 100% KNOWN to be made up, and it's only other "composition" is it's immaterial nature.But the biblical God alone shows a vast, complex and detailed composition.All you can now do is say that the IPU has all of those characteristics aswell, BUT it's all vacuous BECAUSE we still "KNOW" why the IPU exists. For refuting the possibility of God.And so, this does not satisfy me, because rationally, things can still exist even if they are not material.My personal beliefs have led to exterior effects, through prayer, aswell as internal effects, even though I have no power to affect the exterior. Therefore the external can't be ruled out as internal.SYLLOGISM;If belief in God is meaningful then amazing things will follow, (external).Amazing things have happened. (external)Therefore this confirms my belief in God.Obviously it's the ponen, not the tollens, so don't accuse me of saying that these amazing things prove God.All I am saying is that nobody's lives are affected by an IPU.There are many, many differences between an IPU and God, therefore you can't fallaciously conclude that they are identical. They are only identical to you.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I can't make such a case, because my experiences were not recorded. I only have my personal testimony as evidence.It is reasonable to state that if God did not exist, then I should not expect much to happen, in regards to my faith-experiences.This is not the case, therefore it follows that my God does exist. (Tollens)The thing is, even this, though sound is not technically "proof", because of alternate explanations.For example, when I felt the presence of God, that might have been the Holy Spirit, as it should "follow"....but others, such as you, will say that it was explainable as a religious experience, based on some kind of mind-induced experience, etc..Even though I know it was not possible for me to fake this, as I wasn't "trying", there are still other explanations.But the point is, I don't think thay if I had praised the IPU, that I would have had this experience.it is a shallow concept, posteriori, to any actual biblical history, or scriptures with excellent manuscript authority.So it's not that I am not scientific or fair - afterall, I conclude that I technically can't prove anything to you, but the IPU, because of logical reasons, is 100% "immaterial false concept". This we know. We don't know this of God.Certainly everything i have experienced is far too meaningful and specific and intricate, for there to be a meaningful comparison. I hope you can see this.

You have the privelidge of my very last post. You're re-defining it.I don't need evidence for something that doesn't exist. God, looking at human history alone, it can't be said based on that, whether he exists.You can propose an IPU exists. I can't technically disprove it, but this doesn't mean that "God" is exactly the same, or that God was a proposition.Let me explain.If there are multi-verses, then this lends to a more plausible explanation of this universe. So do I equate God with multi-verses or IPUs? I could say that God is more complex therefore he is more to be equated with multiverses.Can you see that that SHOWS the epithets of the IPU.NO ATHEIST would compare God to something which is unknowable because it can't be detected, yet plausible. But essentially, I must "assume" the epithet that God is a silly proposition. Atheists ONLY propose silly things, as comparisons for an "immaterial" property.You would see possible multi-verses as rational, but I see God as rational. You see God as irrational.We can posit anything. This won't tell us much about what "really" exists. This is why it's an argumentum ad ignorantium to say that Jack did not murder because there was no evidence he did.Likewise - I can't conclude God doesn't exist because i simply don't know. So what can we do? We have to assess each "god" individually, and see if they are plausable on a personal level.I am not pseudoskeptical if I don't "know" most propositions. How can I be pseudoskeptical about something I don't know about?But people pick a specific God, such as the Christian God, and put all of their energy into disproving him. I do not put my energy into disproving the green giant.We know that lots of people take God seriously, and that belief affects their lives.one man I know was on the streets for I think about 22 years, he got off drugs and alcohol because of belief in Jesus Christ. He now runs rehabilitation centres around the country. I don't disbelieve his testimonies, which are fecking incredible beyond belief (almost ), but I know his encounter with God was real because I also had it.So in reality, the IPU doesn't tell me much about my beliefs.Perhaps some people do take belief in fairies seriously. But will it get them off drugs? Will they encounter God, in a way BEYOND any doubt?Bye for now mod.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.