Gggg102:


even if the person hasn't looked into the cupboard, the person's claim is just an empty assumption. you can't say it is true or false except you know.

In other word, we should not dismiss empty assumptions even when we recognize it as empty?
So ur whole argument is that empty assumptions should be accommodated. Lol. So both of u never get to visit this neighbours cupboard and ur friend keep on pestering ur life with this so called handsome monster what do u do... U keep on patting him on his back that he may be right?
Sorry... I am not that kind of person.

you can tell him that he is lying and his assumption could be true, telling that he is lying implies that you know what is in the neighbour's cupboard. it is more appropriate to tell him you don't believe him as he is making an empty assertion.

So assumptions that are totally ridiculous and can never be confirmed should be entertained? Going by ur statement I can tell u that I have a red lion with three heads that give me money every week under my bed without any proof.. In fact my proof is the money in my hand and u will tell me that my assumption could be true?
By the way what do u mean by "he is lying but his assumption could be true". I can see u want to just win this argument.
U don win. I give up.

it is erroneous to make a conclusion on false evidence, it is also erroneous to make a conclusion based on no evidence.

The proclaimer gives no evidence and false evidence and u are asking me to entertain him? If u judge and someone tells u I killed his brother with little or no evidence wouldn't u dismiss his claim? Would u keep me remanded until he gets evidence any time he feels like? Will u say absence of evidence is not and evidence of absence and tell me to continue being under custody until accuser gets a real evidence or not?
If the judge dismiss his claim based on no evidence or false ridiculous evidence, and even go ahead to set me free as a free man does it mean he has gotten hard and concrete evidence that I am not the killer?
Someone tells u there is God and u ask all necessary question and can't get any reasonable answer for all ur life and u say it should not be dismissed and rejected?

when I dismiss their evidence, I am saying their evidence does not back their conclusion, and I don't believe their conclusion because their conclusion is an empty assumption. saying their conclusion itself is false implies that you know for sure that it is false, even when you don't know.

Oga when u don't believe their conclusion u have already said their conclusion false. And i know for sure that their conclusion is false because I already know they don't know. I already know no one can know.

frank317:

In other word, we should not dismiss empty assumptions even when we recognize it as empty?
So ur whole argument is that empty assumptions should be accommodated. Lol. So both of u never get to visit this neighbours cupboard and ur friend keep on pestering ur life with this so called handsome monster what do u do... U keep on patting him on his back that he may be right?
Sorry... I am not that kind of person.


So assumptions that are totally ridiculous and can never be confirmed should be entertained? Going by ur statement I can tell u that I have a red lion with three heads that give me money every week under my bed without any proof.. In fact my proof is the money in my hand and u will tell me that my assumption could be true?
By the way what do u mean by "he is lying but his assumption could be true". I can see u want to just win this argument.
U don win. I give up.


The proclaimer gives no evidence and false evidence and u are asking me to entertain him? If u judge and someone tells u I killed his brother with little or no evidence wouldn't u dismiss his claim? Would u keep me remanded until he gets evidence any time he feels like? Will u say absence of evidence is not and evidence of absence and tell me to continue being under custody until accuser gets a real evidence or not?
If the judge dismiss his claim based on no evidence or false ridiculous evidence, and even go ahead to set me free as a free man does it mean he has gotten hard and concrete evidence that I am not the killer?
Someone tells u there is God and u ask ally necessary question and can't get any reasonable answer for all ur life and u say it should not be dismissed and rejected?


Oga when u don't believe their conclusion u have already said their conclusion false. And i know for sure that their conclusion is false because I already know they don't know. I already know no one can know.

I never said you should not dismiss them.

you CAN dismiss empty assumptions.

saying it is false without proof of it being false is what is the issue.

you can't say something is true without proof, you also can't say something is false without proof.

if anyone says anything without proof, you CAN dismiss their claims.

when you are listening to a claim, you can dismiss the claim based on no evidence.

but when you make a claim, you have to bring evidence or your claim is dismissed as an empty assumption.

Gggg102:


I never said you should not dismiss them.

you CAN dismiss empty assumptions.

saying it is false without proof of it being false is what is the issue.

you can't say something is true without proof, you also can't say something is false without proof.

if anyone says anything without proof, you CAN dismiss their claims.

when you are listening to a claim, you can dismiss the claim based on no evidence.

but when you make a claim, you have to bring evidence or your claim is dismissed as an empty assumption.

So why should I even dismiss their claim without proof of it being false?

frank317:


So why should I even dismiss their claim without proof of it being false?

you can dismiss their claim when they don't have evidence without proof of them being false because you are not making any claim. it is the person making the claim that has the burden of proof.

frank317:



Oga when u don't believe their conclusion u have already said their conclusion false. And i know for sure that their conclusion is false because I already know they don't know. I already know no one can know.

you not believing their conclusion is not equivalent to their conclusion being false.

saying I don't believe is different from saying you are lying.

saying I don't believe means you are skeptical and waiting for evidence to convince you.(you allow the possibility of the statement being true or false).
saying you are lying means the statement is false. (there is no possibility of it being true).

Gggg102:


you can dismiss their claim when they don't have evidence without proof of them being false because you are not making any claim. it is the person making the claim that has the burden of proof.

I can also say they are wrong because they don't have any proof.

frank317:

I can also say they are wrong because they don't have any proof.

then you would have to prove they are wrong since you've made a claim yourself. you've put yourself under the burden of proof.

Gggg102:


you not believing their conclusion is not equivalent to their conclusion being false.

saying I don't believe is different from saying you are lying.

saying I don't believe means you are skeptical and waiting for evidence to convince you.(you allow the possibility of the statement being true or false).
saying you are lying means the statement is false. (there is no possibility of it being true).

They are almost the same thing bro... Not believing means something is not right, something is wrong. And if something is wrong, something is false.
The difference is really not much and should not be a matter of such a long debate. I am stressed out already for such little difference.

I don't believed theist have seen any God. I know no one knows how or what created the world, therefore I think theists are false. And I can confidently say there is no God until one is proved.
I don't see a big deal in this assumption. The evidence of no God is in his inability to show up or do something just the way I look at the cupboard and see no monster, thats how I look around and see no God.
There theist lie

frank317:


They are almost the same thing bro... Not believing means something is not right, something is wrong. And if something is wrong, something is false.
The difference is really not much and should not be a matter of such a long debate. I am stressed out already for such little difference.

I don't believed theist have seen any God. I know no one knows how or what created the world, therefore I think theists are false. And I can confidently say there is no God until one is proved.
I don't see a big deal in this assumption. The evidence of no God is in his inability to show up or do something just the way I look at the cupboard and see no monster, thats how I look around and see no God.

There theist lie

the difference is much. one is agnostic, the other is atheistic. one doesn't have burden of proof, the other has a burden of proof. you can't have the burden of proof and not have the burden of proof at the same time.

not believing something does not mean it is not right. it means you are in doubt. you can doubt something and it still turns out to be true. when you say something is false, it means there is zero chance that thing is true. it means you know it is false and you should be able to prove it.

you say you don't believe theist have seen any god. so it means you're doubting since none have shown you convincing evidence. that you don't believe them does not make their show their claim is false.
if you said it is a lie that theists have seen god, or no theist have seen god, then you are saying it is a confirmed fact that theists have not seen god. you would have to prove this fact.

@bold, that's an attempt to prove god does not exist right there.
you say the theist lie, so that means it is a fact that god does not exist and you KNOW this fact. which conflicts with you saying that YOU DON'T KNOW. because if you KNOW theists are lying, it means you KNOW that there is no god. burden of proof therefore falls on you also.

Gggg102:

the difference is much. one is agnostic, the other is atheistic. one doesn't have burden of proof, the other has a burden of proof. you can't have the burden of proof and not have the burden of proof at the same time.

not believing something does not mean it is not right. it means you are in doubt. you can doubt something and it still turns out to be true. when you say something is false, it means there is zero chance that thing is true. it means you know it is false and you should be able to prove it.

you say you don't believe theist have seen any god. so it means you're doubting since none have shown you convincing evidence. that you don't believe them does not make their show their claim is false.
if you said it is a lie that theists have seen god, or no theist have seen god, then you are saying it is a confirmed fact that theists have not seen god. you would have to prove this fact.

@bold, that's an attempt to prove god does not exist right there.
you say the theist lie, so that means it is a fact that god does not exist and you KNOW this fact. which conflicts with you saying that YOU DON'T KNOW. because if you KNOW theists are lying, it means you KNOW that there is no god. burden of proof therefore falls on you also.

I really don't care if I am an atheist or agnostic... I just know that theists who say God exists have not been able to prove him and so if he also has refused to show himself since I have been alive, he does not exist.
The prove that God does not exist is in the fact that out of billions that have lived and died, none has seen him... This is enough for me and I don't need to say he might possibility be real since his existence or not adds no value to my life.
Any one who makes silly assumptions i will tell them they lie.

frank317:


I really don't care if I am an atheist or agnostic... I just know that theists who say God exists have not been able to prove him and so if he also has refused to show himself since I have been alive, he does not exist.
The prove that God does not exist is in the fact that out of billions that have lived and died, none has seen him... This is enough for me and I don't need to say he might possibility be real since his existence or not adds no value to my life.
Any one who makes silly assumptions i will tell them they lie.

then you are atheist since you KNOW god does not exist.
which contradicts your agnostic claim here :

frank317:



Knowing God does not exists or the God exists is not possible... This is because no one was there when it all started.

although your proof is invalid, since absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Gggg102:


then you are atheist since you KNOW god does not exist.
which contradicts your agnostic claim here :

okay

although your proof is invalid, since absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

God is not existent if he has not been proven for thousands of years. there is no big deal to this

daremiarchs:


God bless you
if he ever existed

Well done.

Adewhunmiiii:

Well done.

aww.... baby I can explain

daremiarchs:


aww.... baby I can explain

I'm not your baby and there's no need to explain. ☺

Adewhunmiiii:

I'm not your baby and there's no need to explain. ☺

okay