Okay, thanks.

And what is this judgement concerning? Is it your position that this is God deciding if you go to heaven or hell?

Also, who are these <dead>? Do you think that this refers to everyone who ever lived, including Christians, Moses and OT prophets?

Or do you think the writer is referring to dead Jews?

Yes. This is what I've always said too.

<For the record, I won this debate but not because I'm clever. Rather, I won it because I'm defending truth which is the easiest thing in the world to do.>

Kenneth Rogoff (kibitz #160143)

... and the English translation of the Latin ignoramus is "we do not know." It was used historically in law to indicate that the prosecution had not produced convincing evidence.>

<Willbur>, let's get to the point.

I put this proposition to you:

"God does not exist."

You're answers therefore can be:

1. Yes, it's true.
2. No, it's false.
3. I'm ignorant

<Just as I don't know the non-existence of many things>

Really?

Do you have 3 arms? Does the third arm exist? If it does not exist, then you can now congratulate yourself for finally knowing the non-existence of a thing.

Do you have an elephant that only lives in your refrigerator?

Does a 51st state exist in America?

Does Julius Caesar exist?

What about Atilla the Hun, does he exist?

I will just say that if I have evidence that a thing exists, I will believe it exists.

If I have evidence that a thing does not exist, I will believe it does not exist.

Without evidence for either of those cases, I will say "I don't know."

It might be if GE was supported by scientific evidence, but it is not.>

Heh heh. I really enjoyed your pronouncement of settled science without one iota of substantiating evidence. If you've ever in your life read a scientific journal about the topic, please cite it! Thanks in advance.

In any event, let me posit this to the open-minded readers of this forum:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ-...

To those folks who think science is clearly settled upon their version of history/morality/etc. I suggest you meditate upon the history of the world, and how arrogant were such as yourselves, who thought everything was "settled" throughout the ages, when folks like you had no clue what was really going on.

I understand that to be what is routinely called the final judgement.>

I just want to recap so none of this gets lost in the noise once these posts scroll to the next page.

Two points in your last post:

1. Regarding the proposition: "God does not exist" (I will now refer to this as atheism or the truth of atheism), you claimed ignorance as to the truth or falseness of it.

2. You then tried to diminish this somewhat awkward concession (if you don't see it as a concession, that's fine) by implying that this is not to be a big surprise, because it's common to not know about the non-existence of things.

I pressed you on the second point by showing there are lots of things that exist that you don't know about, so your distinction was ultimately arbitrary. After your last post on that matter, we can now trim off that unnecessary, non <central point> point, which was your second point.

That leaves us with the original and real <central point>, which is your position of claiming ignorance.

Now I'm going to lead into a question.

You made a red herring type of point earlier when you attempted to introduce a point of equivocation against the word "ignorance" when you said that in the practice of <law>, "ignorance" meant that the <prosecution had not produced convincing evidence.> This was meant to subtly indicate that the burden of proof is on the one who claims something exists, but it is also on the one who claims something does not exist, because the burden of proof lies with anyone who makes a truth claim; a claim to know some truth about the universe i.e. that such and such a proposition is true or false.

I shouldn't really indulge this red herring (it's a red herring because in the context of philosophy, where theistic arguments lie, the word "ignorance" isn't used the way you described its use in the historical practice of law - thus, this is the attempted equivocation, which is a fallacious treatment) but I'll suffer it just this once. I'll attempt to use this equivocation on the word "ignorance", or maybe it is best referred to as a red herring since it trails off from the <central point>, to redirect us back to the <central point>.

When you claim <ignorance> regarding the proposition, "God does not exist", and we apply the context of historical law practice (not necessarily a relevant context as I explained) to your claim of <ignorance>, we should therefore conclude that those who argue for the truth of that proposition (atheists) "have not produced convincing evidence."

Therefore my questions:

What arguments for the truth of atheism have you heard or read?

Why did these atheistic arguments fail to produce convincing evidence?

<BP: Okay, thanks.

And what is this judgement concerning? Is it your position that this is God deciding if you go to heaven or hell?>

Yes.

<Also, who are these <dead>? Do you think that this refers to everyone who ever lived, including Christians, Moses and OT prophets?>

Yes.

<Or do you think the writer is referring to dead Jews?>

All people who ever lived.

<Or do you think he's referring the dead that remain in a post-rapture world?>

If I am understanding you right BP, then you were originally looking to debate the statement "God does not exist". I did not see Wilber making the statement, nor did he appear ready to defend it. He did, however, point out that lack of negative evidence does not constitue positive evidence - is this a proposition that you can agree to?

We haven't entered into any debate yet. I haven't attempted to refute anything you've said, so there is no debate at this point.

<What does any of this have to do with my offer?>

It makes sure that I know exactly what you are talking about, and why you are saying what you're saying.

You made a distinction when you referenced the NT instead of just the bible, for instance. I want to know why, because there may be an assumption being made there and I want to know that we are on the same page.

This helps us not talk past each other once it starts.

You brought up that you think God can save whoever he wants at judgment, so I wanted to know exactly which judgment, and who you think is being judged and the circumstances of this judgment.

Not exactly. <Wilbur> was attempting to make the position of <ignorance> less awkward. I had stated recently that atheists have given up defending atheism and have been forced to take a giant leap to the right, finding themselves in agnosticism. I pointed out that agnosticism is simply claiming ignorance and I think this can be viewed as a big win for theists.

<Wilbur> subtly implied that ignorance just means that theists haven't proven their case, and that's why I said let's get to the point, and brought up the proposition "God does not exist" and asked him if he thought it was true, false - or if he is going to claim ignorance.

The purpose of this is to show that if he claims ignorance, then it is the atheist who didn't provide convincing evidence, an that the <prosecution> in this matter would be the atheist.

<He did, however, point out that lack of negative evidence does not constitue positive evidence...>

I would say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but he didn't point that out.

<Troller>, it's very simple really. Any claim to knowledge carries a burden of proof. Let me share two claims to knowledge that each carries a burden of proof:

1. God exists
2. God does not exist.

<If so, then a much better statement for debate would be "God exists", all the more so since apparently no one wants to defend the opposite statement.>

No, it's not a much better statement because "God does not exist" makes an equal but opposite claim. "God does not exist" was a claim that atheists loved to defend for a very long time, until just recently - quite recently in fact.

Remember, <Troller>, I made the initial point that atheists no longer want to debate the proposition "God does not exist" because they get trounced by theists. Therefore it's entirely appropriate to put this proposition forth and see what the atheists think about it - to test my theory.

Another problem with "God exists" is that when the theist argues against typical atheist positions, the atheist can say, "I didn't say that in this debate" and claim straw man. In order to avoid attacking straw men, it's important to allow the atheist a chance to lay out his best arguments for "God does not exist".

And if the theist's opponent says, "I didn't say God doesn't exist. I'm just sitting here, open-minded, willing to be convinced that your god(s) exist, and you haven't convinced me yet" then we are not debating an atheist.

That would prove once again that atheists are becoming more scarce by the day, which supports my original point, that atheists are fleeing atheism to seek refuge from theistic apologists in the comfort of ignorance (agnosticism).

Then there are the atheists who want to have it both ways. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say that they are an atheist, but atheism no longer means "God does not exist". It just means "I don't know" but that's agnosticism.

Atheists have tried to redefine atheism because they've been clobbered in philosophical debates. They think if they redefine it such that it really means agnosticism, then they can claim to be atheists but avoid the burden of proof.

I save myself, my opponents, and the Lurking Readers lots of time by avoiding these prideful games, when I cut to the chase and ask who wants to defend the proposition, "God does not exist."

Every time an atheist backs away from this challenge and meekly proclaims his ignorance, I view it as a tremendous victory for theism and theistic arguments. This happens all the time now, whereas 15 years ago, atheists were willing to defend that proposition everywhere at any time.

You have expanded the discussion into areas I'm not particularly interested in.

You claim that atheists have changed their stance due to pressure from theists over time.

You might be right, you might be wrong, I have no idea, but either way it's irrelevant to my case.

I described here (and in other posts) the essence of my position:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5935)

This is a position I have held for as long as I can remember, through my upbringing as a Methodist (until 10 or so), rejoining the church for a couple of years in my mid 20s (at the request of my then girlfriend) and my subsequent life till now.

In a nutshell, I base my beliefs on evidence, and thus far I have not seen sufficient to convince me to say either "God(s) exists" or "God(s) does not exist". I must admit, though, I don't go looking for it so I'm sure there're plenty of assertions I've missed.

I know many people who lost fingers in accidents they don't grow back.... try it if you got Dragon voice recognition software and send us pictures of this experiment please. Ok just kidding please don't do that ;0]

The only <bone> in the human body you can remove and will regenerate are ribs, floating ribs in particular. Of all the bones in the human body Genesis says the <rib> bone. Interesting enough it also says God put a deep sleep on Adam which anticipated anesthetics, some even claiming that is where the idea originated in western medicine.

Last they got incredible lucky again not with just picking the one bone that regenerate, anesthetics but also Adam couldn't have come from Eve as she had no Y chromosome.

<... and the English translation of the Latin ignoramus is "we do not know." It was used historically in law to indicate that the prosecution had not produced convincing evidence.>

I think the evidence is so overwhelming there is no excuse what so ever.

The only <bone> in the human body you can remove and will regenerate are ribs, floating ribs in particular.>

I don't think I said that the liver would regenerate if it was <totally> removed. Neither would a floating rib, as you yourself stated.

Also, other bones <will> regenerate. I specifically mentioned the distal phalanges: