I will not prove God exists

[Omen]

If I can show you there were horses in NA before 1600,

We already know that a species of horse lived on the North American continent over 10,000 years ago.  However, they died out 8-9000 years before your mythological bullshit happened.

And horses weren't the only problem:

Barley, Wheat, Goats, and that you know.. whole bronze age civilization that doesn't exist.  Not to mention a complete lack of history that even coincides with the notion that they originated from a middle east culture of hebrews which again didn't exist.

will you read the Book of Mormon? Let's get you some skin in the game!

Why are you assuming that I haven't read your religious book?

Do you have evidence to support the claims in the book of mormon and the bible?

Will you address the fact that you're argument makes it impossible to know anything?

Will you address the fact that you avoid evasive criticisms of your claims?

Will you address the fact that you constantly avoid the burden of proof?

Will you address the fact that it has been pointed out to you repeatedly that NONE of your claims logical follow and you rest all of your arguments upon base fallacies?

[fizixgeek]

So, I've been asked several times about horses in the Book of Mormon. Let's be clear that this neither proves, nor disproves the Book of Mormon really, but if horses are an obstacle for you, here is an article about horses found in the La Brea tarpits (long after the translation of the Book of Mormon, BTW).

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/18/science/sci-fossils18

Now, this is a far cry from establishing that there were horses at the time of the Book of Mormon or that they were used in the way described, but it's something to sooth your troubled mind.

Also, here is a good discussion by a Mormon scholar about exactly what fossil records we might reasonably expect to find given the references in the Book of Mormon.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=129#5

Omen, I'm sorry I assumed you hadn't read the Book of Mormon. Have you?

[Omen]

There would have been no Jews in egypt to have an exodus, no egyptian slaves or egyptian history that coincides with biblical myth, no place for tribes of israelites to come from, and hell.. even the hebrew language didn't exist until a 1000 years later from supposed events!  No egypt for hebrews to escape from, because egypt already controlled the land of canaan .. moses would have lead the israelites from egypt INTO egypt complete with armed garrisons of egyptian soldiers, nomadic canaanite tribesmen, all of which don't seem to be impacted enough to take note of the sudden appearance of a new civilization that magically left no evidence of its own existence!

[Omen]

So, I've been asked several times about horses in the Book of Mormon.

Actually, you've been asked about other things beyond horses.  Including other animals that didn't exist on the north american continent, as well as the notion of a bronze age civilization, as well as the historical basis of the old testament ( which is mostly as non-existent as the mormon history of north america ).

Let's be clear

Obfuscation time!  We got to reduce the argument to the basic components in order to equivocate on the bare essentials of absence of evidence vs evidence of absence.

that this neither proves, nor disproves the Book of Mormon really

It absolutely, 100% disprove the book of mormon.

However, we don't have to disprove anything, because you haven't proven anything.

We don't first begin this argument with the assumption that the book of mormon is true, then rationalize all statements towards that presumption.  Doing so invites the inability to even determine if our rationalizations are true or not, because we've discarded 'truth' at the front door.

, but if...

Now you're just ignoring me.  You're not paying attention to what is stated, you're not even addressing the arguments, and you are summarizing up to a ridiculous argument from your own personal incredulity having presupposed what is true before having satisfied any burden of proof.

I've already said we KNOW that pre-historic horses existed on the North American continent, why are you posting a link to what I've already said that we KNOW.

However, we also KNOW that those horses died out well over 10,000 years ago.

Now, this is a far cry..

It is a far cry from anything, because you are purposefully misconstruing my statements and not sincerely addressing the criticisms put before you.  You linked to a website that has evidence of what we already know, because I've already stated what we already know based on evidence.

You are not presenting evidence of a mormon civilization that existed in the North American continent within the past few thousand years, 10,000 years ago is not 2-3000 years ago.  There were no more horses, then there were goats, barley, wheat, or a bronze age civilization.

Omen, I'm sorry I assumed you hadn't read the Book of Mormon. Have you?

Yes I have, and it is as baseless and pointless as any other religious text out there.  Makes no claims that can be verified in order to validate its own authenticity and contradicts KNOWN facts about history/science.

[Omen]

Jesus doesn't fulfill Judaic messianic prophecy, it is instead selected at random from biblical text and has nothing to do with actual Judaic messianic prophecy and claimed entirely beyond any notion of coherent following from Judaism itself.  In order to claim that Jesus fulfills prophecy, you have to discard Judaism , and since the messianic prophecy comes out of Judaism you create for yourself another big fat contradiction.

Where Jesus doesn't have anything to do with actual judaic prophecy, christians instead sum it up under the 'second coming' which like everything else.. has absolutely no reference in Judaic messianic prophecy.

[Omen]

I could list the contradictions and inconsistencies all day long.

The problem, which you keep ignoring, is that you're not arguing openly and honestly with anyone here.  You are constantly avoiding the burden of proof and arguing using a type of apologetic called presuppositional apologia.  You presuppose all conditions of your mythology as true, then claim that reality can only be understood in that light.  You then avoid any discussion that forces you to argue in the affirmative of any claim you make regarding your beliefs.  Also, since you've presupposed your beliefs as true unquestioningly and based absolutely on no evidence/reason whatsoever, you can rationalize any contradiction using any means you wish to arrive to a condition you've already assumed.

I could use this process to argue for anything, anywhere, however I want, and no matter how not true it is.   Why is it that you think that this is a valid form of debate?

[fizixgeek]

Will you address the fact that it has been pointed out to you repeatedly that NONE of your claims logical follow and you rest all of your arguments upon base fallacies?

Hi Omen,
  Let's address the supposed fallacies you've been pointing out. I predict it will take more than 8 pages to get you to concede me a single point. How likely is it that I'm wrong on absolutely every point and you right on the same points?  Everyone smarter than us, feel free to skip the rest of this asinine discussion of which I am reluctantly half.

<-----

To business.  At the head of the thread, you said:

For example, if my sources of spiritual

This is meaningless special pleading, that only begs the question:

What is 'spiritual' truth and how is it determined?

You seem to be unaware of what formal fallacies are so here let me help you out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

If you don't answer this criticism and elaborate upon this fallacy; then you are not conveying anything in an informative context to be understood.  If you repeat your claim, you repeat your fallacy, without explanation.  Your entire paragraph stems from this pleaded qualification, offered with no explanation and no information to accompany anything about it.  Your entire paragraph can be dismissed as incoherent.

So, what you're saying is that you challenge the following statement by me:

For example, if my sources of spiritual truth tried to convince me that most people experience God in very direct and visible ways nearly every day, I would have to be very suspicious of them because neither I nor anyone I know experiences God in that way.

because it applies special pleading and "begs the question." Is that right?

Before we start, let's be clear on what the proposition is. What, exactly, is the proposition I am attempting to prove and where have I assumed it in the premise? Or, WRT special pleading, what is the position in dispute and what are the favorable circumstances introduced without justification?

[Omen]

You also ignored this:


Why are you assuming that I haven't read your religious book?

Do you have evidence to support the claims in the book of mormon and the bible?

Will you address the fact that you're argument makes it impossible to know anything?

Will you address the fact that you avoid evasive criticisms of your claims?

Will you address the fact that you constantly avoid the burden of proof?

Will you address the fact that it has been pointed out to you repeatedly that NONE of your claims logical follow and you rest all of your arguments upon base fallacies?

[fizixgeek]

I'm trying to address these in the above post.

[Omen]

Hi Omen,
  Let's address the supposed fallacies you've been pointing out.

Yes! Lets!

Does this paragraph contain arguments addressing your constant use of fallacies?

I predict it will take more than 8 pages to get you to concede me a single point. How likely is it that I'm wrong on absolutely every point and you right on the same points? Isn't it more likely I'm trying to win an argument with someone dumber than me? Everyone smarter than us, feel free to skip the rest of this asinine discussion of which I am reluctantly half.

NO!

And thanks for the ad hominem, you haven't delusion-ally imagined the prowess of your own intellect at all!


How about this? Will this address anything?

For example, if my sources of spiritual

This is meaningless special pleading, that only begs the question:

What is 'spiritual' truth and how is it determined?

You seem to be unaware of what formal fallacies are so here let me help you out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

If you don't answer this criticism and elaborate upon this fallacy; then you are not conveying anything in an informative context to be understood.  If you repeat your claim, you repeat your fallacy, without explanation.  Your entire paragraph stems from this pleaded qualification, offered with no explanation and no information to accompany anything about it.  Your entire paragraph can be dismissed as incoherent.

So, what you're saying is that you challenge the following statement by me:

What I'm saying, is exactly what I stated above.

Before we start,

Are we going to start now!?

What, exactly, is the proposition

Everything, everytime you suppose a condition of something existing.

I am attempting to prove

Whether or not your 'attempting' to prove is irrelevant.  If you make a claim, the burden of proof is instantly placed upon you.

and where have I assumed it in the premise?

Everything.

Or, WRT special pleading, what is the position in dispute and what are the favorable circumstances introduced without justification?

I've already pointed it out, do you not speak english as your first language?

What about this do you not understand?

This is meaningless special pleading, that only begs the question:

What is 'spiritual' truth and how is it determined?

You seem to be unaware of what formal fallacies are so here let me help you out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

If you don't answer this criticism and elaborate upon this fallacy; then you are not conveying anything in an informative context to be understood.  If you repeat your claim, you repeat your fallacy, without explanation.  Your entire paragraph stems from this pleaded qualification, offered with no explanation and no information to accompany anything about it.  Your entire paragraph can be dismissed as incoherent.

Why is it that you seem less aware of what is being asked for and pointed out now than when you first responded with obfuscating bullshit?

This would undeniably be special pleading if I were trying to prove God exists, which I am not. My post can be thought of as a constructive proof of the statement "There exists a self-consistent concept of God which allows for

1. The existence of God
2. The absence of evidence for God's existence"

As such, I will not attempt to prove that this concept is true, just that it's consistent.

Wait a minute, you seemed to be instantly aware then, albeit its a non-sequitur because asking you to address special pleading as it applies to 'spiritual truth' is irrelevant to asking you to prove your mythology exists, but still.. you seemed to be instantly aware of what I was asking for at that time.. but now you can't seem to lower yourself enough to even be able to read basic english in a question?

[Omen]

I'm trying to address these in the above post.

Actually, you're being just as belligerent and arrogant as you usually are, while at the same time not addressing anything.

[fizixgeek]

OK. So, if I've "begged the question" defined as

a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

Then, could you give me just one example of a "proposition to be proven" which we could discuss? I think discussing one point at a time would be helpful.

[Omen]

You also abandoned the 4 questions mailbag, where you ignored every argument put against you, but ultimately what it boiled down too is that none of your questions actually applied to atheist at all.  They incessantly used false dichotomies and assumed conditions that begged the question, that you observably ignored at every turn, noted by multiple individuals.

After running away from that you started a thread about 'I will not prove God exists', while at the same time presuming your religious beliefs as absolutely true without arguing for them to be true, claiming to present an epistemology that could exist along side science that makes untestable assertions that make it impossible to know anything ( which you again ignored, it being pointed out multiple times by multiple people ), you summarized and dismissed arguments that challenged the claims about your religion specifically mormonism with what amount to negative characterizations and even more pleading ( elliots questions are not sincere.. really douchebag?  Do you not know what special pleading is ..? ), and on and on and on and on.

[fizixgeek]

Well, one of us is avoiding a question...

[Omen]

OK. So, if I've "begged the question" defined as

a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

Then, could you give me just one example of a "proposition to be proven" which we could discuss? I think discussing one point at a time would be helpful.

I already have, over and over and over and over, but I can sum it up as 'everything'.  From day one, starting with your questions directed towards 'atheist', your claims of 'consistency' ( where you have presumed the consistency without question, explanation, or argument ), and of course.. incoherent crap like 'spiritual truth'.

As I've stated before and I'm repeating now, which you again ignore like everything else, you make no claim that makes it feasible to separate from make believe.  Even if it were true, by the conditions you assert, it would be impossible ever to know them to be true.

[Omen]

OK. So, if I've "begged the question" defined as

a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

Then, could you give me just one example of a "proposition to be proven" which we could discuss? I think discussing one point at a time would be helpful.

I've answered it.

What, exactly, is the proposition

Everything, everytime you suppose a condition of something existing.

You ignored it.

See, I think its perfectly fair that ANYONE ( including myself ) has the instant burden of proof of any assertion they make.  You don't get to pretend like you haven't been making propositions, because you already have.  Your premises are assertions and are treated as such, they demand as much burden of proof as any other claim you make.  However, just to make a note I've noted before, even your premises do not follow into your conclusions.  ( but you ignored arguments pointing that out ).

So, why do you think you are not instantly responsible for any claim you make?

See, we already have the history of nonsense and absolutely mind numbing indifference to arguing for your claim, leaving us with only one possible conclusion that you incessantly avoid the responsibility of burden of proof related to every assertion you make.  Its a proposition that has moved into being self evident for everyone here.

[fizixgeek]

Couldn't you, perhaps, separate one statement out of "everything," that is a proposition I have attempted to prove by "begging the question?"

[Omen]

Couldn't you, perhaps, separate one statement out of "everything," that is a proposition I have attempted to prove by "begging the question?"

I already have, you even quoted it with regard to 'spiritual truth', and when you pretended like you can't understand what is being asked for.. i even asked you:

I've already pointed it out, do you not speak english as your first language?

What about this do you not understand?

Do you not understand the question,"What about this do you not understand?"

You quoted me pointing out the fallacy, one of many used by you, yet couldn't bring yourself to answer the criticism.  Then asked again, as if you don't even know what the words mean or what is being stated, so I posted the same thing and then asked you what about it did you fail to understand?

So here I am again, watching you obfuscate, watching you be evasive, and rolling my eyes at my own naivety of expecting you to actually be an honest human being.

[fizixgeek]

I really hesitate to ask, but do you think you could state it explicitly?

Which is the proposition I have attempted to prove by "begging the question?"

[velkyn]

FG, if you know what the fallacy is, it should be more than obvious where you have done it.  You may want to look the defintion.  Here's a very good one and the rest of the site should be required reading for everyone, especially theists. 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

[Graybeard]

Also, I'd be glad to address the claim that God "hates" someone. That would be a serious challenge to the self-consistency of my theistic viewpoint. I realize that discussion can get very emotional, but lay it on me.

God Hates
Hypocrites (Matthew 24:51), The Unforgiving (Mark 11:26), Homosexuals (Romans 1:26, 27), Fornicators (Romans 1:29), The Wicked (Romans 1:29), The Covetous (Romans 1:29), The Malicious (Romans 1:29), The Envious (Romans 1:29), Murderers (Romans 1:29), The Deceitful (Romans 1:29), Backbiters (Romans 1:30), Haters of God (Romans 1:30), The Despiteful (Romans 1:30), The Proud (Romans 1:30), Boasters (Romans 1:30), Inventors of evil (Romans 1:30), Disobedient to parents (Romans 1:30), Covenant breakers (Romans 1:31), The Unmerciful (Romans 1:31), The Implacable (Romans 1:31), The Unrighteous (1Corinthians 6:9), Idolaters (1Corinthians 6:9), Adulterers (1Corinthians 6:9), The Effeminate (1Corinthians 6:9), Thieves (1Corinthians 6:10), Drunkards (1Corinthians 6:10), Reviler (1Corinthians 6:10), Extortioners (1Corinthians 6:10), The Fearful (Revelation 21:8 ), The Unbelieving (Revelation 21:8 ), The Abominable (Revelation 21:8 ), Whoremongers (Revelation 21:8 ), Sorcerers (Revelation 21:8 ), All Liars (Revelation 21:8 )

[Omen]

I really hesitate to ask, but do you think you could state it explicitly?

Which is the proposition I have attempted to prove by "begging the question?"

You've used special pleading and question begging repeatedly; in this case 'spiritual truth' is inserted without explanation, then an entire host of nonsense is derived from it.  All the paragraphs from that point on rely on 'spiritual truth', as I pointed out then:

Which you magically can't seem to comprehend again.. and omit without explanation.  This is sufficient evidence enough for me that you are lying.

For example, if my sources of spiritual

This is meaningless special pleading, that only begs the question:

What is 'spiritual' truth and how is it determined?

You seem to be unaware of what formal fallacies are so here let me help you out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

If you don't answer this criticism and elaborate upon this fallacy; then you are not conveying anything in an informative context to be understood.  If you repeat your claim, you repeat your fallacy, without explanation. Your entire paragraph stems from this pleaded qualification, offered with no explanation and no information to accompany anything about it.  Your entire paragraph can be dismissed as incoherent.

What about this do you not understand?

[12 Monkeys]

I as a North American Indian am DEEPLY offended by the LDS stance on why we were here in N.A. Science does not back it up and NIETHER do our creation stories.

Hi 12 Monkeys,
I can appreciate that. A reading of the Book of Mormon might reveal the high respect with which its writers regard Native Americans. Also, when you consider that only a small portion of the inhabitants of NA were part of the Book of Mormon civilization, the science doesn't seem so contradictory.
-FG

STORIES ARE NOT FACT try again

[Omen]

Here is another fine example of your mealy mouth presuppositionalism:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19491.msg431911.html#msg431911

I'd love to discuss your objections to the existence of God either here or on my site. Nothing disingenuous about that.

So I have to tell you my objections to what you have supposed to be true for me without explanation?

As I said before, you're arguing from a position that you've presupposed as true regardless of the inability to know it to be true or not.  Even the hideously stupid notion that others have to 'object' to what you have presumed as true without explanation or argument, begs the question I asked at that moment.

You ignored this, like many others.

[fizixgeek]

Ok. So then the paragraph you object to is this

For example, if my sources of spiritual truth tried to convince me that most people experience God in very direct and visible ways nearly every day, I would have to be very suspicious of them because neither I nor anyone I know experiences God in that way. The truths learned via our new spiritual epistemology cannot contradict our observations. So, we must reconcile the existence of spiritual things with their apparent absence from our daily life. If our spiritual epistemology tells us God is real, it must also explain why we don’t see Him.

But, what is the proposition I'm proving here? Is it OK for a proposition to begin with the word "if"? For example,

"If a number is less than 2, then that number is also less than 3."

That would be a perfectly provable and true statement, but it does begin with the word "if." Is any sentence beginning with "if" necessarily "begging the question?"

[Omen]

Hi 12 Monkeys,
I can appreciate that. A reading of the Book of Mormon might reveal the high respect with which its writers regard Native Americans. Also, when you consider that only a small portion of the inhabitants of NA were part of the Book of Mormon civilization, the science doesn't seem so contradictory.
-FG

STORIES ARE NOT FACT try again

Not only is 12 right, but this another type of dishonest play at persuppositionalism:  You're rationalizing towards what you presupposed as true, rather then trying to establish that your claim is true.  It makes it impossible to determine what is true, because you've already assumed a condition for knowledge to make ti impossible to not only test but know it.

Ignoring that there was a really ignorant non-sequitur, about there being a small portion of inhabitants and science.  ( which again, thsi was pointed out without response from you )

[Omen]

Ok. So then the paragraph you object to is this

For example, if my sources of spiritual truth tried to convince me that most people experience God in very direct and visible ways nearly every day, I would have to be very suspicious of them because neither I nor anyone I know experiences God in that way. The truths learned via our new spiritual epistemology cannot contradict our observations. So, we must reconcile the existence of spiritual things with their apparent absence from our daily life. If our spiritual epistemology tells us God is real, it must also explain why we don’t see Him.

But, what is the proposition I'm proving here? Is it OK for a proposition to begin with the word "if"? For example,

"if" doesn't make it not a proposition.

"If a number is less than 2, then that number is also less than 3."

This is a false analogy, because the subjects of 2 and 3 are from an informed objective basis of information.

"Spiritual truth" is not, it is literally made up without explanation.

A more accurate analogy would be:

"If my marflarg has a gown on, then that gown is red."

What does the marflarg have to do with gowns, or red gowns?

What does that have to do with any statement I make beyond that as if the first were contingent?

That would be a perfectly provable and true statement, but it does begin with the word "if." Is any sentence beginning with "if" necessarily "begging the question?"

The inclusion of if has nothing to do with it begging the question and you should be smart enough to know that.

[Omen]

I would have to be very suspicious of them because neither I nor anyone I know experiences God in that way

There is also an argument from personal incredulity in that line of absolute bullshit, here let me help you out:

Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

    P is too incredible (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
    It is obvious that P (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false) therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

Nothing about what you feel has anything to do with whether or not the proposition is true or false.

[fizixgeek]

So, what's the proposition I'm trying to prove while presupposing it to be true? (Please don't say "everything.")