Trollronaldo:
I don't think you understand as well, what I mean.

The argument is simple, In science, is it must that the person who the person who created an idea under falsification practice should be the person to disprove or prove it?

Trollronaldo:
I don't think you understand as well, what I mean.

The argument is simple, In science, is it must that the person who the person who created an idea under falsification practice should be the person to disprove or prove it?

LordReed:


So? It is not an example of seeking for evidence of non existence. I don't think you understand what you are saying. Look up falsification in science practice.

LordReed:


What has that got to do with evidence of non existence?

Trollronaldo:
you are shifting goalpost I am going to follow you go thr last time carefully.

An example of of seeking evidence for non-existence is in the case of phlogiston in science. Phlogiston was an idea that was regarded as real but was proven to be nonexistent when oxegeb and combustion reaction were discovered.

That been said, it was disprove by another scientist hundred of years after.

If you don't agree with deistic ideas, go on and disprove it before rejecting it

Trollronaldo:
you are shifting goalpost I am going to follow you go thr last time carefully.

An example of of seeking evidence for non-existence is in the case of phlogiston in science. Phlogiston was an idea that was regarded as real but was proven to be nonexistent when oxegeb and combustion reaction were discovered.

That been said, it was disprove by another scientist hundred of years after.

If you don't agree with deistic ideas, go on and disprove it before rejecting it

Trollronaldo:
this is shifting the goalpost.

The argument is that deist has the burden of proof.

Yes they do in philosophy, no they do not in science.

Simple

LordReed:


Oga I am not dicussing deist ideas with you so you are the one shifting goalposts. I also asked you what scientific falsification has to do with seeking evidence of non existence, you are yet to provide an answer.

Maynman:

How is disproving a theory the same as looking for evidence of non existence?

LordReed:


LoLz. I never discussed deist anything with you Mr Man.

Trollronaldo:
okay, before I move to the next issue.

Do you agree that deists do not necessarily need to provide evidence before you disprove it based on scientific falsification?

LordReed:


I am not moving to another issue that I am not interested in. I asked about your presumed flaw in atheism, that is what I am interested in discussing.

Trollronaldo:
okay, before I move to the next issue.

Do you agree that deists do not necessarily need to provide evidence before you disprove it based on scientific falsification?

Trollronaldo:
non-existence right.

Does phlogiston exist?

Ws there a time when it existed?

Trollronaldo:
Was there a time when phlogiston ever existed?

Tell me

LordReed:


We are discussing your presumed flaw in atheism. Can you get to your point, I think we have had enough beating about the bush.

LordReed:


We are discussing your presumed flaw in atheism. Can you get to your point, I think we have had enough beating about the bush.

Trollronaldo:
We are getting to the point, bit by bit. Relax

I need to to tell me if the phlogiston example is not a classical case of disproving a non-existent phenomenon?

LordReed:


Phlogiston was a hypothesis that was supposed to explain a phenomenon, subsequent experiments proved it wrong so I dunno what you mean by non existent phenomenon. Phlogiston itself doesn't exist but the phenomenon it was seeking to explain exists.

Trollronaldo:

Ok good, we are getting there.

In this case, if you swap phlogiston with God in this argument and swap the idea of phenomenon phlogiston is trying to explain with the singularity that the deistic god created before big bang, is that a perfect equivalence knowing fully well that the singularity is thing that exist?

Trollronaldo:

Ok good, we are getting there.

In this case, if you swap phlogiston with God in this argument and swap the idea of phenomenon phlogiston was trying to explain with the singularity that the deistic god created before big bang, is that a perfect equivalence knowing fully well that the singularity is thing that exist?

LordReed:


What part of I am not discussing deistic anything with you hard for you to grasp?

Trollronaldo:
I am trying to prove to you that Atheism is a fallacy of appealing to ignorance.

It can't do that without making you see irrefutable reasons by engaging you.

So please, is the God hypothesis and phlogiston a good equivalence?

Sicne the phenomenon we are using to explain a deistic god actually exist.

LordReed:


What part of I am not discussing deistic anything with you hard for you to grasp?

Trollronaldo:
I understand everything you saying, sincerely.

But my argument is, deism and atheism different sides of same coin.

Deism has to come in frequently into the discussion

Trollronaldo:
I am trying to prove to you that Atheism is a fallacy of appealing to ignorance.

It can't do that without making you see irrefutable reasons by engaging you.

So please, is the God hypothesis and phlogiston a good equivalence?

Sicne the phenomenon we are using to explain a deistic god actually exist.

Trollronaldo:
I understand everything you saying, sincerely.

But my argument is, deism and atheism different sides of same coin.

Deism has to come in frequently into the discussion

LordReed:


I guess I am done then.

Trollronaldo:
Why?

LordReed:


I am not interested in discussing deist anything and you can't discuss without it so we can't have a good conversation.

Trollronaldo:
okay, what's your argument, let me address it.
What particular issue do you have with my argument?

LordReed:


You have it backwards. One doesn't look for evidence of non-existence, you look for evidence of existence. Without sufficient evidence for existence of a god you cannot reach the conclusion or form the belief that a god exists. So there is no flaw like you are saying.

Trollronaldo:
Does the phlogiston analogy not address this?

Trollronaldo:
Does the phlogiston analogy not address this?