Take note, Atheists: If you claim to know that God does not exist then you need to be able to prove it.

@RedBaron


Certainly.
But when they do try then they bear a burden of proof.

@Pikachu But the exercise is pointless because incontrovertible proof is non-existent. That's why it's just a self-fulfilling prophecy.

@RedBaron

Whether or not the proof can be produced is not relevant to this thread.

@Pikachu I disagree. It is highly relevant, and more salient to the debate than the post itself.

@RedBaron


Ok, then make your case.
In what way is the position that incontrovertible proof is nonexistent pertinent to the statement that a claim of knowledge creates a burden of proof?

@Pikachu Already did. The lack of proof simply renders any burden of proof moot, and thus the whole post is moot. That's all there is to it. Don't overthink and complicate the issue.

@RedBaron


Not in the slightest.

Whether or not proof is possible has no bearing on the burden of proof which arises from a knowledge claim if one expects another to accept it.

You're arguing that proof is impossible so the debate is moot...but people DO have the debate and they DO claim knowledge.

In short, whether or not the debate can be resolved, it does in fact exist and so the rules of debate stand.
Simple as that.

That's not overthinking anything, it's simply the rules of engagement.

@Pikachu And you are so obsessed with it that you post about it ad nauseam.

@RedBaron

And you just abandoned a defense of your argument to comment on me personally.
Under the rules of debate, what does that mean?😉

@Pikachu Nothing if you are not concerned about it.

@RedBaron

Nope.
Concerned or not, it means you're conceding that you cannot defend your argument and attempting to obfuscate that failing using distraction via personal attack.

Let me put it to you this way, Red: You are under no obligation to debate. You are under no obligation to consider the debate important, relevant or even interesting. But if you choose to engage in that debate then the rules of debate apply.

So if you make a knowledge claim, the burden of proof falls on you to demonstrate that claim whether or not that is an achievable goal.
That's all there is to it. Don't overthink and complicate the issue.

@Pikachu I don't feel the need to defend any argument. I am done with you.

@RedBaron

Nothing wrong with that. As i pointed out: you're under no obligation.

I mean...it did seem like you were trying to do just that for several posts but it's ok to change your mind.
Talk to you later then 🙂✌️