Advice to icontinent fallacy accusers

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The NPF is where something MUST be BECAUSE it cannot be proved otherwise.

You seem to be missing the words MUST and BECAUSE to suit, guys........................TUT, TUT.

[Shaker]

Icontinent?

I had a week in Marbella once if that helps, Vlad?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Icontinent?

I had a week in Marbella once if that helps, Vlad?

Two weeks would have been better for all concerned.

[floo]

The NPF is where something MUST be BECAUSE it cannot be proved otherwise.

You seem to be missing the words MUST and BECAUSE to suit, guys........................TUT, TUT.

Another liquid lunch, Vlad?

[BeRational]

The NPF is where something MUST be BECAUSE it cannot be proved otherwise.

You seem to be missing the words MUST and BECAUSE to suit, guys........................TUT, TUT.

That's not what the NPF  is.

It is where you argue that X is true with weak arguments, then challenge others to refute X.
The onus is on the person claiming X is true, to make the case, not others to show that X is not true.

[Rhiannon]

Icontinent? Apple are getting in on anything now.

[wigginhall]

They'll be selling iknickers next, to deal with icontinence. 

[Gordon]

The NPF is where something MUST be BECAUSE it cannot be proved otherwise.

You seem to be missing the words MUST and BECAUSE to suit, guys........................TUT, TUT.

Wrong.

[floo]

They'll be selling iknickers next, to deal with icontinence.

 

[Owlswing]

Does Vlad suffer from verbal/written Icontinence?

[SusanDoris]

Icontinent?

I had a week in Marbella once if that helps, Vlad?

As soon as I heard Synthetic Dave read that, I wondered  hopelessly of course - if I could think of something witty to say!!

[SusanDoris]

They'll be selling iknickers next, to deal with icontinence.

Thank you for the laugh! Especially as until a few minutes ago, I had been unable to get on this forum because it was 'This page can't be displayed' all day.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's not what the NPF  is.

It is where you argue that X is true with weak arguments, then challenge others to refute X.
The onus is on the person claiming X is true, to make the case, not others to show that X is not true.

What has the above statement got to do with ''No proof''?
A claim of x means inexorably also means a claim a supposed status quo perceived by others isn't true. The problem, for you is, In the God debate the status quo of the others is not the default. The agnostic position is more of the default.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wrong.

What's right then or are you down to just typing it down?

[Gordon]

What's right then or are you down to just typing it down?

Do your own homework.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do your own homework.

I took a steer from Shaker not being able to find NPF even on an acronym site.

If NPF is negative or no proof fallacy Be Rational's understanding does not encompass negative or no proof and since you have not corrected his understanding I take it you share it.

Even under that definition you have an incorrect understanding where Burden of proof lies.
In the God debate people like yourself claim immunity from having to prove on the basis that you hold the default position. You don't since your position cannot establish itself as the default except arbitrarily.

You need to explain why your position deserves the title of default? Oh, that would involve a statement on what you think the default position actually is.

I shall let your dilemma sink in.

[Gordon]

I took a steer from Shaker not being able to find NPF even on an acronym site.

Possibly because, as I recall, you said you looked for the 'no proof fallacy'. Given the NPF has a second home here I'm surprised you weren't familiar with it.

If NPF is negative or no proof fallacy Be Rational's understanding does not encompass negative or no proof and since you have not corrected his understanding I take it you share it.

As I recall BR also called you out on your use of the NPF: so don't be silly, and perhaps you should read up on it before proceeding further.

Even under that definition you have an incorrect understanding where Burden of proof lies.

The misunderstanding is all yours - I'd suggest you stop digging (and start reading).

In the God debate people like yourself claim immunity from having to prove on the basis that you hold the default position. You don't since your position cannot establish itself as the default except arbitrarily.

Smashing - except I'm not claiming anything: I'm just pointing out that; a) you use fallacies, and b) you still don't understand the implications of the NPF.

As I said earlier, you need to do some homework.

You need to explain why your position deserves the title of default? Oh, that would involve a statement on what you think the default position actually is.

What position? In this I'm just pointing out your use of the NPF (and I haven't got sucked into your attempts to digress).

I shall let your dilemma sink in.

I don't have one: the dilemma is all yours - do you read up on fallacies or continue to look ill-informed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Possibly because, as I recall, you said you looked for the 'no proof fallacy'. Given the NPF has a second home here I'm surprised you weren't familiar with it.

As I recall BR also called you out on your use of the NPF: so don't be silly, and perhaps you should read up on it before proceeding further.

The misunderstanding is all yours - I'd suggest you stop digging (and start reading).

Smashing - except I'm not claiming anything: I'm just pointing out that; a) you use fallacies, and b) you still don't understand the implications of the NPF.

As I said earlier, you need to do some homework.

What position? In this I'm just pointing out your use of the NPF (and I haven't got sucked into your attempts to digress).

I don't have one: the dilemma is all yours - do you read up on fallacies or continue to look ill-informed.

Is NPF Argument from ignorance Gordon?.....if so I recommend you read the Wikipedia entry. Not Rationalwiki. That's where I suspect many get their pimped up, cut and shut definitions from.

If you can't say what NPF is what chance are you going to have explaining what the default position that has no burden of proof in the God debate is.

[Gordon]

Is NPF Argument from ignorance Gordon?.....if so I recommend you read the Wikipedia entry. Not Rationalwiki. That's where I suspect many get their pimped up, cut and shut definitions from.

If you can't say what NPF is what chance are you going to have explaining what the default position that has no burden of proof in the God debate is.

Nice try, Vlad (I'll pass on the straw) - I'm not the one with the educational deficiency regarding fallacies: I suggest you get reading old chap.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#4

The NPF is where something MUST be BECAUSE it cannot be proved otherwise.

That's not what the NPF  is.

It is where you argue that X is true with weak arguments, then challenge others to refute X.
The onus is on the person claiming X is true, to make the case, not others to show that X is not true.

Some points:

1. ‘weak arguments’ is subjective. As such, it allows the person claiming this to dismiss what is being said, without never having to give justification for their own position (the claim that the argument is ‘weak’). Such a stance can always be disarmed by using properties of truth.

2. I don’t think that anyone would disagree with your last statement  in theory. Unfortunately what happens here in practice is not consistent with this. If one is using arguments to support X, then there is nothing wrong in interrogating counter-arguments to ensure that they are valid or applied correctly, particularly when they call into question the arguments for X. This is what some posters do, and it leads to an incorrect accusation against them of using the NPF. It is not done as an indirect way to try and claim that X is true.

[BeRational]

#4
Some points:

1. ‘weak arguments’ is subjective. As such, it allows the person claiming this to dismiss what is being said, without never having to give justification for their own position (the claim that the argument is ‘weak’). Such a stance can always be disarmed by using properties of truth.

2. I don’t think that anyone would disagree with your last statement  in theory. Unfortunately what happens here in practice is not consistent with this. If one is using arguments to support X, then there is nothing wrong in interrogating counter-arguments to ensure that they are valid or applied correctly, particularly when they call into question the arguments for X. This is what some posters do, and it leads to an incorrect accusation against them of using the NPF. It is not done as an indirect way to try and claim that X is true.

By weak I mean it has to be rebutted to show that there may be other explanations or perhaps
The argument contains fallacies,in which case it needs to  be reworked.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

By weak I mean it has to be rebutted to show that there may be other explanations or perhaps
The argument contains fallacies,in which case it needs to  be reworked.

I feel that gussying up alternatives into having disproved counter proposals needs to be watched for.

[BeRational]

I feel that gussying up alternatives into having disproved counter proposals needs to be watched for.

The argument stands or falls on its merits.if the argument is sound then the conclusion is sound.

An argument that says humans look designed,therefore god, is not sound.
It would have to be demonstrated that humans are in fact designed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The argument stands or falls on its merits.if the argument is sound then the conclusion is sound.

An argument that says humans look designed,therefore god, is not sound.
It would have to be demonstrated that humans are in fact designed.

Of course.....and in this brave new world of simulated universe theory who's to say it was God and not some alien sub contractor who did the job.

[ProfessorDavey]

The NPF is where something MUST be BECAUSE it cannot be proved otherwise.

You seem to be missing the words MUST and BECAUSE to suit, guys........................TUT, TUT.

Can you stop using acronyms please - what is NPF - I presume F is fallacy, but N and P?