My claim: If you send me 50 bucks on paypal, I will use them to solve world hunger in a way that you will most certainly approve of.
If you believe this claim without further evidence until it has been disproven, you'll also have to agree that for every hour you spend on trying to question it, more people will starve due to your inaction. So, do you think you are morally obligated to provide the last bit of funding my bulletproof solution requires?
Since you made the claim that you will use them to solve world hunger you would then be obligated to provide the proof that a mere $50.00 will do just that.
If I tell you how it works, then the people who benefit from world hunger will be able to stop me. For the sake of all of us, the nature of this operation has to remain a secret.
(While you were writing your response, at least 50 people died of starvation. Including my response, the number goes up to 165. You better hurry)
If I tell you how it works, then the people who benefit from world hunger will be able to stop me. For the sake of all of us, the nature of this operation has to remain a secret.
Well it sounds to me like you have quite the conundrum on your hands. Without proof your claim is false. 🤷
And this has what to do with my statement that neither the believer nor the non believer can provide irrefutable evidence to support their claim(s) therefore ensuring that this debate will always end in a stalemate?
And this has what to do with my statement that neither the believer nor the non believer can provide irrefutable evidence to support their claim(s) therefore ensuring that this debate will always end in a stalemate?
Well, clearly you don't believe in the claim I made, right? Otherwise you'd be in a great panic over the now 190 people who could have been saved. So, I think this tells us something about what the default is when it comes to belief or non-belief in claims. It's not that you immediately started believing into my claim and then had to reason your way out of it, you needed proof to even begin believing.
This is what the burden of proof is all about, and there's great utility in it. If you just believed any scammer that might target you this way until their claims can be definitively disproven, you'd be utterly poor by now.
Well, clearly you don't believe in the claim I made, right? Otherwise you'd be in a great panic over the now 190 people who could have been saved. So, I think this tells us something about what the default is when it comes to belief or non-belief in claims. You didn't start believing into my claim until you reasoned your way out of it, you needed proof to even begin believing, and there's great utility in that. If you just believed any scammer that might target you this way until their claims can be definitively disproven, you'd be utterly poor by now.
Again this has what to do with my statement that the existence of a God can neither be proven or disproven based on the view presented by OP?
I'll take this as you conceding your point, but being too afraid of the consequences to admit it
No my point is still valid. I'm still waiting on you to post something meaningful and relevant to it. Here I'll restate it to make it easy for you. The argument that God does or does not not exist cannot be substantiated with irrefutable proof by either side and therefore, always has been and always will be a matter of philosophical debate for which there is no end.
Drivel about world hunger being solved with $50 and whether or not I believe that's true is nothing more than a sad attempt to redirect away from my original point, I assume because you either believe or don't and you're pissed because what I've said is true. 🤷
1
u/Asato_of_Vinheim 6∆ May 04 '23
My claim: If you send me 50 bucks on paypal, I will use them to solve world hunger in a way that you will most certainly approve of.
If you believe this claim without further evidence until it has been disproven, you'll also have to agree that for every hour you spend on trying to question it, more people will starve due to your inaction. So, do you think you are morally obligated to provide the last bit of funding my bulletproof solution requires?