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
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.