How about being asked to support the assertion?
And when challenged responding that obvious truths cannot be proven or, it seems, supported.
The OP writer later claims he did meet the demand by saying that no one had proven it either way here.
I did note your disclaimer, just me tossing off a few things you may have missed in this thread and the other.
A) I think it is like saying “A chair with four legs has four legs”, in that such a sentence does in fact not require support. Essentially the OP was remarking upon a lack of knowledge; rather than it being a statement it was more a concession of the limits of our knowledge.
If you take the OP more literally and require that absolute proof be required to support the claim that “Nobody can…[add any example here]” then you would be technically correct as it is impossible to check on 7 billion people. Furthermore if you could check them all, there are other factors such as deception, amnesia and so forth which would guarantee that no such claim could be supported.
But as I say this purely technical - if there existed a device called a Raneidan which soon became the only way to prove anything, and Raneidans were then all destroyed in some hypothetical event or series of events so that nothing could no longer meet the criteria for ‘proof’, must we then concede absolute ignorance and throw away our knowledge and ways of thinking? Would the equation which describes gravity suddenly change?
B) Aprreciated. 
Few would have been so thoughtful
The point is that the OP is not a question nor does it leave any room for discussion, which is the reason for a ‘discussion’ board. No one demanded proof of anything (in the OP) A few people wondered why the OP was ever posted.
Try this: “I’m me.” Wow, what a profound statement. I’m not offering proof for or against, I’m just making a statement - a statement that no one can dispute or even discuss. what is the point? There is no point and THAT is the point. The moderator not only should have moved this inane senseless thread, he would have been abrogating his duty to keep the forum open to DISCUSSION had he not moved it. If someone wants to make a flat factual statement, that is what Mundane Babble is for. The idea that there is a bias toward non-religious threads is simply looking for an excuse to whine in the hopes that no one notices that the OP was a lame non-starter to begin with.
Good point i hadn’t thought of it like that.
However, reading the OP again it does seem as though he is announcing a grievance of some sort; almost as though he is simultaneously criticising the mod in question whilst also seeking validation from the community that he was in the right.
To me, that warrants a post even in a discussion forum as it pertains directly to our ability to freely discuss issues without being influenced by any potential bias on the part of the mods.
There may be a section here more suitable for this, i don’t know I’m sorry, but I wouldn’t suggest relegation to the ‘Mundana Babble’ section.
The OP may be wrong for all I know and completely falsified, but I’m just saying that if we are to take the OP at his word then I believe this deserves a little more of our attention than that required to merely adjudge the relevance of his post.
barcelonic,
There may be confusion here, The OP that generated this bogus thread is found here. Nobody can prove God exists, nobody can prove He doesn’t . This is the OP that everyone is referring to. Read that OP and then perhaps the comments here will make a little more sense.
To be clear, when i say ‘OP’ i am sometimes referring to “Original Post” and at others referring to “Original Poster”.
Besides that i don’t see where any confusion might be.
?
As far as that statement goes - I must maintain that to me it is a complete statement. If it requires support, might I ask you to support your assertation that this is a statement that requires support? (not to be difficult truly, but to see whatever it is I’m missing here)
Thanks
barcelonic,
As is commonly understood (by most people) you can’t prove or disprove a negative. Since the title itself contained a double negative, it was redundant twice over. No one is saying it wasn’t a complete statement, only that it offered zero opportunity for discussion - which supposedly is the reason for this forum’s existence.
no it isn’t
yes it is
no it isn’t
yes it is
Anyone with an IQ above room temperature know’s there is nothing to discuss here. Issuing a statement to this effect has the same discussion potential - zero. There is nothing profound about this. A smidgen of common sense is all that is needed.
Indeed.
And i agree this is a statement which leaves no room for discussion - but only because it is unquestionably true. I’m certainly no expert on double-negatives but I don’t see how the OP’s statement is one?
The statement made by the OP seemed to serve as a precursor to the Title Question, which I believe is an important discussion topic. It seems the statement we’re discussing was already debated with the OP and another member (a mod) prior to this thread; therefore, I think the OP really wants to hear from us about whether the mod handled it correctly as well as how we feel about the statement itself.
It also seems we agree that the statement in question is correct - but you believe this means that as there is no room for discussion on the statement he made, this thread is not a very good or valid entry to a discussion forum, whereas I believe that the statement had not been intended to be the main point of discussion in this thread, but rather, the actions of the mod who debated this with the OP (which I feel does warrant discussion).
That isn’t entirely true, but largely.
So far there’s not enough data to conclude if there’s been a wrong by the moderator.
I think it’s incumbent upon Bodhimalik to present ordered evidence, cut and paste examples of the debate between him and the mod, so we can weigh it clearly …
So far I’m not sure a wrong has occurred …
I’d also like to hear more from the mod. in question …
Indeed there should be more info if we are to adjudge the actions of the mod in that debate, but going solely on the info that was given I have to say it’s pretty clear-cut imho
If the info is inaccurate then my opinion would be void.
It would be good to at least let the Mod in question know about this thread but personally I’m not interested in resolving it, only stating that I share the OP’s position that "Nobody can prove God does exist, and nobody can prove he does not.
[This coming from a die-hard atheist]
But did the mod take umbrage with the statement “Nobody can prove or disprove” to the point of threatening censorship?
That would make the mod pretty wacky. And I don’t think that’s true.
You can read the entire thread here:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=179278
Wilderness & Phyllo ---- points taken, respectively
This thread is specifically about the mod’s handling - in which case I agree we should hear from the mod or all go home (figuratively of course lol)
But are we in agreement that if the OP is 100% correct then the mod has explaining to do, and if not then the OP does for a fallacious post?
My one little vote is…
I see no evidence the mod in question did anything horrible in this specific case, or has shown a pattern of bias that should concern us.
That’s a great thread. I’ve kept up with it and totally missed out on this supposed dynamic between Bodhimalik and the moderator. Maybe I wasn’t keeping an eye open for it cuz I was enjoying the discussions.
I see no reason for concern. Bodhimalik should take it in stride and continue on. No one is gonna kick him off the forum. We like him. If the mod threatens to boot bodhimalik we’ll whip him (the mod. not bodhimalik) with a wet noddle.
I can’t escape the conclusion that the original poster doesn’t have the foggiest idea what philosophy of religion is or how it is carried out, and because/despite this, finds himself mad that the things he tries to say on a philosophy of religion website wind up being considered out of place.
“Nobody can prove God exists and nobody can prove He doesn’t.”
You see, to me the above statement is true yet any request to prove such a thing seems like defeatism; one would be asking to speak to every living person in the universe to pose the question, take down any claims of proof and study each and every one so meticulously the Sun itself would burn out before you were through.
It may be the case that there IS no way of proving it (my opinion at least), and that the statement is untrue, but any REQUEST to prove this statement is FAR more ridiculous than a statement I think 99.9% of humanity would agree with.
Perhaps I too don’t have the foggiest idea what philosophy of religion is all about?
But Uccisore, I still don’t know why? Can you help please?
The author of the OP wasn’t asked to PROVE anything. He was asked to make some sort of statement that would encourage discussion. The OP in question was nonsensical since all one can do is shrug and move on. I’m having trouble understanding the lack of understanding with something so obvious, or do people just need to find something to bitch about?
I’ll state again what I said above: I did not request Bodimalik to prove his claim; I asked him to support it with evidence or argument. There are many claims that cannot be proved conclusively that are more or less probable based on evidence. I was asking him to show us some evidence. What makes Bodimalik think God’s existence can neither be proved nor disproved? There are those who think that God’s existence has been proved. Others think it has been disapproved. Why does Bodimalik think they are wrong? Any of these or other responses or explanations of his position would have satisfied my request. Instead Bodimalik refused my request, claiming that I was insisting that he prove his claim and thus contradict it. So I moved the thread to the Hall of Questions. ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
As it happened, others picked up the thread and made substantive arguments so I restored it to the Religion Forum where anyone who chooses can comment on the matter. For this I am accused of bias. Such is life.