the default position on any imaginary claim is i know its false

"the default position on any imaginary claim is i know its false" if you have to prove to me with evidence that you are wearing a hat, is it true for me to state right now before such thing has accured and considering we dont have a time machine to go back and look, that you were wearing a hat as you typed that? But your ability to PROVE it has no bearing on its truth or not. This rather is clearly a fallacy of "don"t look at it"s not happening." Well it did happen, you were wrong. And the proper way to approach it would be multiple regression analysis" for example, find OUT the odds of a man, age 42, in Wyoming, etc etc etc would be wearing a hat. I bet in Wyoming it"s at least 50%. But let"s pretend it"s ONE percent just to be nice. YOU STILL can"t claim to "know" because at least 1% of the time, you actually KNOW you are wrong if anything. That one time can happen any time, and a lot ifit"s really 50% . Right now for example, I"m not wearing a hat, or a shirt. But you didn"t know that either" You"ve only proven your position false, whether I was wearing a hat or not (and I WAS) because the simple fact remains-I could have been, therefore you cannot claim knowledge of the situation, but only a probability and even then, only intelligently if based on data. Yours was not. belief is false, becasue i dont know is true, so i dont know is true, not belief or disbelief Well I care to differ. So would the people at NASA. Math is imaginary, it"s not real in most places" is there really a zero? Is there really a -1? These are all imaginary concepts" yet, represent reality and allow us to manipulate it as though real. This is true in many places-and proves Pro"s position false. For example, the field of economics guides politics, sociology, domestic and foreign policy, geopolitical strategy". These things are all real enough" ask a Palestinian. But the things they are based on are fake, and most of them are Economic principles. Economics is nothing BUT assumptions-imagined ideas" imaginary products, "widgets" and "wadgets" but something real is as real as something IMAGINED WITH BELIEF in some cases. For example, when Alan Greenspan would say "Interest Rates are going to drop X %" he didn"t actually DO anything to the money supply-which according to the general Supply of Money arguments (Gold Standard, Bi-Metallic Standard, etc.) he generally needed to" ie tweaking the invisible hand as they say. But, he was so trusted" that his words alone, his CLAIM led to belief" which then led to behavior that caused his prophecy to be true, with no action beyond the words on his part" Belief became reality. This alone proves Pro"s position beyond false. if god fell from the sky to prove his powers magically somehow i dont know but then we would know, and atheists would be wrong, theists would have an argument.. irrelevant to default arguments, etc" not relevant to the debate. true goes beyond just evidence, you can see on a live feed right now that i am wearing a hat as evidence but you still wouldnt know the machine or some people are tricking you, and really i am not wearing a hat this was already refuted above-a sliver of a chance is all that is required to prove Pro"s position wrong, I have. if i claim santa will come and bang your wife later because you was bad that one year.. your initial reaction isnt i will call 911 or lets drive to Canada to hide.. the default position is i dont know beyond what i know, and i know i am reading these Words on a screen and typing them on my keyboard Ah-so you admit you don"t know, when an imaginary claim is made, thank you Pro, how generous. right.. the default know is the default position, life, but i am certain i dont see a dog in my room right now, so if you claim a dog is biting me i would have to tell you clearly a dog is not biting me, there is no dog in my room.. its like binary code 0 1, now is true not now is not true, i am one is true, if you say a dog might come by my house randomly and run in and bite me and it might turn out that you are right about that Actually the default would be DEATH. Because the default is always passive. Like atheism-"a" means "without" Death is to be lacking in life. So death, the PASSIVE position is the default. Life is the manifest, the ACTIVE, the aware, the POSTIVE position, not the default. Death is default" default is always the NON, the NOWHERE, the LACK OF. The rest didn"t help or really address his position or mine. when i answer i dont know, it Means i know i dont know, becasue how else would i know. so i see that i dont see a dog in my room right now, and i have no doubt about that So the default in your own words is indeed that you DON"T know, so I think while my arguments were better" either Pro got confused which side he"s arguing, or I am confused" or both. when i am alone, the true size of the human population is one This is again a fallacy of assuming that the lack of evidence is proof of or correlative to an event not occurring. Further-in your case, it"s even special pleading-why WOULD you think there were other people if you only look at where it"s even seemingly true. But I don"t see the merit toward the argument. | That said, in all cases-the default position is NOT KNOWING. What"s that word that comes to mind? Agnostic. Yes, that means "WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE" and while it refers to knowledge of GOD/S, it"s the most useful word for this debate. It tells us the default position on the exact issue at bar: KNOWLEDGE" and the default is NOT "gnostic" but "Agnostic." The one like I said-the one LACKING something, the one WITHOUT" the DEFAULT, the "agnostic" the one lacking knowledge, there"s your default Pro, the opposite of what you argued. Report this Argument This round has not been posted yet.