Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why theists have the burden of proof:

rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 4:12:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I just looked that Charles thread and had a face palm moment when read someones post. Just because I cannot prove that God doesn't exist doesn't mean that I should believe he/she does. Plus, the lack of evidence that God has affected us is evidence against his/her existence. I cannot prove there is not an invisible unicorn in my room, but since there is no evidence that it is there, I have no reason to believe it is. The only evidence for God is claims by 2000 year old "prophets" that could easily have lied to further their own agenda, keep people in line by creating laws and rules, or just to feel secure in that they knew how things worked. There is no more evidence for the christian/jewish/muslim god as there is for any other. Please don't bring Jesus into this as evidence. We have evidence of his existence, not his divinity. I would like to see some theists actually show me my claims are wrong instead of them always asking us questions.
awatkins69
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 5:58:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 4:12:32 PM, rogue wrote:
I just looked that Charles thread and had a face palm moment when read someones post. Just because I cannot prove that God doesn't exist doesn't mean that I should believe he/she does. Plus, the lack of evidence that God has affected us is evidence against his/her existence. I cannot prove there is not an invisible unicorn in my room, but since there is no evidence that it is there, I have no reason to believe it is. The only evidence for God is claims by 2000 year old "prophets" that could easily have lied to further their own agenda, keep people in line by creating laws and rules, or just to feel secure in that they knew how things worked. There is no more evidence for the christian/jewish/muslim god as there is for any other. Please don't bring Jesus into this as evidence. We have evidence of his existence, not his divinity. I would like to see some theists actually show me my claims are wrong instead of them always asking us questions.

You're right. If there were no evidence of God's existence then it would probably be reasonable to conclude that he doesn't exist.

Yet which proposition seems more plausible: "there is a reason for the existence of the universe" or "it's just there"? I think the former. I think we can come to the conclusion that at least something like what we call God exists if the former is true.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 8:10:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 4:12:32 PM, rogue wrote:

There is no more evidence for the christian/jewish/muslim god as there is for any other.

Cthulhu stirs.

Rogue, if you claim anything you have the burden of proof to sustain it, even if you are simply being a skeptic. In these cases it may be as simple as, I have reviewed the evidence and the conclusion does not hold.

However, if you are going to claim atheism then if you are not familiar with the evidence for theism and can reject it intelligently then you are no better than the guys who keep screaming for evidence of evolution and who are allergic to science.

Thus if you are going to advocate hard atheism you better have an argument for the impossibility of God and for weak atheism you better have counters to the arguments for God.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 8:37:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 8:10:33 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/27/2011 4:12:32 PM, rogue wrote:

There is no more evidence for the christian/jewish/muslim god as there is for any other.

Cthulhu stirs.

Rogue, if you claim anything you have the burden of proof to sustain it, even if you are simply being a skeptic. In these cases it may be as simple as, I have reviewed the evidence and the conclusion does not hold.

Theists have the BOP because it does not make sense to disprove something's existence when its existence has not been supported.

However, if you are going to claim atheism then if you are not familiar with the evidence for theism and can reject it intelligently then you are no better than the guys who keep screaming for evidence of evolution and who are allergic to science.

How would you know if I did or didn't? I have heard many claims for proof on the theist side and have refuted it time and time again and seen others do so as well. I want to see if someone can really logically support God's plausibility.

Thus if you are going to advocate hard atheism you better have an argument for the impossibility of God and for weak atheism you better have counters to the arguments for God.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 8:54:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 8:37:26 PM, rogue wrote:

Theists have the BOP because it does not make sense to disprove something's existence when its existence has not been supported.

If you have no warrant to claim something does not exist then you would not claim it, at most you would say "I don't know". If you go any further than that then you have a burden of proof. Just like if claim you are not a human or you do not exist, it is not suddenly your responsibility to debunk my claims, any sensible person would demand that I provide an argument to support the assertion.

I have heard many claims for proof on the theist side and have refuted it time and time again and seen others do so as well.

That is fairly impressive as some very great minds have been unable to refute the ontological arguments such as Bertrand Russell who wrote "...it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies." In your opinion, where is the logical fallacy in the various ontological arguments.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 9:32:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 8:54:18 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/27/2011 8:37:26 PM, rogue wrote:

Theists have the BOP because it does not make sense to disprove something's existence when its existence has not been supported.

If you have no warrant to claim something does not exist then you would not claim it, at most you would say "I don't know". If you go any further than that then you have a burden of proof. Just like if claim you are not a human or you do not exist, it is not suddenly your responsibility to debunk my claims, any sensible person would demand that I provide an argument to support the assertion.

This seems to support my point, maybe I'm interpreting this wrong....

I have heard many claims for proof on the theist side and have refuted it time and time again and seen others do so as well.

That is fairly impressive as some very great minds have been unable to refute the ontological arguments such as Bertrand Russell who wrote "...it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies." In your opinion, where is the logical fallacy in the various ontological arguments.

I highly doubt no one has been able to refute it. Obviously I am not going to go through all of the ontological arguments right now. If you would like to post some then I will try to refute them. I have never claimed to have heard them all, but like I said, none have ever convinced me even though I wish they could.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 9:40:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
1. Whoever makes a definitive statement (i.e. God exists, God does not exist) has the BoP to then back up such a claim. So both theists and atheists have the expectation to sustain their claims and meet the burden of proof.

2. There is evidence/arguments of God's existence -- just not enough.

3. I believe that the only position which does not shoulder the BoP is the agnostic -- but even then, I would hope that they have justification for their agnostic stance. And if they don't, I wouldn't take them seriously or engage them in conversation. No proof? Then shut up. :P
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 9:55:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Most atheists do not have definite proof that god doesn't exist. Just that it is very likely that god doesn't exist. It is just as likely to believe in a god, as it is to believe in a flying spaghetti monster or that unicorns exist.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 10:20:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 9:32:14 PM, rogue wrote:

I highly doubt no one has been able to refute it.

Ok, cite the publications, it is an active area of study.

If you would like to post some then I will try to refute them.

Plantinga's.

But before you do this, do you really think it is responsible to claim to be an atheist without a very indepth review of not only the ontological arguments, but the other arguments/evidence for theism?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 11:14:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 4:12:32 PM, rogue wrote:
I just looked that Charles thread and had a face palm moment when read someones post. Just because I cannot prove that God doesn't exist doesn't mean that I should believe he/she does. Plus, the lack of evidence that God has affected us is evidence against his/her existence. I cannot prove there is not an invisible unicorn in my room, but since there is no evidence that it is there, I have no reason to believe it is. The only evidence for God is claims by 2000 year old "prophets" that could easily have lied to further their own agenda, keep people in line by creating laws and rules, or just to feel secure in that they knew how things worked. There is no more evidence for the christian/jewish/muslim god as there is for any other. Please don't bring Jesus into this as evidence. We have evidence of his existence, not his divinity. I would like to see some theists actually show me my claims are wrong instead of them always asking us questions.

God's existence(at least the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim god)can be disproved. Simply pick from any of the best atheological arguments. My peronal favorites are the benevolence-freedom argument and the benevolence-sovereignty argument.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
tigg13
Posts: 302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 11:49:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 10:20:14 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/27/2011 9:32:14 PM, rogue wrote:

I highly doubt no one has been able to refute it.

Ok, cite the publications, it is an active area of study.

If you would like to post some then I will try to refute them.

Plantinga's.

But before you do this, do you really think it is responsible to claim to be an atheist without a very indepth review of not only the ontological arguments, but the other arguments/evidence for theism?

Interesting.

Would you agree then, that a person should have an in depth understanding of cosmology, biology (especially evolution), archeology, ancient history, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, physics, meteorology, and logic before they can claim that God does exist?

Or do you feel that non-believers should be held to a higher standard since they must adhere to reason instead of faith?
awatkins69
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 12:04:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 11:49:25 PM, tigg13 wrote:
At 3/27/2011 10:20:14 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/27/2011 9:32:14 PM, rogue wrote:

I highly doubt no one has been able to refute it.

Ok, cite the publications, it is an active area of study.

If you would like to post some then I will try to refute them.

Plantinga's.

But before you do this, do you really think it is responsible to claim to be an atheist without a very indepth review of not only the ontological arguments, but the other arguments/evidence for theism?

Interesting.

Would you agree then, that a person should have an in depth understanding of cosmology, biology (especially evolution), archeology, ancient history, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, physics, meteorology, and logic before they can claim that God does exist?

Or do you feel that non-believers should be held to a higher standard since they must adhere to reason instead of faith?

I think he's saying that atheists could at least be basically familiar with the main theistic argument, at least if they are to be epistemically justified. I'm familiar with the arguments for atheism.
FlyingApple
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 1:43:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yet which proposition seems more plausible: "there is a reason for the existence of the universe" or "it's just there"? I think the former. I think we can come to the conclusion that at least something like what we call God exists if the former is true.

I do not see how consenting that "there is a reason for the existence of the universe" (which I agree with) necessitates that one conclude that the reason is a singular, all-powerful consciousness - let alone that such a consciousness be benevolent, the same force that is responsible for life on earth, all events on earth or in the universe, or any of the other "all unknown things explained in one" characteristics usually ascribed to "God".
awatkins69
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 2:35:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 1:43:03 AM, FlyingApple wrote:
Yet which proposition seems more plausible: "there is a reason for the existence of the universe" or "it's just there"? I think the former. I think we can come to the conclusion that at least something like what we call God exists if the former is true.

I do not see how consenting that "there is a reason for the existence of the universe" (which I agree with) necessitates that one conclude that the reason is a singular, all-powerful consciousness - let alone that such a consciousness be benevolent, the same force that is responsible for life on earth, all events on earth or in the universe, or any of the other "all unknown things explained in one" characteristics usually ascribed to "God".

Well if we understand the universe to be the totality of space, time, matter, and energy, and the explanation of the universe must be outside the universe, then it must be non-spatially located, timeless, changeless, and immaterial. As I said earlier, this is at least something like God. I think we can even get more than this, but that at least seems plausible, doesn't it?
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 4:22:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 1:43:03 AM, FlyingApple wrote:
Yet which proposition seems more plausible: "there is a reason for the existence of the universe" or "it's just there"? I think the former. I think we can come to the conclusion that at least something like what we call God exists if the former is true.

I do not see how consenting that "there is a reason for the existence of the universe" (which I agree with) necessitates that one conclude that the reason is a singular, all-powerful consciousness - let alone that such a consciousness be benevolent, the same force that is responsible for life on earth, all events on earth or in the universe, or any of the other "all unknown things explained in one" characteristics usually ascribed to "God".

I am in agreement with awatkns, if there is a reason for something there is intent involved, and it is no longer an accident, but some entity has purpose in the existence of things. It may not, and probably is not,a God of man's creation, but there is some sort of intent from a source that has created purpose. Once you make the small jump to things exist for a reason, there then becomes an implication of a God of some sort; that's why most atheists say there is no purpose or reason for existence other than that which we ascribe to it, but on a grand scale, an atheist must say there is nothing to creation other than an circumstance of physics. Further that there is no significance to human life other than that which we subjectively place on it is necessarily an atheist position.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 5:20:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 4:12:32 PM, rogue wrote:
I just looked that Charles thread and had a face palm moment when read someones post. Just because I cannot prove that God doesn't exist doesn't mean that I should believe he/she does. Plus, the lack of evidence that God has affected us is evidence against his/her existence. I cannot prove there is not an invisible unicorn in my room, but since there is no evidence that it is there, I have no reason to believe it is. The only evidence for God is claims by 2000 year old "prophets" that could easily have lied to further their own agenda, keep people in line by creating laws and rules, or just to feel secure in that they knew how things worked. There is no more evidence for the christian/jewish/muslim god as there is for any other. Please don't bring Jesus into this as evidence. We have evidence of his existence, not his divinity. I would like to see some theists actually show me my claims are wrong instead of them always asking us questions.

We know that something never ever comes from nothing..

We know that complexity comes from complexity..

We know that we know; we have consciousness..

We know that every painting has a painter, every house an architect..

We intrinsically know right from wrong, there IS morality..

The ball.. is firmly in YOUR court!
The Cross.. the Cross.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 5:32:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 5:20:43 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/27/2011 4:12:32 PM, rogue wrote:
I just looked that Charles thread and had a face palm moment when read someones post. Just because I cannot prove that God doesn't exist doesn't mean that I should believe he/she does. Plus, the lack of evidence that God has affected us is evidence against his/her existence. I cannot prove there is not an invisible unicorn in my room, but since there is no evidence that it is there, I have no reason to believe it is. The only evidence for God is claims by 2000 year old "prophets" that could easily have lied to further their own agenda, keep people in line by creating laws and rules, or just to feel secure in that they knew how things worked. There is no more evidence for the christian/jewish/muslim god as there is for any other. Please don't bring Jesus into this as evidence. We have evidence of his existence, not his divinity. I would like to see some theists actually show me my claims are wrong instead of them always asking us questions.

We know that something never ever comes from nothing..
To be fair we don't know this. But we haven't shown otherwise, so I will grant you this one as pretty reasonable.

We know that complexity comes from complexity..
Not necessarily true. A very large number of monkeys, with a very large number of typewriters...

We know that we know; we have consciousness..
Ah but do you know that I know that you know that we know? I think you know.

We know that every painting has a painter, every house an architect..
Facetious answer; caves.
On a more serious level; not everything which exists, exists due to purpose. We cannot assume that the universe does.

We intrinsically know right from wrong, there IS morality..
Evolutionary psychology.

The ball.. is firmly in YOUR court!
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 5:41:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 5:32:07 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/28/2011 5:20:43 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/27/2011 4:12:32 PM, rogue wrote:
I just looked that Charles thread and had a face palm moment when read someones post. Just because I cannot prove that God doesn't exist doesn't mean that I should believe he/she does. Plus, the lack of evidence that God has affected us is evidence against his/her existence. I cannot prove there is not an invisible unicorn in my room, but since there is no evidence that it is there, I have no reason to believe it is. The only evidence for God is claims by 2000 year old "prophets" that could easily have lied to further their own agenda, keep people in line by creating laws and rules, or just to feel secure in that they knew how things worked. There is no more evidence for the christian/jewish/muslim god as there is for any other. Please don't bring Jesus into this as evidence. We have evidence of his existence, not his divinity. I would like to see some theists actually show me my claims are wrong instead of them always asking us questions.

We know that something never ever comes from nothing..
To be fair we don't know this. But we haven't shown otherwise, so I will grant you this one as pretty reasonable.
IF we know anything, we know THIS..
We know that complexity comes from complexity..
Not necessarily true. A very large number of monkeys, with a very large number of typewriters...
It's INFINITE monkeys with INFINITE typewriters.. which kinda spoils the 'non infinite' atheist mindset.. somewhat.

We know that we know; we have consciousness..
Ah but do you know that I know that you know that we know? I think you know.
John 8:32
"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

We know that every painting has a painter, every house an architect..
Facetious answer; caves.
Even a cave in made of extremely complex molecules..
On a more serious level; not everything which exists, exists due to purpose. We cannot assume that the universe does.
To me, EVERYTHING has a purpose; to think otherwise is also PRESUMPTION..
We intrinsically know right from wrong, there IS morality..
Evolutionary psychology.
Mmm, Hitler believed quite strongly in that I believe..

STILL: The ball.. is firmly in YOUR court!
The Cross.. the Cross.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 8:37:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 12:04:55 AM, awatkins69 wrote:

I think he's saying that atheists could at least be basically familiar with the main theistic argument, at least if they are to be epistemically justified.

Yes, exactly. No different than if you were going to reject the theory of evolution then it would be sensible to actually be familiar with the research and be able to reject it.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 8:48:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 11:49:25 PM, tigg13 wrote:

Would you agree then, that a person should have an in depth understanding of cosmology, biology (especially evolution), archeology, ancient history, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, physics, meteorology, and logic before they can claim that God does exist?

You would not need to be familiar with cosmology etc. unless you were going to use it in the argument as William Lane Craig does for example. The strength of the argument is obviously based on the strength of what supports it. If someone for example was to claim that the Bible was the divine word of God and cite literal passages and be completely unaware of the significant translation conflicts/interpretations then this would severely weaken their claims obviously.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 8:50:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 5:20:43 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

We know that something never ever comes from nothing..

Actually we have measured something coming from nothing, and this measurement is the strongest agreement between measurement an theory in all of the physical sciences. Thus if we know anything at all in science we know that statement is wrong.

Similar with the rest of it, much of it is unintelligible, for example complexity comes from complexity, that implies a static universe which we also know is false (see early inflation theory).
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 8:54:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
We know that something never ever comes from nothing..

No we don't. All our experiences have to do with "something" already existing so we don't really have a basis for making any claims on how that "something" got here. Maybe it always existed, maybe it is a result of some natural forces we don't yet know about (or are incapable of measuring), maybe its a result of some intelligent being(s) who do or don't have any interaction with us. All we can say for sure is we don't know.

We know that complexity comes from complexity..

Two problems:

1.) That isn't really true. The basic laws of nature when interacting with basic particles give rise to more and more complex particles (nuclear fussion for example). Everything we see around us that appears complex can be broken down into very basic interactions.

2.) If that statement is true it applies to "God" also and requires a complex God to come from some other complexity giving rise to the infinite regression problem.

We know that we know; we have consciousness..

Ok.

We know that every painting has a painter, every house an architect..

And a God has a God maker right? Same as above, you state a general principle but then make an exception for the view you want to be right.

We intrinsically know right from wrong, there IS morality..

A few problems here:

1.) Morality varies by culture which presents a problem with the assumption that everyoen know right from wrong.

2.) Historically there are many examples of people who appeared to like this intrisic ability to tell right from wrong.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 8:56:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There is no evidence in favor of god, and no evidence in disfavor of God. Both Atheism and Theism are based upon unwarranted assumptions. Atheism is, due to Occam's Razor, much more sound than theism, but agnosticism is the only 'faith' worth giving any respect to.

DATCMOTO:
We know that something never ever comes from nothing..

All this goes to show is that things have always been this way; Godless.

We know that complexity comes from complexity..

Asserting that our level of complexity is derived from an exponentially greater entity of complexity is harshly illogical.

We know that we know; we have consciousness..

Irrelevant.

We know that every painting has a painter, every house an architect..

...and we certainly DON'T know that every universe has a deity. Besides, that would require that God is himself 'created.' The weak anthropic principle seems much more logical than assuming a higher being out of the blue.

We intrinsically know right from wrong, there IS morality..

I am a moral absolutist despite my rejection of the notion of God.

The ball.. is firmly in YOUR court!

Atheists and deists can pass the ball back and forth to each other all they want. Agnostics are the only ones on solid ground.
kfc
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 3:16:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 8:56:38 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:

There is no evidence in favor of god, and no evidence in disfavor of God. Both Atheism and Theism are based upon unwarranted assumptions.

What are the unwarranted assumptions?

Atheism is, due to Occam's Razor, much more sound than theism, but agnosticism is the only 'faith' worth giving any respect to.

Agnosticism is harder to justify as you have to have warrant for the fact that something is unknowable.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 3:46:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Agnosticism is harder to justify as you have to have warrant for the fact that something is unknowable.

Only if you use a poor definition of agnosticism. Certainly if someone claims that the existence of a deity is unknowable that requires them to present a reason why it is unknowable.

I think most people who classify themselves as agnostic (myself included) simply hold that we don't know, it may well be knowable, but we don't know it. That statement requires no burden of proof.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 5:29:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 3:46:35 PM, Floid wrote:

Only if you use a poor definition of agnosticism.

Strong agnosticism was the default until recently (a thing is unknowable), what you are describing is weak agnosticism which isn't a position, it is the absence of a position (this thing is unknown to me). Weak agnosticism is simply ignorance and yes ignorance requires no warrant as you are making no claim, again all you are saying is that something is unknown to you. It is the N/A checkbox on the survey.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 8:16:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 4:12:32 PM, rogue wrote:
I just looked that Charles thread and had a face palm moment when read someones post. Just because I cannot prove that God doesn't exist doesn't mean that I should believe he/she does. Plus, the lack of evidence that God has affected us is evidence against his/her existence. I cannot prove there is not an invisible unicorn in my room, but since there is no evidence that it is there, I have no reason to believe it is. The only evidence for God is claims by 2000 year old "prophets" that could easily have lied to further their own agenda, keep people in line by creating laws and rules, or just to feel secure in that they knew how things worked. There is no more evidence for the christian/jewish/muslim god as there is for any other. Please don't bring Jesus into this as evidence. We have evidence of his existence, not his divinity. I would like to see some theists actually show me my claims are wrong instead of them always asking us questions.

I find this to be a very simplistic approach to the problem of disproving, or proving the existence of God. For example it is mentioned that you cannot disprove that an invisible unicorn exists, but within that, since there is no evidence for the invisible unicorn, one has no reason to think that it exists. But wait, it is invisible, you cannot see it, therefore it is innately lacking in any trails of evidence. So it could exist and you could equally have every reason to believe it exists.

Atheists say that God could exist, just very unlikely, well if God may exist to an atheist then surely anything could or may exist to an atheist, a whole ray of things, from invisible unicorns to giant cans of baked beans made by aliens floating around their big golden statue of Carl Sagan. The point here is anything could exist if God could exist, and the more things that could exist, the more likely that one of these things do exist. But If God does exist, then if blanks of the other possible things that could exist, because now God exists. Well it has to be the God of the Bible, because God cannot lie and the Bible is the Word of God and what is said must be true if the Christian God exists. We seem to fend off the weird things that could be possible due to our emotion side, we simply don't want our belief to sound silly, even though our belief (atheism) could hold to the most weirdest of realities. Granted!
tigg13
Posts: 302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 8:23:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 8:48:00 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/27/2011 11:49:25 PM, tigg13 wrote:

Would you agree then, that a person should have an in depth understanding of cosmology, biology (especially evolution), archeology, ancient history, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, physics, meteorology, and logic before they can claim that God does exist?

You would not need to be familiar with cosmology etc. unless you were going to use it in the argument as William Lane Craig does for example. The strength of the argument is obviously based on the strength of what supports it. If someone for example was to claim that the Bible was the divine word of God and cite literal passages and be completely unaware of the significant translation conflicts/interpretations then this would severely weaken their claims obviously.

So, the more educated you are, the more valid your point of view is?

I'm asking because I've encountered literally hundreds of Christians (and a few Muslims) who know less than squat about the Bible or theology or logic or science and yet they all feel as though they can make all sorts of claims about who God is and what He can or can't do. And I just want to be clear that, because they cannot sufficiently support their claims then they should not be allowed to voice their beliefs.

Oh, and one other thing I noticed. You questioned Rogue's claim that there's just as much evidence for other religions as there is for the Abrahamic religions, and pointed to the ontological argument as an example of evidence that distinguishes the former from the latter. Why wouldn't the ontological argument work just as well for any God? Take Zeus, for example, what if our knowledge of Zeus is incomplete (a lot of those ancient writings have been lost)? Why can't we apply the characteristics of uncaused creator and ultimate greatness to Zeus?

As I understand it, back in ancient Greece, there were people who experienced divine revelations and witnessed miracles. How much real evidence is there that only supports a Christian God?
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 8:24:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 8:16:53 PM, GodSands wrote:

Well it has to be the God of the Bible, because God cannot lie and the Bible is the Word of God and what is said must be true if the Christian God exists.

GodSands, seriously does that really seem logical to you?

How does this make any sense to you where there are other books, that also claim they are also the word of a God which can not lie.

Why is your book really true and theirs not - they can make the exact same argument you just did for their book?