Total Posts:214|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should the BOP only be on Christians?

LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 9:27:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would have to go with a no. I think it is shared equally. Prove God does exist. If you cannot then prove He does not and vice versa. It goes both ways.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 9:46:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That depends on the claim being discussed. Christians assert that God exists, that claim shoulders the burden of proof. Atheists reject that claim as unsupported. Rejecting a claim does not shoulder a burden.

If an atheist on the other hand claims that God does not exist then the burden is on him. But that is a different claim, and I don't know of too many atheists that are running around doing that.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 10:37:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 9:26:24 PM, Lightningstar wrote:
Really the topic says it all. I just want some opinions.

This is really pretty easy to understand if you're the least bit objective about it.

Can you prove fairies don't exist?
Can you prove Leprechauns don't exist?
Can you prove unicorns don't exist?

Things which don't exist, can't leave evidence of their non-existence. Does that not make sense? And that which can't leave evidence of it's non-existence, cannot be shown to not exist. It is concluded not to exist by the fact that there is no evidence for it. Evidence does not apply to that which has never existed. If you have objective evidence in regard to something, it shows a connection between that evidence, and the thing for which it serves as evidence. And that connection can only exist if the thing in question exists. Nothing can be linked to that which never existed.

So the burden of proof is always upon that for which no apparent evidence supports. If you show someone a vacant parking space and claim there is a car there, it is up to you to show that the car exists. Since the default evidence (the fact that the parking space is vacant), speaks to the non-existence of the car, you assume the burden of proof that the car exists. The contrary position is that the car does not exist, and that is already supported by the fact that there is no apparent evidence for the car.

And from the opposite perspective, if you show someone a car but tell them that car does not exist, you assume the burden of proof, because the evidence this far, speaks for the existence of the car.

And this doesn't change just because you're talking about God. The principle remains the same. Since there is no apparent objective evidence for God, the apparent evidence supports non-existence. That places the ball in the court of the theist, to present evidence to the contrary. And when you can't, the only evidence is the lack of evidence for existence. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 10:48:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 9:26:24 PM, Lightningstar wrote:
Really the topic says it all. I just want some opinions.

Neither Christians nor atheists can prove that God exists because He's invisible and so are we. Scientists can't even prove we exist because they cannot prove that atoms and particles exist.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 12:25:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The burden of proof is on those asserting a religion. The same is true of any who are asserting anything. Imagine a world where everything that was plausible was considered true.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Bennett91
Posts: 4,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 1:46:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 10:48:52 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/2/2014 9:26:24 PM, Lightningstar wrote:
Really the topic says it all. I just want some opinions.

Neither Christians nor atheists can prove that God exists because He's invisible and so are we. Scientists can't even prove we exist because they cannot prove that atoms and particles exist.

What is your definition of prove/proof?
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 1:48:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 10:48:52 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/2/2014 9:26:24 PM, Lightningstar wrote:
Really the topic says it all. I just want some opinions.

Neither Christians nor atheists can prove that God exists because He's invisible and so are we. Scientists can't even prove we exist because they cannot prove that atoms and particles exist.

If you insist that god cannot be tangibly validated, how do you posit that god is invisible?
Secular_Mike
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 2:37:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 9:27:56 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I would have to go with a no. I think it is shared equally. Prove God does exist. If you cannot then prove He does not and vice versa. It goes both ways.

If you make a positive claim about the existence of God, then the BOP is on you. If I told you I could fly and you didn't believe me, I would have the BOP. Same logic.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 2:42:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 10:37:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/2/2014 9:26:24 PM, Lightningstar wrote:
Really the topic says it all. I just want some opinions.

This is really pretty easy to understand if you're the least bit objective about it.

Can you prove fairies don't exist?
Can you prove Leprechauns don't exist?
Can you prove unicorns don't exist?



Yep, using standard inductive logic, deductive in many cases as well.

Some people seem to think that you can"t prove a specific sort of negative claim, namely that a thing does not exist. So it is impossible to prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq, and Bigfoot don"t exist. Of course, this rather depends on what one has in mind by "prove." Can you construct a valid deductive argument with all true premises that yields the conclusion that there are no unicorns? Sure. Here"s one, using the valid inference procedure of modus tollens:

1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.


Someone might object that that was a bit too fast ?719; after all, I didn"t prove that the two premises were true. I just asserted that they were true. Well, that"s right. However, it would be a grievous mistake to insist that someone prove all the premises of any argument they might give. Here"s why. The only way to prove, say, that there is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record, is by giving an argument to that conclusion. Of course one would then have to prove the premises of that argument by giving further arguments, and then prove the premises of those further arguments, ad infinitum. Which premises we should take on credit and which need payment up front is a matter of long and involved debate among epistemologists. But one thing is certain: if proving things requires that an infinite number of premises get proved first, we"re not going to prove much of anything at all, positive or negative.

Maybe people mean that no inductive argument will conclusively, indubitably prove a negative proposition beyond all shadow of a doubt. For example, suppose someone argues
that we"ve scoured the world for Bigfoot, found no credible evidence of Bigfoot"s existence, and therefore there is no Bigfoot. A classic inductive argument. A Sasquatch defender can always rejoin that Bigfoot is reclusive, and might just be hiding in that next stand of trees. You can"t prove he"s not! (until the search of that tree stand comes up empty too). The problem here isn"t that inductive arguments won"t give us certainty about negative claims (like the nonexistence of Bigfoot), but that inductive arguments won"t give us certainty about anything at all, positive or negative. All observed swans are white, therefore all swans are white looked like a pretty good inductive argument until black swans were discovered in Australia.

The very nature of an inductive argument is to make a conclusion probable, but not certain, given the truth of the premises. That just what an inductive argument is. We"d better not dismiss induction because we"re not getting certainty out of it, though. Why do you think that the sun will rise tomorrow? Not because of observation (you can"t observe the future!), but because that"s what it has always done in the past. Why do you think that if you turn on the kitchen tap that water will come out instead of chocolate? Why do you think you"ll find your house where you last left it? Why do you think lunch will be nourishing instead of deadly? Again, because that"s the way things have always been in the past. In other words, we use inferences " induction " from past experiences in every aspect of our lives. As Bertrand Russell pointed out, the chicken who expects to be fed when he sees the farmer approaching, since that is what had always happened in the past, is in for a big surprise when instead of receiving dinner, he becomes dinner. But if the chicken had rejected inductive reasoning altogether, then every appearance of the farmer would be a surprise.

So why is it that people insist that you can"t prove a negative? I think it is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, even if all the evidence is against it.

http://departments.bloomu.edu...

And if you doubt the validity of the last one there, this particular poster has seen this proof, or some variation, hundreds of times, and yet continues to toss our unicorns as an example of how you can't prove a negative, despite logicians using logic and reasoniing to solidly disagree with him.

But he'll keep believing the fantasy that he has no burden of proof, because if he ever acknowledged the complete dearth of evidence of the fantastical way that he deliberately misreads it? Well, he's have a life time of really poor treatment of people to own up too ... and sometimes delusion is a better method than responsibility - just ask every innocent guy in jail ... none of whom are atheists.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 2:50:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 2:37:06 AM, Secular_Mike wrote:
At 9/2/2014 9:27:56 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I would have to go with a no. I think it is shared equally. Prove God does exist. If you cannot then prove He does not and vice versa. It goes both ways.

If you make a positive claim about the existence of God, then the BOP is on you. If I told you I could fly and you didn't believe me, I would have the BOP. Same logic.

If you ,make the claim that ther is no God or that religion is wrong, then the burden is on you.

In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).

http://www.nizkor.org...

And to which fallacy are you appealing?

http://www.nizkor.org...

Why the burden of proof fallacy.

http://infidels.org...

Some further reading.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 2:53:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Theists claim that gods exist.........................atheists reject the theists claims.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Secular_Mike
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 3:06:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 2:50:49 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/3/2014 2:37:06 AM, Secular_Mike wrote:
At 9/2/2014 9:27:56 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I would have to go with a no. I think it is shared equally. Prove God does exist. If you cannot then prove He does not and vice versa. It goes both ways.

If you make a positive claim about the existence of God, then the BOP is on you. If I told you I could fly and you didn't believe me, I would have the BOP. Same logic.

If you ,make the claim that ther is no God or that religion is wrong, then the burden is on you.

In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).

http://www.nizkor.org...

And to which fallacy are you appealing?

http://www.nizkor.org...

Why the burden of proof fallacy.

http://infidels.org...

Some further reading.

I'm not making a claim that God doesn't exist. I am stating that it is not reasonable to believe God exists because there is no proof God exists. Nobody could ever disprove that God exists, or Thor, or Apollo, or that there are little green men living in the center of the moon. However, if anybody claims those to be true, it is up to them to prove it.

"A theist can't empirically prove that God exists but he believes in God because no one can allegedly disprove God's existence. By his logic, you must believe in anything you can't disprove. That means all things are real until disproved--including the tooth fairy, the Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc."
R13; G.M. Jackson

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 3:13:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 3:06:17 AM, Secular_Mike wrote:
At 9/3/2014 2:50:49 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/3/2014 2:37:06 AM, Secular_Mike wrote:
At 9/2/2014 9:27:56 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:
I would have to go with a no. I think it is shared equally. Prove God does exist. If you cannot then prove He does not and vice versa. It goes both ways.

If you make a positive claim about the existence of God, then the BOP is on you. If I told you I could fly and you didn't believe me, I would have the BOP. Same logic.

If you ,make the claim that ther is no God or that religion is wrong, then the burden is on you.

In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).

http://www.nizkor.org...

And to which fallacy are you appealing?

http://www.nizkor.org...

Why the burden of proof fallacy.

http://infidels.org...

Some further reading.


I'm not making a claim that God doesn't exist. I am stating that it is not reasonable to believe God exists because there is no proof God exists. Nobody could ever disprove that God exists, or Thor, or Apollo, or that there are little green men living in the center of the moon. However, if anybody claims those to be true, it is up to them to prove it.

"A theist can't empirically prove that God exists but he believes in God because no one can allegedly disprove God's existence. By his logic, you must believe in anything you can't disprove. That means all things are real until disproved--including the tooth fairy, the Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc."
R13; G.M. Jackson

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Some people seem to think that you can"t prove a specific sort of negative claim, namely that a thing does not exist. So it is impossible to prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq, and Bigfoot don"t exist. Of course, this rather depends on what one has in mind by "prove." Can you construct a valid deductive argument with all true premises that yields the conclusion that there are no unicorns? Sure. Here"s one, using the valid inference procedure of modus tollens:

1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.

Someone might object that that was a bit too fast ?719; after all, I didn"t prove that the two premises were true. I just asserted that they were true. Well, that"s right. However, it would be a grievous mistake to insist that someone prove all the premises of any argument they might give. Here"s why. The only way to prove, say, that there is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record, is by giving an argument to that conclusion. Of course one would then have to prove the premises of that argument by giving further arguments, and then prove the premises of those further arguments, ad infinitum. Which premises we should take on credit and which need payment up front is a matter of long and involved debate among epistemologists. But one thing is certain: if proving things requires that an infinite number of premises get proved first, we"re not going to prove much of anything at all, positive or negative.

Maybe people mean that no inductive argument will conclusively, indubitably prove a negative proposition beyond all shadow of a doubt. For example, suppose someone argues
that we"ve scoured the world for Bigfoot, found no credible evidence of Bigfoot"s existence, and therefore there is no Bigfoot. A classic inductive argument. A Sasquatch defender can always rejoin that Bigfoot is reclusive, and might just be hiding in that next stand of trees. You can"t prove he"s not! (until the search of that tree stand comes up empty too). The problem here isn"t that inductive arguments won"t give us certainty about negative claims (like the nonexistence of Bigfoot), but that inductive arguments won"t give us certainty about anything at all, positive or negative. All observed swans are white, therefore all swans are white looked like a pretty good inductive argument until black swans were discovered in Australia.

The very nature of an inductive argument is to make a conclusion probable, but not certain, given the truth of the premises. That just what an inductive argument is. We"d better not dismiss induction because we"re not getting certainty out of it, though. Why do you think that the sun will rise tomorrow? Not because of observation (you can"t observe the future!), but because that"s what it has always done in the past. Why do you think that if you turn on the kitchen tap that water will come out instead of chocolate? Why do you think you"ll find your house where you last left it? Why do you think lunch will be nourishing instead of deadly? Again, because that"s the way things have always been in the past. In other words, we use inferences " induction " from past experiences in every aspect of our lives. As Bertrand Russell pointed out, the chicken who expects to be fed when he sees the farmer approaching, since that is what had always happened in the past, is in for a big surprise when instead of receiving dinner, he becomes dinner. But if the chicken had rejected inductive reasoning altogether, then every appearance of the farmer would be a surprise.

So why is it that people insist that you can"t prove a negative? I think it is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, even if all the evidence is against it.

http://departments.bloomu.edu......

Lets go ahead and post that one more time.

Then lets note the ENTIRE field of Apologetics - which is based on something called evidence and ranges from Scientific to Philisophic (the only Apologetic work atheists seem familar with is Mere Christianity - which is Philocophic in nature) .

And what happens at that point?

"In reality, however, that rarely happens. Most of the time, those required to support their claims do offer something " and then what? At that point the burden of proof shifts to the defense. Those who do not accept the support offered must at the very least show just cause why that support is insufficient to warrant rational belief. This may involve nothing more than poking holes in what has been said (something defense attorneys often do), but it is often wise to construct a sound counter-argument which explains evidence better than the initial claim does (this is where the defense attorney mounts and actual case)."

http://atheism.about.com...

Guess who has the burden of proof? Because for 2,000 years Christians have met their burden of proof to the preponderance of available evidence - enough to convince a third of humanity - you can add another couple of millenia if you include Jewish argumentation - argumentation that swept the world of Paganism.

And yet here we are, and the atheist argumentation is blissfully and deliberate ignorance of that evidence and claims, no evidence?, and teh claim that to conclude there is no God is just automatically right - a BLIND faith statement.

And atheists apparently use science and reasoning? But argue tenaciously to avoid it?
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 3:21:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 2:42:41 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/2/2014 10:37:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/2/2014 9:26:24 PM, Lightningstar wrote:
Really the topic says it all. I just want some opinions.

This is really pretty easy to understand if you're the least bit objective about it.

Can you prove fairies don't exist?
Can you prove Leprechauns don't exist?
Can you prove unicorns don't exist?



Yep, using standard inductive logic, deductive in many cases as well.

Some people seem to think that you can"t prove a specific sort of negative claim, namely that a thing does not exist. So it is impossible to prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq, and Bigfoot don"t exist. Of course, this rather depends on what one has in mind by "prove." Can you construct a valid deductive argument with all true premises that yields the conclusion that there are no unicorns? Sure. Here"s one, using the valid inference procedure of modus tollens:

1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.


Someone might object that that was a bit too fast ?719; after all, I didn"t prove that the two premises were true. I just asserted that they were true. Well, that"s right. However, it would be a grievous mistake to insist that someone prove all the premises of any argument they might give. Here"s why. The only way to prove, say, that there is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record, is by giving an argument to that conclusion. Of course one would then have to prove the premises of that argument by giving further arguments, and then prove the premises of those further arguments, ad infinitum. Which premises we should take on credit and which need payment up front is a matter of long and involved debate among epistemologists. But one thing is certain: if proving things requires that an infinite number of premises get proved first, we"re not going to prove much of anything at all, positive or negative.

Maybe people mean that no inductive argument will conclusively, indubitably prove a negative proposition beyond all shadow of a doubt. For example, suppose someone argues
that we"ve scoured the world for Bigfoot, found no credible evidence of Bigfoot"s existence, and therefore there is no Bigfoot. A classic inductive argument. A Sasquatch defender can always rejoin that Bigfoot is reclusive, and might just be hiding in that next stand of trees. You can"t prove he"s not! (until the search of that tree stand comes up empty too). The problem here isn"t that inductive arguments won"t give us certainty about negative claims (like the nonexistence of Bigfoot), but that inductive arguments won"t give us certainty about anything at all, positive or negative. All observed swans are white, therefore all swans are white looked like a pretty good inductive argument until black swans were discovered in Australia.

The very nature of an inductive argument is to make a conclusion probable, but not certain, given the truth of the premises. That just what an inductive argument is. We"d better not dismiss induction because we"re not getting certainty out of it, though. Why do you think that the sun will rise tomorrow? Not because of observation (you can"t observe the future!), but because that"s what it has always done in the past. Why do you think that if you turn on the kitchen tap that water will come out instead of chocolate? Why do you think you"ll find your house where you last left it? Why do you think lunch will be nourishing instead of deadly? Again, because that"s the way things have always been in the past. In other words, we use inferences " induction " from past experiences in every aspect of our lives. As Bertrand Russell pointed out, the chicken who expects to be fed when he sees the farmer approaching, since that is what had always happened in the past, is in for a big surprise when instead of receiving dinner, he becomes dinner. But if the chicken had rejected inductive reasoning altogether, then every appearance of the farmer would be a surprise.

So why is it that people insist that you can"t prove a negative? I think it is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, even if all the evidence is against it.

http://departments.bloomu.edu...

And if you doubt the validity of the last one there, this particular poster has seen this proof, or some variation, hundreds of times, and yet continues to toss our unicorns as an example of how you can't prove a negative, despite logicians using logic and reasoniing to solidly disagree with him.

But he'll keep believing the fantasy that he has no burden of proof, because if he ever acknowledged the complete dearth of evidence of the fantastical way that he deliberately misreads it? Well, he's have a life time of really poor treatment of people to own up too ... and sometimes delusion is a better method than responsibility - just ask every innocent guy in jail ... none of whom are atheists.

You didn't prove anything, you made unsupported claims just like religionists always do and always claim the right to do.
Prove that there is a need for unicorns to leave a presence in the fossil record.
If you think you proved the non existence of unicorns by lack of fossil record,then you also proved your non existence, since you have left no evidence in the fossil record.
Excellent argument though, for you I mean.
Nonsensical but at least you tried......................................and failed.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Secular_Mike
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 3:50:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am an atheist BECAUSE the BOP is on religion. You want me to prove that there is no God. First, prove to me that there aren't invisible flying elephants and I'll use the same logic. If the Burden of Proof is on the atheists, why don't you Christians start disproving all of the other gods.

Until Christians, or other theists can substantiate their claims there will be no reason for me to believe. You claim there is proof? What proof? Because 1/3 of the worlds population believe it? If everybody believed a lie, it would still be a lie. If nobody believed the truth, it would still be the truth. That is the bandwagon logical fallacy. The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity. How many people believed the Sun revolved around the Earth? How did that turn out?

If Christians have met their evidence, I haven't seen it. I would find that extremely hard to believe. If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method to defend that claim, or it can be dismissed.

In terms of your inductive reason argument, I know the Sun will rise tomorrow precisely from observation. I understand the rotation of the Earth and its relation to the Sun. It has been proven. How do I know water will come out of the faucet and not chocolate. Because the pipes are connected to the water dept and not Willy Wonka's.

I would still like to see this evidence for God that is apparently out there. If it's true and somehow the greatest discovery of mankind slipped through the cracks, the I would have no choice but to accept.
Secular_Mike
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 3:59:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
For the record, I never said you couldn't prove a negative, but it's impossible to prove an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 4:01:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 3:50:58 AM, Secular_Mike wrote:
I am an atheist BECAUSE the BOP is on religion. You want me to prove that there is no God. First, prove to me that there aren't invisible flying elephants and I'll use the same logic. If the Burden of Proof is on the atheists, why don't you Christians start disproving all of the other gods.

Until Christians, or other theists can substantiate their claims there will be no reason for me to believe. You claim there is proof? What proof? Because 1/3 of the worlds population believe it? If everybody believed a lie, it would still be a lie. If nobody believed the truth, it would still be the truth. That is the bandwagon logical fallacy. The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity. How many people believed the Sun revolved around the Earth? How did that turn out?

If Christians have met their evidence, I haven't seen it. I would find that extremely hard to believe. If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method to defend that claim, or it can be dismissed.

In terms of your inductive reason argument, I know the Sun will rise tomorrow precisely from observation. I understand the rotation of the Earth and its relation to the Sun. It has been proven. How do I know water will come out of the faucet and not chocolate. Because the pipes are connected to the water dept and not Willy Wonka's.

I would still like to see this evidence for God that is apparently out there. If it's true and somehow the greatest discovery of mankind slipped through the cracks, the I would have no choice but to accept.

1. If invisible flying elephants had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of invisible flying elephants in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, IFE's never existed.

There is no point giving you what you ask for if you will not read it then cultish come up with a reason to keep believeing the things ytou believe in without evidence anyway.

Please read what is given to you rater than ranting that you have no case because what you asked for was given to you and you STILL don;t have a burden of proof despite the logic being cited claiming otherwise.

Your belief is blind, therefore we Christians should abandone our faith which we actually back up with evidence and reasoning?
Secular_Mike
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 4:17:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 4:01:47 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/3/2014 3:50:58 AM, Secular_Mike wrote:
I am an atheist BECAUSE the BOP is on religion. You want me to prove that there is no God. First, prove to me that there aren't invisible flying elephants and I'll use the same logic. If the Burden of Proof is on the atheists, why don't you Christians start disproving all of the other gods.

Until Christians, or other theists can substantiate their claims there will be no reason for me to believe. You claim there is proof? What proof? Because 1/3 of the worlds population believe it? If everybody believed a lie, it would still be a lie. If nobody believed the truth, it would still be the truth. That is the bandwagon logical fallacy. The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity. How many people believed the Sun revolved around the Earth? How did that turn out?

If Christians have met their evidence, I haven't seen it. I would find that extremely hard to believe. If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method to defend that claim, or it can be dismissed.

In terms of your inductive reason argument, I know the Sun will rise tomorrow precisely from observation. I understand the rotation of the Earth and its relation to the Sun. It has been proven. How do I know water will come out of the faucet and not chocolate. Because the pipes are connected to the water dept and not Willy Wonka's.

I would still like to see this evidence for God that is apparently out there. If it's true and somehow the greatest discovery of mankind slipped through the cracks, the I would have no choice but to accept.

1. If invisible flying elephants had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of invisible flying elephants in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, IFE's never existed.

There is no point giving you what you ask for if you will not read it then cultish come up with a reason to keep believeing the things ytou believe in without evidence anyway.

Please read what is given to you rater than ranting that you have no case because what you asked for was given to you and you STILL don;t have a burden of proof despite the logic being cited claiming otherwise.

Your belief is blind, therefore we Christians should abandone our faith which we actually back up with evidence and reasoning?

Invisible elephants would have fossils, they are invisible. It's unfalsifiable just like your God. You are misunderstanding my position completely. You can't say that I am blinded by my beliefs when I haven't claimed a belief. I'm rejecting yours. I'm still waiting for this massive evidence and reasoning that you claim to have.

By the way I have plenty of reasons to dispute your claim of the Christian God, so even if you wanted to call my "belief", or lack of belief blind, you would be wrong sir.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 5:02:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 4:17:12 AM, Secular_Mike wrote:
At 9/3/2014 4:01:47 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/3/2014 3:50:58 AM, Secular_Mike wrote:
I am an atheist BECAUSE the BOP is on religion. You want me to prove that there is no God. First, prove to me that there aren't invisible flying elephants and I'll use the same logic. If the Burden of Proof is on the atheists, why don't you Christians start disproving all of the other gods.

Until Christians, or other theists can substantiate their claims there will be no reason for me to believe. You claim there is proof? What proof? Because 1/3 of the worlds population believe it? If everybody believed a lie, it would still be a lie. If nobody believed the truth, it would still be the truth. That is the bandwagon logical fallacy. The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity. How many people believed the Sun revolved around the Earth? How did that turn out?

If Christians have met their evidence, I haven't seen it. I would find that extremely hard to believe. If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method to defend that claim, or it can be dismissed.

In terms of your inductive reason argument, I know the Sun will rise tomorrow precisely from observation. I understand the rotation of the Earth and its relation to the Sun. It has been proven. How do I know water will come out of the faucet and not chocolate. Because the pipes are connected to the water dept and not Willy Wonka's.

I would still like to see this evidence for God that is apparently out there. If it's true and somehow the greatest discovery of mankind slipped through the cracks, the I would have no choice but to accept.

1. If invisible flying elephants had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of invisible flying elephants in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, IFE's never existed.

There is no point giving you what you ask for if you will not read it then cultish come up with a reason to keep believeing the things ytou believe in without evidence anyway.

Please read what is given to you rater than ranting that you have no case because what you asked for was given to you and you STILL don;t have a burden of proof despite the logic being cited claiming otherwise.

Your belief is blind, therefore we Christians should abandone our faith which we actually back up with evidence and reasoning?

Invisible elephants would have fossils, they are invisible. It's unfalsifiable just like your God. You are misunderstanding my position completely. You can't say that I am blinded by my beliefs when I haven't claimed a belief. I'm rejecting yours. I'm still waiting for this massive evidence and reasoning that you claim to have.

By the way I have plenty of reasons to dispute your claim of the Christian God, so even if you wanted to call my "belief", or lack of belief blind, you would be wrong sir.

You do understand how fossils work? Its often the imprint of the bones that have calcified ... meaning ... no longer invisible.

As we have just demonstrated, its the classic argument from absurdity where it not logical proof of a claim, but irrational denial at any stakes - the nature of conspiracy.

That is why LOGIC, as I have cited, requires ALL claims to be supported.

It is why the Prophet Hitchens, revered as the wisest of all men by atheists, created Hitchen's Razor, that which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

At yet, here are atheists disagreeing with the entire rational world, including atheists who have been cited above, openly embracing absurdity to deny ... God ... but keep on believing in invisible flying elephants - apparently stumped completely by simple logical problem solving that allows ... the rest of the world to discount the exact opposite conclusions of atheists about invisible elephants.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

So, we are supporting one fallacy - the shifting of the burden of proof, by appealing to absurd extremes that demonstrate the utter hooey of the premise.

Atheists need invisible flying elephants to demonstrate their case, but not religious people.

Gotcha. Science that is not.
Secular_Mike
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 5:12:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
No, they need an invisible man in the sky.

I'd gladly debate this topic with you. 'Does the Christian God exist', or 'is it reasonable to believe the Christian God exists' . I'll agree to share BOP and let voters vote on what's more likely based on arguments alone.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 5:29:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 5:12:22 AM, Secular_Mike wrote:
No, they need an invisible man in the sky.

I'd gladly debate this topic with you. 'Does the Christian God exist', or 'is it reasonable to believe the Christian God exists' . I'll agree to share BOP and let voters vote on what's more likely based on arguments alone.

So make your case.

If you are agreeing you have a burden of proof ... there is no debate. That is what this discussion is about.

Is that a point conceded?
Secular_Mike
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 5:46:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 5:29:35 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/3/2014 5:12:22 AM, Secular_Mike wrote:
No, they need an invisible man in the sky.

I'd gladly debate this topic with you. 'Does the Christian God exist', or 'is it reasonable to believe the Christian God exists' . I'll agree to share BOP and let voters vote on what's more likely based on arguments alone.

So make your case.

If you are agreeing you have a burden of proof ... there is no debate. That is what this discussion is about.

Is that a point conceded?

I agreed the BOP wouldn't be on either of us to make the debate fair. I wanted to debate the validity of the Christian God since I am intrigued by this evidence of his existence, not on the BOP topic.

I will agree that if an atheist is making a gnostic claim of no God existing, then he/she should be able to back it up with valid reasoning and assume the BOP. I never did that. That is something that you wrongly accused me of.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 5:47:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 5:12:22 AM, Secular_Mike wrote:
No, they need an invisible man in the sky.

I'd gladly debate this topic with you. 'Does the Christian God exist', or 'is it reasonable to believe the Christian God exists' . I'll agree to share BOP and let voters vote on what's more likely based on arguments alone.

You'll find that he will claim you said something completely different to what you've said and claim victory over his newly proclaimed statement.
He spends hours arguing with himself and thinks he's arguing with an opponent who has never claimed what the newt claims he has.
He's very strange. The only thing you can be assured of is that he will abuse theist and atheist alike and then claim victimhood because they abused him, when any sane person can see that no such abuse was forthcoming from his opponent.
His hate of anyone questioning his claims borders on the sociopathic.
Just thought I'd give you a heads up.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Secular_Mike
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 6:04:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 5:47:41 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/3/2014 5:12:22 AM, Secular_Mike wrote:
No, they need an invisible man in the sky.

I'd gladly debate this topic with you. 'Does the Christian God exist', or 'is it reasonable to believe the Christian God exists' . I'll agree to share BOP and let voters vote on what's more likely based on arguments alone.

You'll find that he will claim you said something completely different to what you've said and claim victory over his newly proclaimed statement.
He spends hours arguing with himself and thinks he's arguing with an opponent who has never claimed what the newt claims he has.
He's very strange. The only thing you can be assured of is that he will abuse theist and atheist alike and then claim victimhood because they abused him, when any sane person can see that no such abuse was forthcoming from his opponent.
His hate of anyone questioning his claims borders on the sociopathic.
Just thought I'd give you a heads up.

Ok thanks. This is the first night I've touched the message boards. I was expecting a friendlier exchange than that. Even so, I have no idea what his point was. There shouldn't have been an argument. I made a statement and got accused of something I didn't do. He still hasn't backed his claim and I'm still waiting.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 6:17:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 6:04:46 AM, Secular_Mike wrote:
At 9/3/2014 5:47:41 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/3/2014 5:12:22 AM, Secular_Mike wrote:
No, they need an invisible man in the sky.

I'd gladly debate this topic with you. 'Does the Christian God exist', or 'is it reasonable to believe the Christian God exists' . I'll agree to share BOP and let voters vote on what's more likely based on arguments alone.

You'll find that he will claim you said something completely different to what you've said and claim victory over his newly proclaimed statement.
He spends hours arguing with himself and thinks he's arguing with an opponent who has never claimed what the newt claims he has.
He's very strange. The only thing you can be assured of is that he will abuse theist and atheist alike and then claim victimhood because they abused him, when any sane person can see that no such abuse was forthcoming from his opponent.
His hate of anyone questioning his claims borders on the sociopathic.
Just thought I'd give you a heads up.

Ok thanks. This is the first night I've touched the message boards. I was expecting a friendlier exchange than that. Even so, I have no idea what his point was. There shouldn't have been an argument. I made a statement and got accused of something I didn't do. He still hasn't backed his claim and I'm still waiting.
Yeah he's the worst advertisement Catholicism has had since Adolf.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 6:20:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 5:46:37 AM, Secular_Mike wrote:
At 9/3/2014 5:29:35 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/3/2014 5:12:22 AM, Secular_Mike wrote:
No, they need an invisible man in the sky.

I'd gladly debate this topic with you. 'Does the Christian God exist', or 'is it reasonable to believe the Christian God exists' . I'll agree to share BOP and let voters vote on what's more likely based on arguments alone.

So make your case.

If you are agreeing you have a burden of proof ... there is no debate. That is what this discussion is about.

Is that a point conceded?

I agreed the BOP wouldn't be on either of us to make the debate fair. I wanted to debate the validity of the Christian God since I am intrigued by this evidence of his existence, not on the BOP topic.

I will agree that if an atheist is making a gnostic claim of no God existing, then he/she should be able to back it up with valid reasoning and assume the BOP. I never did that. That is something that you wrongly accused me of.

Well, there is the crux of the issue with this thread - can you discuss whether or not God exists without both sides having a burden of proof?

The answer is a sound no.

Whether you think God is definitely not real or merely improbable is a claim that still requires proof - the differenec is deductive (certain) and inductive (probable/improbable) logic.

There is no way to even pretend there is a discussion with one side saying:

A: There IS a God because - evidence A, B, C ...

B: There is no God ... (That is what not having a burden of proof means).

B: There is no God because 'I' am not convinced by your evidence. I never will be either. So?

or?

B: There is no God, or he is improbable, because D,E,F, and A,B,C actually better support the followng ...

http://www.nytimes.com...

As you can see, in a very similar question, "Is there OTHER intelligent life in the universe," there is no one saying ... No, and I don't have a burden of proof anyway! Why? Because its not only illogical to expect people to be convinced by simply claiming you have to requirement to convince them, its rather uncivil too boot.

So we SHOULD be able to concede a simple point of logic.

Or I suppose there is option C:

C: become an internet troll and stalk people and hurl ad hominems and character assassinting appeals to emotion at them for months at a time.

Option C does convince people of something ... but its not the strength of the intelectual position of atheism.
Secular_Mike
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 7:16:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 6:20:37 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/3/2014 5:46:37 AM, Secular_Mike wrote:
At 9/3/2014 5:29:35 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/3/2014 5:12:22 AM, Secular_Mike wrote:
No, they need an invisible man in the sky.

I'd gladly debate this topic with you. 'Does the Christian God exist', or 'is it reasonable to believe the Christian God exists' . I'll agree to share BOP and let voters vote on what's more likely based on arguments alone.

So make your case.

If you are agreeing you have a burden of proof ... there is no debate. That is what this discussion is about.

Is that a point conceded?

I agreed the BOP wouldn't be on either of us to make the debate fair. I wanted to debate the validity of the Christian God since I am intrigued by this evidence of his existence, not on the BOP topic.

I will agree that if an atheist is making a gnostic claim of no God existing, then he/she should be able to back it up with valid reasoning and assume the BOP. I never did that. That is something that you wrongly accused me of.

Well, there is the crux of the issue with this thread - can you discuss whether or not God exists without both sides having a burden of proof?

The answer is a sound no.

Whether you think God is definitely not real or merely improbable is a claim that still requires proof - the differenec is deductive (certain) and inductive (probable/improbable) logic.

There is no way to even pretend there is a discussion with one side saying:

A: There IS a God because - evidence A, B, C ...

B: There is no God ... (That is what not having a burden of proof means).

B: There is no God because 'I' am not convinced by your evidence. I never will be either. So?

or?

B: There is no God, or he is improbable, because D,E,F, and A,B,C actually better support the followng ...

http://www.nytimes.com...

As you can see, in a very similar question, "Is there OTHER intelligent life in the universe," there is no one saying ... No, and I don't have a burden of proof anyway! Why? Because its not only illogical to expect people to be convinced by simply claiming you have to requirement to convince them, its rather uncivil too boot.

So we SHOULD be able to concede a simple point of logic.

Or I suppose there is option C:

C: become an internet troll and stalk people and hurl ad hominems and character assassinting appeals to emotion at them for months at a time.

Option C does convince people of something ... but its not the strength of the intelectual position of atheism.

Can you discuss the existence of God without both sides having the burden or proof? The answer is a resounding YES. The only time I'll concede to the atheist having the burden of proof is if he/she initiates a claim of certainty that no god exists.
If you tell me that you believe God exists and I say that I don't believe a god exists because I don't think its reasonable to believe a god exists. The BOP is 100% on you.

"Whether you think God is definitely not real or merely improbable is a claim that still requires proof" If i say it is merely improbable, it is not a claim that requires proof because no claim was made at all. It's a rejection of your claim.

If I said extra-terrestrials exists and you didn't believe that to be the case, then the BOP lies solely on me. All things being equal, it is the one making the positive claim that must show the evidence. If you can't provide the evidence, then there is no reason to believe. The default position with any claim is to not believe, which is the logical starting point. If we were to invert it and believe every claim, the truths and fallacies would be blended together.

If I said I slipped into a 4th dimension last night and had crazy sex with alien midgets, why should you have part to prove I didn't? According to you, you would share the BOP. I made the claim therefore I have to back my claims.

For a guy who has referenced logical fallacies on multiple occasions in this thread, I am astounded that you are defending one so staunchly. If you were to give me any of the burden of proof in a God debate, that is what we call 'shifting the burden of proof.'

You are the one that claimed evidence for your God. You also said that Christians use logic and reason. I have asked on multiple occasions for examples and you have conveniently ignored it.

That being said, I think I'll take bulproof's advice and end this conversation here. It's obviously not going anywhere and it's impossible to reason with you. Have a good day.
LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 7:48:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 7:16:08 AM, Secular_Mike wrote:
At 9/3/2014 6:20:37 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/3/2014 5:46:37 AM, Secular_Mike wrote:
At 9/3/2014 5:29:35 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/3/2014 5:12:22 AM, Secular_Mike wrote:
No, they need an invisible man in the sky.

I'd gladly debate this topic with you. 'Does the Christian God exist', or 'is it reasonable to believe the Christian God exists' . I'll agree to share BOP and let voters vote on what's more likely based on arguments alone.

So make your case.

If you are agreeing you have a burden of proof ... there is no debate. That is what this discussion is about.

Is that a point conceded?

I agreed the BOP wouldn't be on either of us to make the debate fair. I wanted to debate the validity of the Christian God since I am intrigued by this evidence of his existence, not on the BOP topic.

I will agree that if an atheist is making a gnostic claim of no God existing, then he/she should be able to back it up with valid reasoning and assume the BOP. I never did that. That is something that you wrongly accused me of.

Well, there is the crux of the issue with this thread - can you discuss whether or not God exists without both sides having a burden of proof?

The answer is a sound no.

Whether you think God is definitely not real or merely improbable is a claim that still requires proof - the differenec is deductive (certain) and inductive (probable/improbable) logic.

There is no way to even pretend there is a discussion with one side saying:

A: There IS a God because - evidence A, B, C ...

B: There is no God ... (That is what not having a burden of proof means).

B: There is no God because 'I' am not convinced by your evidence. I never will be either. So?

or?

B: There is no God, or he is improbable, because D,E,F, and A,B,C actually better support the followng ...

http://www.nytimes.com...

As you can see, in a very similar question, "Is there OTHER intelligent life in the universe," there is no one saying ... No, and I don't have a burden of proof anyway! Why? Because its not only illogical to expect people to be convinced by simply claiming you have to requirement to convince them, its rather uncivil too boot.

So we SHOULD be able to concede a simple point of logic.

Or I suppose there is option C:

C: become an internet troll and stalk people and hurl ad hominems and character assassinting appeals to emotion at them for months at a time.

Option C does convince people of something ... but its not the strength of the intelectual position of atheism.

Can you discuss the existence of God without both sides having the burden or proof? The answer is a resounding YES. The only time I'll concede to the atheist having the burden of proof is if he/she initiates a claim of certainty that no god exists.
If you tell me that you believe God exists and I say that I don't believe a god exists because I don't think its reasonable to believe a god exists. The BOP is 100% on you.

"Whether you think God is definitely not real or merely improbable is a claim that still requires proof" If i say it is merely improbable, it is not a claim that requires proof because no claim was made at all. It's a rejection of your claim.

If I said extra-terrestrials exists and you didn't believe that to be the case, then the BOP lies solely on me. All things being equal, it is the one making the positive claim that must show the evidence. If you can't provide the evidence, then there is no reason to believe. The default position with any claim is to not believe, which is the logical starting point. If we were to invert it and believe every claim, the truths and fallacies would be blended together.

If I said I slipped into a 4th dimension last night and had crazy sex with alien midgets, why should you have part to prove I didn't? According to you, you would share the BOP. I made the claim therefore I have to back my claims.

For a guy who has referenced logical fallacies on multiple occasions in this thread, I am astounded that you are defending one so staunchly. If you were to give me any of the burden of proof in a God debate, that is what we call 'shifting the burden of proof.'

You are the one that claimed evidence for your God. You also said that Christians use logic and reason. I have asked on multiple occasions for examples and you have conveniently ignored it.

That being said, I think I'll take bulproof's advice and end this conversation here. It's obviously not going anywhere and it's impossible to reason with you. Have a good day.

Hey, someone took Bulproof's advice. First I've seen that happen. Normally he is the one getting scorned. Anyway, seems like everyone got a little...heated? Yeah, I'll go with heated. I think a simple way to satisfy both is with this:
1. You cannot prove that God does not exist. I can believe that God exists if I can walk around with a Bible full of what he has done, a Book of Mormon which simply because of its existence gives me personally proof, and I can see his handiwork today.
2. You cannot ultimately prove, without a doubt, that the Christian God exists. That is the Holy Ghost's job and even then it isn't considered solid proof as He is not tangible. Anyway, I have absolutely no doubt that there is someone up there who is the mastermind to all creation but whether or not it is specifically God, that is something we have to find out for ourselves.
3. As both of these are the case, BoP is ultimately shared between both. One cannot give solid, Earthly proof(as in tangible) and those who do not believe in God ultimately cannot find anything that would prohibit the existence of God. Therefore, I will slightly agree with Double R and say that whoever is making the claim should be the one doing the proving. End of discussion here.