Total Posts:101|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Disbelief in God is unwarranted

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 1:13:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!

Another attempt to shift burden of proof. The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever.

I'll try again. You assert your god exists. I say provide evidence. Logical arguments are not evidence in that they can be logical but not be actually true if based on a faulty premise. If you have nothing besides arguments I can reject your claim. I am not making one of my own, just not accepting yours. It's really not that difficult.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 1:17:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 1:13:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!

Another attempt to shift burden of proof. The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever.

I'll try again. You assert your god exists. I say provide evidence. Logical arguments are not evidence in that they can be logical but not be actually true if based on a faulty premise. If you have nothing besides arguments I can reject your claim. I am not making one of my own, just not accepting yours. It's really not that difficult.

"The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove."

Exactly, so those who state "God does not exist" or reject the premise "God exists" would carry a burden of proof.

This topic has nothing to do with asserting the existing of God. This topic is about people who assert the non-existence of God.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 1:24:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 1:17:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 1:13:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!

Another attempt to shift burden of proof. The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. : :
I'll try again. You assert your god exists. I say provide evidence. Logical arguments are not evidence in that they can be logical but not be actually true if based on a faulty premise. If you have nothing besides arguments I can reject your claim. I am not making one of my own, just not accepting yours. It's really not that difficult.The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever.


"The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove."

Exactly, so those who state "God does not exist" or reject the premise "God exists" would carry a burden of proof.

This topic has nothing to do with asserting the existing of God. This topic is about people who assert the non-existence of God.

"Exactly, so those who state "God does not exist" or reject the premise "God exists" would carry a burden of proof."

Ben, Ben, Ben. Rejecting a claim is not the same as making one. If I make no claim, simply reject yours because I find it unconvincing, I have not made a claim to prove. Can't you understand that simple fact?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 1:26:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!
There are plenty of good reasons to disbelieve in the God of the bible. In fact there are just as many reasons to disbelieve all three Gods(trinity) of the bible.
1. It is easy to dismiss God was a Jew...even the Jews rejected Jesus who was a Jew claiming to be God.
2. The Jews introduced God as creator 4000 years ago going by the bible timeline.
But the planet is 4 billion years old and humans appeared 200,000 years ago. So God of the bible was created by the Jews much much later and after the fact .
3. Creation according to Genesis not only got the sequence of events wrong but also compress the whole universe to 6000 years when the universe is about 14 billion years old and earth about 4 billion years old.
So the material universe/world existed long before religion created God.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 1:34:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 1:26:47 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!
There are plenty of good reasons to disbelieve in the God of the bible. In fact there are just as many reasons to disbelieve all three Gods(trinity) of the bible.
1. It is easy to dismiss God was a Jew...even the Jews rejected Jesus who was a Jew claiming to be God.
2. The Jews introduced God as creator 4000 years ago going by the bible timeline.
But the planet is 4 billion years old and humans appeared 200,000 years ago. So God of the bible was created by the Jews much much later and after the fact .
3. Creation according to Genesis not only got the sequence of events wrong but also compress the whole universe to 6000 years when the universe is about 14 billion years old and earth about 4 billion years old.
So the material universe/world existed long before religion created God.

I'm not referring to belief in God of the bible.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 1:37:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 1:24:37 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 1:17:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 1:13:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!

Another attempt to shift burden of proof. The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. : :
I'll try again. You assert your god exists. I say provide evidence. Logical arguments are not evidence in that they can be logical but not be actually true if based on a faulty premise. If you have nothing besides arguments I can reject your claim. I am not making one of my own, just not accepting yours. It's really not that difficult.The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever.


"The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove."

Exactly, so those who state "God does not exist" or reject the premise "God exists" would carry a burden of proof.

This topic has nothing to do with asserting the existing of God. This topic is about people who assert the non-existence of God.

"Exactly, so those who state "God does not exist" or reject the premise "God exists" would carry a burden of proof."

Ben, Ben, Ben. Rejecting a claim is not the same as making one. If I make no claim, simply reject yours because I find it unconvincing, I have not made a claim to prove. Can't you understand that simple fact?

If somebody says that there are dogs in the backyard and you reject that claim as false, that means that you believe that there are no dogs in the backyard. How could you reject that claim unless you looked in the backyard to see that there were no dogs?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 1:40:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 1:34:21 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 1:26:47 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!
There are plenty of good reasons to disbelieve in the God of the bible. In fact there are just as many reasons to disbelieve all three Gods(trinity) of the bible.
1. It is easy to dismiss God was a Jew...even the Jews rejected Jesus who was a Jew claiming to be God.
2. The Jews introduced God as creator 4000 years ago going by the bible timeline.
But the planet is 4 billion years old and humans appeared 200,000 years ago. So God of the bible was created by the Jews much much later and after the fact .
3. Creation according to Genesis not only got the sequence of events wrong but also compress the whole universe to 6000 years when the universe is about 14 billion years old and earth about 4 billion years old.
So the material universe/world existed long before religion created God.

I'm not referring to belief in God of the bible.

What God are you referring to? Is it an abstract God created from your imagination? Is it the God of Islam which is also the God of Moses and Abraham?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 1:44:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 1:37:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 1:24:37 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 1:17:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 1:13:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!

Another attempt to shift burden of proof. The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. : :
I'll try again. You assert your god exists. I say provide evidence. Logical arguments are not evidence in that they can be logical but not be actually true if based on a faulty premise. If you have nothing besides arguments I can reject your claim. I am not making one of my own, just not accepting yours. It's really not that difficult.The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever.


"The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove."

Exactly, so those who state "God does not exist" or reject the premise "God exists" would carry a burden of proof.

This topic has nothing to do with asserting the existing of God. This topic is about people who assert the non-existence of God.

"Exactly, so those who state "God does not exist" or reject the premise "God exists" would carry a burden of proof."

Ben, Ben, Ben. Rejecting a claim is not the same as making one. If I make no claim, simply reject yours because I find it unconvincing, I have not made a claim to prove. Can't you understand that simple fact?

If somebody says that there are dogs in the backyard and you reject that claim as false, that means that you believe that there are no dogs in the backyard. How could you reject that claim unless you looked in the backyard to see that there were no dogs?

If someone says there are dogs in the back yard and I ask how they know, they will be able to say they saw them, they heard them and they're still there. I will be able to confirm this evidence. When you say God (whatever you define him to be since you deny you're asserting the Abrahamic God) exists then I ask you the same question. How do you know? Where's your evidence? You have none so there is no yard, real or metaphorical to look in. By and large, God and dogs in the back yard are two entirely different concepts, even though God is dog spelled backwards. Please stop trying to make a claim out of a rejection of a claim due to lack of compelling evidence.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 2:10:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 1:44:36 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 1:37:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 1:24:37 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 1:17:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 1:13:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!

Another attempt to shift burden of proof. The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. : :
I'll try again. You assert your god exists. I say provide evidence. Logical arguments are not evidence in that they can be logical but not be actually true if based on a faulty premise. If you have nothing besides arguments I can reject your claim. I am not making one of my own, just not accepting yours. It's really not that difficult.The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever.


"The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove."

Exactly, so those who state "God does not exist" or reject the premise "God exists" would carry a burden of proof.

This topic has nothing to do with asserting the existing of God. This topic is about people who assert the non-existence of God.

"Exactly, so those who state "God does not exist" or reject the premise "God exists" would carry a burden of proof."

Ben, Ben, Ben. Rejecting a claim is not the same as making one. If I make no claim, simply reject yours because I find it unconvincing, I have not made a claim to prove. Can't you understand that simple fact?

If somebody says that there are dogs in the backyard and you reject that claim as false, that means that you believe that there are no dogs in the backyard. How could you reject that claim unless you looked in the backyard to see that there were no dogs?

If someone says there are dogs in the back yard and I ask how they know, they will be able to say they saw them, they heard them and they're still there. I will be able to confirm this evidence. When you say God (whatever you define him to be since you deny you're asserting the Abrahamic God) exists then I ask you the same question. How do you know? Where's your evidence? You have none so there is no yard, real or metaphorical to look in. By and large, God and dogs in the back yard are two entirely different concepts, even though God is dog spelled backwards. Please stop trying to make a claim out of a rejection of a claim due to lack of compelling evidence.

That was so unnecessary. We all love our dog (dogs) and would never mix concepts with God. (Dog spelt backwards). They have done nothing to,earn our contempt.
But we do have the right to question why 3 strikes and the person Jesus is still batting.

Scripture can be used to prove Jesus was a liar, lunatic and Lord wannabe.

Deuteronomy 18: 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

1. To be put to death one had to be a false prophet. Jesus was put to death for claiming to be something he was not. That is falsehood or lying. Jesus was a liar.

2. Knowing it is already commanded by God to Moses not to suffer false prophets, they must be put to death. Jesus was threatened with stoning for blaspheming several times, he even had to slip away and hide from the mob. But he did not stop calling himself their messiah and Christ. He knew the scriptures as well as the Jews and yet he defied them to follow through which they finally did and asked that he be put to death. Only a lunatic would ignore repeated warnings and take the chance he took. He was crucified as a result of his lunacy. Jesus was a lunatic.

3. Jesus realizes on the cross his delusions is costing him his life and cries out to God. Jesus was a Lord wannabe.

Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

So we have the trilemma, Lord wannabe, Liar and a Lunatic. 3 strikes.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 2:11:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
Who says?
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
What conditions?
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).
How so?

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!

Here's one really good reason: God is only promised to be what you say in ancient books written by people who were marrying siblings and sacrificing goats. Where is the modern proof? That's not too much to ask if God is everything people say he is.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 2:17:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!

What is the practical difference between non-belief and disbelief? Someone says "god exists." What does the person who disbelieves that claim do differently from the person who just doesn't accept it?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 3:03:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would say some disbelief in God is warranted or not warranted depends on the person.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 3:18:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 2:17:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!

What is the practical difference between non-belief and disbelief? Someone says "god exists." What does the person who disbelieves that claim do differently from the person who just doesn't accept it?

Disbelief entails falsification whereas non acceptance doesn't. If you say "God exists" and the person says "no he doesn't" this entails falsification of the truth of that premise. If you say "God exists" to an inanimate object or to an agnostic you will have a non-acceptance of that premise without rejection.
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 3:24:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let us assume for the sake of discussion that "god exists."

My question is "Now what?"

The sound of crickets, that's what...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 3:33:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 3:18:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 2:17:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!

What is the practical difference between non-belief and disbelief? Someone says "god exists." What does the person who disbelieves that claim do differently from the person who just doesn't accept it?

Disbelief entails falsification whereas non acceptance doesn't. If you say "God exists" and the person says "no he doesn't" this entails falsification of the truth of that premise. If you say "God exists" to an inanimate object or to an agnostic you will have a non-acceptance of that premise without rejection.

If you say "God exists." and I says "Give me evidence" and you can't, I reject your claim. That is not the same as making a counterclaim so please don't try to equate the two.

While we're at it, define God for me, since you have chosen to deny the God of Abraham.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 3:35:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 3:24:47 PM, Fly wrote:
Let us assume for the sake of discussion that "god exists."

My question is "Now what?"

The sound of crickets, that's what...

Wel that would be irrelevant to the OP but it's a good question. If God exists almost every politically controversial issue would be impacted by some objective truth.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 3:37:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 3:33:55 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:18:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 2:17:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!

What is the practical difference between non-belief and disbelief? Someone says "god exists." What does the person who disbelieves that claim do differently from the person who just doesn't accept it?

Disbelief entails falsification whereas non acceptance doesn't. If you say "God exists" and the person says "no he doesn't" this entails falsification of the truth of that premise. If you say "God exists" to an inanimate object or to an agnostic you will have a non-acceptance of that premise without rejection.

If you say "God exists." and I says "Give me evidence" and you can't, I reject your claim. That is not the same as making a counterclaim so please don't try to equate the two.

While we're at it, define God for me, since you have chosen to deny the God of Abraham.

Ok, so if I told you there is grass in your backyard and you say "give me evidence" and I fail to do so, this means that there is in fact no grass in your backyard?

God is the transcendent mind that grounds reality.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 3:40:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 3:37:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:33:55 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:18:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 2:17:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!

What is the practical difference between non-belief and disbelief? Someone says "god exists." What does the person who disbelieves that claim do differently from the person who just doesn't accept it?

Disbelief entails falsification whereas non acceptance doesn't. If you say "God exists" and the person says "no he doesn't" this entails falsification of the truth of that premise. If you say "God exists" to an inanimate object or to an agnostic you will have a non-acceptance of that premise without rejection.

If you say "God exists." and I says "Give me evidence" and you can't, I reject your claim. That is not the same as making a counterclaim so please don't try to equate the two.

While we're at it, define God for me, since you have chosen to deny the God of Abraham.

Ok, so if I told you there is grass in your backyard and you say "give me evidence" and I fail to do so, this means that there is in fact no grass in your backyard?

God is the transcendent mind that grounds reality.

You wouldn't have to tell me that since I see it and walk on it every day. That's a foolish analogy.

Now, show me evidence that this transcendent mind exists and we can discuss it. Until you do, I reject your claim as unsupported.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 3:48:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 3:40:20 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:37:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:33:55 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:18:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 2:17:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!

What is the practical difference between non-belief and disbelief? Someone says "god exists." What does the person who disbelieves that claim do differently from the person who just doesn't accept it?

Disbelief entails falsification whereas non acceptance doesn't. If you say "God exists" and the person says "no he doesn't" this entails falsification of the truth of that premise. If you say "God exists" to an inanimate object or to an agnostic you will have a non-acceptance of that premise without rejection.

If you say "God exists." and I says "Give me evidence" and you can't, I reject your claim. That is not the same as making a counterclaim so please don't try to equate the two.

While we're at it, define God for me, since you have chosen to deny the God of Abraham.

Ok, so if I told you there is grass in your backyard and you say "give me evidence" and I fail to do so, this means that there is in fact no grass in your backyard?

God is the transcendent mind that grounds reality.

You wouldn't have to tell me that since I see it and walk on it every day. That's a foolish analogy.

Now, show me evidence that this transcendent mind exists and we can discuss it. Until you do, I reject your claim as unsupported.

It works for anything. You wouldn't have to verify the truth of the claim. Just because you haven't verified the truth of the claim doesn't mean that it is therefore false.

I've given arguments in the OP for why this transcendent mind exists.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 3:53:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 3:48:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:40:20 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:37:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:33:55 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:18:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 2:17:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!

What is the practical difference between non-belief and disbelief? Someone says "god exists." What does the person who disbelieves that claim do differently from the person who just doesn't accept it?

Disbelief entails falsification whereas non acceptance doesn't. If you say "God exists" and the person says "no he doesn't" this entails falsification of the truth of that premise. If you say "God exists" to an inanimate object or to an agnostic you will have a non-acceptance of that premise without rejection.

If you say "God exists." and I says "Give me evidence" and you can't, I reject your claim. That is not the same as making a counterclaim so please don't try to equate the two.

While we're at it, define God for me, since you have chosen to deny the God of Abraham.

Ok, so if I told you there is grass in your backyard and you say "give me evidence" and I fail to do so, this means that there is in fact no grass in your backyard?

God is the transcendent mind that grounds reality.

You wouldn't have to tell me that since I see it and walk on it every day. That's a foolish analogy.

Now, show me evidence that this transcendent mind exists and we can discuss it. Until you do, I reject your claim as unsupported.

It works for anything. You wouldn't have to verify the truth of the claim. Just because you haven't verified the truth of the claim doesn't mean that it is therefore false.

I've given arguments in the OP for why this transcendent mind exists.

Burden of proof fallacy. Failure or even disinclination to disprove an assertion does not prove it or give it any kind of validity. You keep trying to say if I can't prove what you say is false, it must be true. That's just bass-ackwards. If you make an assertion and cannot support it, then I will reject it.

I didn't ask for arguments, I asked for evidence. Once more, logical arguments are not evidence because they can be self-consistent but not reflect reality if they are predicated on a faulty premise or premises. How often will you keep repeating this nonsense and using debunked arguments?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 4:27:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 3:53:43 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:48:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:40:20 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:37:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:33:55 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:18:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 2:17:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!

What is the practical difference between non-belief and disbelief? Someone says "god exists." What does the person who disbelieves that claim do differently from the person who just doesn't accept it?

Disbelief entails falsification whereas non acceptance doesn't. If you say "God exists" and the person says "no he doesn't" this entails falsification of the truth of that premise. If you say "God exists" to an inanimate object or to an agnostic you will have a non-acceptance of that premise without rejection.

If you say "God exists." and I says "Give me evidence" and you can't, I reject your claim. That is not the same as making a counterclaim so please don't try to equate the two.

While we're at it, define God for me, since you have chosen to deny the God of Abraham.

Ok, so if I told you there is grass in your backyard and you say "give me evidence" and I fail to do so, this means that there is in fact no grass in your backyard?

God is the transcendent mind that grounds reality.

You wouldn't have to tell me that since I see it and walk on it every day. That's a foolish analogy.

Now, show me evidence that this transcendent mind exists and we can discuss it. Until you do, I reject your claim as unsupported.

It works for anything. You wouldn't have to verify the truth of the claim. Just because you haven't verified the truth of the claim doesn't mean that it is therefore false.

I've given arguments in the OP for why this transcendent mind exists.

Burden of proof fallacy. Failure or even disinclination to disprove an assertion does not prove it or give it any kind of validity. You keep trying to say if I can't prove what you say is false, it must be true. That's just bass-ackwards. If you make an assertion and cannot support it, then I will reject it.

The OP says that there's no reason for *disbelief* in God. This has nothing to do with validating God's existence. It's about validating a stance of disbelief.

I didn't ask for arguments, I asked for evidence. Once more, logical arguments are not evidence because they can be self-consistent but not reflect reality if they are predicated on a faulty premise or premises. How often will you keep repeating this nonsense and using debunked arguments?

I did give evidence. One example is objective morality. Objective morality can be empirically observed.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 4:37:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 4:27:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:53:43 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:48:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:40:20 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:37:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:33:55 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:18:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 2:17:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!

What is the practical difference between non-belief and disbelief? Someone says "god exists." What does the person who disbelieves that claim do differently from the person who just doesn't accept it?

Disbelief entails falsification whereas non acceptance doesn't. If you say "God exists" and the person says "no he doesn't" this entails falsification of the truth of that premise. If you say "God exists" to an inanimate object or to an agnostic you will have a non-acceptance of that premise without rejection.

If you say "God exists." and I says "Give me evidence" and you can't, I reject your claim. That is not the same as making a counterclaim so please don't try to equate the two.

While we're at it, define God for me, since you have chosen to deny the God of Abraham.

Ok, so if I told you there is grass in your backyard and you say "give me evidence" and I fail to do so, this means that there is in fact no grass in your backyard?

God is the transcendent mind that grounds reality.

You wouldn't have to tell me that since I see it and walk on it every day. That's a foolish analogy.

Now, show me evidence that this transcendent mind exists and we can discuss it. Until you do, I reject your claim as unsupported.

It works for anything. You wouldn't have to verify the truth of the claim. Just because you haven't verified the truth of the claim doesn't mean that it is therefore false.

I've given arguments in the OP for why this transcendent mind exists.

Burden of proof fallacy. Failure or even disinclination to disprove an assertion does not prove it or give it any kind of validity. You keep trying to say if I can't prove what you say is false, it must be true. That's just bass-ackwards. If you make an assertion and cannot support it, then I will reject it.

The OP says that there's no reason for *disbelief* in God. This has nothing to do with validating God's existence. It's about validating a stance of disbelief.

If you want to try and make a distinction between disbelief a lack of belief, well, go ahead. They are functionally identical. I lack belief in your God. Is that an unwarranted statement?

I didn't ask for arguments, I asked for evidence. Once more, logical arguments are not evidence because they can be self-consistent but not reflect reality if they are predicated on a faulty premise or premises. How often will you keep repeating this nonsense and using debunked arguments?

I did give evidence. One example is objective morality. Objective morality can be empirically observed.

Ok, define objective morality, tell me how you can tell objective from subjective morality, and give me an unambiguous example. More clearly define 'transcendent mind' because that's a rather vacuous statement, and tell me how one applies the former to the existence of the latter, if you would.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 4:52:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!

God is not parsimonious. Thus the proposition 'God exists' is less likely to be true than the proposition 'God doesn't exist'.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 4:54:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 4:37:14 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:27:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:53:43 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:48:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:40:20 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:37:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:33:55 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:18:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 2:17:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!

What is the practical difference between non-belief and disbelief? Someone says "god exists." What does the person who disbelieves that claim do differently from the person who just doesn't accept it?

Disbelief entails falsification whereas non acceptance doesn't. If you say "God exists" and the person says "no he doesn't" this entails falsification of the truth of that premise. If you say "God exists" to an inanimate object or to an agnostic you will have a non-acceptance of that premise without rejection.

If you say "God exists." and I says "Give me evidence" and you can't, I reject your claim. That is not the same as making a counterclaim so please don't try to equate the two.

While we're at it, define God for me, since you have chosen to deny the God of Abraham.

Ok, so if I told you there is grass in your backyard and you say "give me evidence" and I fail to do so, this means that there is in fact no grass in your backyard?

God is the transcendent mind that grounds reality.

You wouldn't have to tell me that since I see it and walk on it every day. That's a foolish analogy.

Now, show me evidence that this transcendent mind exists and we can discuss it. Until you do, I reject your claim as unsupported.

It works for anything. You wouldn't have to verify the truth of the claim. Just because you haven't verified the truth of the claim doesn't mean that it is therefore false.

I've given arguments in the OP for why this transcendent mind exists.

Burden of proof fallacy. Failure or even disinclination to disprove an assertion does not prove it or give it any kind of validity. You keep trying to say if I can't prove what you say is false, it must be true. That's just bass-ackwards. If you make an assertion and cannot support it, then I will reject it.

The OP says that there's no reason for *disbelief* in God. This has nothing to do with validating God's existence. It's about validating a stance of disbelief.

If you want to try and make a distinction between disbelief a lack of belief, well, go ahead. They are functionally identical. I lack belief in your God. Is that an unwarranted statement?

I didn't ask for arguments, I asked for evidence. Once more, logical arguments are not evidence because they can be self-consistent but not reflect reality if they are predicated on a faulty premise or premises. How often will you keep repeating this nonsense and using debunked arguments?

I did give evidence. One example is objective morality. Objective morality can be empirically observed.

Ok, define objective morality, tell me how you can tell objective from subjective morality, and give me an unambiguous example. More clearly define 'transcendent mind' because that's a rather vacuous statement, and tell me how one applies the former to the existence of the latter, if you would.

Also, explain this statement as well. Non-acceptance? If you don't accept you reject. They are opposing functions and I don't see how they differ.

"Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 4:55:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!

Also how it is possible to disbelieve something that isn't even defined. The concept of God is completely meaningless until it is. Your post-hoc arguments give God a plethora of attributes, making him a very convoluted concept!
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 4:58:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 4:55:51 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!

Also how it is possible to disbelieve something that isn't even defined. The concept of God is completely meaningless until it is. Your post-hoc arguments give God a plethora of attributes, making him a very convoluted concept!

I'm stuck on 'non-acceptance' and 'rejection' and the supposed difference in 'disbelief' and 'non-belief' .
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 4:58:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 1:17:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23failure to 1:13:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

That is correct. You base you arguments on faulty premises and assumptions with no evidence, and then challenge others to prove you wrong. That's not the way logic is supposed to work.


Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

That is not the way it works. Your premises and assumptions are rejected because you have no valid evidence they are true. It is not incumbent on the other side of the question to prove the opposite of what you claim.


The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.

Again, premise (or assumption) unsubstantiated.

Premised by whom? Maybe you, but certainly not me or many others

(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)

That is only a premise or an assumption. Not a fact .

(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).


Try this one : YOU have Not proved existence!!!!! Your failure does NOT make it incumbent on me to prove the opposite.

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!


Lack of valid evidence of existence.

Another attempt to shift burden of proof. The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove.

True. I am not claiming anything other than your failure to prove your claim.

The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever.

I'll try again. You assert your god exists. I say provide evidence. Logical arguments are not evidence in that they can be logical but not be actually true if based on a faulty premise. If you have nothing besides arguments I can reject your claim. I am not making one of my own, just not accepting yours. It's really not that difficult.

"The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove."

Exactly, so those who state "God does not exist" or reject the premise "God exists" would carry a burden of proof.

This topic has nothing to do with asserting the existing of God. This topic is about people who assert the non-existence of God.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:13:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!

There is some advice I give to some christians who at least try to think for themselves and don't just blurt out christian talking points.

If your using some argument for God in some way think about how that argument could be used for something else. If you wouldn't accept that same argument for something else don't give God a free pass.

"Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "Alien abduction" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

"Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "Alien abductions exist" to provide a case for the non-existence of Alien abduction"

There are are numerous propositions we can come up with, which with enough rationalizations can over come any objection, so you can't prove it is false but you can make the case that is implausible/improbable.

There is a demon standing next to you right now............but he is invisible. Can you prove that it isn't there ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:18:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 4:54:02 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:37:14 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:27:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:53:43 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:48:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:40:20 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:37:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:33:55 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:18:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/23/2015 2:17:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:55:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Don't confuse disbelief with non-belief. I'm only asserting that the rejection of the premise "God exists" is unwarranted. To reject that premise means that it is necessarily not true. It follows that the person rejecting the premise believes that it is false.

Whenever somebody makes a claim for the existence or non-existence of something that claim automatically carries a burden of proof. I humbly ask anyone who rejects the premise "God exists" to provide a case for the non-existence of God.

The typical response is "well, you don't believe in other logically possible fairytale creatures so why exclude disbelief in God?"

(1) God is premised as being *transcendent* of the physical universe unlike many fairytale creatures.
(2) there are conditions that *necessitate* God's existence (transcendental & ontological argument for God's existence)
(3) there are arguments that lend post-hoc support for God's existence by empirical verification (fine-tuning of the universe, objective moral values & duties, specified-complex information in original life forms).

So, what good reasons are there to disbelieve in God...? There aren't any!

What is the practical difference between non-belief and disbelief? Someone says "god exists." What does the person who disbelieves that claim do differently from the person who just doesn't accept it?

Disbelief entails falsification whereas non acceptance doesn't. If you say "God exists" and the person says "no he doesn't" this entails falsification of the truth of that premise. If you say "God exists" to an inanimate object or to an agnostic you will have a non-acceptance of that premise without rejection.

If you say "God exists." and I says "Give me evidence" and you can't, I reject your claim. That is not the same as making a counterclaim so please don't try to equate the two.

While we're at it, define God for me, since you have chosen to deny the God of Abraham.

Ok, so if I told you there is grass in your backyard and you say "give me evidence" and I fail to do so, this means that there is in fact no grass in your backyard?

God is the transcendent mind that grounds reality.

You wouldn't have to tell me that since I see it and walk on it every day. That's a foolish analogy.

Now, show me evidence that this transcendent mind exists and we can discuss it. Until you do, I reject your claim as unsupported.

It works for anything. You wouldn't have to verify the truth of the claim. Just because you haven't verified the truth of the claim doesn't mean that it is therefore false.

I've given arguments in the OP for why this transcendent mind exists.

Burden of proof fallacy. Failure or even disinclination to disprove an assertion does not prove it or give it any kind of validity. You keep trying to say if I can't prove what you say is false, it must be true. That's just bass-ackwards. If you make an assertion and cannot support it, then I will reject it.

The OP says that there's no reason for *disbelief* in God. This has nothing to do with validating God's existence. It's about validating a stance of disbelief.

If you want to try and make a distinction between disbelief a lack of belief, well, go ahead. They are functionally identical. I lack belief in your God. Is that an unwarranted statement?

I didn't ask for arguments, I asked for evidence. Once more, logical arguments are not evidence because they can be self-consistent but not reflect reality if they are predicated on a faulty premise or premises. How often will you keep repeating this nonsense and using debunked arguments?

I did give evidence. One example is objective morality. Objective morality can be empirically observed.

Ok, define objective morality, tell me how you can tell objective from subjective morality, and give me an unambiguous example. More clearly define 'transcendent mind' because that's a rather vacuous statement, and tell me how one applies the former to the existence of the latter, if you would.

Also, explain this statement as well. Non-acceptance? If you don't accept you reject. They are opposing functions and I don't see how they differ.

"Disbelief is the rejection of the premise "God exists."

Non-belief is non-acceptance of that premise for whatever reason.

Non-acceptance isn't the same thing as rejection. An inanimate object wouldn't accept that "God exists" but it wouldn't reject it either. It's non-acceptance.