Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

To atheists and theists:

Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

Hope we can start an interesting conversation, and share some interesting ideas. I also believe that many claims/ statements made on the religion forum center around the existence of a god/s. Also, be sure to specify which god your trying to prove/ disprove.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 6:27:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

Hope we can start an interesting conversation, and share some interesting ideas. I also believe that many claims/ statements made on the religion forum center around the existence of a god/s. Also, be sure to specify which god your trying to prove/ disprove.

Apatheism: where or not God exists - I do not give a s*it.

Evidence: YOLO
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 8:59:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

Hope we can start an interesting conversation, and share some interesting ideas. I also believe that many claims/ statements made on the religion forum center around the existence of a god/s. Also, be sure to specify which god your trying to prove/ disprove.

As an agnostic atheist, I will gladly take part in this debate. To put it quite simply, the burden of proof is on those asserting that a god exists. Since this burden of proof has never been met, it is logical to assume that no god exists at all. Of course, being an intellectually honest person, I cannot claim that I as certain that no god exists, merely that that is what is the most likely to be true. I hope that this contributed to discussion.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 9:12:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Pase, I think this will make a mess of a discussion due to different definitions and frames. Reconciling frames is perhaps the hardest task in these chats.

To illustrate this, I'm an atheist who believes the question 'Does God exist' is not one question, and should not be treated as one. We can separate the following key questions regarding theological claims to authority:

1) Is there presently a metaphysical agency in discourse with humanity?
2) Has any of this discourse been so accurately captured by theology that theology might offer insights into its nature? And finally
3) Is it morally and ethically desirable that humanity accept guidance or rule from such an agency?

Completely separate from any of this is the question overly-focused by theologians, and pursued by too many atheists:

4) Did the universe come about by the intelligent and purposeful action of a metaphysical agency?

My answers:
1) Demonstrably, in all probability, no;
2) Consequently no, and even if you dispute 1), still demonstrably not;
3) Practically no;
4) Scientifically unlikely, but theologically irrelevant due to 1-3.

If I were to argue 1-3 while everyone argues 4, we'll be entirely at cross-purposes. Yet I believe 4) is a scientific question of no theological relevance until theology can nail down 1-3.

Conclusion: frames matter, and if we can't agree on them, there's no point embarking on debate.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 10:38:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

That's not a burden of being an agnostic atheist. The point of view that I share with many if not most atheists is not just taking the position that I don't claim knowledge regarding God's existence/non-existence (making me agnostic), but that we cannot even begin to determine it's probability. Therefore asking me to prove either scenario more probable fundamentally misunderstands the position.

Many theists of course will respond to this by saying I am just an agnostic, which is another misunderstanding. I do not believe in a God (for the reasons I just described), not believing in a God makes me an atheist.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2015 11:49:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

Hope we can start an interesting conversation, and share some interesting ideas. I also believe that many claims/ statements made on the religion forum center around the existence of a god/s. Also, be sure to specify which god your trying to prove/ disprove.

I have different views depending on how "God" is defined:

I reject revealed gods because evidence for the stories (within the Holy books) in which god is said to have participated is non existent. This is problematic since it is reasonable to expect this evidence. (evidence for the flood, Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.) Essentially, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Obviously, I have not researched every revealed god, so I openly admit extrapolation. I have other issues with this type of god, but in the interest of being concise, I will stop there.

I have no burden to disprove a deistic god as the claims of such a being are without merit and typically based on arguments from ignorance/incredulity. He/She/It may exist, but without knowledge one way or the other it is reasonable to disbelieve - and that is what I do.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 1:13:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/27/2015 8:59:43 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
As an agnostic atheist, I will gladly take part in this debate. To put it quite simply, the burden of proof is on those asserting that a god exists.

The burden of proof is on whom ever is making the claim.

If I say Dogs exist, I have the burden of proving it.

If you say Dogs do not exist, you have the burden of proving it.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 9:20:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 1:13:11 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 8:59:43 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
As an agnostic atheist, I will gladly take part in this debate. To put it quite simply, the burden of proof is on those asserting that a god exists.

The burden of proof is on whom ever is making the claim.

If I say Dogs exist, I have the burden of proving it.

If you say Dogs do not exist, you have the burden of proving it.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

I am not making the claim that God does not exist, I am merely rejecting the claim that he does exist because that claim has not met its burden of proof. I am able to reject this claim without evidence of my own due to Hitchen's Razor.

And as a side note, the individual saying that dogs do not exist has no burden of proof, as they are not making a positive assertation. The same is try of those who claim that unicorns do not exist, because these claims are merely a rejection of other's claims. The burden of proof only falls on these people if they claim these things with absolute certainty, which I did not.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 11:40:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/27/2015 8:59:43 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

Hope we can start an interesting conversation, and share some interesting ideas. I also believe that many claims/ statements made on the religion forum center around the existence of a god/s. Also, be sure to specify which god your trying to prove/ disprove.

As an agnostic atheist, I will gladly take part in this debate. To put it quite simply, the burden of proof is on those asserting that a god exists. Since this burden of proof has never been met, it is logical to assume that no god exists at all. Of course, being an intellectually honest person, I cannot claim that I as certain that no god exists, merely that that is what is the most likely to be true. I hope that this contributed to discussion.

So your saying that since no proof has been given FOR the existence of god, the default position must be taken, which is that no god exists?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 11:41:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/27/2015 9:12:37 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Pase, I think this will make a mess of a discussion due to different definitions and frames. Reconciling frames is perhaps the hardest task in these chats.

To illustrate this, I'm an atheist who believes the question 'Does God exist' is not one question, and should not be treated as one. We can separate the following key questions regarding theological claims to authority:

1) Is there presently a metaphysical agency in discourse with humanity?
2) Has any of this discourse been so accurately captured by theology that theology might offer insights into its nature? And finally
3) Is it morally and ethically desirable that humanity accept guidance or rule from such an agency?

Completely separate from any of this is the question overly-focused by theologians, and pursued by too many atheists:

4) Did the universe come about by the intelligent and purposeful action of a metaphysical agency?

My answers:
1) Demonstrably, in all probability, no;
2) Consequently no, and even if you dispute 1), still demonstrably not;
3) Practically no;
4) Scientifically unlikely, but theologically irrelevant due to 1-3.

If I were to argue 1-3 while everyone argues 4, we'll be entirely at cross-purposes. Yet I believe 4) is a scientific question of no theological relevance until theology can nail down 1-3.

Conclusion: frames matter, and if we can't agree on them, there's no point embarking on debate.

So your saying it's pointless to have a debate on whether a god/s exists?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 11:42:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/27/2015 10:38:13 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

That's not a burden of being an agnostic atheist. The point of view that I share with many if not most atheists is not just taking the position that I don't claim knowledge regarding God's existence/non-existence (making me agnostic), but that we cannot even begin to determine it's probability. Therefore asking me to prove either scenario more probable fundamentally misunderstands the position.

Many theists of course will respond to this by saying I am just an agnostic, which is another misunderstanding. I do not believe in a God (for the reasons I just described), not believing in a God makes me an atheist.

Why is there no burden of proof on agnostic atheists?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 11:45:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/27/2015 11:49:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

Hope we can start an interesting conversation, and share some interesting ideas. I also believe that many claims/ statements made on the religion forum center around the existence of a god/s. Also, be sure to specify which god your trying to prove/ disprove.

I have different views depending on how "God" is defined:

I reject revealed gods because evidence for the stories (within the Holy books) in which god is said to have participated is non existent. This is problematic since it is reasonable to expect this evidence. (evidence for the flood, Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.) Essentially, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Obviously, I have not researched every revealed god, so I openly admit extrapolation. I have other issues with this type of god, but in the interest of being concise, I will stop there.

I have no burden to disprove a deistic god as the claims of such a being are without merit and typically based on arguments from ignorance/incredulity. He/She/It may exist, but without knowledge one way or the other it is reasonable to disbelieve - and that is what I do.

Do you think that we, as of now, just don't have the "criteria" (technology, knowledge, etc.) to be able to detect whether a god exists? Meaning that we don't know about a god's existence because we lack the knowledge to go searching?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 11:48:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 11:40:01 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 8:59:43 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

Hope we can start an interesting conversation, and share some interesting ideas. I also believe that many claims/ statements made on the religion forum center around the existence of a god/s. Also, be sure to specify which god your trying to prove/ disprove.

As an agnostic atheist, I will gladly take part in this debate. To put it quite simply, the burden of proof is on those asserting that a god exists. Since this burden of proof has never been met, it is logical to assume that no god exists at all. Of course, being an intellectually honest person, I cannot claim that I as certain that no god exists, merely that that is what is the most likely to be true. I hope that this contributed to discussion.

So your saying that since no proof has been given FOR the existence of god, the default position must be taken, which is that no god exists?

Exactly. This is due to Hitchen's Razor, which states that "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.". Since there is no evidence behind any god assertions, these assertions can be dismissed as false without evidence.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 11:49:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 11:48:03 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:40:01 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 8:59:43 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

Hope we can start an interesting conversation, and share some interesting ideas. I also believe that many claims/ statements made on the religion forum center around the existence of a god/s. Also, be sure to specify which god your trying to prove/ disprove.

As an agnostic atheist, I will gladly take part in this debate. To put it quite simply, the burden of proof is on those asserting that a god exists. Since this burden of proof has never been met, it is logical to assume that no god exists at all. Of course, being an intellectually honest person, I cannot claim that I as certain that no god exists, merely that that is what is the most likely to be true. I hope that this contributed to discussion.

So your saying that since no proof has been given FOR the existence of god, the default position must be taken, which is that no god exists?

Exactly. This is due to Hitchen's Razor, which states that "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.". Since there is no evidence behind any god assertions, these assertions can be dismissed as false without evidence.

So a lack of evidence directly implies the non-existence of the object?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 11:49:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 11:42:25 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 10:38:13 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

That's not a burden of being an agnostic atheist. The point of view that I share with many if not most atheists is not just taking the position that I don't claim knowledge regarding God's existence/non-existence (making me agnostic), but that we cannot even begin to determine it's probability. Therefore asking me to prove either scenario more probable fundamentally misunderstands the position.

Many theists of course will respond to this by saying I am just an agnostic, which is another misunderstanding. I do not believe in a God (for the reasons I just described), not believing in a God makes me an atheist.

Why is there no burden of proof on agnostic atheists?

There is no burden of proof on agnostic atheists because we are merely rejecting the unsupported claims of others, rather then making any claims ourselves. If we were saying that we are certain that a god does not exist, that would be a very different story.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 11:50:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 11:49:22 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:48:03 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:40:01 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 8:59:43 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

Hope we can start an interesting conversation, and share some interesting ideas. I also believe that many claims/ statements made on the religion forum center around the existence of a god/s. Also, be sure to specify which god your trying to prove/ disprove.

As an agnostic atheist, I will gladly take part in this debate. To put it quite simply, the burden of proof is on those asserting that a god exists. Since this burden of proof has never been met, it is logical to assume that no god exists at all. Of course, being an intellectually honest person, I cannot claim that I as certain that no god exists, merely that that is what is the most likely to be true. I hope that this contributed to discussion.

So your saying that since no proof has been given FOR the existence of god, the default position must be taken, which is that no god exists?

Exactly. This is due to Hitchen's Razor, which states that "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.". Since there is no evidence behind any god assertions, these assertions can be dismissed as false without evidence.

So a lack of evidence directly implies the non-existence of the object?

Yes. If there is no evidence pointing to the existence of something, it is logical to assume that it does not exist
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 11:50:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 11:49:32 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:42:25 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 10:38:13 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

That's not a burden of being an agnostic atheist. The point of view that I share with many if not most atheists is not just taking the position that I don't claim knowledge regarding God's existence/non-existence (making me agnostic), but that we cannot even begin to determine it's probability. Therefore asking me to prove either scenario more probable fundamentally misunderstands the position.

Many theists of course will respond to this by saying I am just an agnostic, which is another misunderstanding. I do not believe in a God (for the reasons I just described), not believing in a God makes me an atheist.

Why is there no burden of proof on agnostic atheists?

There is no burden of proof on agnostic atheists because we are merely rejecting the unsupported claims of others, rather then making any claims ourselves. If we were saying that we are certain that a god does not exist, that would be a very different story.

But are you open to the possibility of a god?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 11:51:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 11:50:41 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:49:32 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:42:25 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 10:38:13 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

That's not a burden of being an agnostic atheist. The point of view that I share with many if not most atheists is not just taking the position that I don't claim knowledge regarding God's existence/non-existence (making me agnostic), but that we cannot even begin to determine it's probability. Therefore asking me to prove either scenario more probable fundamentally misunderstands the position.

Many theists of course will respond to this by saying I am just an agnostic, which is another misunderstanding. I do not believe in a God (for the reasons I just described), not believing in a God makes me an atheist.

Why is there no burden of proof on agnostic atheists?

There is no burden of proof on agnostic atheists because we are merely rejecting the unsupported claims of others, rather then making any claims ourselves. If we were saying that we are certain that a god does not exist, that would be a very different story.

But are you open to the possibility of a god?

Of course, in the same way I am open to the possibility of unicorns. If significant evidence were to come up to support god or unicorns, I would change my mind on those matters.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 11:53:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 11:51:53 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:50:41 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:49:32 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:42:25 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 10:38:13 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

That's not a burden of being an agnostic atheist. The point of view that I share with many if not most atheists is not just taking the position that I don't claim knowledge regarding God's existence/non-existence (making me agnostic), but that we cannot even begin to determine it's probability. Therefore asking me to prove either scenario more probable fundamentally misunderstands the position.

Many theists of course will respond to this by saying I am just an agnostic, which is another misunderstanding. I do not believe in a God (for the reasons I just described), not believing in a God makes me an atheist.

Why is there no burden of proof on agnostic atheists?

There is no burden of proof on agnostic atheists because we are merely rejecting the unsupported claims of others, rather then making any claims ourselves. If we were saying that we are certain that a god does not exist, that would be a very different story.

But are you open to the possibility of a god?

Of course, in the same way I am open to the possibility of unicorns. If significant evidence were to come up to support god or unicorns, I would change my mind on those matters.

Interesting. Now, do you think that Agnostic Theists have no burden of proof, like how agnostic atheists don't have any?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 11:54:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 11:50:31 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:49:22 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:48:03 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:40:01 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 8:59:43 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

Hope we can start an interesting conversation, and share some interesting ideas. I also believe that many claims/ statements made on the religion forum center around the existence of a god/s. Also, be sure to specify which god your trying to prove/ disprove.

As an agnostic atheist, I will gladly take part in this debate. To put it quite simply, the burden of proof is on those asserting that a god exists. Since this burden of proof has never been met, it is logical to assume that no god exists at all. Of course, being an intellectually honest person, I cannot claim that I as certain that no god exists, merely that that is what is the most likely to be true. I hope that this contributed to discussion.

So your saying that since no proof has been given FOR the existence of god, the default position must be taken, which is that no god exists?

Exactly. This is due to Hitchen's Razor, which states that "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.". Since there is no evidence behind any god assertions, these assertions can be dismissed as false without evidence.

So a lack of evidence directly implies the non-existence of the object?

Yes. If there is no evidence pointing to the existence of something, it is logical to assume that it does not exist

What about trying to "reason" the existence of something? You know that the earliest idea of the atom was reasoned by Democritus, but was dismissed by Aristotle. We now know that atoms "exist", but the earliest conception, which was reached by reason and no empirical evidence, was right in the idea of the smallest unit.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 12:01:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 11:54:39 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:50:31 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:49:22 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:48:03 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:40:01 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 8:59:43 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

Hope we can start an interesting conversation, and share some interesting ideas. I also believe that many claims/ statements made on the religion forum center around the existence of a god/s. Also, be sure to specify which god your trying to prove/ disprove.

As an agnostic atheist, I will gladly take part in this debate. To put it quite simply, the burden of proof is on those asserting that a god exists. Since this burden of proof has never been met, it is logical to assume that no god exists at all. Of course, being an intellectually honest person, I cannot claim that I as certain that no god exists, merely that that is what is the most likely to be true. I hope that this contributed to discussion.

So your saying that since no proof has been given FOR the existence of god, the default position must be taken, which is that no god exists?

Exactly. This is due to Hitchen's Razor, which states that "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.". Since there is no evidence behind any god assertions, these assertions can be dismissed as false without evidence.

So a lack of evidence directly implies the non-existence of the object?

Yes. If there is no evidence pointing to the existence of something, it is logical to assume that it does not exist

What about trying to "reason" the existence of something? You know that the earliest idea of the atom was reasoned by Democritus, but was dismissed by Aristotle. We now know that atoms "exist", but the earliest conception, which was reached by reason and no empirical evidence, was right in the idea of the smallest unit.

It really depends on the way you are trying to reason something's existence. Reasoning can act as some evidence, but not always. Take the example you showed for instance. Democritus was correct about the idea of small building blocks making up all matter, but he was completely wrong on many important features of these building blocks. He thought that these atoms were indestructible, which we have shown to be false. He thought that atoms were invisible, which we have shown to be false. He thought that the entire atom was entirely solid, which we have shown to be false. My point is, reasoning can only get you so far. Empirical evidence is required to get a truly accurate understanding of the way that the universe works.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 12:04:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 11:53:09 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:51:53 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:50:41 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:49:32 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:42:25 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 10:38:13 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

That's not a burden of being an agnostic atheist. The point of view that I share with many if not most atheists is not just taking the position that I don't claim knowledge regarding God's existence/non-existence (making me agnostic), but that we cannot even begin to determine it's probability. Therefore asking me to prove either scenario more probable fundamentally misunderstands the position.

Many theists of course will respond to this by saying I am just an agnostic, which is another misunderstanding. I do not believe in a God (for the reasons I just described), not believing in a God makes me an atheist.

Why is there no burden of proof on agnostic atheists?

There is no burden of proof on agnostic atheists because we are merely rejecting the unsupported claims of others, rather then making any claims ourselves. If we were saying that we are certain that a god does not exist, that would be a very different story.

But are you open to the possibility of a god?

Of course, in the same way I am open to the possibility of unicorns. If significant evidence were to come up to support god or unicorns, I would change my mind on those matters.

Interesting. Now, do you think that Agnostic Theists have no burden of proof, like how agnostic atheists don't have any?

They have some burden of proof, but a significantly smaller amount then Gnostic theists. This is because even though they do not claim to be sure of the existence of a deity, they still believe in such a deity without evidence. Based on the way I see it, Agnostic atheists are the only group in this matter without a burden of proof, as they do not believe without evidence, or claim to be certain about the topic.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 12:05:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 11:54:39 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:50:31 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:49:22 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:48:03 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:40:01 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 8:59:43 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

Hope we can start an interesting conversation, and share some interesting ideas. I also believe that many claims/ statements made on the religion forum center around the existence of a god/s. Also, be sure to specify which god your trying to prove/ disprove.

As an agnostic atheist, I will gladly take part in this debate. To put it quite simply, the burden of proof is on those asserting that a god exists. Since this burden of proof has never been met, it is logical to assume that no god exists at all. Of course, being an intellectually honest person, I cannot claim that I as certain that no god exists, merely that that is what is the most likely to be true. I hope that this contributed to discussion.

So your saying that since no proof has been given FOR the existence of god, the default position must be taken, which is that no god exists?

Exactly. This is due to Hitchen's Razor, which states that "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.". Since there is no evidence behind any god assertions, these assertions can be dismissed as false without evidence.

So a lack of evidence directly implies the non-existence of the object?

Yes. If there is no evidence pointing to the existence of something, it is logical to assume that it does not exist

What about trying to "reason" the existence of something? You know that the earliest idea of the atom was reasoned by Democritus, but was dismissed by Aristotle. We now know that atoms "exist", but the earliest conception, which was reached by reason and no empirical evidence, was right in the idea of the smallest unit.

Just as a side note, I appreciate how we are keeping this discussion very civil, considering how these discussions usually end up.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 12:14:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 11:42:25 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 10:38:13 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

That's not a burden of being an agnostic atheist. The point of view that I share with many if not most atheists is not just taking the position that I don't claim knowledge regarding God's existence/non-existence (making me agnostic), but that we cannot even begin to determine it's probability. Therefore asking me to prove either scenario more probable fundamentally misunderstands the position.

Many theists of course will respond to this by saying I am just an agnostic, which is another misunderstanding. I do not believe in a God (for the reasons I just described), not believing in a God makes me an atheist.

Why is there no burden of proof on agnostic atheists?

Because we're not making a claim. That's how the BoP works. Your OP attempts to portray us as accepting that it is more likely that a God does not exist then he does, our position (for most anyway) as I just described is not about likelihood since we cannot even begin to asses that. Our position is about rational justification. If it has not been presented then belief is not warranted, and it has not been presented.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 12:30:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 12:01:35 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:54:39 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:50:31 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:49:22 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:48:03 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:40:01 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 8:59:43 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

Hope we can start an interesting conversation, and share some interesting ideas. I also believe that many claims/ statements made on the religion forum center around the existence of a god/s. Also, be sure to specify which god your trying to prove/ disprove.

As an agnostic atheist, I will gladly take part in this debate. To put it quite simply, the burden of proof is on those asserting that a god exists. Since this burden of proof has never been met, it is logical to assume that no god exists at all. Of course, being an intellectually honest person, I cannot claim that I as certain that no god exists, merely that that is what is the most likely to be true. I hope that this contributed to discussion.

So your saying that since no proof has been given FOR the existence of god, the default position must be taken, which is that no god exists?

Exactly. This is due to Hitchen's Razor, which states that "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.". Since there is no evidence behind any god assertions, these assertions can be dismissed as false without evidence.

So a lack of evidence directly implies the non-existence of the object?

Yes. If there is no evidence pointing to the existence of something, it is logical to assume that it does not exist

What about trying to "reason" the existence of something? You know that the earliest idea of the atom was reasoned by Democritus, but was dismissed by Aristotle. We now know that atoms "exist", but the earliest conception, which was reached by reason and no empirical evidence, was right in the idea of the smallest unit.

It really depends on the way you are trying to reason something's existence. Reasoning can act as some evidence, but not always. Take the example you showed for instance. Democritus was correct about the idea of small building blocks making up all matter, but he was completely wrong on many important features of these building blocks. He thought that these atoms were indestructible, which we have shown to be false. He thought that atoms were invisible, which we have shown to be false. He thought that the entire atom was entirely solid, which we have shown to be false. My point is, reasoning can only get you so far. Empirical evidence is required to get a truly accurate understanding of the way that the universe works.

But a lack of empirical evidence does not correlate to the non-existence of an object, right? Democritus got the big idea right, that there exists atoms.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 12:31:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 12:04:29 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:53:09 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:51:53 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:50:41 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:49:32 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:42:25 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 10:38:13 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

That's not a burden of being an agnostic atheist. The point of view that I share with many if not most atheists is not just taking the position that I don't claim knowledge regarding God's existence/non-existence (making me agnostic), but that we cannot even begin to determine it's probability. Therefore asking me to prove either scenario more probable fundamentally misunderstands the position.

Many theists of course will respond to this by saying I am just an agnostic, which is another misunderstanding. I do not believe in a God (for the reasons I just described), not believing in a God makes me an atheist.

Why is there no burden of proof on agnostic atheists?

There is no burden of proof on agnostic atheists because we are merely rejecting the unsupported claims of others, rather then making any claims ourselves. If we were saying that we are certain that a god does not exist, that would be a very different story.

But are you open to the possibility of a god?

Of course, in the same way I am open to the possibility of unicorns. If significant evidence were to come up to support god or unicorns, I would change my mind on those matters.

Interesting. Now, do you think that Agnostic Theists have no burden of proof, like how agnostic atheists don't have any?

They have some burden of proof, but a significantly smaller amount then Gnostic theists. This is because even though they do not claim to be sure of the existence of a deity, they still believe in such a deity without evidence. Based on the way I see it, Agnostic atheists are the only group in this matter without a burden of proof, as they do not believe without evidence, or claim to be certain about the topic.

But isn't it an arbitrary assertion that agnostic atheists don't have any BOP? Agnostic atheist and Agnostic theist are necessarily the same; one leans towards the positive claim, while the other leans towards the negative.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 12:32:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 12:30:05 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 12:01:35 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:54:39 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:50:31 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:49:22 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:48:03 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:40:01 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 8:59:43 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

Hope we can start an interesting conversation, and share some interesting ideas. I also believe that many claims/ statements made on the religion forum center around the existence of a god/s. Also, be sure to specify which god your trying to prove/ disprove.

As an agnostic atheist, I will gladly take part in this debate. To put it quite simply, the burden of proof is on those asserting that a god exists. Since this burden of proof has never been met, it is logical to assume that no god exists at all. Of course, being an intellectually honest person, I cannot claim that I as certain that no god exists, merely that that is what is the most likely to be true. I hope that this contributed to discussion.

So your saying that since no proof has been given FOR the existence of god, the default position must be taken, which is that no god exists?

Exactly. This is due to Hitchen's Razor, which states that "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.". Since there is no evidence behind any god assertions, these assertions can be dismissed as false without evidence.

So a lack of evidence directly implies the non-existence of the object?

Yes. If there is no evidence pointing to the existence of something, it is logical to assume that it does not exist

What about trying to "reason" the existence of something? You know that the earliest idea of the atom was reasoned by Democritus, but was dismissed by Aristotle. We now know that atoms "exist", but the earliest conception, which was reached by reason and no empirical evidence, was right in the idea of the smallest unit.

It really depends on the way you are trying to reason something's existence. Reasoning can act as some evidence, but not always. Take the example you showed for instance. Democritus was correct about the idea of small building blocks making up all matter, but he was completely wrong on many important features of these building blocks. He thought that these atoms were indestructible, which we have shown to be false. He thought that atoms were invisible, which we have shown to be false. He thought that the entire atom was entirely solid, which we have shown to be false. My point is, reasoning can only get you so far. Empirical evidence is required to get a truly accurate understanding of the way that the universe works.

But a lack of empirical evidence does not correlate to the non-existence of an object, right? Democritus got the big idea right, that there exists atoms.

I agree that a lack of evidence does not prove something to be false, but it is logical to dismiss that which has no evidence to support it. Just because Democritus ended up getting it right without evidence, that does not mean that evidence is a bad standard for belief.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 12:32:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 12:05:29 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:54:39 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:50:31 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:49:22 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:48:03 AM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:40:01 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 8:59:43 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

Hope we can start an interesting conversation, and share some interesting ideas. I also believe that many claims/ statements made on the religion forum center around the existence of a god/s. Also, be sure to specify which god your trying to prove/ disprove.

As an agnostic atheist, I will gladly take part in this debate. To put it quite simply, the burden of proof is on those asserting that a god exists. Since this burden of proof has never been met, it is logical to assume that no god exists at all. Of course, being an intellectually honest person, I cannot claim that I as certain that no god exists, merely that that is what is the most likely to be true. I hope that this contributed to discussion.

So your saying that since no proof has been given FOR the existence of god, the default position must be taken, which is that no god exists?

Exactly. This is due to Hitchen's Razor, which states that "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.". Since there is no evidence behind any god assertions, these assertions can be dismissed as false without evidence.

So a lack of evidence directly implies the non-existence of the object?

Yes. If there is no evidence pointing to the existence of something, it is logical to assume that it does not exist

What about trying to "reason" the existence of something? You know that the earliest idea of the atom was reasoned by Democritus, but was dismissed by Aristotle. We now know that atoms "exist", but the earliest conception, which was reached by reason and no empirical evidence, was right in the idea of the smallest unit.

Just as a side note, I appreciate how we are keeping this discussion very civil, considering how these discussions usually end up.

Oh yeah. I my self am an Agnostic atheist, but I like questioning it. Besides, on a sunday morning, I really have nothing else to do :)
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 12:34:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 12:14:31 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 6/28/2015 11:42:25 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 6/27/2015 10:38:13 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 6/27/2015 6:23:27 PM, Pase66 wrote:
Gnostic Theists: Prove the existence of God/s as a definite

Gnostic Theists: Prove that god/s don't exist without doubt

Agnostic Theists: Prove that the possibility of God/s is greater than its non-existence

Agnostic Atheists: Prove that the possibility of god/s not existing is greater than the possibility of it existing.

Agnostics: Share your point of view!

That's not a burden of being an agnostic atheist. The point of view that I share with many if not most atheists is not just taking the position that I don't claim knowledge regarding God's existence/non-existence (making me agnostic), but that we cannot even begin to determine it's probability. Therefore asking me to prove either scenario more probable fundamentally misunderstands the position.

Many theists of course will respond to this by saying I am just an agnostic, which is another misunderstanding. I do not believe in a God (for the reasons I just described), not believing in a God makes me an atheist.

Why is there no burden of proof on agnostic atheists?

Because we're not making a claim. That's how the BoP works. Your OP attempts to portray us as accepting that it is more likely that a God does not exist then he does, our position (for most anyway) as I just described is not about likelihood since we cannot even begin to asses that. Our position is about rational justification. If it has not been presented then belief is not warranted, and it has not been presented.

So, if I may ask, a lack of evidence means that the object does not exists? Also, do agnostic theists have a BOP?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 12:36:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 11:54:39 AM, Pase66 wrote:
What about trying to "reason" the existence of something? You know that the earliest idea of the atom was reasoned by Democritus, but was dismissed by Aristotle. We now know that atoms "exist", but the earliest conception, which was reached by reason and no empirical evidence, was right in the idea of the smallest unit.

I can "reason" that the coin I just flipped landed on heads. I do not know that it landed on heads until I look at it to confirm that I was right.

What you're basically getting at is the idea of a "logical proof" for God's existence. There are many of these out there, and they are all dead on arrival. You cannot prove something with logic alone, allow me to take the long route to explain why.

The first thing you need is to understand exactly what logic is. My favorite was of explaining it is this; Picture a piece of paper with 4 dots on it...

1. The dots are your premises
2. Logic is your ability to connect the dots
3. The picture you get from this (a square) is your conclusion.

People of faith always assert that we all have faith at some level, this is a gross misunderstanding of what the word faith means in any reasonable context. The first dot that all of us draw when attempting to understand reality is that our senses are mostly accurate. We all understand that this may not be the case, but we are forced by practical necessity to accept this. That's not faith.

Once you accept this first dot then your observations follow to form other dots. Eventually you end up with a number of dots, now all you have to do is connect them. Any argument you make that takes the dots you have accumulated via your own observations of reality are considered by practical necessity to be justified, and if you follow the rules of logic when connecting those dots then you have a valid and sound argument for whatever you are trying to prove. That's how we go about understanding reality.

This is why the very notion of a "logical argument" makes absolutely no sense. If logic is what connects the dots then you cannot utilize it without dots, and if you are drawing dots with logic then you are simply making stuff up. The point of these arguments is to draw conclusions about reality, you cannot do this if your premises are not based on observations of reality.