Total Posts:272|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Burden of proof relating to god

glory_lyfe
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
Personally I believe the burden lies on theists who assert a claim. Agnostics clearly require no claim. The true question is whether god is a natural assured being. Also atheism has existed much the same since time immemorial. Modern religions are relatively new.
You have enemies? Good that means you have stood up for something in your life.
-Winston Churchill
uncung
Posts: 3,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 5:16:22 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
Personally I believe the burden lies on theists who assert a claim. Agnostics clearly require no claim. The true question is whether god is a natural assured being. Also atheism has existed much the same since time immemorial. Modern religions are relatively new.

You are the proof of God.
Philosophy101
Posts: 147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 5:24:32 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
Personally I believe the burden lies on theists who assert a claim. Agnostics clearly require no claim. The true question is whether god is a natural assured being. Also atheism has existed much the same since time immemorial. Modern religions are relatively new.

Any positive claim requires the burden of proof; whether it's evolution, God or the flying ape ghetto monster. The reason for this is clear; I shouldnn't believe you that Fred is bad because Rob is good and Fred is different in some way from Rob. Put more acedemicly my beliefs are judicated for some idea not because there is lack of evidence on a competing theory, but because the theory I believe offers good reasons for my belief. Even God requires positive proof, whether it's a feeling, idea or observation.
glory_lyfe
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 5:26:54 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 5:16:22 AM, uncung wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
Personally I believe the burden lies on theists who assert a claim. Agnostics clearly require no claim. The true question is whether god is a natural assured being. Also atheism has existed much the same since time immemorial. Modern religions are relatively new.

You are the proof of God.
Are you saying that my existence proves that God exists? Two problems here.
A. We aren't trying to find proof. We are trying to find who should be required to submit proof.
B. My existence can only prove Christianity if Christianity describes the only possible way I could come to exist. It doesn't. I can create a new explanation right now. The world sprang into being five seconds ago. It is not likely that it did but it is an equally valid way of my existence without further evidence either way. Believers and the Bible lend far more reliability to the Christian faith but the argument stands.
You have enemies? Good that means you have stood up for something in your life.
-Winston Churchill
glory_lyfe
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 5:28:03 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 5:24:32 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
Personally I believe the burden lies on theists who assert a claim. Agnostics clearly require no claim. The true question is whether god is a natural assured being. Also atheism has existed much the same since time immemorial. Modern religions are relatively new.

Any positive claim requires the burden of proof; whether it's evolution, God or the flying ape ghetto monster. The reason for this is clear; I shouldnn't believe you that Fred is bad because Rob is good and Fred is different in some way from Rob. Put more acedemicly my beliefs are judicated for some idea not because there is lack of evidence on a competing theory, but because the theory I believe offers good reasons for my belief. Even God requires positive proof, whether it's a feeling, idea or observation.
That seems reasonable. So what would be a non positive claim in religion. Agnosticism?
You have enemies? Good that means you have stood up for something in your life.
-Winston Churchill
Philosophy101
Posts: 147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 5:35:46 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 5:28:03 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:24:32 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
Personally I believe the burden lies on theists who assert a claim. Agnostics clearly require no claim. The true question is whether god is a natural assured being. Also atheism has existed much the same since time immemorial. Modern religions are relatively new.

Any positive claim requires the burden of proof; whether it's evolution, God or the flying ape ghetto monster. The reason for this is clear; I shouldnn't believe you that Fred is bad because Rob is good and Fred is different in some way from Rob. Put more acedemicly my beliefs are judicated for some idea not because there is lack of evidence on a competing theory, but because the theory I believe offers good reasons for my belief. Even God requires positive proof, whether it's a feeling, idea or observation.
That seems reasonable. So what would be a non positive claim in religion. Agnosticism?

A non-positive claim would include agnosticism as it makes no assertion, thus requires no proof. More importantly it would include negative claims such as the atheist God does not exist. The athiest, while perhaps skeptical, does not require the same burden of proof as a theist. For instance I could say there is an elephant in my living room, where you in the same room do not see such an elephant. The burden of proof would be my own in demonstrating the existence of the elephant. Perhaps there is one and you are being unreasonably skeptical, but it is still my burden to prove its existence.
uncung
Posts: 3,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 5:44:53 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 5:26:54 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:16:22 AM, uncung wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
Personally I believe the burden lies on theists who assert a claim. Agnostics clearly require no claim. The true question is whether god is a natural assured being. Also atheism has existed much the same since time immemorial. Modern religions are relatively new.

You are the proof of God.
Are you saying that my existence proves that God exists? Two problems here.
A. We aren't trying to find proof. We are trying to find who should be required to submit proof.
B. My existence can only prove Christianity if Christianity describes the only possible way I could come to exist. It doesn't. I can create a new explanation right now. The world sprang into being five seconds ago. It is not likely that it did but it is an equally valid way of my existence without further evidence either way. Believers and the Bible lend far more reliability to the Christian faith but the argument stands.

Yes, you are the proof of God existence.
A. Proof is around us, the most tangible proof is us. We are the proof of God' existence.
B. Christianity is a false religion.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 11:45:48 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 5:24:32 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:

Any positive claim requires the burden of proof; whether it's evolution, God or the flying ape ghetto monster.

Ape......ghetto.......monster...

Hmmmmm.

Would you by any chance be a member of the Alt Right Identity movement?
Silly_Billy
Posts: 657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 12:48:49 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
Personally I believe the burden lies on theists who assert a claim. Agnostics clearly require no claim. The true question is whether god is a natural assured being. Also atheism has existed much the same since time immemorial. Modern religions are relatively new.

Does the buren lie on Theists... to a point yes. I don't think that there ought to be burden of absolute proof as nearly nothing can be proven absoutely, but they should in the very least be able to make logical none-contradicting arguments that would make God plausible. I think such arguments do exist but unfortunately most Theists have the nasty habit of undermining their arguments as they are not trying to prove the existence of God, but the existence of a God as scribbled down in their holy scriptures and thats where the idea of God tumbles down into the realm of fantasy.

Do Agnostics require claims? YES THEY DO! To give an example, Gravity. The theory of Gravity is widely accepted as being the truth and i would say that if any person who claims that gravity does not exist (because he is agnostic to the idea of gravity) would have to be required to provide logical none-contradicting arguments to why Gravity does not exist. In other words, those agnostic to the idea of God should also be able to make logical none-contradicting arguments that would make it implausible for God to exist if the criteria of there being sufficient logical none-contradicting arguments that God does exist has been met.
Willows
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 1:09:11 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
Personally I believe the burden lies on theists who assert a claim. Agnostics clearly require no claim. The true question is whether god is a natural assured being. Also atheism has existed much the same since time immemorial. Modern religions are relatively new.

The burden of proof lies with theists.

It is impossible for an atheist to prove nothing exists and it is absurd for a theist to make such a demand.

Furthermore, it is completely ridiculous, ignorant, and arrogant of theists to claim that God exists:
on the basis that non-existence cannot be proven.

because we are here, or that we must have been created.

ancient mythological texts say so.

by default, because of the perceived notion of no other explanation for existence.
rnjs
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 1:10:55 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
Personally I believe the burden lies on theists who assert a claim. Agnostics clearly require no claim. The true question is whether god is a natural assured being. Also atheism has existed much the same since time immemorial. Modern religions are relatively new.

The burden should lie on anyone making any claim, but what is proof to one may not be proof to another.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 1:23:27 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 1:10:55 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
Personally I believe the burden lies on theists who assert a claim. Agnostics clearly require no claim. The true question is whether god is a natural assured being. Also atheism has existed much the same since time immemorial. Modern religions are relatively new.

The burden should lie on anyone making any claim, but what is proof to one may not be proof to another.

An actual responsible answer without hyperbole. Kudos to you and happy thanksgiving!
mrsatan
Posts: 429
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 3:00:53 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
Personally I believe the burden lies on theists who assert a claim. Agnostics clearly require no claim. The true question is whether god is a natural assured being. Also atheism has existed much the same since time immemorial. Modern religions are relatively new.

The burden of proof lies with anyone who takes a definitive stance on a topic. If you outline a concept of God, and I tell you it's flat out impossible for the concept to be an actuality, the burden is on me to defend that stance. That is, assuming I expect you to agree with me. If I were content to agree to disagree on said concept, I've effectively set that burden down and moved on.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 3:37:26 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
Personally I believe the burden lies on theists who assert a claim. Agnostics clearly require no claim. The true question is whether god is a natural assured being. Also atheism has existed much the same since time immemorial. Modern religions are relatively new.

As a theist, I recognize that God cannot be disproven. The burden of proof lies on whomever wishes to make claim pertaining to his existence. However, our relationships with God are personal, thus making the burden of proof on yourself should you wish to prove God's existence.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Philosophy101
Posts: 147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 6:44:32 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 11:45:48 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:24:32 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:

Any positive claim requires the burden of proof; whether it's evolution, God or the flying ape ghetto monster.

Ape......ghetto.......monster...

Hmmmmm.

Would you by any chance be a member of the Alt Right Identity movement?

Actually it was supposed to be flying speghetti monster, stupid autocorrect.
glory_lyfe
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 3:05:08 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 12:48:49 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
Personally I believe the burden lies on theists who assert a claim. Agnostics clearly require no claim. The true question is whether god is a natural assured being. Also atheism has existed much the same since time immemorial. Modern religions are relatively new.

Does the buren lie on Theists... to a point yes. I don't think that there ought to be burden of absolute proof as nearly nothing can be proven absoutely, but they should in the very least be able to make logical none-contradicting arguments that would make God plausible. I think such arguments do exist but unfortunately most Theists have the nasty habit of undermining their arguments as they are not trying to prove the existence of God, but the existence of a God as scribbled down in their holy scriptures and thats where the idea of God tumbles down into the realm of fantasy.

Do Agnostics require claims? YES THEY DO! To give an example, Gravity. The theory of Gravity is widely accepted as being the truth and i would say that if any person who claims that gravity does not exist (because he is agnostic to the idea of gravity) would have to be required to provide logical none-contradicting arguments to why Gravity does not exist. In other words, those agnostic to the idea of God should also be able to make logical none-contradicting arguments that would make it implausible for God to exist if the criteria of there being sufficient logical none-contradicting arguments that God does exist has been met.
Agnostics aren't atheists... Agnostics take no definitive stance on the issue.
You have enemies? Good that means you have stood up for something in your life.
-Winston Churchill
glory_lyfe
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 3:07:43 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 1:09:11 PM, Willows wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
Personally I believe the burden lies on theists who assert a claim. Agnostics clearly require no claim. The true question is whether god is a natural assured being. Also atheism has existed much the same since time immemorial. Modern religions are relatively new.

The burden of proof lies with theists.

It is impossible for an atheist to prove nothing exists and it is absurd for a theist to make such a demand.

Furthermore, it is completely ridiculous, ignorant, and arrogant of theists to claim that God exists:
on the basis that non-existence cannot be proven.

because we are here, or that we must have been created.

ancient mythological texts say so.

by default, because of the perceived notion of no other explanation for existence.
Sorry you just contradicted yourself.
"It is impossible for an atheist to prove nothing exists"
" It is [...] Ignorant [...] of theists to claim god exists on the basis that non existence cannot be proven.
You have enemies? Good that means you have stood up for something in your life.
-Winston Churchill
glory_lyfe
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 3:10:59 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 5:44:53 AM, uncung wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:26:54 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:16:22 AM, uncung wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
Personally I believe the burden lies on theists who assert a claim. Agnostics clearly require no claim. The true question is whether god is a natural assured being. Also atheism has existed much the same since time immemorial. Modern religions are relatively new.

You are the proof of God.
Are you saying that my existence proves that God exists? Two problems here.
A. We aren't trying to find proof. We are trying to find who should be required to submit proof.
B. My existence can only prove Christianity if Christianity describes the only possible way I could come to exist. It doesn't. I can create a new explanation right now. The world sprang into being five seconds ago. It is not likely that it did but it is an equally valid way of my existence without further evidence either way. Believers and the Bible lend far more reliability to the Christian faith but the argument stands.

Yes, you are the proof of God existence.
A. Proof is around us, the most tangible proof is us. We are the proof of God' existence.
B. Christianity is a false religion.
My second argument uses Christianity as a placeholder. Anything could take its place. You can't use anything as definitive proof unless the only way it could occur is if your scenario is true. Isn't it possible that evolution or anything else.
You have enemies? Good that means you have stood up for something in your life.
-Winston Churchill
dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 4:58:33 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 3:37:26 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
Personally I believe the burden lies on theists who assert a claim. Agnostics clearly require no claim. The true question is whether god is a natural assured being. Also atheism has existed much the same since time immemorial. Modern religions are relatively new.

As a theist, I recognize that God cannot be disproven.

But neither can many other thought constructs. I can't disprove that the universe was created last Thursday. That doesn't mean I have to believe it.

Actually I can disprove the existence of God quite easily. Unfortunately theists just dismiss the proof without being able to refute it.

The burden of proof lies on whomever wishes to make claim pertaining to his existence.

Correct. However, the strict definition of an atheist is someone who holds no belief in gods. They are not making any claim about existence, only that there is insufficient (zero) evidence to support belief.

However, our relationships with God are personal, thus making the burden of proof on yourself should you wish to prove God's existence.

Here is an exercise in circular reasoning. If someone had a personal relationship with God then why would they need to prove anything to themselves? The problem is proving it to others so that subjectivity and/or delusion can be eliminated.
uncung
Posts: 3,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 6:53:34 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/25/2016 3:10:59 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:44:53 AM, uncung wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:26:54 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:16:22 AM, uncung wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
Personally I believe the burden lies on theists who assert a claim. Agnostics clearly require no claim. The true question is whether god is a natural assured being. Also atheism has existed much the same since time immemorial. Modern religions are relatively new.

You are the proof of God.
Are you saying that my existence proves that God exists? Two problems here.
A. We aren't trying to find proof. We are trying to find who should be required to submit proof.
B. My existence can only prove Christianity if Christianity describes the only possible way I could come to exist. It doesn't. I can create a new explanation right now. The world sprang into being five seconds ago. It is not likely that it did but it is an equally valid way of my existence without further evidence either way. Believers and the Bible lend far more reliability to the Christian faith but the argument stands.

Yes, you are the proof of God existence.
A. Proof is around us, the most tangible proof is us. We are the proof of God' existence.
B. Christianity is a false religion.
My second argument uses Christianity as a placeholder. Anything could take its place. You can't use anything as definitive proof unless the only way it could occur is if your scenario is true. Isn't it possible that evolution or anything else.

Religion can be used to explain the attitudes of God. The proof can be from anything. It can be possible evolution.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 10:48:49 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/25/2016 3:05:08 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
At 11/24/2016 12:48:49 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
Personally I believe the burden lies on theists who assert a claim. Agnostics clearly require no claim. The true question is whether god is a natural assured being. Also atheism has existed much the same since time immemorial. Modern religions are relatively new.

Does the buren lie on Theists... to a point yes. I don't think that there ought to be burden of absolute proof as nearly nothing can be proven absoutely, but they should in the very least be able to make logical none-contradicting arguments that would make God plausible. I think such arguments do exist but unfortunately most Theists have the nasty habit of undermining their arguments as they are not trying to prove the existence of God, but the existence of a God as scribbled down in their holy scriptures and thats where the idea of God tumbles down into the realm of fantasy.

Do Agnostics require claims? YES THEY DO! To give an example, Gravity. The theory of Gravity is widely accepted as being the truth and i would say that if any person who claims that gravity does not exist (because he is agnostic to the idea of gravity) would have to be required to provide logical none-contradicting arguments to why Gravity does not exist. In other words, those agnostic to the idea of God should also be able to make logical none-contradicting arguments that would make it implausible for God to exist if the criteria of there being sufficient logical none-contradicting arguments that God does exist has been met.
Agnostics aren't atheists... Agnostics take no definitive stance on the issue.

I myself am a agnostic and even though i do keep the door open to the possibility to there being a creator, there is plenty about the concept that i do have a stance on.
Willows
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 11:25:21 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/25/2016 3:07:43 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
At 11/24/2016 1:09:11 PM, Willows wrote:
At 11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
Personally I believe the burden lies on theists who assert a claim. Agnostics clearly require no claim. The true question is whether god is a natural assured being. Also atheism has existed much the same since time immemorial. Modern religions are relatively new.

The burden of proof lies with theists.

It is impossible for an atheist to prove nothing exists and it is absurd for a theist to make such a demand.

Furthermore, it is completely ridiculous, ignorant, and arrogant of theists to claim that God exists:
on the basis that non-existence cannot be proven.

because we are here, or that we must have been created.

ancient mythological texts say so.

by default, because of the perceived notion of no other explanation for existence.
Sorry you just contradicted yourself.
"It is impossible for an atheist to prove nothing exists"
" It is [...] Ignorant [...] of theists to claim god exists on the basis that non existence cannot be proven.

Sorry, but you did not quite get your head around it.
How about reading it again before jumping to an erroneous conclusion.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 4:48:32 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/24/2016 5:08:33 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
Personally I believe the burden lies on theists who assert a claim. Agnostics clearly require no claim. The true question is whether god is a natural assured being. Also atheism has existed much the same since time immemorial. Modern religions are relatively new.

Response: The burden of proof is on whomever makes a claim first. It has nothing to do with whether a person is a theist/atheist or agnostic. So if a theist initiates a claim first and says God exist, the burden of proof is on the theist for making the claim. If an atheist says there is no evidence of God first, the atheist has a burden of proof to show that there is no evidence. If an agnostic says he or she is not sure what position to take because neither side has evidence, then the agnostic must prove such.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 5:01:22 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/25/2016 4:48:32 PM, Fatihah wrote:
If an atheist says there is no evidence of God first, the atheist has a burden of proof to show that there is no evidence.

This arrow is pointing at the evidence for God --->
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Emgaol
Posts: 167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 5:15:08 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/25/2016 5:01:22 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/25/2016 4:48:32 PM, Fatihah wrote:
If an atheist says there is no evidence of God first, the atheist has a burden of proof to show that there is no evidence.

This arrow is pointing at the evidence for God --->

)
Hardly a burden at all really.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 5:52:07 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/25/2016 5:01:22 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/25/2016 4:48:32 PM, Fatihah wrote:
If an atheist says there is no evidence of God first, the atheist has a burden of proof to show that there is no evidence.

This arrow is pointing at the evidence for God --->

Response: Proving God exist. Thanks.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2016 12:51:39 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/25/2016 5:52:07 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 11/25/2016 5:01:22 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/25/2016 4:48:32 PM, Fatihah wrote:
If an atheist says there is no evidence of God first, the atheist has a burden of proof to show that there is no evidence.

This arrow is pointing at the evidence for God --->

Response: Proving God exist. Thanks.

Then God = nothing. Sounds about right.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2016 1:05:38 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/26/2016 12:51:39 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Then God = nothing. Sounds about right.

Response: Which would mean nothing=something, thus making my point.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2016 5:52:19 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/26/2016 1:05:38 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 11/26/2016 12:51:39 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Then God = nothing. Sounds about right.

Response: Which would mean nothing=something, thus making my point.

So, now you're claiming nothing IS something. LOL.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2016 6:12:07 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/26/2016 5:52:19 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

So, now you're claiming nothing IS something. LOL.

Response: According to your logic it is, thus the laugh is on you.