HallaK9

Moiii. Have you read and understood what people have responded to you in this thread?

Some clarifications:

An atheist is someone who lacks belief in a deity, in the case of Christianity, God. An atheist does not actively try to prove the non-existence of God. Such position would be absurd.

Burden of proof is always on the claimant of the positive. Those who deny the claim are left with refuting the proof. This is not a matter of opinion. In the case of theism the claim is: "There is a God". The a-theist position is: "I don't believe that". It is now the theists job to prove the original, positive, claim. This is how a court of law or science functions.

And please, do tell me what "the atheist doctrine" is, what it's inconsistencies are, answer this post and don't turn in to a troll. Thank you.

Antti

Godless Sodomite

You still completely misunderstand the situation. You are the claimant. Every person is born and goes about their life, and then you (or someone like you) come along with this idea you call "god." It's up to YOU to prove why your idea makes sense and is true. We aren't making any claims.

We often do say when an argument is presented (like the cosmological argument you find so persuasive), "that doesn't make sense because..." and then proceed to outline where your argument lacks logic, or why things that may be logically true aren't necessarily actually and evidentially true. Even if your logic were perfect, you still need evidence--god cannot be demonstrated to exist via semantic definitions. Theists' arguments and assertions can only be countered with reasons why their "evidence" is not proof of what they claim it to be; we aren't making any claims. God belief isn't the default state of affairs for humankind. Someone first has to come up with the idea and spread it.

Our starting point is the same: the brute fact of our existence. What possible reason would we atheists have to accept as evidence an argument you are either unable or unwilling to make in answer to a question that you yourself have asked--you create the problem and make up a solution and then wonder why people don't accept it.

Your shifting the burden of proof seems to me to be an admission that you have no evidence to support your god belief as being true.

-Jerry

moiii

I understand what you are all saying. I just think it lacks substance. Who's trying to prove what depends on perspective.

KnightWhoSaysNi

Are you refering to the beginning of the universe or the beginning of life? If the universe, see my earlier comments on Big Bang cosmology. As for life, it's unknown, but there have been some interesting studies on abiogenesis. Perhaps you've heard of the Urey/Miller experiments for example? (amino acids formed from chemicals in a primordial soup affected by ultra-violet rays, hydrothermal vents, etc...) I suppose you could argue that this was a mechanism used by God "breathe life" into non-life, but that must be taken on faith.

I know that perhaps you might say that the constraints of the universe must be 'finely tuned' for this to occur. But on the other hand, I think's it's more accurate to say that we were 'finely tuned' or shaped by these very constraints (thus not requiring a divine hand).


I'm going to paraphrase Carl Sagan a bit. Let's say your neighbour claims, "I have a dragon in my garage!"

Naturally, you're curious, and go have a look, but the garage is empty. You ask where it is and your neighbour says, "it's invisible!"

You feel around and can't touch anything, and then your neighbour says, "it's incorporeal and exists as spiritual energy!"

So you bring in stuff like ultra-violet and infrared detectors, X-rays, laser sensoring devices, etc... and still nothing. You neighbour says, "it partly exists in another dimension and can't be affected by the physical laws of the this world."

So you ask, "why should I believe there's a dragon here at all? What's the proof it exists?" Your neighbour responds, "You are not justified to disbelieve in its existence. It is incumbent on you to prove that it does not exist!"

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

TollHouse

moiii,
The title of this thread is "There is a God", yet you ingnorantly claim that we must provide proof to the opposite?

Do you see the problem here? What makes you think that any faith-based belief must be true by default?

A very simple exercise should show you the folly of your ways:
A green troll from another timeline lives under my bed. You can't see him because he's from a different dimension, but he's there.

Do you suppose that my green, ultra-dimensional troll truly exists based on the absence of proof to the contrary? Are you capable of understanding this dilema? Are you going to honestly answer our questions or just wave them off childishly with remarks such as "whatever makes you sleep better"?

I await your replies.

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: TollHouse ]</p>

Godless Sodomite

Then proceed to show us where our arguments are faulty or stop wasting our time spamming the board with new threads.

To say that we, who don't believe, have any burden of proof and to say things like "atheist doctrine" demonstrate to me that you have little understanding what an atheist is or what constitutes atheistic thought.

From where does your "lack of substance" charge come when nothing you've posted suggests you even understand our position?

Remember, you aren't the first theist we've come across--we in the US live in a country where the vast majority profess belief in the supernatural; we even have a president who declares days of prayer. Most of us have read the bible and are familiar with apologetics. The little you've offered by way of explaining why your belief is reasonable has been refuted many times. If you're truly interested, familiarize yourself with the arguments you find most persuasive and the evidence you find most conclusive, then study their refutations. If you find the refutations faulty or lacking in substance tell us where atheistic thinking went wrong and the debate can ensue.

If your plan is to be persuasive, you have to offer us more than arguments from incredulity or popularity.

-Jerry

The Messiah

Moiii,

Tells us what God is and maybe we can construct an experiment to see if what you postulate God to be can be established. Try to be a descriptive as possible.

DarkBronzePlant

moiii,

Welcome to the board, and thanks for the question.

Now, I'm jumping in a little late here (when do the rest of you people sleep?!!! ) but I wanted to mention two points.

First, asking us (or anyone) to prove a negative is literally asking the impossible. It simply cannot be done, epecially in a universe that, as far as we know, is infinite. The only way to prove the nonexistence of something like god would be to search everywhere in the universe, and demonstrate that god is nowhere to be found.

The only way we can come close is by using logic and reason, examples of fallacies in the only evidence for god (i.e. the bible). There are countless examples of such arguments throughout the infidels site. And of course, when the chips are down, such logical, reasonable arguments, such examples, are always countered by some variation of "with god all things are possible."

Thus, you literally ask the impossible, kinda like when some atheists here ask Christians if their god can make a round square.

Second, it truly is on the part of the Christian to prove the existence of god, not the other way around. Speaking for myself and a good number of atheists I know, we couldn't care less who believes in what. AS LONG AS THEY KEEP IT TO THEMSELVES. From my standpoint, you can believe in god and lieve your life according to your interpretation of the bible. As long as it doesn't affect me or anyone else. The problem is, we live in a country where laws are made, and policies set, based on Christian beliefs. If someone is to tell me that I can't buy a wine rack on Sundays because God wouldn't like it (true story), or that I can't receive a replacement organ if I am a mortally ill resident of Colorado--and that I will get 10 years in the slammer if I try to go out of state to get such medical treatment--because god might not like it, then that someone had damned well better prove to me that god does, in fact, exist.

HallaK9

Is this for real?
For a lack of a better expletive, Jesus! That can't be in accordance of your constitution, can it?

Antti

DarkBronzePlant

It's not for real... not yet. I see if I can dig up the article for you about this gem of legislation that an overly-relisious Colorado legislator is trying to get passed. It was in the paper this past week.