Odemus

I suppose it is only fair to preface my question by stating that I am indeed a Christian.

In the great debate it is universally recognized that the burden of proof lies with the theist. It is most natural to assume that God does not exist because He cannot be perceived with the (5?)senses. With that in mind my question is this: What is the most fundamental requirement necessary to verify truth about anything?

In an unrelated query I'm just curious to know if I am allowed to quote the various texts offered by this site as reference to a topic of discussion.

beachbum

In an unrelated query I'm just curious to know if I am allowed to quote the various texts offered by this site as reference to a topic of discussion.

What text's? Anything in SecWeb should be cool. Quote the bible around here and someone will have you for lunch. Remember this is a site filled with godless heathen atheists. We lie in wait for unsuspecting theists and then ....


beachbum

Odemus

Top of the page there is a link that says 'library'. That is what I was referring to.

Indifference

When the theist attempts to prove the existence of God without refference to the five senses, he is most often forced to rely on revelation. But revelation is only proof for the receiver of the revelation. Once, twice, and thrice removed it is merely--to quote Paine-- "heresay". For example the Biblical account cannot be considered proof, but rather heresay.

So, to answer your question, I would argue that the five senses ARE the fundamental requirements with regard to theism. Once a theist is able to appeal to the senses, then he can be taken seriously.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Indifference ]</p>

Pomp

Odemus,

In an unrelated query I'm just curious to know if I am allowed to quote the various texts offered by this site as reference to a topic of discussion.

Certainly. You can, in fact, quote anything you want, provided that you credit your source and observe fair use conduct. (i.e. don't just drop in huge blocks of quoted text without comment.) It's also very helpful if you provide a URL to the original document you're quoting, if it's available online.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

Odemus

It is my assertion that God exists.I lack the empirical evidence to show that he does.

Most atheists would assert that all matter in the universe either spontaneously generated or was always here, yet they all lack the empirical evidence to make this a self evident truth.

I'm guessing all atheists would assert that life sprang from the inanimate.Where is the empirical data to confirm this?

Free Thinkr

Well, no one has ever shown it possible for matter/energy to be created or destroyed, so that remains the default position.

Goliath

Odemus,

I'm afraid that you're confusing atheism (a lack of belief in any god whatsoever) with strong atheism (a belief that no gods exist).

I am a weak atheist (ie an atheist, but not a strong atheist). Therefore I do not assume that no gods exist.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

Odemus,

When it comes to assertions of the supernatural, I do not care about evidence. I want proof.

You have guessed wrong. I am a living counterexample to your guess.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Mageth

I'm guessing all atheists would assert that life sprang from the inanimate.Where is the empirical data to confirm this?

A strong atheist, like myself, lacks a god belief. I therefore say "There is no god. There is life on earth. Evidence indicates that at one time billions of years ago there was no life on earth, and then between 3 and 4 billion years ago life appeared on earth. Therefore, life itself is empirical evidence that life self-organizes out of non-life."

That's a good default position to hold (assuming the simplest possible explanation) until someone can provide verifiable evidence for some other source for life on earth.

Got any? I doubt it.