Awww....she strikes me a fully capable of looking after herself and you can get over yourself, IOW you don't get to tell me what to do here.
ROFL! Speaking of the "ridiculous" and "nonsense":
- Let's see we have stories about talking snakes/other animals, burning bushes, the parting of large bodies of water, walking on water, people surviving for days in the belly of a "great fish",etc.
- Fabulously powerful entities such as Jesus who's supposed to be
a) virgin-born (can't happen, would be a female, but ~poof!~miracle, here! miracle there! no evidence ever~)
b) Son of the One TRUE God™ (another alleged entity for which NO evidence is given, let alone any evidence that would establish the exclusive claim of being the one and only TRUE God)
c) who rose from the dead (no EVIDENCE of anyone ever surviving death with people death for days staying dead) and YOU demand I disprove tales like this?
Goodness, me, but the monumental DOUBLE-STANDARD of your demand (considering the extraordinary claims from God-botherers who present NOTHING that comes any where close to supporting them!), the hypocrisy on your part is mind-boggling...
Guess what, the burden of proof is square only you/TheBarrd and here's why.....
It seems that you are demanding that people to provide evidence for a "non-existent thing" (God doesn't exist). I find the demand that someone provide evidence for a non-existent thing to be ridiculous and illogical, here's why:
1. A thing that does not exists can't possibly leave ANY evidence to be found ==> That is why your demand that someone offer evidence of non-existence for "X" is ridiculous and why the burden of proof is on those who make claims that "X" does exists.
- IOW, if something exists, then it's possible for such a "thing" to leave evidence of its existence behind to be found. This might not always be so, so "absence of evidence" is not absolutely reliable "evidence of absence".
- However, the only evidence for non-existence often consists of persistent and unabated arguments from silence (no evidence, hence the "silence"), UNLESS one can actually come up with evidence that disproves/contradicts a particular claim (evidence that contradicts existence).
- The "silence" (no evidence) with regard to alleged entities like fairies, unicorns and leprechauns is usually considered sufficient "evidence" to disprove their existence, BUT the "silence" when it comes to God(-ies?) is not considered sufficient evidence to rank them along side those fairies, unicorns and leprechauns.
- The question here is why is the "silence" used to discard such things as unicorns from the "realm of the REAL™" but not God(-ies?)?
That said, here's why the burden of proof does NOT fall equally on both positions (God exists vs God does not exist)....
2. Why the Burden of Proof is yours..
Now consider that from the standpoint of gathering empirical evidence, there is no way to know for certain that somewhere is this universe there does not exist empirical evidence that would verify the existence of god(s?==>why no creation by Divine Committee™?). Let's assume that there was indeed a "prime mover (s?)" of some sort that initiated the Big Bang (creation of the universe):
- Why couldn't this prime mover(s?), having started the universe, simply moved on the next one, in other words, god(s?) existed in this universe at one time, but is (are) no longer here in this time, so even if we searched the whole universe at this point in time we would not find god(s?).
- That possibility then exists that god(s?) might return at some point in the future.
- The point is that not only would one have to search the entire universe for evidence of god(s?) and come up with nada, but one would also have to be able to travel in time to conduct a really thorough search for evidence of god(s?).
3. This is why it is impossible to disprove the existence of god(s?), i. e., god(s?) do not exist . It is also why the burden of proof falls on those making the positive claim that "god(s?) exist", all they have to do is come up with a single piece of evidence that verifies the positive claim. (Not all negative claims are impossible to prove. If they have a limited scope then it is possible, but not in this case).
What do I mean by this.......
A. Negative statements (the is no God, no soul, there are no white crows) are hard to prove because they make predictions about things are not practically observable in a finite real time: What this means, step by step:
- For instance, "there are no pink unicorns" means "there are no pink unicorns in this or any universe," and unlike say, my closet, it is not possible to look in every corner of every universe, therefore, we can't completely test this proposition.
- We can only look around within the limits of our ability, time, resources and knowledge to prove that where we have looked so far, that there are no pink unicorns.
- In such a case we have proved a negative, just not the negative of the grandiose, existential proposition in question.
- In other words, what does it mean when people say that "you can't prove a negative"?
- "The answer is really boils down to the often pesky problem of induction".
- Since we can't test a proposition in every place and time, we can never be absolutely certain that the proposition remains true in all times, under all possible conditions, and in all places--->We can only infer it."
- Therefore, we adopt a simpler rule:
- Given insufficient evidence, then no belief
- Given sufficient evidence, then belief," (since insufficient evidence is the same thing as sufficient evidence for denial") .
- The real practical problem is breadth of the assertion and not the fact that the assertion is negative.*Ex.there are no pink unicorns, there is no god, no soul) that makes a proposition difficult to prove.
than to prove there aren't simply because we only need to find one of them or evidence that one of them existed (besides finding a unicorn, verifiable unicorn skeletal remains, unicorn coprolite, etc.) to accomplish our proof without having to look everywhere!!!! Here is another way to look at it:
The burden of proof is belongs to the claimant. So far theists haven't done anything but ASSERT something to be true WITHOUT giving any
credible evidence (unless one really lowers the bar in this particular case when it comes to defining evidence..a case of "
special pleading"). Abuses of logic, maybes, perhaps, what if wafflings, threats of hellfire, trying to play it "safe" by taking
Pascal's Wager aren't proof. Here are a set of rules on critical thinking that I abide by in making decisions and evaluating evidence:
5. Furthermore, the "burden of proof" is not the two-way street i.e., it falls squarely on the theist making the god-claim. Therefore, it is theists who must bring forth evidence that god(s?) exist(s).
Since theists have failed to do so, doubters, at the minimum, are perfectly within their rights to reject theistic claim (no need to adopt the agnostic "wait and see" position) One would even be within his/her rights of going so far as to call your claim a falsehood (really too strong since that could imply lying on your part). However, even if one went so far as to call your claim falsehood, he/she could easily update his/her understanding, i. e., accepting the reality of the Christian god (many other god-beliefs, how can we know if yours is the correct one?), if and when, you provide sufficient evidence for believing your claim.
A. Let's look at this another way.....For a moment, let's imagine the existence of everything around us is evidence of a god ==> Why would one assume it's "evidence" for the Christian god?
B. After all, anyone from any theistic religion can come up with the same "argument". This is the real problem with such non-falsifiable claims...there is simply no evidence that allows one to say X-theistic claim is true, but Y-theistic claim is false. Any religion that has fallen by the historical way-side has
- had empirical evidence that shows it to be bogus (Ex. no abode of the Greek Gods on Mt. Olympus)
- and/or its' adherents become few and far between or there are no large, powerful politcal groups claim affiliation (the more ususal course).
C. There is no reason to connect God(s?) as a cause of a particular with everything that exists. If you have such a connection, then where is that connection? Everything that exists could have been created by really smart aliens. Or everything may not have been created at all. All we know with any degree of certainty is that it is here.
D. However, whereas "one's idea" of what constitutes evidence for the existence of a god may well be subjective. Unfortunately, actual evidence is purely objective and it's the only kind that could convince me.
E. As I see it, the biggest problem with this common theistic argument is that one must simply presupposes a supernatural deity exists. Upon making that presumption, one then looks at everything around him/her as evidence to support that presupposition. In other words, they are FIRST making a conclusion and THEN trying to characterize the evidence to support that conclusion, in lieu of examining the evidence FIRST and THEN formulating a theory that seems to support the evidence.("seems" because we can't be absolutely certain of anything).
F. I see no compelling reason to presuppose the existence of the supernatural, other than an argument from ignorance(we don't known therefore God(-s?)-did-it! The supernatural MUST exists!).
The "evidence" requested is NOT to support the concept that a god exists, it is to establish a compelling reason to even consider the concept in the first place.
6. In addition, there is a profound lack of demonstration for anything supernatural. Other than unverifiable, personal claims, that are often shown to be nothing more than hoaxes or misinterpretations), there is no compelling reason to believe any force exists outside of nature. The supernatural looks like a convenience hiding place, invented by theists for the sole purpose of preventing anyone from examining their claims, because the supernatural by theistic definition is NOT perceptible to the only things we have for evalutated reality, namely our 5 senses. Just too pat and too convenient IMO...
7. Here's this chapter from Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World that is an apt description of such theological thinking.
8. Finally, please spare us the equivocation of trying to equate religious faith (often the blind, fear-ridden kind) with the "faith" in the loyalty of friends, logic, the validity of scientific concepts, etc. The latter form of "faith" is really trust based on some kind of evidence that such things, i. e., true friends, good science, sound logic, are true. Also of no value is the flowery quote from Hebrews 11:1:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen…"
So what? Something "unseen" (usually not just imperceptible to sight, but to any other sense, even any sense assisted by instruments) and "hoped for" (meaning that it doesn't exists, otherwise why just hope) will by their very nature offer no evidence for evaluation (how very, very convenient and again just too pat).
I was not aware you were an administrator or mod (your authority for attempting to order me around is?) so you don't get to tell me what I can and cannot post.
IOW, you're NOT the boss of me, whois, so I highly recommend that you get over yourself ==>I'll post what I like and if you don't like it, that's just too darned bad (do feel free to ignore me, it won't phase me one little bit)
