Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Good post. Their evidence is flimsy at best, none in reality.Well if someone asks me for evidence they can see with their eyes, like literal evidence right now. Its hard because I can't show them God in the flesh since He isn't in our plan of existence. I tend to think of Him in another "dimension" so to speak.
My usual argument talks about everything we see around us. Or miracles. Things of that nature. But to non-believers its just words with no actual evidence. If I point out for example that the big bang is not current real time evidence and just words, they are good at countering it by saying "science says". Granted I tell them sciences has no evidence other then assumptions.
So on either side you could say theres a stalemate. Neither side likes the other sides evidence. But someone taught me christians often go about things the wrong way. If a atheist asks for me for evidence, I don't have to prove it but instead should counter with "Show me evidence that He doesn't exist!". Which often leaves the person stumped because they have no real way to disprove He exists since even they know Hes beyond what we can see (in terms of visual evidence).
Which is why I tend to avoid answering their questions and turn the tables since most people already know the christians responses, but few bother to ask for the non-believers evidence to the contrary.
In a court of international law and in which whether a person is an American (or any other nation for that matter) has no relevance here, for both parties must establish their case before a judge(s). The burden of proof lies with both. Otherwise, the judge(s) will rule in favor of one over the other and the case is closed.In a court case, if both sides are utterly inept then the verdict is "not guilty." The burden is on the state. You're an American so you should know this.
Wikipedia had some great text on Burden of Proof in an argument:
"Internet personality Matt Dillahunty gives the example of a large jar full of gumballs to illustrate the burden of proof.[12][13] The number of whole gumballs in the jar is either even or odd, but the degree of personal acceptance or rejection of claims about that characteristic may vary. We can choose to consider two claims about the situation, given as:
Either claim could be explored separately; however, both claims tautologically take bearing on the same question. Odd in this case means "not even" and could be described as a negative claim. Before we have any information about the number of gumballs, we have no means of checking either of the two claims. When we have no evidence to resolve the proposition, we may suspend judgment. From a cognitive sense, when no personal preference toward opposing claims exists, one may be either skeptical of both claims or ambivalent of both claims.[14][15][16] If there is a dispute, the burden of proof falls onto the challenger of the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative.[17] If there is no agreeable and adequate proof of evidence to support a claim, the claim is considered an argument from ignorance.[18]"
- The number of gumballs is even.
- The number of gumballs is odd.
Philosophical burden of proof - Wikipedia
So what it is saying, in my opinion, is not only should we generally suspend judgement when a side fails to prove itself, but if there isn't proper proof or evidence to support Christianity when the Burden of Proof is on it, it becomes a Logical Fallacy crudely named Appeal From Ignorance.
How would you refute that Christianity can't be properly proven or the specifics of what Wikipedia said?
You have made a nice post, unfortunately, they are not interested in truth. They are only interested in word wrestling. They know they cannot prove that God does not exist, and so they shine the spotlight on their 'claim vs non-claim' issue, which gets us or them nowhere.In a court of international law and in which whether a person is an American (or any other nation for that matter) has no relevance here, for both parties must establish their case before a judge(s). The burden of proof lies with both. Otherwise, the judge(s) will rule in favor of one over the other and the case is closed.
Atheists espouse the view that there is no "Cause" to the universe such as theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss who asserts that "something came from nothing" with regard to the "Big Bang" and that the "law of physics supports this", while many in the religious community say that there is a "Cause".
Which assessment is accurate ? Both have to bring to the table weighty evidence that proves their case. And logic and reason must be factored in, in order to acquire the "truth", for much of what is factual cannot be seen, such as a spectrum of waves and particles within quantum mechanics.
And does Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E. and a pupil of Plato) have any relevance concerning this, such as his doctrine of causality (in which he enumerated four different kinds of causes but was opposed by Sextus Empiricus of the 3rd century B.C.E. who emphasized observation and common sense as opposed to philosophical theory) ? Not really. Though seemingly searching for some semblance of "truth", he faltered.
The Greeks assigned great importance to philosophy, so that when a man from another land visited them in Athens, Greece, in the 1st century C.E. and spoke of a "deity" other than their gods, Epicurian and Stoic philosophers (who did not believe in a personal God) exclaimed: "What is it this chatterer would like to tell us ?"(Bible book of Acts 17:18) They felt that they could not possibly be in the wrong, only in the right. Were they ?
Aristotle was a Greek philosopher who also fostered the idea that the earth was the center of the known universe, whereby all the stars were embedded into 50 crystalline spheres surrounding the earth. Was he right ? He was a philosopher who developed his own series of ideas or beliefs and which impacted others for hundreds of years, such as Catholic theologian Aquinas (1225-74 C.E.) who struggled for five years to fuse Aristotle's philosophy with Catholic doctrines.
Philosophy is not truth, but a "particular system of thought or doctrine".(Microsoft Encarta Dictionary) It also can be rendered as "viewpoint, values, beliefs" or even opinion, in which they are like noses, everyone has one. On the other hand, looking for the truth about the universe and its life requires that person be unbiased, willing to use logic and reason on all the evidence, accepting it when sufficient proof is provided rather than shove it away when it does not fit their "agenda".
Logic and reason drives home that life comes from life and that all that we see and use has a maker and this can be seen from empirical evidence. Can a person successfully argue this ? No, they just continue to support non-causal life such as evolution.(note: arguments against a Creator being the cause of life has been going for a long time, but especially since Darwin's Origin of the Species in 1859)
Even something as simple as a toothpick is readily known as having a maker or manufacturer. Add on to this the level of complexity that reaches incomprehensibility of which life and the universe is composed and reason draws the "logical" conclusion that they are the product a Supreme Designer, for what home, watch, computer, fork, spoon, plastic bottle, rug, and the list goes on and on, that has come into existence without a mind ?
Former atheist Antony Flew, in which his 1950 paper "Theology and Falsification" became "the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the [20th) century", arguing at that time that the idea of God is philosophically meaningless, said in 2007 after having recognized the "unbelievable complexity.....needed to produce life" that "the important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature, but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and ‘tied together.’ Einstein spoke of them as ‘reason incarnate.’ The question we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked—and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God.”
Michael Behe (whom you feel is "bizarre") who serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, said in 2006, that the conclusion of life being the product of a Supreme Designer "is not due to ignorance. It's not due to what we don't know; it's due to what we do know. When Darwin published his book The Origin of Species 150 years ago, life seemed simple. Scientists thought that the cell was so simple that it might just spontaneously bubble up from the sea mud. But since then, science has discovered that cells are enormously complex, much more complex that the machinery of our 21st-century world. That functional complexity bespeaks purposeful design".
He further said that "if you search the scientific literature, you will discover that nobody has made a serious attempt - an experimental attempt or detailed scientific model - that explains how such molecular machines arose by Darwinian processes. This is despite the fact that in the ten years since my book was published (in 1996, and called Darwin's Black Box - The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution), many scientific organizations, such as the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, have issued urgent appeals to their membership to do everything they can to fend off the idea that life provides evidence of intelligent design".
The many who become full fledged atheists have failed to seriously examine unbiasly everything around us, from the atomic structure to the smallest microbe to the largest stars and galaxies, that show a precision unmatched by humans. Where does organization come from ? From an accident ? This turning life into a philosophical "escapade", rather than seeing it clearly as a result of Supreme Designer, will continue to cause these ones to never recognize the "truth" about life and its Maker.
Indoctrination, persuasion and social pressures were put on me in my home. However, when I reached an age that I could think for myself, I studied and prayed, and prayed, and prayed, until I came to the truth above what my mother and father taught me. I could stand on my on testimony that God exists and He answers prayers, not my parents testimony.Genes don't cause belief. Indoctrination, persuasion, and social pressures do.
You are not telling the truth. I have given you many evidences of the existence of God. You have just determined not to accept my evidence as evidence.No. What defines my atheism is being presented with claims without supporting evidence.
You are comparing apples an oranges.
When someone as an eyewitness reported a terrorist bomb, will you ask him for proof before you make your run?
Weird that intellectual consistency would be seen as a downside.How intellectually perfect for you.
Anyone who is a believer in God knows better than any atheist.It is less tedious than having to put up with yet another poster who is sure he knows better than atheists what and why atheists believe.
To think you know so much is a downside. To think that you know more than the Superior Designer that actually created the universe and knows all the answers is actually a monumental downside.Weird that intellectual consistency would be seen as a downside.
I didn't think we were discussing Tiamat here, but if that's the road you want to go down I'm fine with it.To think you know so much is a downside. To think that you know more than the Superior Designer that actually created the universe and knows all the ansers is actually a monumental downside.
Anyone who is a believer in God knows better than any atheist.
I believe the main reason that atheists are atheists is because they reject the rules that God demands of His people.
It will be an ugly day for the atheist, standing before the God they have rejected and spit on for years. The God they have taught hundreds to not believe in. It will be an ugly day.
Wikipedia had some great text on Burden of Proof in an argument:
"Internet personality Matt Dillahunty gives the example of a large jar full of gumballs to illustrate the burden of proof.[12][13] The number of whole gumballs in the jar is either even or odd, but the degree of personal acceptance or rejection of claims about that characteristic may vary. We can choose to consider two claims about the situation, given as:
Either claim could be explored separately; however, both claims tautologically take bearing on the same question. Odd in this case means "not even" and could be described as a negative claim. Before we have any information about the number of gumballs, we have no means of checking either of the two claims. When we have no evidence to resolve the proposition, we may suspend judgment. From a cognitive sense, when no personal preference toward opposing claims exists, one may be either skeptical of both claims or ambivalent of both claims.[14][15][16] If there is a dispute, the burden of proof falls onto the challenger of the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative.[17] If there is no agreeable and adequate proof of evidence to support a claim, the claim is considered an argument from ignorance.[18]"
- The number of gumballs is even.
- The number of gumballs is odd.
Philosophical burden of proof - Wikipedia
So what it is saying, in my opinion, is not only should we generally suspend judgement when a side fails to prove itself, but if there isn't proper proof or evidence to support Christianity when the Burden of Proof is on it, it becomes a Logical Fallacy crudely named Appeal From Ignorance.
How would you refute that Christianity can't be properly proven or the specifics of what Wikipedia said?
So theists have 1 claim, God exists, and atheists have no claim? Wow, how you twist around to avoid the issue.
The reason you do this is because you want to avoid having to prove that God does not exist. This is an insurmountable problem for you, so you resort to 'claim vs no claim' stupidity. You think you have the intellectual upperhand, but you do not. All you have is twisting words and vacant proof positions. At least TagliatelliMonster admitted that science cannot prove first cause. But now he is in your same silly position of arguing the non-issue of 'claim vs non-claim/response'.
How tedious can you grand intellectuals get?
You are not telling the truth. I have given you many evidences of the existence of God. You have just determined not to accept my evidence as evidence.
So change your verbiage to: What defines my atheism is being presented with claims that are supported by evidence that I reject. Then at least you will be honest about it. Thanks.
Anyone who is a believer in God knows better than any atheist.
I believe the main reason that atheists are atheists is because they reject the rules that God demands of His people. They want to be free thinkers and indulge themselves in any activity that they want. Therefore they research every possible way to prove that God does not exists in hopes they can convince themselves that He does not, so they will not have to eventually come to His bar of Justice and have to acknowledge their sins. It will be an ugly day for the atheist, standing before the God they have rejected and spit on for years. The God they have taught hundreds to not believe in. It will be an ugly day.
If there was no evidence that any particular belief was true, then there wouldn't be anyone who held that belief. Without anything indicating to someone that something is true, then it would be impossible to account for the transition from them not holding a belief to holding it. The only reason that anyone is Christian is because the burden of proof has been provided to them.
Your doing the same thing with this guy as you did with me.
The reason you do this is to hide behind a non-issue that becomes the issue. And as moronic as your issue is, you press it to look like an intelligent response, and all you are doing is making yourself look silly.
You have nothing to prove your position, so you attack the other sides position. And then get all caught up in a nuance that is so stupid that both sides finally give up and go home, and nothing is decided.
So good going, you are doing it again. It is nauseating.
Good post. Their evidence is flimsy at best, none in reality.
When someone as an eyewitness reported a terrorist bomb, will you ask him for proof before you make your run?
As long as it's your own life which is concerned, he has nothing called the "burden of proof".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?