Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
I think the general answer is "evidence sufficient to establish the existence of a god".
Upvote
0
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.
Hello.
With the concept of burden of proof. What type of proof would you require?
Nonsense!
The belief in God is testified throughout generations and nations and this is based on experiencal claims that cannot be dismissed an hypothesis. The subjects of the claim of God existing are part and parcel of the insurmountable bed of evidence that keeps coming and coming and no one throughout history has been able to refute the claim of the existance of God.
An Athiest csn only make hypothesis in counterclaim without any merited evidence, because evidence is required by the Athiests to prove otherwise.
fallacy fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is claimed that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, the proposition it was used to support is wrong.
The fallacy of the fallacy is a bit tricky...
It means that you can be correct in spite of using a logical fallacy...but it doesn't mean that you are correct.
I think the general answer is "evidence sufficient to establish the existence of a god".
Something that would conclusively demonstrate the existence of a god that can be examined and falsified should do I would imagine.
It's not really up to me though, the person who believes the claim should be capable of providing evidence sufficient to warrant belief. It's up to them to prove their claims, and if they can, I'll accept their claim.
But it doesnt mean you are wrong my friend
Hello and thank you
What would be sufficient? What would you aceept?
I don't know, but an omniscient god knows what I'd accept. An omnipotent one can make it happen while defeating whatever reasons apologists use to say he can't.Hello and thank you
What would be sufficient? What would you aceept?
Right.
For example, if I were to say...
"Water is H2O because scientists say so!"
You could say that I've committed the "appeal to authority fallacy"...and I have...but regardless of my illogical reasoning, H2O is still in fact water.
So for you to be correct, you'd have to be correct for reasons other than the ones you stated...does that make sense? It's like a state of ignorance where you're still correct by accident.
What would I personally accept? That's a big answer...there's lots of things that I would personally accept.
I don't know, but an omniscient god knows what I'd accept. An omnipotent one can make it happen while defeating whatever reasons apologists use to say he can't.
I was a Christian for 44 years. I've done all the looking I'm gonna do.Hello. Im curious.
Do you believe that God should present himself to you rather than you looking for Him?
Hello
It may be an appeal to authority but it can also be a strong conviction that the scientist is right. I cannot prove that h2o is water at home or with the tools i have.
Is there a way i can prove h2o is water on my own or do i have to accept it as fact?
Is there one instance you could indulge me?
Hello. Im curious.
Do you believe that God should present himself to you rather than you looking for Him?
Within the scientific community a claim or theory is to be taken as truth into evidence unless it is proven wrong.
The ball is in the Athiest court to prove that the Christian claim to the existence of God is wrong.
For Athiests to do so, they have the burden to prove otherwise and in so doing they are claiming that God doesn't exist.
"Experience claims"? That's it?
Completely the reverse of reality.
A claim is not accepted until it is demonstrated to be correct. If you accept all claims as true until demonstrated to be false, you would be obligated to accept competing and often mutually exclusive claims.
Thus, we have the roles of the null hypothesis and alternate hypothesis in scientific research and testing.
Furthermore, a theory, in scientific nonclamenture, is not a claim or a hypothesis or an idea. A theory is a explanation of some element of the natural world (gravity, germ borne disease, relativity, ect, ect) that is well supported by repeated testing of evidence.
Don't lump 'claim' in with 'theory' in a discussion on science and epistemology.
Again, you've gotten this backwards.
You're the one making the positive claim a god - in this case, the god of Judaic monotheism - exists. I don't believe that claim.
If you'd like me to believe it, then you need to provide evidence that demonstrates its existence that is sufficient to overcome my skepticism of the initial claim.
Did not Edison experience the first glowing light bulb, before billions of people would also come to experience the same light that Edison experienced.
View attachment 196520
Well Jesus said I am The Light of the world and from the very first disciples who experienced him as the Light, to the countless of billions who would come to also experience The Light across the last 2000 years and counting.
You said..... "Experience claim? That's it"
My response to you is...... what other experience can it be other than what can be comprehended and experienced from a real and tangible humanistic experience.
Does this mean that we discount the experience of billions across generations scoping the last 2000 years and still counting, all because you a proclaimed Athiest have yet to experience The Light?
Do you see how cognitive dissonance works, where there is a tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their cognitions (i.e., beliefs, opinions). When there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must change to eliminate the dissonance.
Do you know what changes in an Athiest's logical mindset, in order to eliminate the dissonance?
They must deny evidence that does not agree with their cognitions, that is their belief that God does not exist.
View attachment 196521
Let's start with the difference between your experience with "god" and Edison's lightbulb...
Edison's "experience" with the lightbulb is one he can repeat for anyone...and they can have the same experience.
Your experience with "god"for all purposes, is something that only exists in your mind. You cannot reproduce it for anyone. No one gets the same experience you did.
To pretend these two experiences are similar is called a false equivalence.
As for discounting the experiences of billions across history...yes we can...and you do.
For thousands of years, people had "experiences" with all kinds of gods that you don't believe in....are their experiences substantially different from yours? No...they believed in their gods as you believe in yours...and you discount then just as I do you.
Anything else?
But it doesnt mean you are wrong my friend
Hello and thank you.
Could you give me an instance?
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?