Atheists what is your proof?

[phlogistician]

No i didn't.
I said, "your belief is NOT based on evidence."

But it is. You are a bit of a dullard Jan, if you can possibly think that evidence can exist to prove something doesn't. Just how do you see that working? Take fossils, they exist because the animals that became fossils existed.

Do you look at a regular rock, and think that it proves that something doesn't exist, because surely, if it had, it would be fossilised in the exact rock you are holding? No.

So simply, we look for evidence. We only make hypotheses based upon that evidence. So a null viewpoint, is based upon evidence, Jan. It's based upon the evidence we have not containing any reference to the positive hypothesis proposed.

Proof of their belief

Now you are being obtuse. No, proof of their claims that God is more than a hypothetical being.

You should have evidence that there is not evidence for God.

What do you expect me to find? A stone tablet with 'There is no God' written in Sanskrit? Just how can something that doesn't exist leave evidence behind? Come on, THINK, how can there be evidence for something that never existed?

Plus, by stating there is no evidence, you imply that you will know when evidence is presented.

Exactly, and by saying this you have admitted there isn't any evidence FOR.

But the truth of the matter is, you have put yourself in the position of not having to believe in God, meaning you have made a conscious decision to not believe in God whether he exists or not.

Not true. people aren't born believing. People are swayed towards the idea of God my people. Simply, I have never been swayed. There was no conscious decision to not believe, I simply have maintained the null view everyone was born with.

Now, how about you stop being shifty, dishonest, and evasive, and you list the attributes you personally believe your God has. I keep asking, you keep avoiding answering. Stop being dishonest.


[/QUOTE]

 

[phlogistician]

you got me all wrong then. The fact that the theory of evolution cannot work for cosmology is exactly my point

See, you are so stupid you don't know how stupid you are. I've explained this, and STILL you don't get it. Here we go again:

Evolution covers biological processes of change. That's it.

Cosmology covers the creation if the Universe, stellar evolution, and planteray formation etc. NOT BIOLOGY.

The fact that you think that evolution has anything to do with Cosmology proves how ill-educated you are about the sciences, and it's a travesty they you go by the name you do.

(it's why I don't understand the reasoning behind atheism because it doesn't fill in the big gap of cosmology)

Eh? I don't collect stamps either. I don't play hockey. Not doing either of those isn't an answer for the big questions in Cosmology either. Not being something doesn't equate to a pro in another area, just what the heck are you thinking? Atheism is simply NOT believing in God. End of story.

WRT Cosmology though, I used to work with a bunch of Astronomers, so picked up a fair amount of information on the subject. Here's the thing, if you want to know about cosmology, it's best to actually study it.

Now, did you ever debate with your parents on this?

Why do you assume it was my parents herding me into Church? It wasn't, it was my school, but yes, I did debate with my Religious Education teachers. They were easily defeated in every debate.

 

[wynn]

Why do you assume it was my parents herding me into Church? It wasn't, it was my school, but yes, I did debate with my Religious Education teachers. They were easily defeated in every debate.

What makes you so sure you indeed defeated them?

Was is their sad faces, or angry faces, or their call to change the topic?

Was is that they conceeded that you were right?

Was it because you have felt so certain of your position that no matter what anyone else would say, you'd still deem yourself to be right?

 

[Jan Ardena]

AlexG,

Because as you said in the previous post, only your scripture makes sense to you.

I didn't say that.
Read that post again.

Rather than debating or considering any opposing view presented here, you simply dismiss it.

There are no opposing pov here

Thus, there's no point in arguing with you. You're not hear to listen, only to talk.

What a lame exicuse.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

glaucon,

So by claiming there is no evidence of Gods' existence, are you claiming to have such knowledge?

I made no such claim.

So why do you assert there is no evidence for God?

My point was that, you're asking for evidence of non-evidence is not only impossible, but also wholly illogical.

No I'm not.
I want to know how you know there is no evidence.
If I say; "there is no moose behind this door", then there must
be some reason why I say it.

In any case, to be clear: you are correct to assert that a lack of evidence does not grant one the right to conclude a denial of existence.

But yet it does.
And that is all that is being used to deny existence.
Hence modern atheism is built on a lie.

However, in cases such as these, it is nonetheless rational to say that the burden of proof does indeed lie with that party that asserts the existence of that thing for which there is no evidence.

Only if that part claims to know that God exists.
Yet claiming to know, and claiming to believe, is lumped in
the same basket.
Another dishonest tactic.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

phlogistician,

But it is. You are a bit of a dullard Jan, if you can possibly think that evidence can exist to prove something doesn't.

Read my last response to glaucon.

Just how do you see that working? Take fossils, they exist because the animals that became fossils existed.

How did we know that the piltdown man wasn't a transitional link?

It's about theists providing proof,

Proof of their belief?

Now you are being obtuse. No, proof of their claims that God is more than a hypothetical being.

Then I suggest you wait until someone claims "God is more than a hypothetical being", to ask for burden of proof.
As for me, I believe in God, that is my only claim.

What do you expect me to find? A stone tablet with 'There is no God' written in Sanskrit? Just how can something that doesn't exist leave evidence behind?

If something doesn't exist, why claim there is no evidence for it?


jan.

 

[phlogistician]

What makes you so sure you indeed defeated them?

Was is their sad faces, or angry faces, or their call to change the topic?

Was is that they conceeded that you were right?

Was it because you have felt so certain of your position that no matter what anyone else would say, you'd still deem yourself to be right?

Simple, you ask them questions they cannot provide answers for. They then have to admit that they rely on faith, and not reason. That is defeat.

 

[SolusCado]

I am glad you gave me that description as I would have never pulled that out of the other thread . To paraphrase, "God" in this case is being defined as a conscious life form that created our particular universe (space-time) and exists outside of it. Would this be an accurate interpretation?

Yes.

Also, I did read the rest of what you had to say. Some of it I agree with and I may come back to it based on how the debate progresses.

I can't wait.

I think we may have some fundamental differences on word definitions. We should hash that out now and start using more technical terminology. I am going to provide some explicit definitions for several key words and if your definitions differ, please list them out:

Well done! You are my new favorite contributor to these forums. This is so much better than trying to exploit semantics just to "win" an argument.

Truth:
A state where some idea/notion in your mind matches actual reality.

I would submit that it doesn't need to be in your mind to be the truth. Truth = Reality.

Evidence:
A demonstration that some idea/notion matches actual reality.

Yeah, close enough. I tend to think of evidence in terms of the scientific method, so any demonstration to support and idea is how I would phrase it.

A-Belief:
Non-acceptance that an idea/notion matches or doesn't match actual reality.

As in, atheism is the refusal to accept that theism matches reality? Hmm... I'm not sure if I would agree with that. I tend to think of a-belief as anti-belief... to believe the opposite.

Malleable Belief:
Temporary acceptance that an idea/notion matches actual reality.

Sure, I can go with that.

Gap Belief:
Acceptance that an idea/notion matches actual reality until demonstrated as being incorrect.

Ok.

Immutable Belief:
Permanent acceptance that an idea/notion matches actual reality regardless of whether or not it does.

I think that definition actually applies to the word insanity.

There's two primary paths that could make that a reality. The first is for someone to discard evidence that contradicts his/or faith. The second, is to place the object of faith "out of bounds" so it is beyond introspection/interaction. You appear to have opted for the latter and as our debate progresses, you may discovere that you have not placed it far enough out of bounds.

Yes, the latter - but, to use the definitions above, it is a gap belief. As the bounds change based on scientific understanding, so too does my position for God. "He" is always "out of bounds"., regardless of what those bounds may be.

 

[SolusCado]

Why?
If you think God is material, thereby subject to the laws of nature, please
state why?

jan.

Because he (like so many atheists) likes to define God in such a way that he can argue against the idea. I am finding that many atheists on these forums refuse to accept a definition of God that they cannot argue against - indicating they are really only interested in winning arguments. I've stopped wasting my time with those people. I'm not twelve any more.

(Incidentally, gmilam has actually had plenty to contribute, so I am not slapping the above description on him per se - just on individual who display the above characteristics.)

 

[phlogistician]

I am finding that many atheists on these forums refuse to accept a definition of God that they cannot argue against

Can you give us that definition please?

 

[SolusCado]

Simple, you ask them questions they cannot provide answers for. They then have to admit that they rely on faith, and not reason. That is defeat.

Hardly, since their entire religion is predicated on faith. All you did was prove them right.

 

[SolusCado]

Can you give us that definition please?

Sheesh - you like to ignore people's posts, don't you? Read post #145.

 

[wynn]

Simple, you ask them questions they cannot provide answers for. They then have to admit that they rely on faith, and not reason. That is defeat.

Really?

Do you know that people sometimes feign defeat, for the sake of some greater or other purpose?

I mean, I am amazed at your eagerness to claim victory.

 

[phlogistician]

Sheesh - you like to ignore people's posts, don't you? Read post #145.

I asked you for this definition that supposedly cannot be argued against.

There are many flaws in #145 that can be argued against, so clearly that cannot be the description.

Want to try again?

 

[phlogistician]

Really?

Do you know that people sometimes feign defeat, for the sake of some greater or other purpose?

I mean, I am amazed at your eagerness to claim victory.

You weren't there.

I was told by a Religious Education teacher that God dictates morality, and then I asked him why then he was living in sin, and he had no answer. Amazing how theists can be living hypocrisy.

 

[wynn]

You weren't there.

I was told by a Religious Education teacher that God dictates morality, and then I asked him why then he was living in sin, and he had no answer. Amazing how theists can be living hypocrisy.

I doubt anyone - theist or atheist - would freely answer such challenging personal questions, esp. in front of minors, who are also their students.

 

[phlogistician]

I doubt anyone - theist or atheist - would freely answer such challenging personal questions, esp. in front of minors, who are also their students.

Guy was busted. He had no reply. He was professing one thing, and practising another. That's hypocrisy, pure and simple.

 

[wynn]

Guy was busted. He had no reply. He was professing one thing, and practising another. That's hypocrisy, pure and simple.

I guess suggesting to put yourself in his shoes would be too much ...

 

[SolusCado]

I asked you for this definition that supposedly cannot be argued against.

There are many flaws in #145 that can be argued against, so clearly that cannot be the description.

Want to try again?

All you ever do is drop insults and accuse people of not knowing what they are talking about. I have yet to see you dissect anyone's position on anything, so I am certainly not going to chase my tail for you. If you would like to point out specific errors in my position, I would be more than happy to address them. But if you aren't willing to do that, I'm not willing to give you more of my time than it took to type this post.

 

[gmilam]

Because he (like so many atheists) likes to define God in such a way that he can argue against the idea. I am finding that many atheists on these forums refuse to accept a definition of God that they cannot argue against - indicating they are really only interested in winning arguments. I've stopped wasting my time with those people. I'm not twelve any more.

(Incidentally, gmilam has actually had plenty to contribute, so I am not slapping the above description on him per se - just on individual who display the above characteristics.)

Thanks for not lumping me in with the others. But really there are many concepts of "god". It's good to know which one you're discussing.

I do find the idea of something that exists outside of space and time and is indistinguishable from natural law to be hard to discuss in any objective manner.

If all a person has to offer is faith and belief then it leaves little to discuss in a scientific context. :shrug: