burden of proof and existence of god

P

Phaedrus

Nullius in verba
Registered Senior Member
I am posting this to try to start a discussion on the burden of proof with the existence of god. I would like to know whether people believe that the burden of proof should reside with the theist, atheist, or both.

Evidentialists such as Antony Flew say that the burden of proof falls on the theists. They say that if the theists are not able to provide good arguments, that atheism wins by default. It follows by this logic that the only thing atheists must do is to show that the theistic arguments are flawed.

Some theistic philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga deny that theists must bear any type of special epistemic burden in debates with an atheist. Ralph McInery goes even further and says that the burden of proof falls on the unbeliever.

I would like to hear everyone`s opinions on this subject. Please give your argument and what you believe because of it.
 
Why are you listening to atheist prophets? Does iot make sense what he is saying? You can make any claims without backing it up with evidence? And how does that make sense? Take this for example, Can I say prove to me blackhole exist? If you cannot provide proof otherwise (which you obviously cant), does that mean blackhole is automatically a myth just because I say so? Or shouldnt I back up my claim with reasons and evidence that a blackhole couldnt exist......

What is proof? Define proof? Is proof that in which have ENOUGH evidence? What is enough evidence? For a while now I have given tons of evidence to support the existence of God, but to atheist I still havent provided proof..
So not only God is a myth to the atheists, PROOF IS ALSO A MYTH...

I WILL GIVE YOU TONS OF EVIDENCE OF GOD, BUT BEFORE I DO THAT...Answer me this question...

Prove to me King henry exist. Prove to me Shakespeare exist, Columus, and Magellan....If you can answer this, I will surely prove to you God exist...
Define proof for me first, then I will PROVE God to you......
 
I think the whole topic is useless...without actual evidence there is no point in arguing either way.

Just my thought.

_________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

-central philosophy of Zero, Sage of Chaos
 
Very good whatsup...you've proved to me that you have no knowledge whatsoever related to argument. Define proof??? First you ask for the definition of physical and now you ask for proof...thing is, whatsup, you're just stalling.


(Definition of proof)

The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
A statement or argument used in such a validation.

Convincing or persuasive demonstration


While we're at it...


(Definition of physical)

Perceptible through a bodily or material organization; cognizable by the senses; external


Next thing you'll ask is the definition of logical...

_________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

-central philosophy of Zero, Sage of Chaos
 
No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son,
who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
-John 1:18
Click to expand...
If no one has seen God how can you prove He exists?
 
Well, how about we go by the definition of proof as the validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

I do not ask for some mathematical equation that proves an existence of a deity. If you want to show that a god exists than you can use examples which lead to problems that could not be solved without an existence of god. Another way would be to use historical evidence of a god, which for all I know does not exist. For example I can show historical evidence that Shakespeare exists, I have a number of his works and there are a number of secondary sources that validate his existence (previous existence as it seems).

Do not take the idea of historical evidence the wrong way. Just because we have secondary sources that say Jesus existed does not mean that he was the son of god. For example we have sources that say that Shakespeare is the best writer to have ever existed, this is not necessarily true, because existence is prior to characteristics. Just because X exists and Y says that X is Z, does not mean that X is Z, but is does show evidence for the fact that X exists.

I think that the proof of god should come from the best explainable phenomena, not from some mathematical or logical proof that demonstrates perfectly that god exists. Science uses the best explaination for its theories, and I think that so should arguments for existence and god.

While this might not work all the times logically, this (at least to me) is better than to be stuck in the hole of the complete skeptic who doubts everything. So, show why the best explaination for this universe is that a god exists.

Also, there is a point in this. There are a number of arguments for both sides, but I am not concerned about them. The point is to find the burden of proof to see who needs to find the evidence. The burden of proof is very important. Lets say that you claim a time machine exists in your garage. You say that no one can see it except you, and that you are the only one who can use it. The burden of proof says that you must prove it if you claim it. Just imagine if the burden of proof were shifted upon the scientists for every trivial claim that a person makes.

It applies to this forum because next time someone says god exists, then maybe we will have a better idea who should try to argue it. If the burden of proof falls on the believer, then the defense would be the believer, not the atheist.
 
Evidence? Old Testament or New Testament? Biblical or non-biblical? I tell you what, I will give you archaeological evidence supporting the text of both the Old Testament and New Testament from non-biblical, secular sources. Remember, this is tangible evidence supporting the validity and accuracy of the Bible.

Old Testament:

CYLINDER OF CYRUS

In the book of Ezra 1:1-2 we read of the following:

"In the first year of Cyrus King of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah, the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing: this is what Cyrus king of Persia says: "The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build, a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Anyone of his people among you may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem in Judah and build the temple of the Lord, the God of Israel; the God who is in Jerusalem."

In the nineteenth century a clay tablet was found written in cuneiform by order of Cyrus. The text is in full agreement with Ezra and 2 Kings with Cyrus declaring the return of the Jews and the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem in 538 b.c.




THE MOABITE STONE
"Now Mesha king of Moab was a sheep breeder; and he had to deliver annually to the king of Israel a hundred thousand lambs, and the wool of a hundred thousand rams. But when Ahab died, the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel' II Kings 3:4-5."

The Moabite Stone was found in 1868. Commissioned by king Mesha himself, it reveals in detail how he rebelled against the new king of Israel, even naming him! (Omir). Once again we have exact confirmation of a biblical event and occurrence, not by an Israelite or Prophet, but an enemy!





HEZEKIAH'S TUNNEL (2 Kings 20:20)
"As for the other events of Hezekiah's reign, all his achievements and how he made the pool and the tunnel by which he brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Judah.'"

In 1880 an inscription was found in an underground water conduit beneath the old city of Jerusalem. The inscription, dated to the year 702 b.c. and written in Old Hebrew (Canaanite) confirms the construction of the tunnel was ordered by Hezekiah, and also records minute details of how the tunnel was engineered.




New Testament:

CAPERNAUM IN GALILEE
Excavated for nearly the past one hundred years by an order of Franciscan monks, numerous discoveries with direct bearing on the New Testament have been uncovered. A third century synagogue was found to be erected directly over the remains of a first century synagogue from the time of Christ.

"They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach." Mark 1:21.

Found only recently under a Byzantine basilica from the sixth century were a cluster of small homes built in the first century which was the time of Christ's ministry in the area. The roofs were made from branches, clay and straw which immediately draws our attention to the story of the paralytic in Mark 11:4. The walls and ceilings of a larger house were filled with graffiti or inscriptions. Of the 134 pieces, 101 were in Greek, 18 in Syriac, and 15 in Hebrew. Most astounding was the repetitive phrase in the form of a prayer giving thanks to God for "our brother Peter" and his allowing fellow Christians to meet in his home in Capernaum. It seems the HOME OF THE APOSTLE PETER HAS BEEN DISCOVERED!



........and there are many, many more. BTW, I do not consider offering evidence a burden. I enjoy poking holes in atheists' airtight theories. ;-)

><>
 
Last edited:
I am sorry if you have misunderstood. I am talking about the burden of proof and the existence of god. I am assuming that you are taking the side that the believers are the one with the burden because you seem to be trying to lift the burden.

Historical evidence that agrees with biblical literature does not have to point to the existence of god. I will use an example from another religion. Buddha existed, and a number of the texts agree with certain historical situations. Just because the texts show that they might be historically correct, that does not mean that the metaphysical ideas they express are correct.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
 
And one piece of proof does not validate the entire religion, mm? simply that the biblical person in question might have existed. Not even that the person did believe in that particular religion.

Atheists' arguments airtight!? What're you smoking? There is no such thing. Otherwise the arguments would've died a gizillion years ago.

_________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

-central philosophy of Zero, Sage of Chaos
 
"Buddha existed, and a number of the texts agree with certain historical situations."
---------------------------

Did Buddha heal the sick? Raise the dead? Walk on water? Offer eternal life? Were there witnesses to Buddha's miracles, if he performed any? Atheists predictably reject an ‘a priori’ the miraculous. Your assumptions make it impossible for you to be objective and to accurately examine all of the evidence. I, however, do not rule out the miraculous. I am open to the possibility of miracles occurring. You are not open to the possibility. Who, then, is more 'open' to the truth? So, if there is a God, and He encompasses the universe, is it possible that he would work in ways that are beyond us? Is that possible?

><>
 
Well, who is more open to the truth? First of all you are also running on the assumption that truth exists. Now, you say that you are more open to the truth. However you assumed that I am atheist, which I am not. I am an agnostic. Now, I believe that is more open than even you, or at least how open you think you are.

"It is good to have an open mind but not so open that your brains fall out"
 
"First of all you are also running on the assumption that truth exists."
--------------

Truth exists. Without truth, there would be no absolutes. Without absolutes, everything would be relative. However, this is an entirely different subject.


Historical evidence that agrees with biblical literature does not have to point to the existence of god.
---------------

I am simply asking what the evidence suggests?


BTW, to answer your original question, I believe the burden of proof usually falls on the theist. However, I feel that an atheist has an equal responsibility to prove God does not exist. To believe is an action. To disbelieve is also an action. You cannot divorce the act of believing from the reason for believing. Since you claim to be agnostic, though I have my doubts, I feel that you also have a responsibility to prove your inaction.

><>
 
Originally posted by Phaedrus
Well, how about we go by the definition of proof as the validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

I do not ask for some mathematical equation that proves an existence of a deity. If you want to show that a god exists than you can use examples which lead to problems that could not be solved without an existence of god. Another way would be to use historical evidence of a god, which for all I know does not exist. For example I can show historical evidence that Shakespeare exists, I have a number of his works and there are a number of secondary sources that validate his existence (previous existence as it seems).

Do not take the idea of historical evidence the wrong way. Just because we have secondary sources that say Jesus existed does not mean that he was the son of god. For example we have sources that say that Shakespeare is the best writer to have ever existed, this is not necessarily true, because existence is prior to characteristics. Just because X exists and Y says that X is Z, does not mean that X is Z, but is does show evidence for the fact that X exists.

I think that the proof of god should come from the best explainable phenomena, not from some mathematical or logical proof that demonstrates perfectly that god exists. Science uses the best explaination for its theories, and I think that so should arguments for existence and god.

While this might not work all the times logically, this (at least to me) is better than to be stuck in the hole of the complete skeptic who doubts everything. So, show why the best explaination for this universe is that a god exists.

Also, there is a point in this. There are a number of arguments for both sides, but I am not concerned about them. The point is to find the burden of proof to see who needs to find the evidence. The burden of proof is very important. Lets say that you claim a time machine exists in your garage. You say that no one can see it except you, and that you are the only one who can use it. The burden of proof says that you must prove it if you claim it. Just imagine if the burden of proof were shifted upon the scientists for every trivial claim that a person makes.

It applies to this forum because next time someone says god exists, then maybe we will have a better idea who should try to argue it. If the burden of proof falls on the believer, then the defense would be the believer, not the atheist.
Click to expand...


I completely understand what you are saying. You are by far the most intelligent atheist I encountered here, the rest of them doesnt have common sense..You guys know who you are....

Now, yes I agree with your claim of "direct" act caused by Shakespeare which dates back at the time of claim, thus proving he exist.
Now there is also a "direct" act from God, one is the shroud of Turin, and if you want the current "substancial" physical "direct" act, then take the bleeding ststues in south america, japan, france, and other countries. It has been scientifically investigated, but since you might not understand this...Then take "Faith healing" and "placebo" for example, which scientifically have been investigated to take place, but cannot explain how is it possible when people pray, and have faith it will go away, and it will....This was "God given" gift as it is the claim of christianity. The power of the mind even goes as far as to bend spoons, forks, without putting pressure on it, and some can even swallow razor sharp blades and iron metals without getting hurt, or even swallow snake poison....

So here I have given you the same evidence presented for God as for shakespeare.
Now you might ask "But shakespeare is natural, God is supernatural"...
What is supernatural? Beyond the laws of nature? A law which we donot even completely understand, for if so, then life forms existing would have been demonstrated by now. But because we cant, it proves that we completely donot understand what are the laws of nature and how our mechanisms work, we have THEORIES such as quantum mechanics. Since we donot understand what are the laws of nature, how can you determine what is natural and what is supernatural?
Is internet natural? Natural to those who understand it, supernatural to those who dont understand it. Internet is supernatural to me, does it mean it s a myth? It is surely supernatural to natives in south america who have never seen it or understood how it works, does their ignorance of it proves it is a myth?
For the sake of the argument, let us just say that you completely understand how the laws of nature work, does being supernatural mean myth? Blackhole is beyond our laws of nature, does it then mean its a myth?

In summary, if this is how you define "PROOF", then indeed Shakespeare and God is proven........


I shall wait for your response....
 
Last edited:
Phaedrus,

Welcome to sciforums. Very nice style.

Perhaps in addition to a definition of evidence we should also define the object that we are attempting to prove/disprove. What do we mean when we say God?

Pagan gods are different to the Christian god, and the xtian god has different properties to the god of Islam, etc.

But how could one prove the existence of properties like omni benevolence, omniscience and omnipotence? These claims are un-testable. The best that we could do would be to show that such properties are impossible. If that was accomplished would that then disprove the god or just diminish the god to something lesser. But then that brings us back to what we mean by ‘God’.

There is an argument that says that omni benevolence is impossible because evil exists. But then that can be countered by asking what we mean by evil. We could show that to kill someone to save 100 is not evil, and to kill 1 billion to save a trillion is not evil. So even here we would need to define the qualities that comprise the claims.

It is assumed that were gods to exist then they are of a supernatural quality. But there is no precedent in human experience of anything other than natural. What then is the definition of supernatural and more importantly who has the qualifications to define such a thing?

Before discussing evidence or proofs we must first define the exact properties of the object. Otherwise how will you know if the evidence describes what it is you are trying to prove.
 
Cris, out of all the posts you have typed, thats the first one I see that is logical and makes sense, plus it doesnt have false accusation..Good job..

Im waiting for Phaedrus's response to my post.
 
Here it goes....I will object one statement or premise at a time.

Now there is also a "direct" act from God, one is the shroud of Turin
Click to expand...


Now, the shroud of turin does not require god for its existence,
nor does it lend itself to that idea. It might help historical records to show evidence to what might have happened, but again, it does not require god.


and if you want the current "substancial" physical "direct" act, then take the bleeding ststues in south america, japan, france, and other countries.
Click to expand...

I have read a number of articles on these statues, most of them I have read seem to show that they are frauds. However for the sake of argument lets assume that they are not frauds. A bleeding statue does not mean that god exists. A number of religions claim that inexplainable things happen to religious icons and art. The idea of a divine being would not be the best explaination for a bleeding piece of marble.

It has been scientifically investigated, but since you might not understand this
Click to expand...

I do take offense to this, and while science is not my specialty, I do study it often. So next time before assuming what I do or do not know, try to explain it.

Then take "Faith healing" and "placebo" for example, which scientifically have been investigated to take place, but cannot explain how is it possible when people pray, and have faith it will go away, and it will....This was "God given" gift as it is the claim of christianity.
Click to expand...

I will agree that science shows that when people pray, it does sometimes seem to cause unexpected reactions (positive ones) in some medical patients. However these tests do not mean only praying to the christian god, I have seen tests that show praying to the Judaic god, and the Muslim god, and some praying to Buddha (even though not all varieties of buddhism advocate praying to him). All of these have had positive responses. The most likely explaination of this would be that having a positive outlook and trying hard to recover has a positive reaction on a persons condiction. Since it is not only Christian praying that does this, it seems that your argument does not point the way you want.

The power of the mind even goes as far as to bend spoons, forks, without putting pressure on it, and some can even swallow razor sharp blades and iron metals without getting hurt, or even swallow snake poison....
Click to expand...

I would object to the bending of metals, but I will save that for later. Yes, I have watched circus people swallow swords and such. I would not say that because they can swallow things can cause injury, it does not mean that god exists. I am assuming since you are using it as a proof that god exists that you are saying that god is saving or protecting them (or something along those lines). Now, I know of a circus member who is atheist who can swallow a sword. Does it follow (using your logic) that his belief in the lack of a god protected him? No, he has trained his body to do such things without harm. I myself can blow fireballs with a bit of alcohol and fire. It does not mean that because I can do this that god must exists.

I have also read about many churchgoers who have handled snakes and have been bitten. A number of them have died from the bites. Same thing with the snake poison, many people have died. Does this mean that god forgot them and only remembered some of the users? Just because someone introduced poison into their body and does not die from it does not mean that god helped. Cocaine and other drugs could also be called poisons. I know a good number of people who are users, and who live through it. Again, the existence of a god is not required for this statement.

So here I have given you the same evidence presented for God as for shakespeare.
Click to expand...

This statement is incorrect. I gave statements showing his existence by using secondary sources and primary sources. I do not make the claim that just because I have read a work by a person named shakespeare that this work is actually by shakespeare. Secondary sources back up the fact of the author, and not only that but the writing style is consistent. I have used proof that show that the best explaination to give is to say that Shakespeare existed.

God however is a different matter. No, not because he is supernatural. I assume that god (if it exists) could come down at anytime and say hello. Now, the fact that he has never done this to me (literally) does not mean that he does not exist. However you have to give evidence that is the best explaination to the problem. Your statements have not shown that the Christian/Judaic god must exist. It at most shows that science does not have a universal theory, but that is all. The fact that science cannot currently explain it does not mean that it is above science. We could not explain what blackholes were in the age of rome, but that does not mean that the ideas of blackholes are beyond science. It just means that science is progressive, and it might one day be able to explain all given phenomena.

......does it mean it s a myth?
Click to expand...

You keep speaking about a myth. You seem to think that if something is a myth it cannot be right. That is not necessarily true. A myth does not have to be right or wrong, while the popular connotation of the word implies this, it is incorrect. So just because someone calls christianity a myth, it does not mean that it is incorrect.

Blackhole is beyond our laws of nature
Click to expand...

And a blackhole is not beyond our laws of nature, from what I know they seem to follow them very well.

You are by far the most intelligent atheist I encountered here
Click to expand...

I said earlier that I am not an atheist, I am agnostic.
 
Originally posted by Phaedrus


Now, the shroud of turin does not require god for its existence,
nor does it lend itself to that idea. It might help historical records to show evidence to what might have happened, but again, it does not require god.
Click to expand...

Yes you are right, the shroud of Turin is a claim, as a claim that blackhole is a vacuum, in which both cannot be proven considering that what took place on the shroud of Turn is unaccessible, we dont have a time machine to determine whether it was really Jesus face or not, like the blackhole we cannot prove it is really a vacuum because it is also unaccessible, though it "appears" to be a vacuum, how would you know that asteroids and meteorites didnt happen to make it in there by its own force and movement? How would u really know that the suction really come from the blackhole??

So shroud of Turin, like the Blackhole, is just speculation of claim, speculating it was God who did it, while science speculate that the vacuum came from a blackhole (when it may very well be the asteroids own movement.)



Originally posted by Phaedrus

I have read a number of articles on these statues, most of them I have read seem to show that they are frauds. However for the sake of argument lets assume that they are not frauds. A bleeding statue does not mean that god exists. A number of religions claim that inexplainable things happen to religious icons and art. The idea of a divine being would not be the best explaination for a bleeding piece of marble..
Click to expand...

In Fox 40, and discovery channel, thats not what I heard, it was stated that there are genuine and indeed some are frauds, but then again ppl have to believe whos right or not, so it comesd down to whos telling the truth? This scientist or the other scientist?....

If its not divine intervention, then why not demonstrate and prove your claim? You say bleeding statue doesnt prove that God intervened, well then, because you made this claim, feel free to demonstrate how its done...Make a statue, let us x-ray inside the 6 inch statue to make sure there is nothing underneath it, and let the blood ozze out of its eyes, without you putting it. WHEN MAKING A CLAIM, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO BACK IT UP WITH EVIDENCE, words are cheap, actions speak louder....

If thats not divine intervention, then what does it take for something to be divine intervention? Tell me...


Originally posted by Phaedrus

I will agree that science shows that when people pray, it does sometimes seem to cause unexpected reactions (positive ones) in some medical patients. However these tests do not mean only praying to the christian god, I have seen tests that show praying to the Judaic god, and the Muslim god, and some praying to Buddha (even though not all varieties of buddhism advocate praying to him). All of these have had positive responses. The most likely explaination of this would be that having a positive outlook and trying hard to recover has a positive reaction on a persons condiction. Since it is not only Christian praying that does this, it seems that your argument does not point the way you want....
Click to expand...

Your wrong, faith doesnt limit itself to christinas only...When jesus walked on earth, a roman pagan soldier asked him to heal one of his soldier, and he said "Lord I am not worthy to have you under my roof, etc. but only say the words and my servant shall be healed". Jesus said "Truly I say to you I have not seen anyone with greater faith than he in jerusalem (which is like the christians today), go on home your faith has healed him"...
Because of this, it proves that Faith doesnt limit itself to christians only but to all regardless of belief, race and culture.
Next time know the christian faith before making such false comment...


Originally posted by Phaedrus

I would object to the bending of metals, but I will save that for later. Yes, I have watched circus people swallow swords and such. I would not say that because they can swallow things can cause injury, it does not mean that god exists. I am assuming since you are using it as a proof that god exists that you are saying that god is saving or protecting them (or something along those lines). Now, I know of a circus member who is atheist who can swallow a sword. Does it follow (using your logic) that his belief in the lack of a god protected him? No, he has trained his body to do such things without harm. I myself can blow fireballs with a bit of alcohol and fire. It does not mean that because I can do this that god must exists.....
Click to expand...


I never said that such proves God exist, the bottom line is that there are things that take place which we donot understand ( are you gonna argue that we understand all things?), you quoted this explanable part, but didnt quote "{Placebo" or faith healing, in which incurable cancers which science cannot explan are healed, and there are numbers of documentaries based on this. occurences. I didnt mean circus part, but since you used that analogy, I will leave that out...
Take placebo for example, and bending spoons, both took place for a FACT. Caan we explain it? No, b ut did it took place? Yes, if we cant understand things does it mean its a myth? No...Are you proposing once again we understand all things?


Originally posted by Phaedrus

I have also read about many churchgoers who have handled snakes and have been bitten. A number of them have died from the bites. Same thing with the snake poison, many people have died. Does this mean that god forgot them and only remembered some of the users? Just because someone introduced poison into their body and does not die from it does not mean that god helped. Cocaine and other drugs could also be called poisons. I know a good number of people who are users, and who live through it. Again, the existence of a god is not required for this statement......
Click to expand...

Again you made analogies that makes sense,, yes there are those who died because of it, just as there are those in medical field that died from doctor's care, but that just shows that we can do things in a wrong way, or pray in a wrong way...
If a FATAl poision (fatal as such poisoned is deinfed by scientific medical field) came into someone's body, and it did NOT affect them, are they then ABOVE the law of science?? Or do science have explanation for this? If so, can you demonstrate that explanation? Prove your words then I will b elieve, but until then, the fact remians that it is her faith that kept her alive, for those are the words that comes out of her mouth. Two makes a STATEMENT about this occurence, to Han the occurence happened to, to Mike it didnt, now why should I ask Mike when such occurence didnt happen to him?


Originally posted by Phaedrus

This statement is incorrect. I gave statements showing his existence by using secondary sources and primary sources. I do not make the claim that just because I have read a work by a person named shakespeare that this work is actually by shakespeare. Secondary sources back up the fact of the author, and not only that but the writing style is consistent. I have used proof that show that the best explaination to give is to say that Shakespeare existed.
Click to expand...

In that case, God exist by His secondary sources, cause and effect, Intelligent designer causes intelligent act. Nature and universe is comp[lex, ordered, functioning, therefore the best explanation is that an intelligent designer existed...Secondoary sources is also backed by the inteligent designer (God), and His moral values which is founbded for humans are effective form of civilized way to live, as a real creator cares for his creation....
Once again if thats the PROOF you use for the existence of Shakespeare, in that case God is also proven.....


Originally posted by Phaedrus

God however is a different matter. No, not because he is supernatural. I assume that god (if it exists) could come down at anytime and say hello.
Click to expand...

Yes he did, Jesus Christ....You say He is not God? Thats your opinion...Prove it...Show me another man who claimed to be "God" (buddha and Muhammed historicaley speaking didnt claim to be God)...And to confirm its genuinity and proving His greatness (whoever that man is), show me billions who follows this "God" and millions who will die for him...Show me a fulfilled prophesy of this "man (whoever the guy is)" to prove that the man is God, who is all knowing, past,present, and future.......

Originally posted by Phaedrus

Now, the fact that he has never done this to me (literally) does not mean that he does not exist. However you have to give evidence that is the best explaination to the problem. Your statements have not shown that the Christian/Judaic god must exist.
Click to expand...

Yes, Judeu Christian God must exist, otherwise if the moral virtues and laws wasnt established, then today we will be living like animals, killing and stealing each other, For it is the law that keeps us under control. There is only one "practicing" religion other than judeau and that is hinduism, which doesnt have basis in their faith and have no moral virtues and guidelines, doesnt teach really much about civilzed way to live (this is another topic which we can also discuss.)

..If people obeyed the law of Moses when it was written "Wash hands before meals" which is now a tradition in Judaism, then the great plague of France (cant remembner) which killed millions wouldnt have happened, only when Pasteur discovered bacteria thousands of years later, but Moses learned that much earlier...



Originally posted by Phaedrus

It at most shows that science does not have a universal theory, but that is all. The fact that science cannot currently explain it does not mean that it is above science. We could not explain what blackholes were in the age of rome, but that does not mean that the ideas of blackholes are beyond science. It just means that science is progressive, and it might one day be able to explain all given phenomena. .....
Click to expand...

Thats not science, thats PROPHESY. Good luck with your psychic prediction, and dont dare call "prophesy" "science" again, thats a delusion...
Originally posted by Phaedrus

I do take offense to this, and while science is not my specialty, I do study it often. So next time before assuming what I do or do not know, try to explain it...
Click to expand...

Read above.....


Originally posted by Phaedrus

And a blackhole is not beyond our laws of nature, from what I know they seem to follow them very well.
Click to expand...


How does it follow? Explain to me in earth's nature will there be a hole thats black which sucks things in...Clarify this statement..

note: I found my match...Finally an intelligent guy to talk to...Im waiting for your response...
 
Last edited:
Yes, Judeu Christian God must exist, otherwise if the moral virtues and laws wasnt established, then today we will be living like animals, killing and stealing each other, For it is the law that keeps us under control. There is only one "practicing" religion other than judeau and that is hinduism, which doesnt have basis in their faith and have no moral virtues and guidelines, doesnt teach really much about civilzed way to live (this is another topic which we can also discuss.)
Click to expand...

Hinduism again? Remember when you said hinduism doesn't prohibit stealing or lying? It is full of moral guidelines Before you go slandering other religions perhaps you should obtain a rudimentary understanding of their basis tenets.
 
Phaedrus:

Welcome and good luck!

Whatsup:

What does it mean to you that these evidences you present can be demonstrated when appealing to God(s) other than Jehovah or no God at all?

Also; A black-hole is not a vacuum. A black-hole is a celestial body so massive and compact that even light cannot escape its gravitational pull. It conforms precisely to what we know of the laws of nature. In fact, it was predicted via an understanding of those laws before we ever discovered evidence of one.

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by Raithere
Phaedrus:


Whatsup:


Also; A black-hole is not a vacuum. A black-hole is a celestial body so massive and compact that even light cannot escape its gravitational pull. It conforms precisely to what we know of the laws of nature. In fact, it was predicted via an understanding of those laws before we ever discovered evidence of one.

~Raithere
Click to expand...

Raithere, are you ok? Inhaling glue? If so, please stop it, read what you just post above..."A black-hole is not a vacuum. A black-hole is a celestial body so massive and compact that even light cannot escape its gravitational pull"...
You said a blackhole is not a "vacuum"? but it is just have "gravitational pull".. Rait, what do you think I mean when I said "Vacuum"? Dont you think that stands for "pulling"? Anyways I dont want to deal with this right now..

Raithere, Vodoochild, Frencheneez, g-bil, Xev, Xelios, Zero, (except cris,she has proven herself to have some form of intelligence at the last moment) the atheist children crew, I dont want to response to your senseless posts at this moment (maybe later when Im bored :)). But right now the convo is pretty smooth, so please dont ruin it with comments like Rait above, I dont want dummys who gets the word "knowledge" mixed up with "controlling" at this moment....

Im waiting for Phaedrus to response...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top