Theists must be the ones to provide proof, not atheists

Did you right the rule books on what Theists can and cant do? I dont think so.
Click to expand...

You're right I didn't. My claim is based on simple logic. In fact, two days after I posted this thread my Philosophy prof. and I had a good chat about this very idea. If you examine the situation closely, you'll see that it's irrational for a theist to ask for an atheist to disprove God's existence; not that the theists care though :D.

So then Zero, based on your premises, you're saying that God does exist for some people and not for others? How is this possible? THAT'S the difference between accepted reality and absolute reality. How can two opposing ideas existing in two separate minds both be reality?

BTW, the whole "what is reality" question is another thread altogether.
 
Ever studied relativity? What's wrong with two different minds registering different observations/reality? Eh?

__________________________________________
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?
 
There is nothing wrong with 2 different minds interpreting reality.

I'm saying that one's interpretation of reality has no bearing on what's real.

There is a HUGE difference between saying "I think/know God exists" and "God exists."

If one person says "God exists" and another says "God doesn't exist," can they both be right? If so, why are we even debating over the existence of God?

While there may be an infinitesimal likelihood for condition A occuring and an infinitesimal likelihood for condition B occuring, only one of them can be accepted as a valid outcome (provided B=~A).
 
But I'm saying one's interpretation of reality and what's real are the SAME THING. Why do we bother debating about whether or not there is a god? Exactly my point. Why do we bother? All we get are flames because both parties have their minds stuck deeply into their own viewpoints.

Why can only one of them be accepted? Remember the lightning hitting the tree in relativity class? And the whole hubbub about simultaniety? If A claims that it happened at the same time and B says the opposite, they're both right.

__________________________________________
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?
 
Lemme dig up my book...we actually haven't covered it yet, we're doing it next week...*takes out book and buries head in it* mggrmmmph...

__________________________________________
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?
 
B Tree1 A Tree2




OK, in A's frame of reference lightning hits the trees at the same time. Doesn't appear that way to B, obviously. There's time delay in the light/sound from Tree1 being hitten and Tree2 being hitten, when they get there to B's eyes/ears. We, the discussion people, are assuming that we're ina frame of reference far enough that they seem to strike at the same time.

Who's right, A or B?

__________________________________________
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?
 
Originally posted by Nebula
You're right I didn't. My claim is based on simple logic. In fact, two days after I posted this thread my Philosophy prof. and I had a good chat about this very idea. If you examine the situation closely, you'll see that it's irrational for a theist to ask for an atheist to disprove God's existence; not that the theists care though :D.

So then Zero, based on your premises, you're saying that God does exist for some people and not for others? How is this possible? THAT'S the difference between accepted reality and absolute reality. How can two opposing ideas existing in two separate minds both be reality?

BTW, the whole "what is reality" question is another thread altogether.
Click to expand...

Nobody ever asked you to prove a negative, God is not a negative but an existing being, we are asking you that if you claim there is no God and no creator..1. Prove to me nature is chaos, the effect of physics with/out intelligent designer..
2. Prove to me life forms can exist without the need of God, for the role of God is a "creator", so create any forms of life to prove that such can exist through what we "VIEW" as natural means...
3. Prove to me that moral and virtues which comes from religion are irrelevant, uneffective, and useless..

4. Prove to me that supernatural investigation, such as the paranormal of the "faith healing" which is labeled as "Placebo" can occur without the need of God, therefore demonstrate and explain thos occurences, also add haunted houses, people possesed by demons which they hear voices telling them to kill their family, etc. labeled as "schizophrenic". Explain those, and prove it to us that they occur by this or that. Scientist indeed uses "brain chemicals" as an excuse, BUT THE FACT IS THIS IS JUST A SPECULATION, THEY HAVE NO EXLANATION FOR PLACEBO, THEY HAVE NO EXPLANATION FOR SCHIZOPHRENIC, AND THEY HAVE NO EXPLANATION FOR HANUTED HOUSES...

The four questions above can disprove God without a doubt, I myself will become atheist...

And one more thing, your fuzzy pink elephant and giant purple squidmonkey claim is weak and stupid. If you make that claim then the burden of proof lies on you. Pink fuzzy elephants doesnt have any followers, maybe kids and retards. Using that as analogy to God is like using the rock as an analogy to the human brain, COMPLETELY UNIDENTICAL...


(If all atheists will talk to me instead of to each other, their atheist faith will be shaken, I guarantee that..)
 
Whatsupyall

Prove to me nature is chaos, the effect of physics with/out intelligent designer..

To understand that, you would need somewhat of an education, which you clearly lack.

Prove to me life forms can exist without the need of God

Evolution. Again, you would need an education to understand.

Prove to me that moral and virtues which comes from religion are irrelevant, uneffective, and useless

Sociology. Again...

Prove to me that supernatural investigation, such as the paranormal of the "faith healing" which is labeled as "Placebo" can occur without the need of God

Faith healing does not occur, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support. And it is not labeled as a placebo. Again... :rolleyes:

The four questions above can disprove God without a doubt, I myself will become atheist...

Well then, welcome to the club! :)

If all atheists will talk to me instead of to each other, their atheist faith will be shaken, I guarantee that..

You sound like a used car salesman. ;)
 
Forget the fuzzy elephant.

1. Science is all about making models based on physical phenomena and experimental results. If later results prove its wrong, we ditch the part that's wrong. Repeat.

Specify one case of science; science is too comprehensive to prove in one post, or even the memory limit of scifora. Specify one for me and I'll give it a shot.

Intelligent design has no experimental results, no testable physical results whatsoever. It does not adequately explain an aspect of the natural world, neither is it well-substantiated (requirements for becoming scientific theory). So quoting it is pointless.

By the way, "law" is some generalization made from a theory, something that can be condensed into a paragraph or equation. "Theory" is some wellsubstantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world.

2. Do you know any biology whatsoever? Have you ever heard of biochemistry? Ever heard of the chemical/biological (which in turn is explained by chemistry, which is in turn explained by the whole electron/proton kick which is in turn explained by physics) reactions that govern hormones?

Scientifically prove to me that god created the universe. Give me a plausible scientific theory that fits the definition above in #1.

3. Moral virtues that come from religion are NOT ineffectual, useless, or irrelevant. Anyone who claims so about religion obviously haven't heard of sociology, history, or human psychology. Religions are very useful in some ways. I personally do not care if certain virtues came from Christianity, Islam, Wicca, Hindu, Judaism, Sufism, Cabalism, Purple Potato King Worship, Whatsmuscles Worship, etc as LONG AS THEY WORK. Fair enough?

4. I don't know much about this subject, but I'll give you a glimpse of what I think. Faith healing would probably work to comfort and reassure the patient, psychological comfort, which in turn would allow the brain to direct all of its resources (otherwise wasted on pschological distress) toward the immune system and recovery.

Nontechnically said, faith healing heals by comfort and reassurance so that you can rest up to heal yourself better. No notion that comfort/reassurance HAS to come from god alone. Eh?

__________________________________________
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?
 
Okay...

Absolute truth vs. Accepted truth
This difference is basically the same thing as a priori knowledge vs. a posteriori knowledge...

ie: 2 + 2 = 4 is an absolute truth. To state the contrary would result in an internal contradiction: 2 + 2 ~= 4.

The example of lighting hitting the tower or whatever is not an example of absolute truth.

ie: "The lighting hit the tower under condition A." No matter what condition A is, I can still say "The lightning hit the tower under condition ~A (or B)" without contradicting myself. Right? Is my understanding of a priori and a posteriori correct?

The Christian God, by definition, exists for EVERYONE, regardless of whether or not you believe in him, which means he exists in absolute reality and therefore the statement "God exists" has to be an a priori truth. But it's not a priori knowledge, is it? I can say "god does not exist" without contradicting myself.

So trying to argue with/against science is pretty useless when trying to dis/prove God's absolute existence, as scientific knowledge is a posteriori (based on the principle of induction). What I was looking in this thread was an A PRIORI argument for God's existence. I guess what I'm saying is don't tell my why he exist, tell me why he MUST exist.

LOL. I just re-read that, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense :). I'm still kinda tired. I suggest reading Hume when it comes to a priori/posteriori knowledge, if you read that you might be able to see what I mean.
 
Hume is idiotic and you know it :p

So what would you call "absolute knowledge" of the tree example? If you say one exists you'd be on crack.


Also, I see no difference between the little boy in the pacific islet not existing and your not knowing about him. How do we make generalizations on whether something is "true" or not? It all has to pass through the brain, right? It has to manifest itself to you in the form of stimuli and thought.

So what's the difference between not knowing about the boy and the boy not existing, in your opinion? And define for me what absolute truth is.

__________________________________________
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?
 
Just because you aren't aware of the South Pacific boy's (Rufus :D) presence doesn't mean he doesn't exist, does it? Does that mean then, when you aren't perceiving your computer after you've walked away from it that it ceases to exist?

If we are unaware of something (ie we are not perceiving it), the best we can do is conclude that it's existence is dubious. To conclude that something exists, we need proof that it exists. To conclude that something doesn't exist, we need proof that it doesn't exist. So all we can conclude about Rufus then is that he may exist.

REALITY (Absolute):
An eternal constant Reality, upon which no human theory nor belief have any power - it is that which is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Master Principle shows that, whatever humans perceive through their material senses is never an Absolute Reality. -(taken from The Metaphysical Dictionary)


BTW, Hume has some VERY compelling arguments, and your little comment suggests that I'm probably wasting my time talking philosophy with you. Are you saying his argument concerning a priori and a posteriori knowledge isn't valid? If so, offer some justification :p.
 
That's not the way it works. That line of reasoning can therefore be used for any claim. In other words, one can claim anything exists and then ask others to disprove it. Hence, we see claims of pink elephants and purple dragons representative of that proof.
Click to expand...

(Q) and Nebula,

Go back and read my post again. I dont think that either of you understood what I said.
 
Originally posted by (Q)
Whatsupyall

Prove to me nature is chaos, the effect of physics with/out intelligent designer..

To understand that, you would need somewhat of an education, which you clearly lack.

Prove to me life forms can exist without the need of God

Evolution. Again, you would need an education to understand.

Prove to me that moral and virtues which comes from religion are irrelevant, uneffective, and useless

Sociology. Again...

Prove to me that supernatural investigation, such as the paranormal of the "faith healing" which is labeled as "Placebo" can occur without the need of God

Faith healing does not occur, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support. And it is not labeled as a placebo. Again... :rolleyes:

The four questions above can disprove God without a doubt, I myself will become atheist...

Well then, welcome to the club! :)

If all atheists will talk to me instead of to each other, their atheist faith will be shaken, I guarantee that..

You sound like a used car salesman. ;)
Click to expand...


Kid, be quite, grow up, educate yourself, then comeback here...
 
Nebula, I see that your taking philosophy class, and so am I...I read your posts, pretty interesting...But I see TONS of flaws, and one of them is How do you determine what is "Physical" and what is "Non physical"?
First of all, according to science, there is no end to splitting an atom. Singularity states that if all the spaces were removed, the whole universe can be as small as a peanut..
Now, if you cannot detect atoms in its "unfathomable" capabilities, so what then is physical and non physical? You cannot detect anything beyond 3000,000,000 m/s, because our technologies limit it. Science teaches that there is no end to splitting an atom...
Think about it, what is physical? If we cannot detect atoms, or even measure it........
Give it a thought and Ill come back to annihilate the rest of your posts.......
 
Nebula...the computer continues to exist because we've gotten stimuli about it before. Poor Rufus here doesn't exist for us unless we run across him and meet him or see him or smell him etc etc.

Whatsup...do lay off the crack. There are ways to detect atoms...reread your high school advanced chemistry book. No end to splitting an atom? Maybe, but we've gone down to quarks now. Science does not say that there is no end to splitting an atom, it just says that the atom is NOT the END to splitting. A huge difference. And the max speed detectable is 3 times 10^8 meters/sec, not because of technology but because of relativistic FX. At least for now it remains that way.
I explained what is physical and what is not in a previous topic!!! Please, please, read it. And lay off the crack, I mean it :mad:

__________________________________________
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?
 
Whatsupyall;

But I see TONS of flaws, and one of them is How do you determine what is "Physical" and what is "Non physical"?
Click to expand...
What does this issue have to do with my argument? You are correct in identifying the problem of identifying physical vs. non-physical things, but where/how does that fit in to the discussion at hand?

In fact, my claim that what humans sense is not absolute reality coincides with the non-physical problem. That's why I'm agnostic :D.

Pink fuzzy elephants doesnt have any followers, maybe kids and retards. Using that as analogy to God is like using the rock as an analogy to the human brain, COMPLETELY UNIDENTICAL...
Click to expand...

Could you please illustrate how the claim that Fuzzy Pink Elephants exist is different than the claim that God exists? I trust you aren't basing the differences entirely on the fact that since more people believe in God than in FPE, claiming God's existence is a valid claim... Even if 100% of the people believed in God, we couldn't guarantee he existed. Was the Earth the center of the universe until Copernicus and Galileo came along?
 
Originally posted by Zero

There are ways to detect atoms...
Click to expand...


No crap....

Originally posted by Zero
[
No end to splitting an atom? Maybe, but we've gone down to quarks now.
Click to expand...

Maybe? May not be?.......a sign that you dont know what the heck you are talking about...
Originally posted by Zero
[
Science does not say that there is no end to splitting an atom, it just says that the atom is NOT the END to splitting. A huge difference.
Click to expand...

LOL, if atom is not the end to splitting? Then what is it? what is tiner than sub atomic particles? Your brain?


Originally posted by Zero
[
And the max speed detectable is 3 times 10^8 meters/sec, not because of technology but because of relativistic FX. At least for now it remains that way.
Click to expand...

What prevents humans 200 years ago from discovering atoms? Technology...What prevents us from discovering quarks and subatomic particles 100 years ago? Technology..From knowledge, to technology...




Originally posted by Zero
[
I explained what is physical and what is not in a previous topic!!! Please, please, read it. And lay off the crack, I mean it :mad:
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

No you didnt, you just explained why you call yourself "ZERO"...
 
Mr catsupmuscles...you haven't read my post properly. Please reread. And you haven't even removed the color ubbcode tabs properly, a sign that you haven't even proofread your post.

Really, you need to spend more than two seconds on this. You don't even grasp the rudiments of my argument here.

__________________________________________
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top