Can you make a case for a God...

[Cephus]

Please... if you want me to play semantics with you... I won't do it. Above I made clear my thought about this.


What I think is right for me, is right for me .... I can only talk for myself.

You can have your own opinions but you don't get to have your own reality.

 

[mbig]

A "negative claim" is a claim, nonetheless. You make the claim that God does not exist, yet you offer no empirical evidence to support your claim. Equal burden of proof lies on ALL claimants regardless of the nature of the claim. I make the claim that I have Faith in the existence of God, this is the only positive claim I've made in this thread. I can offer all the empirical evidence you need to defend that claim (that I have Faith).....just go back and read my posts.:lol:
...

That's a Lie.
It misrepresents what Cephus said.
You had to 'short-quote' him to achieve it. Nice.
He continued/You truncated...

"...There might be one. There might not be. I wouldn't take the bet because it's a dumb bet. It wouldn't be an extraordinary claim, however, especially if you show me that you have marbles in the bag. We know red marbles exist. We know that you might have a red marble in the bag.

However, if someone ran up to you on the street and demanded that Godzilla was destroying the city, would you take him seriously? All you have is his claim, you have no evidence one way or the other and according to you, it takes just as much faith not to believe his claim as it does to believe it. So do you believe, or do you realize just how stupid this makes your own claims look?

He made No "negative claim".
He correctly, can however, evaluate the positive claim.. which is virtually non-existent on a factual/demonstrable basis.

Former poster:

To call atheism a religion is to call bald a hair color.

To be honest, "atheist" is a word that shouldn't even exist. No one has to acknowledge themselves as a "non-alchemist" or "non-astrologist."
The word "atheist" only exists because dogmatists outnumber the skeptics in this case.

However, as Bertrand Russell said in his parable about the Celestial Teapot, that does not change the burden of proof. In truth, the burden of proof lies with the religious dogmatists. You have to prove to us that God exists, not the other way around

 

[Cephus]

A "negative claim" is a claim, nonetheless. You make the claim that God does not exist, yet you offer no empirical evidence to support your claim.

Quote one place I have *EVER* said God does not exist. Ever. It doesn't exist.

Epic fail.

 

[FluffyNinja]

He made No "negative claim".
He correctly, can however, evaluate the positive claim withut making the opposite one.. which is virtually non-existent ion a factual/demonstrable basis.

Former poster:

He didn't have to make the "negative claim" in this particular post......he's made it may times before here at DP........it's no big conspiracy that Cepus is an atheist. I mean, come on guy, really. :lol:

 

[marduc]

He didn't have to make the "negative claim" in this particular post......he's made it may times before here at DP........it's no big conspiracy that Cepus is an atheist. I mean, come on guy, really. :lol:

I am an atheist too, but this term does not mean that I assert that there is no god, it just means that I do not accept the assertion that there is. I am without belief

I cannot assert that there is no god for the same reason that I do not accept the claim that there is a god -lack of evidence to base the assertion upon.

 

[FluffyNinja]

Quote one place I have *EVER* said God does not exist. Ever. It doesn't exist.

Epic fail.

I found four posts in this thread alone where you make the negative claim by default. :shrug:

If you're bored, I could go back into the archives and find many more such examples.

If theists would keep their ridiculous beliefs to themselves,

1

. Originally Posted by Stopandthink
I'm quite certain that I could not come up with one conceivable piece of evidence that would be admitted by a scientific minded dogmatic atheist to be a proper reason for conceding a possibility of God, nor could they identify what would have to occur for them to have a sufficient reason to at least consider the idea "there may be a God".

The first half is correct, the second half is incorrect.

We're already talking about people with imaginary friends, maybe they have imaginary enemies too?

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God or natural rights, thus it is foolish to believe in either.

 

[FluffyNinja]

I am an atheist too, but this term does not mean that I assert that there is no god, it just means that I do not accept the assertion that there is. I am without belief

I cannot assert that there is no god for the same reason that I do not accept the claim that there is a god -lack of evidence to base the assertion upon.

I can respect these assertions. You, my friend, fit the characteristics of a true skeptic. There is indeed a vast gulf between "doubt" and unequivocal "denial." :shrug:

 

[JoshuaW]

I don't think less of any believes for their respective faith in a higher power,god, creator or whatever they believe. To them religion feels so natural. They haven't evolved away from it yet, cultural or actual evolution, you pick. What I mean is as humans and all species on earth it is in our nature to survive as long as possible, that's why death is so scary to most. We can't help it we want to live. That said what makes humans so unique on this planet is our intelligence AND with that we are unique in the fact we are aware of our mortality. So it's only natural that you would choose to believe in something that offers life past your inevitable death. So the fact that you're aware you're going to die is the only reason for a god. Almost all religions offer some kind of life or reincarnation of life after death. Religions have filled there coffers for years exploiting this weak human trait. We are culturally evolving though and slowly moving away from religion.

 

[marduc]

I can respect these assertions. You, my friend, fit the characteristics of a true skeptic. There is indeed a vast gulf between "doubt" and unequivocal "denial." :shrug:

The point being that the term atheist is not synonymous with claiming there is no god - and it seemed you were conflating these with your post.

I cannot speak for Cephus, but from what I have encountered those who make an absolute assertion that there is no god are a minority among atheists (while opposition claims that atheists are making this assertion are rampant). He challenged you to find where he has asserted that there is no god, so that seems to indicate that he is not among this minority either.

 

[FluffyNinja]

Quote one place I have *EVER* said God does not exist. Ever. It doesn't exist.

Epic fail.

Three more examples from just one thread. How long has it been since you've been called on your intellectual dishonesty? I'll try and not judge since I believe such things are reserved for a higher power. :lol:

1. Originally Posted by Cephus
Because it's not evidence, it's just empty claims, not backed up by anything rational. People claim to see aliens, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and ghosts too. Doesn't make any of those things factually real, any more than God is.

It supports a large and ultimately useless clergy that can only offer pointless prayers to non-existent deities and massive waste of architecture and land that could be used for better purposes. All of society pays to support what is, in reality, a giant lie aimed at the gullible.

who actually believe the nonsense about the imaginary friend in the sky, who decide that an imaginary heavenly reward is more important to them than earthly punishment or pain and go out and start shooting people that you get major problems

 

[FluffyNinja]

The point being that the term atheist is not synonymous with claiming there is no god - and it seemed you were conflating these with your post.

I cannot speak for Cephus, but from what I have encountered those who make an absolute assertion that there is no god are a minority among atheists (while opposition claims that atheists are making this assertion are rampant). He challenged you to find where he has asserted that there is no god, so that seems to indicate that he is not among this minority either.

I do respect your claims, and I agree, being atheist, by default, does not mean that one inherently denies the existence of the irrational and scientifically unproveable. I've had many civil discussions with atheists who aren't of the mean-spirited and closed-minded variety. You appear to be one of these.

This is why I pointed out the difference between true skeptics and pseudoskeptics.......simply as a gauge to determine which I'm actually having a discussion with. Thanks for the post.


On the topic of Cephus and his dishonesty, I've found some of his "assertions" and posted them. He's made the "negative claim" quite often........at times openly......and at times by default.....he's sly; I'll give him that, but he almost never fails to come across as mean-spirited and condescending. I pray for him. :lol:

 

[Paralogic]

If all religions are false, then is the statement "all religions are false" also false?

The hypothetical is meaningless. The two clauses have no relation to each other.

The statement "all religions are false" is not a religion. It's not an unsubstantiated claim. Even the religious admit that there are no religions -- except their own subjective preference for a particular one.

The religious reject the claim of the existence of volcano gods. Therefore, they, themselves reject the existence of gods. That much is too obvious to acknowledge.

 

[FluffyNinja]

The religious reject the claim of the existence of volcano gods. Therefore, they, themselves reject the existence of gods. That much is too obvious to acknowledge.

You and that "Volcano God" again.....:lol: You certainly don't seem to have a problem stereotyping and generalizing when referring to the "religious"........now, now.....that's not very scientific...is it?

BTW, I consider myself "religious" and I'm certainly willing to accept the possibility of the existence of Volcano Gods......until it can be proven that no such beings exist anywhere in the universe.

I know.....completely irrational is it not? :lol:

 

[Paralogic]

[...] so, since you've made the claim that God doesn't exist [...]

I'm not making a claim. I stating a fact that no gods exist. A fact that is true independently of me, you, the human species, or the Milky Way Galaxy. That is a rejection of all claims for the existence of gods, it's not a claim that needs to be substantiated before it is accepted by intelligent human beings.

When semantic, grammar and linguistic games are the main tools an argument has to defend its case, we know its case is indefensible.

[...]I am okay with my Faith.

Your emotional state is irrelevant to the truth value of an unsubstantiated claim. You can be OK with consuming LSD for the rest of your life. Truth is independent of humans, human intelligence or any other type of intelligence or consciousness that has evolved in the universe.

 

[Paralogic]

[...] .....that's not very scientific...is it?

Of course it is. Whatever you claim has to be true at any point of space/time, not only around the bubble of your existence.

You could easily be a human living 5,000 years ago in some newly geo-formed volcano islands in the Pacific. Believing in volcano gods would be an expected reaction to the multiple witnessing of volcano eruptions around you. However, whether volcano gods exist or not is a claim that has to be true throughout the universe, not only within some arbitrarily picked parameters.

BTW, I consider myself "religious" and I'm certainly willing to accept the possibility of the existence of Volcano Gods......until it can be proven that no such beings exist anywhere in the universe.

I know.....completely irrational is it not? :lol:

You can consider yourself whatever you want and believe in whatever you prefer. When you try to present your beliefs as universal truths to the rest of the world and refuse to acknowledge that they are only subjective superstitions and fantasies, that's when you have to be evaluated as an intelligent person or just someone that can be dismissed due to the common psychological syndrome of mental onanism that has plagued societies for several thousands of years.

 

[Ryanm]

I am an atheist too, but this term does not mean that I assert that there is no god, it just means that I do not accept the assertion that there is. I am without belief

I cannot assert that there is no god for the same reason that I do not accept the claim that there is a god -lack of evidence to base the assertion upon.

Exactly! No one ever said that not believing in God automatically means believing with certainty that there can't be a God.

 

[Ryanm]

The point being that the term atheist is not synonymous with claiming there is no god - and it seemed you were conflating these with your post.

I cannot speak for Cephus, but from what I have encountered those who make an absolute assertion that there is no god are a minority among atheists (while opposition claims that atheists are making this assertion are rampant). He challenged you to find where he has asserted that there is no god, so that seems to indicate that he is not among this minority either.

Hmm, I don't really care too much about this particular piece of the subject, but I feel the need to say it. Atheist actually does mean asserting that there is no God. Agnosticism is the acknowledgement of the fact that you can not prove either case to be false or true.

A-sexual = lack of a gender(at least in some of its cases)
A-theist = lack of a God

 

[Ryanm]

Originally Posted by Ryanm View Post
If all religions are false, then is the statement "all religions are false" also false?

The hypothetical is meaningless. The two clauses have no relation to each other.

The statement "all religions are false" is not a religion. It's not an unsubstantiated claim. Even the religious admit that there are no religions -- except their own subjective preference for a particular one.

The religious reject the claim of the existence of volcano gods. Therefore, they, themselves reject the existence of gods. That much is too obvious to acknowledge.

The statement is a belief about religion, and it in itself is a religious claim. That's why they're related, and it creates a paradox.

"The religious" reject volcano gods? Not the religious who happen to believe in volcano gods... they don't reject them; they definitely accept them. I don't see how you managed to go from my original argument of not being able to prove the existence or lack of existence of a god to something about volcano worshippers.

 

[Mya]

You can have your own opinions but you don't get to have your own reality.

Nope, I get to have yours! :roll:


No more to say to you Cephus! eace

 

[Ryanm]

I'm not making a claim. I stating a fact that no gods exist. A fact that is true independently of me, you, the human species, or the Milky Way Galaxy. That is a rejection of all claims for the existence of gods, it's not a claim that needs to be substantiated before it is accepted by intelligent human beings.

When semantic, grammar and linguistic games are the main tools an argument has to defend its case, we know its case is indefensible.

The reason the case cannot be defended is because there is no evidence to support it. With no grammar(wtf?) or linguistic games, which is basically the definition of semantics, that fact still stands.

You are correct that intelligent human beings can accept the notion that there is no god without having it substantiated; dumb ones can accept it too, and I definitely can't deny that. However, the one thing the intelligent people and the dumb people have in common in that case is that they both cannot prove that the notion that they have accepted is actually correct.

 

[Paralogic]

Not the religious who happen to believe in volcano gods... they don't reject them; they definitely accept them.

Human beings are irrelevant to universal truth and cosmological reality.

Read the above a few thousand times until you can understand it.

We don't care about what people believe in. People's fantasies and superstitions have to, and are, irrelevant to reality.

People can believe in whatever they want. What is true or what is false is independent of what any particular human beings choose to fantasize about for their ego gratification.

There's no simpler way to put it. Humans are irrelevant to the universe.

 

[Paralogic]

[...] intelligent human beings can accept the notion that there is no god without having it substantiated; [...]

For the millionth time:

The statement "there are no gods" is not a claim. It's a rejection of claims that gods exist.

Casual language is inefficient and vague in presenting logical arguments. If people can't get over simple linguistic inefficiencies and argue an issue without getting stuck in the quicksand of the vagueness of common language, then, that's another reason to dismiss anything they say.

 

[Ryanm]

Entirely wrong. That's as idiotic as saying it takes faith to not believe in unicorns because there is no evidence for or against them. The fact remains, the burden of proof rests *ENTIRELY* on the positive claimant. I can evaluate that claim and, if it is found lacking, reject it as unsupported. This is not a matter of "belief in God" or "belief in the non-existence of God", it's a claim for God being rejected because it doesn't meet it's burden of evidence.

Actually, you're right! It does take faith to not believe in unicorns! The main difference between God and unicorns is that the concept of god gets a lot more people thinking about it; that's it. Start a new thread like this one, but ask people to debate whether or not unicorns exist; undoubtedly, you will see many of the same arguments used for unicorns that are used for and against God; that is, if people care enough to actually open that thread to begin with. The only thing about the existence of unicorns that can be proven is where they are not, but in order to disprove them you would have to search and cover everywhere in existence. I can prove there is not a unicorn in my bedroom because I am looking in my room and I do not see one; this assumes we are talking about a tangible, visible unicorn of anticipated size.

The very last thing you said there; I love it! You're right, It is a claim for God being rejected because it doesn't meet its burden of evidence. Valid claim! So long as you hold to that thought and don't go in the other direction by also thinking that the claim which rejects the existence of God also vindicates that there isn't a god, you're making a whole lot of sense no matter who tries to argue with you.

There might be one. There might not be. I wouldn't take the bet because it's a dumb bet. It wouldn't be an extraordinary claim, however, especially if you show me that you have marbles in the bag. We know red marbles exist. We know that you might have a red marble in the bag.

However, if someone ran up to you on the street and demanded that Godzilla was destroying the city, would you take him seriously? All you have is his claim, you have no evidence one way or the other and according to you, it takes just as much faith not to believe his claim as it does to believe it. So do you believe, or do you realize just how stupid this makes your own claims look?

Sure, let's make that a condition. When you accept the bet and make a guess you are allowed to verify for yourself whether or not there was a red marble in the bag among marbles. Assume the existence of other non-red marbles in the bag is guaranteed and that the person offering the bet is not using subterfuge.

Having cleared that up would you then guess that there's no red marble in the bag? You never saw it, so it can't exist, right? Why not get you your 100 bil? If I knew there wasn't a red marble, then I would guess that there's no red marble. If I don't know if there is or if there isn't, then I wouldn't risk my life on it.

Now you pretend I have a invisible coin in one of my hands now I offer you a bet a billion dollars if you pick the right hand, death for wrong hand. Only I know what hand it's in. Would you take the bet? Or would you say no I might pick the wrong hand. Nope you'd probably would say what the f*** kind of dumb s*** bet is that there's no such thing as invisible coins and if there is prove it!

If the invisible coin is tangible, then one could prove its existence by handing it to the other person and allowing them to feel its mass and shape. However, if it is invisible and non-tangible then, as with the question about knowing if there are marbles at all in my bag unless I allow the person to check afterwards, there is no way to validate the guess, in which case a conclusion cannot be made.

So after you were handed this invisible, tangible coin so that you could validate its existence would you then decide to take on that person's bet? There is a problem that this coin creates in trying to compare it to vindicating the existence or non-existence of God. At this point, we know for a fact that the invisible coin exists. Now it is a matter of location rather than existence. It cannot be compared the way the marble bet was because now we aren't asking, "does the coin exist," we are asking, "where does the coin exist." If we made this argument for God we would be asking, "where is God," and not, "is God?" If this individual offered you this bet without allowing you the opportunity to validate the existence of the coin afterwards or just plain lied to you about the existence of the coin, then all bets are off, and that person is just an asshole. For the purpose of comparison though, we need to assume a lack of subterfuge.

I disagree, the burden of proof is solely on the party making the extraordinary claim, if there were no claim there would be no opposition to it. You cannot state "no god exists" without the claim of god.

Yes, the burden of proof is on the party making the claim. Absolutely. Without proof then we must not assume the statement is true, but at the same time that lack of evidence does not suffice as evidence that it is false. I hate to burst your bubble, but once the claim has been thrown out there, regardless of who's idea it was once you've acknowledged the existence of the question you're already in the game. The simplest way I can describe what you're trying to say is, "you can't argue about something until someone has thought it up to be argued about." That's right, but I don't see why that makes rejection have no burden of proof required.

For example, if I tell you right now that I have a copy of a McGraw-Hill GRE Math study guide on my night-stand, you would be in the right to say that you don't want to believe it because I haven't shown you any evidence that it is true. I haven't proven it to you, but that doesn't mean that it is not on my night stand right now. If I don't prove that it's there will the book disappear and no longer be on the night-stand? Of course it wouldn't because a lack of proof that it is there is not the same as sufficient proof that it isn't, and I know this because the book is tangible and visible, and I can see it right now and therefore know that it exists even if you do not. For you to believe that I have that book on my night-stand you would have to have faith in it; you would also need faith to say for sure that it isn't there. Until you look at my night stand and see whether or not there's a GRE Math book on it you can't claim anything for certain except that you don't know.

 

[Surtr]

Read the above a few thousand times until you can understand it.

Statements like this are exactly why nobody takes you seriously.

 

[Ryanm]

Human beings are irrelevant to universal truth and cosmological reality.

Read the above a few thousand times until you can understand it.

We don't care about what people believe in. People's fantasies and superstitions have to be, and are, irrelevant to reality.

People can believe in whatever they want. What is true or what is false is independent of what any particular human beings choose to fantasize about for their ego gratification.

There's no simpler way to put it. Humans are irrelevant to the universe.

For the millionth time:

The statement "there are no gods" is not a claim. It's a rejection of claims that gods exist.

Casual language is inefficient and vague in presenting logical arguments. If people can't get over simple linguistic inefficiencies and argue an issue without getting stuck in the quicksand of the vagueness of common language, then, that's another reason to dismiss anything they say.

I'll do this one by one just to make it clear what I don't agree with.

"Human beings are irrelevant to universal truth and cosmological reality. We don't care about what people believe in. People's fantasies and superstitions have to be, and are, irrelevant to reality." - True

"People can believe in whatever they want. What is true or what is false is independent of what any particular human beings choose to fantasize about for their ego gratification. There's no simpler way to put it. Humans are irrelevant to the universe." - True

"The statement 'there are no gods' is not a claim. It's a rejection of claims that gods exist." - False, this is most definitely a claim. "The existence of god(s) cannot be proven" is also a claim, but it is a claim that is currently proven by the fact that there is currently no proof that the claim "god(s) exist" is true. The same concept holds true for the opposite claim.