The burden of proof

[CLAX1911]

You are not paying attention. The entire premise of this thread was the scientific evidence of God existing or not existing. It's in the opening post.

Clearly there is no evidence proving God exists if there was there would be no religions.

It's evidence that people believe in a god, it's not evidence a god exists. There's a big difference there.

With all do respect, I was talking to a believer. There has to be a reason why people believe right?

It was. In order for your statement to be true, you have to assume the premise to be true.

People worship gods. That isn't a premise that's a fact. Whether or not those gods exist, I believe I covered that above.

Otherwise, books and buildings are only evidence that people believe in a divine being. It would not be evidence of a divine being.

To a believer they are evidence.

It's not really a simple answer, but theoretically the simple answer is God and his half man, half divine (or so they believe) son Jesus.

There is no need for the non committal words. I'm not trying to trick you into saying God exists. But the fact that you could give me a name proves that they believe that there is evidence for God. Otherwise why would they be worshipping?

 

[Ockham]

Probably because the book isn't conclusive.

It is to those who have faith.

Belief is trust that something is true or exists.

Ok - can you prove it's not true or that it doesn't exist? See how that becomes circular?

Feelings are evidence. Something spiritual is evidence.

Prove that it's evidence... prove love exists scientifically. When you go down the road of chemical changes and hormonal modifications the body takes as well as brain wave patterns - you will see that similar changes occur in those who have religious faith. Brain Differences Found Between Believers In God And Non-believers -- ScienceDaily

Therefore evidence of love as proven by science is similar to evidence that God exists for the faithful. :shrug:

Evidence or proof? I feel live, that's enough to tell me it exists. Thus it's evidence though it may not be solid proof. It's evidence.

And if people feel God spiritually?

Based on a pattern of trustworthy behavior. But not all people who are in love trust each other. Trust isn't a product of love. I can love a person that steals from me. That doesn't mean I trust them.

And therefore those who put their trust in God to help them and who have a pattern of finding help when they needed it? Doesn't that reinforce trust and faith?

Where did you come up with the idea that God exists?

The same place you came up with the idea that humans were once primordial goo on the rock in the sea.

Right, and if they received absolutely no hidden they probably wouldn't trust that "god" would they?

Perhaps.

Based on what?

Based on their life experiences.

This has nothing to do with what I said.

Probably why I said it was irrelevant.

I said you're equating your God to a rabbit's foot. Actually you are saying it's less. Because a person that believes his rabbit's foot is lucky would have had that rabbit's foot with him when something fortuitous Occurred. Thus giving him evidence that his rabbit's foot is lucky.

I do not believe in a rabbits foot therefore it's irrelevant. I can equate your non belief to swimming aimlessly in a pool of feces - which would be just a relevant as your rabbits foot comparison.

 

[Manc Skipper]

All you are doing is pointing out lack of evidence that God exists and saying that it's prove that it doesn't exist.

It's an assumption either way.

On the contrary, the default position is non-existence until proven. No evidence for existence has been introduced.

 

[Slyfox696]

With all do respect, I was talking to a believer. There has to be a reason why people believe right?

There are many reasons as to why someone would believe. But just because someone believes, that doesn't mean God exists.

People worship gods.

People worship their beliefs. Again, there's a major difference.

To a believer they are evidence.

But to the concept of science, belief is not evidence. Thus, when I said your examples of books and temples were an example of begging the question, I was correct.

To believe books and buildings are examples of a divine being is to assume a divine being exists. But since the crux of the discussion revolves around the existence or non-existence of a God, you cannot assume a God exists, thus your example was the fallacy of begging the question.

I'm not trying to trick you into saying God exists.

No need, I believe in God. But it doesn't mean there is any real evidence a divine being exists, it just means I believe one does.

But the fact that you could give me a name proves that they believe that there is evidence for God.

That's not what you said though. You claimed there is evidence God exists, but that the evidence was not conclusive. That is not correct. There is no evidence God exists, unless you assume God exists. The evidence you used (books, traditions, temples and shrines) is evidence people believe in a God (which has never really been in dispute) but it does NOTHING to provide evidence God actually does exist.

That's all I'm saying. Your claim was a fallacy. Perhaps you meant it in a different way than you wrote it, but the statement you made was faulty in logic.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Um... no they don't.

So... not much to debate here, given that you're starting on the premise of a fantasy in your mind, not realy conversation with atheists.

The only one making a positive claim is you -- a claim for which you provide no evidence.

 

[CLAX1911]

On the contrary, the default position is non-existence until proven. No evidence for existence has been introduced.

That is circular logic.

 

[CLAX1911]

There are many reasons as to why someone would believe. But just because someone believes, that doesn't mean God exists.

Didn't say that it did.

People worship their beliefs. Again, there's a major difference.

They believe they are worshipping.

But to the concept of science, belief is not evidence.

Yes but evidence can lead you to believe something.

Thus, when I said your examples of books and temples were an example of begging the question, I was correct.

You were not correct and I already explained why.

To believe books and buildings are examples of a divine being is to assume a divine being exists. But since the crux of the discussion revolves around the existence or non-existence of a God, you cannot assume a God exists, thus your example was the fallacy of begging the question.

I have said it twice now, there isn't proof that God exists. This is why you were incorrect when you said that my post was circular.

But it doesn't mean there is any real evidence a divine being exists.

I never said there was. I said there was enough to be able to believe in God rationally.

That's not what you said though.

That is correct.

You claimed there is evidence God exists, but that the evidence was not conclusive. That is not correct. There is no evidence God exists, unless you assume God exists.

That isn't what I said. I said that it's reasonable to assume God exists based on the evidence. That is very different than what you said I said.

The evidence you used (books, traditions, temples and shrines) is evidence people believe in a God (which has never really been in dispute) but it does NOTHING to provide evidence God actually does exist.

See above.

That's all I'm saying. Your claim was a fallacy.

No It isn't. Your misinterpretation of my claim was a fallacy.

Perhaps you meant it in a different way than you wrote it, but the statement you made was faulty in logic.

No my statement was sound logically. Perhaps you misunderstood it. I'm thinking that is what it is because my very first post in this thread was that there is no scientific proof that God exists.

 

[HonestJoe]

That would apply to evolution, too.

That's a matter of opinion but irrelevant anyway.

Science is clear though when it "says" (don't quibble with semantics), it cannot prove that God does not exists.
And I'm placing the burden of proof on atheists who clearly contradict that declaration.

Most atheists don't contradict that declaration. Some atheists do but then so does pretty much every theist. Targeting your challenge at atheists is flawed.

I notice you didn't address your burden of proof regarding the definitive claims you made in your OP. Isn't that a little hypocritical?

 

[CLAX1911]

It is to those who have faith.

Why do they need to trust something if it's conclusive? If it's conclusive there is no need for faith.

Ok - can you prove it's not true or that it doesn't exist? See how that becomes circular?

No, I don't see anything circular. This confirms what I have been saying all along.

Prove that it's evidence...

It leads us to believe rationally that love exists. Thus it's evidence.

prove love exists scientifically.

Evidence isn't proof.

Therefore evidence of love as proven by science is similar to evidence that God exists for the faithful. :shrug:

Agreed. There is enough evidence to rationally assume both exist.

And if people feel God spiritually?

when I felt God spiritually, that was pretty good evidence that he is there.

And therefore those who put their trust in God to help them and who have a pattern of finding help when they needed it? Doesn't that reinforce trust and faith?

That's just more evidence.

The same place you came up with the idea that humans were once primordial goo on the rock in the sea.

I didn't come up with that idea.

My question was how did you know to trust God, or to call him God

Perhaps.

So was it compulsive?

Based on their life experiences.

Experience is evidence.

I do not believe in a rabbits foot therefore it's irrelevant.

It's an analogy.

I can equate your non belief to swimming aimlessly in a pool of feces - which would be just a relevant as your rabbits foot comparison.

No my comparison was apt.

You just started believing in God fit no reason and continue to do so for no reason. That is what you are saying.

 

[CLAX1911]

On the contrary, the default position is non-existence until proven. No evidence for existence has been introduced.

That is called confirmation bias. The default is that I don't know.

 

[Ockham]

Why do they need to trust something if it's conclusive? If it's conclusive there is no need for faith.

You obviously don't understand what it means to have faith. Every reason is individualized - people don't want conclusiveness they want solace, comfort and to know there is something more.

No, I don't see anything circular. This confirms what I have been saying all along.

Well then there's no reason for me to continue to respond to you. If all I've done is confirmed your lack of faith - I hope that keeps you warm at night.


Have a nice day.

 

[whysoserious]

If all I've done is confirmed your lack of faith - I hope that keeps you warm at night.

If you are depending on faith to stay warm at night then that's your problem. Don't put that on anyone else.

 

[Quag]

SCIENCE SAID IT CANNOT PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXISTS.

However, atheists are practically saying, science is wrong. They say, God does not exists.

Hard line militant atheist say that and they would be wrong.

Various fields of science points favorably to Creation.

That is untrue.

Atheists don't agree. They say, God doesn't exists.

Ok so?

As science advances, it even changed great minds and made converts out of numerous scientists -
from archeology to math to physics to cosmology to biology, etc.,

Yup lots of them stop being religious.

Atheists say, no. God does not exists.

Ok so?

Even Philosophy and Logic greatly supports the existence of God.

That is untrue.

And yet, in spite of all these, atheists insists, God does not exists.

Well since your claims are untrue so what?

So now, let's put the burden of proof rightly where it belongs. To the atheists.

Atheists.....where's your proof? Give us your evidence that God does not exists.

If you claim God(s) exist the burden of proof remains with you.

 

[Ockham]

If you are depending on faith to stay warm at night then that's your problem. Don't put that on anyone else.

I'm not putting it on everyone - just CLAX.

Feeling guilty about something are we? :lamo

 

[zyzygy]

That is called confirmation bias. The default is that I don't know.

My default position is "I have never seen any evidence for the existence of any god"

 

[CLAX1911]

You obviously don't understand what it means to have faith. Every reason is individualized - people don't want conclusiveness they want solace, comfort and to know there is something more.

Just repeat back to me what I've said to you as though it was your statement. That's clever.

Well then there's no reason for me to continue to respond to you. If all I've done is confirmed your lack of faith - I hope that keeps you warm at night.


Have a nice day.

 

[CLAX1911]

My default position is "I have never seen any evidence for the existence of any god"

Mine is that I don't know.

 

[Slyfox696]

Yes but evidence can lead you to believe something.

But that's not what happened here. The belief existed before evidence, so you cannot claim that the results of the belief is evidence.

You were not correct and I already explained why.

I most certainly was correct and I've explained why in a very detailed fashion. Books, traditions, temples, etc. are not pieces of evidence for the existence of God. To claim otherwise is fallacious. You made a fallacious claim.

I have said it twice now, there isn't proof that God exists.

But you tried to claim there was EVIDENCE God exists, and the evidence you tried to use was an example of begging the question.

This is why you were incorrect when you said that my post was circular.

I was correct when I noted your claim was fallacious. Books, traditions, temples, etc. are not evidence for the existence of God, even though you claimed they were. They can be evidence that humans believe in the concept of a divine being, but it is not evidence of a divine being. The only way for your statement to be, that books and temples are evidence of a divine being, is to accept the premise a divine being exists. Thus, you are begging the question.

I never said there was. I said there was enough to be able to believe in God rationally.

But your evidence does not support the existence of a divine being, which you tried to claim it was. That is what I corrected you on.

I said that it's reasonable to assume God exists based on the evidence.

But the evidence of books, temples, traditions etc. does NOT suggest a divine being. It suggest people believe in a divine being. The only way you can say books, temples and traditions are evidence of a divine being is to assume a divine being exists in the first place. And, as I've said multiple times now, that is a fallacy of begging the question.

No It isn't. Your misinterpretation of my claim was a fallacy.

No, it's not. First of all, a fallacy can only exist when a logical flaw is present in an argument. There is no logical flaw to my position. Even if I misunderstood you, which I didn't, a misunderstanding is not a logical fallacy. At best, you could claim a straw man, but since I'm using your exact words, no straw man was built.

No my statement was sound logically. Perhaps you misunderstood it. I'm thinking that is what it is because my very first post in this thread was that there is no scientific proof that God exists.

I'm not debating with your over whether there is proof of anything. What I corrected you on was your statement that the existence of temples, books, traditions, etc. were EVIDENCE of the existence of God. The fact is those are NOT evidence of the existence of a divine being. Here is your original claim, in context:

I think your argument is about the same as hers. Sure there is evidence. There are books traditions timples and shrines. That's all evidence that there is a God. It's just not conclusive

You claimed the existence of "books traditions timples [sic] and shrines" is evidence there is a God. But it's not. It's evidence man believes in a divine being, but no one is disputing if man believes in a divine being. We obviously know many do. What we're discussing is whether there is evidence of the existence of a divine being. Those things you mentioned are all man-made, and done because of the pre-existing belief. That is not evidence of a god. As I said, the only way you can say those are evidence there is a God is to assume there is a divine being in the first place. Otherwise, those are simply examples of products created by man.

Your comment clearly was an example of begging the question. Now, perhaps you didn't mean what you typed, but what you typed was fallacious.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Just repeat back to me what I've said to you as though it was your statement. That's clever.

Why do they do that?

It must be that they have had the experience of losing an argument and it was due to line "x" so they think if they fire it in they will win because it has never entered their heads that the basis of their argument might need to be maintained through all of the argument. Is it a lack of attention span or something much more sinister?

 

[CLAX1911]

I'm not putting it on everyone - just CLAX.

You shouldn't be putting anything on me. I'm spoken for.

 

[CLAX1911]

But that's not what happened here. The belief existed before evidence, so you cannot claim that the results of the belief is evidence.

I most certainly was correct and I've explained why in a very detailed fashion. Books, traditions, temples, etc. are not pieces of evidence for the existence of God. To claim otherwise is fallacious. You made a fallacious claim.

But you tried to claim there was EVIDENCE God exists, and the evidence you tried to use was an example of begging the question.

I was correct when I noted your claim was fallacious. Books, traditions, temples, etc. are not evidence for the existence of God, even though you claimed they were. They can be evidence that humans believe in the concept of a divine being, but it is not evidence of a divine being. The only way for your statement to be, that books and temples are evidence of a divine being, is to accept the premise a divine being exists. Thus, you are begging the question.

But your evidence does not support the existence of a divine being, which you tried to claim it was. That is what I corrected you on.

But the evidence of books, temples, traditions etc. does NOT suggest a divine being. It suggest people believe in a divine being. The only way you can say books, temples and traditions are evidence of a divine being is to assume a divine being exists in the first place. And, as I've said multiple times now, that is a fallacy of begging the question.

No, it's not. First of all, a fallacy can only exist when a logical flaw is present in an argument. There is no logical flaw to my position. Even if I misunderstood you, which I didn't, a misunderstanding is not a logical fallacy. At best, you could claim a straw man, but since I'm using your exact words, no straw man was built.

I'm not debating with your over whether there is proof of anything. What I corrected you on was your statement that the existence of temples, books, traditions, etc. were EVIDENCE of the existence of God. The fact is those are NOT evidence of the existence of a divine being. Here is your original claim, in context:


You claimed the existence of "books traditions timples [sic] and shrines" is evidence there is a God. But it's not. It's evidence man believes in a divine being, but no one is disputing if man believes in a divine being. We obviously know many do. What we're discussing is whether there is evidence of the existence of a divine being. Those things you mentioned are all man-made, and done because of the pre-existing belief. That is not evidence of a god. As I said, the only way you can say those are evidence there is a God is to assume there is a divine being in the first place. Otherwise, those are simply examples of products created by man.

Your comment clearly was an example of begging the question. Now, perhaps you didn't mean what you typed, but what you typed was fallacious.

I'm nit going to argue with you about it anymore. I know what I said.

 

[Ockham]

Just repeat back to me what I've said to you as though it was your statement. That's clever.

 

[CLAX1911]

Why do they do that?

It must be that they have had the experience of losing an argument and it was due to line "x" so they think if they fire it in they will win because it has never entered their heads that the basis of their argument might need to be maintained through all of the argument. Is it a lack of attention span or something much more sinister?

less sinister but closer to the first guess.

 

[Nilly]

SCIENCE SAID IT CANNOT PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXISTS.

However, atheists are practically saying, science is wrong. They say, God does not exists.



Various fields of science points favorably to Creation.

Atheists don't agree. They say, God doesn't exists.



As science advances, it even changed great minds and made converts out of numerous scientists -
from archeology to math to physics to cosmology to biology, etc.,

Atheists say, no. God does not exists.



Even Philosophy and Logic greatly supports the existence of God.

And yet, in spite of all these, atheists insists, God does not exists.




So now, let's put the burden of proof rightly where it belongs. To the atheists.

Atheists.....where's your proof? Give us your evidence that God does not exists.

Yet another deluded Tosca thread.

It is impossible to disprove something that has literally been constructed to be unfalsifiable (transcends our logic, transcends space, transcends time etc etc etc). Much how it is impossible for you Tosca, to disprove the existence of Mister Mxyzptlk, the reality manipulating imp that created god (prove that he didn't).

 

[tosca1]

I have. Telling me to re-read something I've already read and responded to is pointless and just illustrates to me you cannot refute an actual position not founded upon a fallacy.

You keep talking about how science cannot disprove a God. That's great, no one is disagreeing with you. But just because science cannot disprove a God, that does not mean it has PROVEN a God. The absence of evidence to disprove does nothing to provide evidence to prove. Your entire position is based on a massive logical fallacy.

You have no proof God exists. None. All you have is your belief. It is not anyone's responsibility to disprove your belief, it is YOUR responsibility to prove your belief. And until you can prove your belief, the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

Now, instead of regurgitating the same nonsense telling me to read that to which I've already replied, how about instead you actually address what I say?

I didn't say it has proven a god....however, several areas of science points to the possibility of God/Creator. Philosophy/Logic supports the existence of God. Area of medicine have numerous cases of what doctors call as miracles, people who'd have died end up recovering, some even coming back from the dead!


mir·a·cle
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.


Here are just a few you'll find on google.

Dead Mississippi man begins breathing in embalming room, coroner says - CNN.com
Miracle premature baby declared dead by doctors revived by mother's touch | Daily Mail Online
A 'dead' Siberian woman speaks of 'miracle' on coming back to life after three nights in morgue

Terminally ill schoolgirl makes miracle recovery to become first in WORLD to beat rare cancer - Mirror Online
Rachel's Story - Rachel's Miracle
It
WATCH: Christine Newman miraculously survives being trapped in tree well near Whistler | Globalnews.ca


Therefore, to say that theists are comparable with atheists, is a fallacy!


What more, medicine is just one area where it shows evidence of God. Don't forget the fact that other evidences that come from other fields - well, they all add up!


So, I ask....


where's the atheists' evidence for contradicting science by their conclusion that God doesn't exists?