The burden of proof

[Nilly]

Yada-yada-yada. A lot of talk that's simply gibberish!

Put your money where that mouth is.

Where's your evidence?

Why is it gibberish? Did you even read it? I actually took the time to study your argument (well the argument of the video you posted) and reply to it. It's polite to reciprocate.

 

[Paschendale]

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.

No, I'm pointing out the lack of evidence and saying that it's reasonable to conclude that gods don't exist. Same with unicorns, vampires, and the Loch Ness Monster. And all gods, not just the the particular one that our culture happens to grant special exception to. Meanwhile, there is evidence that things like cheese, cars, and Bruno Mars all exist, so it's reasonable to conclude that they do.

Some "assumptions" are far more likely to be true than others and it's a false dichotomy and a lie to pretend that bronze age myths are equally likely true as false.

 

[marduc]

:roll:



12 pages and counting......Still deflecting?


For you to contradict science by concluding God does not exists -

where's your evidence?

I do not need evidence. I DO NOT ASSERT WITH CERTAINTY THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. I believe that he does not, HUGE difference, and this is why your thread fails, you are insisting that all of your opponenets are asserting a position that only a fraction of the whole actually hold.

The burden of proof does not lie upon those who do not accept a positive claim, it lies entirely on those who make a positive claim, and although some athiests do make a positive claim that (a) god/higher power absolutely does not exist, the majority do not. Find those who do make this absolute assertion and take it up with them, but do not cast that net upon the entirety because that is completely erroneous and is misalgning what - for the most part - our position actually is.

 

[DDD]

SCIENCE SAID IT CANNOT PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXISTS.

Sounds like a statement that has the backing of all scientists. Do present references scientific references where all scientists appeal to the unknown please?

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

True, because there is no actual empirical evidence. All there is is faith and illogical conclusions such as "Christ has risen!" Let's call this positions as P1.

Various fields of science points favorably to Creation.

Present references related to the various fields in science that favor "Creation."

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

Correct, See P1.

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.,

So, what is wrong with scientists switching careers from math to physic, from biology to cosmology, etc?

Atheists say, no. God does not exists.

Yes, see P1.

Even Philosophy and Logic greatly supports the existence of God.

Vague.

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

Yes, see P1.

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.

Scientists do not appeal to the unknown as the religious do. It is the religious that claim that "God," "Afterlife," "Son of God" etc, exist, it is up to them to find evidence to support their claims, not our scientific claims, but their claims.

Why should we bother finding support for their claims?

We have better things to do, such as worry about RL and science, not fairy tale BS and religion.

 

[DDD]

Why shouldn't the burden of proof rest on atheists?

Because atheists do not claim that "God," "Afterlife," "Son of God" etc exist. The religious make such claims, thereby it is up to the religious to find support for their claims.

Why should an atheist work for the religious? They do not believe in such concepts?

They're the ones going against the default position!

The default position of the religious is weak because P1.

By saying that God does not exists, is contradicting science.

Nope,

Science does not makes claims that "God," "Afterlife," "Son of God," etc, exist. The religious do.

Science and religion is incompatible because of methods they approach truth.
They're going against the very institution that they greatly rely upon!

Surely they've got something to support that claim. So, let's see it.

What claims?

 

[Quag]

:lol:

Imagine that! Even evolution (if indeed true), supports the existence of God!

Not only is that wrong it is sad that you added the if indeed true,
Evolution is a proven and observed fact that does not support the existence of God.

 

[tosca1]

Why is it gibberish? Did you even read it? I actually took the time to study your argument (well the argument of the video you posted) and reply to it. It's polite to reciprocate.

You didn't get his point!

Nilly

"We have good evidence no such piece of china has been launched into space by us or that extraterrestrials have put it there."

You can see him visibly get muddled up and that's because he has posited that we have good evidence that extraterrestrials haven't put it there, nor did it appear there out of it's own accord. No such evidence exists. He himself has muddled up absence of evidence with evidence of absence. We have no evidence of the absence of the teapot, nor evidence of the absence of invisible alien octopi, nor evidence of the absence of god. He discounts the teapot as there is contrary evidence, even though no contrary evidence exists. Thus, they are all equivalent in the frame of the argument, so Craigs argument falls apart.

Keyphrase: WE HAVE LOGICAL REASONS TO BELIEVE.



We have reasons to believe that extra-terrestrials may exist. We could base that on insistent reports of UFO sightings, among other things. Isn't that true?

Do you have any logical reasons to believe that of all kinds of things to launch, extra-terrestrials would be launching a tea-pot? Or that it would be something called a tea pot at all? Something of this earth?
How did Russell even come to think it would be a teapot of all things....especially if he can't see it?
That's the point. He just grabbed that thought out of thin air without any logical basis for it!


Wow! The irony! That teapot rattling in space - that's a good analogy, no? For atheists and your belief.
It's the SAME WAY THAT ATHEISTS GRABBED THE CONCLUSION THAT GOD DOES NOT EXISTS.
You decided to go against science without any logical reasons to support your conclusion. To borrow from Dawkins - that's lunacy!



Most definitely, by reading the OP (and the evidences that point to the existence of God).....

.....WE HAVE LOGICAL REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT GODT EXISTS!




But INVISIBLE OCTOPUSES??? How on earth did it ever occur to you that invisible octopuses might exist?
Not only are they specifically octopuses - but INVISIBLE at that! :lol:
Anyone thinking that would be a lunatic.

Having logical reasons to believe - that's what Dawkins didn't get too.



Watch toward the end of the video: (2:50)

 

[RabidAlpaca]

You didn't get his point!

Keyphrase: WE HAVE LOGICAL REASONS TO BELIEVE.

We have reasons to believe that extra-terrestrials may exist. We could base that on insistent reports of UFO sightings, among other things. Isn't that true?

Do you have any logical reasons to believe that of all kinds of things to launch, extra-terrestrials would be launching a tea-pot? Or that it would be something called a tea pot at all? Something of this earth?
How did Russell even come to think it would be a teapot of all things....especially if he can't see it?
That's the point. He just grabbed that thought out of thin air without any logical basis for it!
SAME WAY THAT ATHEISTS GRABBED THE CONCLUSION THAT GOD DOES NOT EXISTS.

Most definitely, by reading the OP (and the evidences that point to the existence of God).....

.....WE HAVE LOGICAL REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT GODT EXISTS!

But INVISIBLE OCTOPUSES??? How on earth did it ever occur to you that invisible octopuses might exist?
Anyone thinking that would be a lunatic. Having logical reasons to believe - that's what Dawkins didn't get too.

Watch toward the end of the video: (2:50)

Atheists don't claim that it's a fact that there's no god, just that there's absolutely zero evidence to support the existence of him. I don't believe in god like you don't believe in pink unicorns. Could god or pink unicorns exist? Sure, it's possible, but until there's even a single shred of evidence to support their existence, we can generally assume they don't.

Can you prove pink unicorns don't exist? Is it your job to disprove my claim or is my job to prove it? That is what the burden of proof actually means. He who makes the claim must prove it. You claim there's a god, so prove it.

 

[Quag]

You didn't get his point!





Keyphrase: WE HAVE LOGICAL REASONS TO BELIEVE.



We have reasons to believe that extra-terrestrials may exist. We could base that on insistent reports of UFO sightings, among other things. Isn't that true?

Do you have any logical reasons to believe that of all kinds of things to launch, extra-terrestrials would be launching a tea-pot? Or that it would be something called a tea pot at all? Something of this earth?
How did Russell even come to think it would be a teapot of all things....especially if he can't see it?
That's the point. He just grabbed that thought out of thin air without any logical basis for it!


Wow! The irony! That teapot rattling in space - that's a good analogy, no? For atheists and your belief.
It's the SAME WAY THAT ATHEISTS GRABBED THE CONCLUSION THAT GOD DOES NOT EXISTS.
You decided to go against science without any logical reasons to support your conclusion. To borrow from Dawkins - that's lunacy!



Most definitely, by reading the OP (and the evidences that point to the existence of God).....

.....WE HAVE LOGICAL REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT GODT EXISTS!




But INVISIBLE OCTOPUSES??? How on earth did it ever occur to you that invisible octopuses might exist?
Anyone thinking that would be a lunatic. Having logical reasons to believe - that's what Dawkins didn't get too.



Watch toward the end of the video: (2:50)

If there is a logical reason to believe in God(s) neither you nor anyoen else has ever presented it.

 

[tosca1]

Originally Posted by tosca1 View Post

SCIENCE SAID IT CANNOT PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXISTS.

Sounds like a statement that has the backing of all scientists. Do present references scientific references where all scientists appeal to the unknown please?

You mean not all scientists make the claim that they cannot prove that God does not exists?
You're saying....some can prove God does not exist?

:lol:

Who are these scientists who "appeal to the unknown?" Because they do, right?


I'm outa here! I don't have to bother reading the rest....that intro was enough. :mrgreen:

 

[tosca1]

If there is a logical reason to believe in God(s) neither you nor anyoen else has ever presented it.

You say that....because you didn't get them. That's not my problem.

What more....coming from an atheist whose belief contradicts the very thing (science) you rely upon.....and whose belief clearly lies on pure fantasy!

So you'll understand if I just ignore you - and some of you - until you've got something reasonable to say.

 

[tosca1]

I do not need evidence. I DO NOT ASSERT WITH CERTAINTY THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. I believe that he does not, HUGE difference, and this is why your thread fails, you are insisting that all of your opponenets are asserting a position that only a fraction of the whole actually hold.

The burden of proof does not lie upon those who do not accept a positive claim, it lies entirely on those who make a positive claim, and although some athiests do make a positive claim that (a) god/higher power absolutely does not exist, the majority do not. Find those who do make this absolute assertion and take it up with them, but do not cast that net upon the entirety because that is completely erroneous and is misalgning what - for the most part - our position actually is.

Here we go again with the merry-go-round answer that we refer to when atheists start invoking the various definitions to their atheism. I already gave the rebuttal to that. Backtrack.

I'm not going to keep arguing about that nonsense. Bye-bye for now.

 

[Quag]

You say that....because you didn't get them. That's not my problem.

No becaue neither you nor anyone else has ever presented any.

What more....coming from an atheist whose belief contradicts the very thing (science) you rely upon.....and whose belief clearly lies on pure fantasy!

I am not nor have I ever identified myself as an atheist.

So you'll understand if I just ignore you - and some of you - until you've got something reasonable to say.

I am not the one making stuff up about the logic of your specific version of God, or claiming everyone who disagrees with me is an atheist.

 

[Manc Skipper]

That is circular logic.

Explain where you see a circle?

 

[tosca1]

I am not nor have I ever identified myself as an atheist.

If you say you're not an atheist, then, instead of arguing with me.... perhaps you should be asking atheists how on earth have they come to the conclusion that God does not exists.


That's the most logical question that a non-atheist would ask upon reading - and UNDERSTANDING -
the OP.

Aren't you curious at all? :lol:

 

[Quag]

If you say you're not an atheist, then, instead of arguing with me.... perhaps you should be asking atheists how on earth have they come to the conclusion that God does not exists.

I have argued with militant atheists here at DP. However on this thread you are the one spewing the nonsense, claimign science supports your position, it does not.

That's the most logical question that a non-atheist would ask upon reading - and UNDERSTANDING -
the OP.

I read the Op and you got it backwards, the burden of proof is with those who STATE that God(s) exist. You also made a strawman argument on what atheiests actually beleive.

Aren't you curious at all? :lol:

Curious about what?

 

[cowen70]

SCIENCE SAID IT CANNOT PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXISTS.

Science didn't say that because science already rests on the ability to think critically and knows you can't prove a negative, it has however been knocking off peoples resting points on why god might exist and every other block religion rested its head on for hundreds of years.

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

No. The most common assumption of atheists is that they rely on evidence based beliefs and that they would believe in God if presented with evidence. Without any evidence though like with any other ridiculous notion without evidence you don't believe God exists in the same way without evidence you don't believe unicorns exist. But with evidence you would of course.

This is how an adult thinks, the ridiculous characterisation of atheists as children belies your own inability to argue the topic.

Various fields of science points favorably to Creation.

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

Nothing at all in science has ever pointed towards creation. Creationists hang their hat on ignorance and insert a god of the gaps. This is not proof it is sophistry and nothing to do with science.

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.

A very small amount of scientists are creationists, a tiny tiny amount in fact. Far more have converted away from the faith.

In fact faith only grows around poor education, atheism arises with good education. How is that church attendance looking in Europe? Bleak. Take out the immigrants? Bleaker still.

Even Philosophy and Logic greatly supports the existence of God.

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

No good irrefutable philosophy or logic does.

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.

So made a few statements and that is enough to change the burden of proof? No Burden of Proof is upon the unevidenced claim.

Believer":

No evidence for God.
You believe in God
Burden of proof on you

Atheist:

No evidence for God
Takes lack of evidence as reason not to believe
Will accept evidence of God and waits patiently
For that burden of proof

Give me enough time I could make a haiku out of it if I thought it would get it into that head.

 

[tosca1]

Science didn't say that because science already rests on the ability to think critically and knows you can't prove a negative, it has however been knocking off peoples resting points on why god might exist and every other block religion rested its head on for hundreds of years.



No. The most common assumption of atheists is that they rely on evidence based beliefs and that they would believe in God if presented with evidence. Without any evidence though like with any other ridiculous notion without evidence you don't believe God exists in the same way without evidence you don't believe unicorns exist. But with evidence you would of course.

This is how an adult thinks, the ridiculous characterisation of atheists as children belies your own inability to argue the topic.




Nothing at all in science has ever pointed towards creation. Creationists hang their hat on ignorance and insert a god of the gaps. This is not proof it is sophistry and nothing to do with science.




A very small amount of scientists are creationists, a tiny tiny amount in fact. Far more have converted away from the faith.

In fact faith only grows around poor education, atheism arises with good education. How is that church attendance looking in Europe? Bleak. Take out the immigrants? Bleaker still.




No good irrefutable philosophy or logic does.




So made a few statements and that is enough to change the burden of proof? No Burden of Proof is upon the unevidenced claim.

Believer":

No evidence for God.
You believe in God
Burden of proof on you

Atheist:

No evidence for God
Takes lack of evidence as reason not to believe
Will accept evidence of God and waits patiently
For that burden of proof

Give me enough time I could make a haiku out of it if I thought it would get it into that head.

In the end, it still boils down to the basis of atheists' belief that God does not exists.
The burden of proof lies on their doorstep for obvious reasons. Read my given arguments.
I don't want to rehash what's been given already. A good place to start would be the OP.
Posts #105, 106, 107, 112 and 132.

 

[zyzygy]

In the end, it still boils down to the basis of atheists' belief that God does not exists.
The burden of proof lies on their doorstep for obvious reasons. Read my given arguments.
I don't want to rehash what's been given already. A good place to start would be the OP.
Posts #105, 106, 107, 112 and 132.

I do not say that god (or gods) exist, I only say that I have never seen any evidence of the existence of any god or gods. I do not have to prove anything, deists of whichever religion claim that their god or gods exist, it's up the them to provide evidence.

 

[CLAX1911]

Explain where you see a circle?

If you started with a conclusion that is combination bias.

 

[CLAX1911]

No, I'm pointing out the lack of evidence and saying that it's reasonable to conclude that gods don't exist. Same with unicorns, vampires, and the Loch Ness Monster. And all gods, not just the the particular one that our culture happens to grant special exception to. Meanwhile, there is evidence that things like cheese, cars, and Bruno Mars all exist, so it's reasonable to conclude that they do.

So are you saying it is unreasonable to think God may exist?

 

[DDD]

You mean not all scientists make the claim that they cannot prove that God does not exists?
You're saying....some can prove God does not exist?

Scientists do not make logical fallacies. That would be appealing to the unknown. This is so because it is illogical to disprove a negative. One deals with what one has, not what one imagines.

Who are these scientists who "appeal to the unknown?"

Because they do, right?

I'm outa here! I don't have to bother reading the rest....that intro was enough.

Just any general scientist still valuing their career would not make this most elementary mistake of appealing to the unknown. Claiming that "My invisible, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Unicorn can kick your God's ass" would be one example of such appeals.

There are no actual empirical evidence of "God" nor "Flying Unicorns" thereby there is not point to disproving a negative.

 

[Ikari]

You say that....because you didn't get them. That's not my problem.

What more....coming from an atheist whose belief contradicts the very thing (science) you rely upon.....and whose belief clearly lies on pure fantasy!

So you'll understand if I just ignore you - and some of you - until you've got something reasonable to say.

Even if you have logical reasons to believe, logical reasons to believe are not proof. Where's the proof?

 

[Ikari]

In the end, it still boils down to the basis of atheists' belief that God does not exists.
The burden of proof lies on their doorstep for obvious reasons. Read my given arguments.
I don't want to rehash what's been given already. A good place to start would be the OP.
Posts #105, 106, 107, 112 and 132.

Burden of proof is not on atheists, burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. That's how it works. All you've done is try to make a big song and dance because you cannot PROVE that gods do exist and you're tired of being asked for it. So you're trying to turn the tables, but have done so very poorly.

 

[cowen70]

In the end, it still boils down to the basis of atheists' belief that God does not exists.
The burden of proof lies on their doorstep for obvious reasons. Read my given arguments.
I don't want to rehash what's been given already. A good place to start would be the OP.
Posts #105, 106, 107, 112 and 132.

All your posts of a rehash of an OP that has no basis.

Belief in non existence rests on lack of evidence. You can't prove a negative so there is no belief in the evidence of a negative or the reliance on doing so. Instead it is disbelief in lieu of evidence.

So the burden of proof is on the existence and on the bringing forth of the evidence.

So this entire thread is a giant waste of time as you trying a bait and switch to the disproving of a negative. That is dishonest, does your god approve of dishonesty?

Instead man up, argue with my own (and others) actual position instead of lying to try to vainly win an argument.