The burden of proof

[Visbek]

I have not argued from a scientific perspective. I have argue from a personally experiential perspective. And that too is empirical evidence if you use the definitions of empirical evidence honestly and not prejudicially as some of you insist on doing.

No, it really isn't. It's subjective.

If someone stabs me, the pain I feel is subjective; I am the only one who has access to that experiential component. The blood on the knife, and the wound, any recordings of the action of stabbing are objective and empirical.

If someone claims they had a vision of Jesus in the middle of a crowded room, and no one else had the same experience, that's not an empirical claim. It's a subjective one. No one can verify you had that vision, no tools can verify it, no experiments can be run to determine if it's likely to happen agan.

 

[calamity]

I don't know how many different ways I can say to you that I have not argued that one person can prove to another that God exists.

Read. Thread. Title.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Read. Thread. Title.

I didn't write the thread title but I started out with the premise of the OP that was for the Atheists to show their evidence for their conviction that there is no God. Ya'll all were pretty unified that such could not be done. So you turned it around and, yet again, have demanded that believers prove there IS a God which is equally absurd on the face of it. As is the fact that you justify your belief that there is no God because believers cannot prove that there is a God. It would make as much sense for believers to justify their belief in God because you can't prove that there isn't one.

Any rational person evaluating that argument honestly and objectively, however, has to give the point for that debate thusly:
Believers - 1.
Atheists - zip.

 

[AlbqOwl]

And now folks the arguments have become extremely repetitive and circular and are becoming quite tedious and boring.

And not one of you have even acknowledged, much less accepted my challenge to do this scientifically.

I have enjoyed the discussion, but repetitive and circular is not my preferred style of debate or discussion so I'll bid you adieu here. Wishing the best for each one of you and I hope you'll at least consider trying my challenge to you.

 

[roguenuke]

I didn't write the thread title but I started out with the premise of the OP that was for the Atheists to show their evidence for their conviction that there is no God. Ya'll all were pretty unified that such could not be done. So you turned it around and, yet again, have demanded that believers prove there IS a God which is equally absurd on the face of it. As is the fact that you justify your belief that there is no God because believers cannot prove that there is a God. It would make as much sense for believers to justify their belief in God because you can't prove that there isn't one.

Any rational person evaluating that argument honestly and objectively, however, has to give the point for that debate thusly:
Believers - 1.
Atheists - zip.

No we haven't demanded that evidence, especially not specifically in these discussions with you. The vast majority if not all in this discussion have simply been saying that you don't have any empirical, as in scientifically testable evidence of God. This doesn't mean that you don't have what you consider evidence of God. It simply means that you have no evidence that you can test and/or show to others that they would all come to the same conclusion as "yes, that is God".

I'm not sure how many true atheists you have discussing this with you on this thread, but I don't think it is as many as you think. For instance, I'm not atheist. I am an agnostic that leans heavily toward believing in a higher power and an afterlife, although likely very different than what you believe in. Not being in the majority though at all when it comes to religious beliefs though, I can see the arguments more easily. There are so many people who tell me that I am wrong because basically they believe that their experiences are somehow more substantial than mine. They don't know any more than I do, but none of our experiences are empirical evidence of anything, but simply evidence for each of us to believe as we do. You don't have to justify your belief in God, but neither should I have to justify my disbelief in your idea of God.

 

[Faydra]

So here's a 'scientific' challenge for all you unbelievers.

Give God permission to make God known to you. Do not put any restrictions on how God will do that. Do not put any time limit on when God must do that. Just give him permission to make himself known. And then wait. Minutes, hours, days, years. . . .I do not put any requirements on God ever. . . .

And then you'll know.

Okay. Done. Until I hear from him/her/it, I'll remain athiest though.

 

[Visbek]

So you turned it around and, yet again, have demanded that believers prove there IS a God which is equally absurd on the face of it.

Except... it isn't.

It seems absurd -- to you -- because "God exists" is your default position. You show little or no interest in entertaining the opposite notion. As a result, you fail to see the critical difference between the positions. Specifically:

The claim is that God has actual causal power in our universe; many claim it has direct, intentional causal effects on human beings, including their own lives. If that's the case, we ought to be able to prove it.

For example, if I claim that "you get sick because of viruses," we have specific standards of evidence and tests we can use to determine that's the case. This is so well established that your local doctor doesn't need to do 3 years of research in order to prove that it's a virus that gives you the sniffles.

And yet, we are supposed to make an exception for supernatural explanations -- why, exactly...?

Yet again: Deities don't display much reticence in convincing people to believe in them. Jesus repeatedly displayed his supernatural powers in order to convince people of his divinity. HaShem repeatedly spoke directly to the Jews, and overtly intervened in their lives. Yet today... what, exactly? Jesus was happy to turn water into wine, but only that one time?

I.e. it's a double standard. You claim that your deity is causal, but balk at providing the same standard of evidence we apply to any other claims about causal agents. Hence, the burden of proof is not on the ones asserting an absence.

We also haven't spent much time discussing the inconsistencies of beliefs in deities, in part because when asked, no one bothers to articulate the properties of said deity. Not that it matters, since people frequently ignore such inconsistencies, or are unaware of the consequences thereof. Go figure.

 

[roughdraft274]

False, religion creates a clear and concise definition of God.

For example, all Christians believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and loving God.

Belief is not irrational, not until we find out the answer to every single thing in the universe, namely the origins of such if they even exist.

Many Christians don't believe in an "all-loving" god if that's what you are referring too.

Also, many Christians don't believe in an all powerful god. They rather define it as a god who is "as powerful as is logically possible". Because they have been confronted with questions such as "can god make a rock so big that he himself can't move it?" To which the only rational answer is no.

And besides that, Christians disagree all over the world on every single possible point of doctrine. You can't find two people in the same church often times who agree on every point of doctrine and what every bible verse refers to.

To say that just saying "I am a Christian" gives someone a clear definition of that persons god is silly.

 

[roughdraft274]

Same here, the only time I don't like an atheist or agnostic is when they try to persecute and kill others, and that's happened in history quite a bit before.

One example would be hitler (who only spared the church and talked of an almighty creator in public for political reasons) who ordered the massacre of Jews

1. You don't get to decide what religion a person is.

2. How many of the Nazi's who were Catholic (a very large portion) were ex-communicated from the church? Do you know the answer?

 

[William Rea]

You haven't been following my arguments on this thread have you. Since I've already covered that, I'll just ask you to look up 'false analogy' on your list of logical fallacies.

You are mistaken. I have been following your presuppositional apologetics closely, and that is all it is.

 

[William Rea]

If one will not accept the definition of empirical evidence, we are pretty well dead in the water on that subject. And you certainly have no authority or any basis to tell me I have not had the experiences that I have had.

You cannot define your argument into existence, which is what you are trying to do, and failing.

 

[William Rea]

How can it be claimed that a "God" as a concept is "logically supported" when the logical fallacy of appealing to the unknown is used as means to support such a concept?

Cod WLC philosophy.

 

[RAMOSS]

Explain why "proper definition" is necessary for something to be rational.

That is just one factor.. the factor is 'You can't describe what it is, nad you can' t provide any tangible evidence that it exists'. Put those two together, and then the belief is based on pure emotion and cultural conditioning, rather than being rational.

 

[RAMOSS]

So it's irrational to believe in an idea? I also do have a definition of the concept. It's a God concept. And God is a deity.

So what is irrational?

Is God and deity more than a concept? Or is it something that only exists as a concept and ideal?

 

[RAMOSS]

I have not argued from a scientific perspective. I have argue from a personally experiential perspective. And that too is empirical evidence if you use the definitions of empirical evidence honestly and not prejudicially as some of you insist on doing. And my personal experience is not useless to me and you have no authority, insight, or rational justification to presume that you know what is or is not useless to me.

You had an experience. Can you describe the experience, and show that the experience is more than a culturally directed interpretation of an emotional event? It is more than just having a feeling you interpret based on ways that are expected??

 

[roughdraft274]

I didn't write the thread title but I started out with the premise of the OP that was for the Atheists to show their evidence for their conviction that there is no God. Ya'll all were pretty unified that such could not be done. So you turned it around and, yet again, have demanded that believers prove there IS a God which is equally absurd on the face of it. As is the fact that you justify your belief that there is no God because believers cannot prove that there is a God. It would make as much sense for believers to justify their belief in God because you can't prove that there isn't one.

You just don't understand the way claims work. I'm sorry but it's true.

Firstly, the thread was started with a false premise. That atheists claim that there is no god. Atheists merely don't believe in a god. At no point in time do I ever claim to know that there is no god, or that I can prove there is no god.

Secondly, a lack of belief isn't a claim. A belief, however, is a claim. If you are saying "I believe in God" or "God exists", then you are making a claim. If you don't want to provide evidence for your claim, that's fine, but don't expect anyone to agree with you if you are unwilling to provide evidence.

Picture a jar of gumballs. It's filled with hundreds of gumballs and they are asking people to guess the number. I am there staring at it saying "I made a random guess, but I don't have any evidence for the number of gumballs, so as of right now, I don't know the number of gumballs."

You come along and say "The number of gumballs are odd. I know that. I experienced it". Well first off, if you want others to believe it's odd, you need to provide evidence. Secondly, I can say "I don't believe that the number is odd" and that DOES NOT mean that I think the number is even. It only means that I don't know and that I don't believe that the number is odd. You and tosca are standing there yelling on the other hand "well if you don't believe it's odd then you believe its even!" which is false.

And when you say that you have personal experience, you must demonstrate the veracity of that claim, because there are others also claiming to have a personal experience with other gods. So unless one of you can provide evidence, your personal experiences cancel each other out. Which you can't seem to understand.

I've dealth with some hard headed theists in my day, but I am still just amazed that we have found two that are just so dishonest that they will continually lie about what atheists claim. You are a very poor reflection of the Christian community in my opinion.

 

[cowen70]

I have not argued from a scientific perspective. I have argue from a personally experiential perspective. And that too is empirical evidence if you use the definitions of empirical evidence honestly and not prejudicially as some of you insist on doing. And my personal experience is not useless to me and you have no authority, insight, or rational justification to presume that you know what is or is not useless to me.

Its useless in the context of the thread, did you notice the thread you were posting in? Burden of proof and who it should be on, empirical evidence in that context is radically different to the sort you discuss.

Which is of course useless to anyone but you, and if you were honest with yourself useless to you as well. There is a reason why in terms of evidence, especially in the context of this thread, empirical evidence is by my definition.

Why is it useless to you? well if you are experiencing things and can't bring it into the real world you have no way to understand whether or not it is self delusion.

 

[RAMOSS]

I haven't argued any interpretations from my experiences--I have only related what I have experienced--and you have no authority, ability, or justification to presume you know what I have experienced and/or that I have interpreted it wrongly.

Why is it you suppose, that you are so certain I could not have experienced God but you are so certain that you are competent to evaluate what I have experienced?

And, I am not denying you had an experience. What I am saying is that you can't show what you experienced WAS God.

 

[calamity]

I didn't write the thread title but I started out with the premise of the OP that was for the Atheists to show their evidence for their conviction that there is no God. Ya'll all were pretty unified that such could not be done. So you turned it around and, yet again, have demanded that believers prove there IS a God which is equally absurd on the face of it. As is the fact that you justify your belief that there is no God because believers cannot prove that there is a God. It would make as much sense for believers to justify their belief in God because you can't prove that there isn't one.

Any rational person evaluating that argument honestly and objectively, however, has to give the point for that debate thusly:
Believers - 1.
Atheists - zip.

You can't prove that there are no purple unicorns. Does that mean they exist?

 

[CLAX1911]

That is just one factor.. the factor is 'You can't describe what it is, nad you can' t provide any tangible evidence that it exists'. Put those two together, and then the belief is based on pure emotion and cultural conditioning, rather than being rational.

So now there has to be tangible evidence of something to rationally believe it? Do those goal posts ever stop moving?

I believe there could be intelligent life on other planets but there isn't any tangible evidence of that. Is that belief irrational? Or are those magical moving goal posts going to move once again.

Forget the pandering to arguments I didn't make.

Explain why a description and tangible evidence is necessary to rationally believe something.

 

[CLAX1911]

Is God and deity more than a concept? Or is it something that only exists as a concept and ideal?

That's really a difficult question to answer.

 

[tosca1]

THE ABSURDITY OF ATHEISM

So you're an atheist. Mazel Tov, at least you aren't wishy washy. As a former atheist myself, I won't condemn you. How could I? Some atheists think they've taken a heroic stand, but could it be that they really don't want to face up to the possibility that God is indeed there? I hope you'll be intellectually honest enough to consider what I have to say and see if it makes sense.

No one who has prejudged an issue can be convinced of anything contrary to what he wants to believe. There are still those who insist the earth is flat and no one can convince them otherwise, no matter what the evidence. There are always folks, no matter if religious or atheistic, who stubbornly believe what they prefer, no matter if reason and fact show otherwise. Someone like this has the unspoken philosophy: Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is already made up. Ask yourself: Am I open-minded or narrow minded? Am I willing to change my mind if I can be shown atheism doesn't make sense?

You might say, If God is there, let him prove it to me. I don't want to take an irrational leap of faith. Fine. In Isaiah 2:18 God says: come let us reason together. He wants us to reason and He certainly wants us to be be rational, but He will not submit himself to human scrutiny; to do so he would need to stop being God! He will not bow to our perverse judgements. Ask yourself, Would I ever be willing to believe God is there, however strong the evidence? You see, your problem may not be in your head as much as in your heart. Perhaps you've already taken a leap of faith. To assert God cannot exist, despite the impossibility of proving that statement, is the ultimate irrational leap!


More....

A Little Message for Atheistic Friends...

 

[Peter Grimm]

There is no burden of proof, in this case.

There is only the freedom to believe whatever you choose to believe, as a free-thinking individual.

 

[DDD]

Blatch is irrelevant. How you formulated the argument made it a false analogy. Why use "Blatch"? Why not the Flying Purple People Eater or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Tinker Bell? This form of reductio ad absurdum can be useful in some arguments. But I have not claimed any experience with 'Blatch' and therefore he is irrelevant to the argument.

"God" is irrelevant. How you formulate an argument about God makes it false. Why use "God"? Why not the Flying Purple People Eater or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Tinker Bell? This form of reductio ad absurdum can be useful in some arguments. But I have not claimed any experience with 'God' and therefore he is irrelevant to the argument.

 

[DDD]

THE ABSURDITY OF ATHEISM

So you're an atheist. Mazel Tov, at least you aren't wishy washy. As a former atheist myself, I won't condemn you. How could I? Some atheists think they've taken a heroic stand, but could it be that they really don't want to face up to the possibility that God is indeed there? I hope you'll be intellectually honest enough to consider what I have to say and see if it makes sense.

Personal info.

No one who has prejudged an issue can be convinced of anything contrary to what he wants to believe. There are still those who insist the earth is flat and no one can convince them otherwise, no matter what the evidence. There are always folks, no matter if religious or atheistic, who stubbornly believe what they prefer, no matter if reason and fact show otherwise. Someone like this has the unspoken philosophy: Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is already made up. Ask yourself: Am I open-minded or narrow minded? Am I willing to change my mind if I can be shown atheism doesn't make sense?

Okay, and?

You might say, If God is there, let him prove it to me. I don't want to take an irrational leap of faith. Fine. In Isaiah 2:18 God says: come let us reason together. He wants us to reason and He certainly wants us to be be rational, but He will not submit himself to human scrutiny; to do so he would need to stop being God! He will not bow to our perverse judgements.

Provide actual empirical evidence that: a) God exists, b) there is communication between God and people, and c) in that communication those are the positions of God.

Ask yourself, Would I ever be willing to believe God is there, however strong the evidence?

Yes, if a constant observation if made of such deity then my beliefs would change. So what?

You see, your problem may not be in your head as much as in your heart. Perhaps you've already taken a leap of faith. To assert God cannot exist, despite the impossibility of proving that statement, is the ultimate irrational leap!

No, that would be a logical fallacy named: Appealing to the unknown. As mentioned earlier, should anyone make the mistake of appealing to the unknown then any imaginary creation can "come to life" in their heads only because there would not be evidence to show that it does not exist. This includes: Spagheti Monster, Blatch (see description above), Frying Pink Unicorns, etc.

In order to ascertain whether something is real in an objective reality then what exists should be supported with evidence, and not what does not exists.

Is this it?