The problem with religion

[DrewPaul]

Just replace 'universe' with 'creator.' Same difference. If the universe was caused by a Creator, what caused the creator. Considering we can observe and quantify the universe and naturalistic forces, there is nothing to suggest anything other than the naturalistic. Claiming there's intent behind it confers the burden of proof on you and is something you cannot possibly know. It is mere belief or assumption.

My burden is to refute the claim you made in the OP. It was what I objected to. It maybe true there is no Creator, it isn't true there is no evidence we owe our existence to a Creator. That is a favorite axiom of atheists and it is false.

First, religion makes statements of "truth" without actually supporting them with anything empirical. The easiest example is the claim that "god exists!" But there is no evidence or proof of any god/s existing outside of someone saying they do.

I'm refuting your claim by showing there are facts which make the existence of a Creator more probable than minus said facts. That is evidence.

If the universe was caused by naturalistic forces, what caused the naturalistic forces? Does this mean it couldn't have been caused unintentionally by naturalistic forces? Of course not. You don't have to know what caused the natural forces, that caused the universe to exist to claim it was the result naturalistic forces and offer evidence that was the case. Either do I.

 

[vegas giants]

My burden is to refute the claim you made in the OP. It was what I objected to. It maybe true there is no Creator, it isn't true there is no evidence we owe our existence to a Creator. That is a favorite axiom of atheists and it is false.

First, religion makes statements of "truth" without actually supporting them with anything empirical. The easiest example is the claim that "god exists!" But there is no evidence or proof of any god/s existing outside of someone saying they do.

I'm refuting your claim by showing there are facts which make the existence of a Creator more probable than minus said facts. That is evidence.

If the universe was caused by naturalistic forces, what caused the naturalistic forces? Does this mean it couldn't have been caused unintentionally by naturalistic forces? Of course not. You don't have to know what caused the natural forces, that caused the universe to exist to claim it was the result naturalistic forces and offer evidence that was the case. Either do I.

You believe in a Creator that always existed but can't believe in a universe that always existed

That's illogical

 

[Gordy327]

My burden is to refute the claim you made in the OP. It was what I objected to. It maybe true there is no Creator, it isn't true there is no evidence we owe our existence to a Creator. That is a favorite axiom of atheists and it is false.

First, religion makes statements of "truth" without actually supporting them with anything empirical. The easiest example is the claim that "god exists!" But there is no evidence or proof of any god/s existing outside of someone saying they do.

I'm refuting your claim by showing there are facts which make the existence of a Creator more probable than minus said facts. That is evidence.

If the universe was caused by naturalistic forces, what caused the naturalistic forces? Does this mean it couldn't have been caused unintentionally by naturalistic forces? Of course not. You don't have to know what caused the natural forces, that caused the universe to exist to claim it was the result naturalistic forces and offer evidence that was the case. Either do I.

If you're going to claim there's a creator as fact, you incur the burden of proving it. You refuted nothing. If anything, you only affirm the first point presented in the article. If you claim there is a Creator, then prove there is one.

 

[gboisjo]

Yes, the universe exists. That much is certain. What is not certain is if there is a "creator" behind it. Before you can make the claim of a "creator" as fact, you must first define what this creator is. Nothing can be asserted as actual "truth" without established facts. Religion tend to be fast and loose with how it uses "truth." Religion also tends to claim there is creator for the universe, but cannot explain what created the creator if one follows the line of logic.

A first cause, if there is one. Its possible the universe is eternal, no beginning, no end.

 

[DrewPaul]

If you're going to claim there's a creator as fact, you incur the burden of proving it. You refuted nothing. If anything, you only affirm the first point presented in the article. If you claim there is a Creator, then prove there is one.

You're moving the goal posts again.

This is my first exchange with you.

Gordy: First, religion makes statements of "truth" without actually supporting them with anything empirical. The easiest example is the claim that "god exists!" But there is no evidence or proof of any god/s existing outside of someone saying they do. Some even go so far to claim their god, beliefs, and/or religion are "true" and all others are false. That's just a downright arrogant statement. If someone makes a claim for something, especially an outrageous claim, would you not want some kind of evidence? So why are claims of god generally accepted, no questions asked (or explanations offered)? That segues into the next problem of religion:

My response.

That is the favorite argument of atheists but its false. There are facts that support the belief we owe our existence to a Creator just as there are facts that support belief in evolution. Granted you won't accept any fact as evidence in favor theism. But that can't be helped all atheists empirically declare there is no evidence, no fact that supports belief in a creator. No matter what way I demonstrate its not true.

If you're going to claim there's a creator as fact, you incur the burden of proving it.

I claimed there is evidence in favor of the belief we owe our existence to a Creator. That is my burden and I'm offering evidence in favor of the belief in a Creator.

Your burden is to support your claim 'there is no evidence or proof of any god/s existing outside of someone saying they do.'
Do you want to support that statement or retract it?

 

[Bubber]

The person I responded to argued just that. That person may not actually believe it either. Sometime people raise objections they don't actually believe just to throw mud on the wall so to speak. Or attempt death by a thousand inane questions.

On the basis the consensus among scientists is the universe began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago. Do you doubt that? If so why?

Well... I would agree (as would most cosmologists would I presume) that the universe began expanding about 13.7 billion years ago. But that's an important distinction. We are not claiming that was necessarily the beginning. In fact, there are many arguments to it being one of many expansions. But this is a digression...
Why do you think that the existence of the universe is evidence for a creator? I'm not following that line. It seems like you are prima facie arguing the existence of the universe requires a creator... I would like to back up to that logical leap and ask why you think it does. (If that is what you think)

 

[gboisjo]

If some sort of a creator exist, I would argue it cares for us no more than it does a rock on Mars.

 

[Gordy327]

A first cause, if there is one. Its possible the universe is eternal, no beginning, no end.

I tend to agree. Some theists claim a "creator" always existed. So why can't the same be said of the universe?

 

[gboisjo]

are many arguments to it being one of many expansions.

A eternal, pulsating universe.

Bottom line, no one knows what the origin of the universe is.

The best we can do going backwards is the Big Bang, what preceded it, is unknown.

Inserting a man made god, creator via religion is laughable.

 

[gboisjo]

I claimed there is evidence in favor of the belief we owe our existence to a Creator. That is my burden and I'm offering evidence in favor of the belief in a Creator.

Belief is not evidence.

 

[Gordy327]

You're moving the goal posts again.

This is my first exchange with you.

Gordy: First, religion makes statements of "truth" without actually supporting them with anything empirical. The easiest example is the claim that "god exists!" But there is no evidence or proof of any god/s existing outside of someone saying they do. Some even go so far to claim their god, beliefs, and/or religion are "true" and all others are false. That's just a downright arrogant statement. If someone makes a claim for something, especially an outrageous claim, would you not want some kind of evidence? So why are claims of god generally accepted, no questions asked (or explanations offered)? That segues into the next problem of religion:

My response.

That is the favorite argument of atheists but its false. There are facts that support the belief we owe our existence to a Creator just as there are facts that support belief in evolution. Granted you won't accept any fact as evidence in favor theism. But that can't be helped all atheists empirically declare there is no evidence, no fact that supports belief in a creator. No matter what way I demonstrate its not true.



I claimed there is evidence in favor of the belief we owe our existence to a Creator. That is my burden and I'm offering evidence in favor of the belief in a Creator.

Your burden is to support your claim 'there is no evidence or proof of any god/s existing outside of someone saying they do.'
Do you want to support that statement or retract it?

You say there are facts, but offer none outside of the universe existing. You're essentially trying to turn it around by trying to shift the burden of proof to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy. Not only do you claim there is a Creator, but that said Creator intentionally created the universe. That's quite a claim to prove.

 

[Daisy]

The Problem with Religion...

99.97500% of them are wrong...

 

[gboisjo]

You say there are facts, but offer none outside of the universe existing. You're essentially trying to turn it around by trying to shift the burden of proof to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy. Not only do you claim there is a Creator, but that said Creator intentionally created the universe. That's quite a claim to prove.

Faith and belief in gods are not proof of anything.

They are man made concoctions born out fear, ignorance and superstition.

 

[gboisjo]

The Problem with Religion...

99.97500% of them are wrong...

Everybody else is wrong and your right, do you have any idea how absurd your faith argument is..

Your reaction score speaks volumes, nobody agrees with you.

 

[Gordy327]

Faith and belief in gods are not proof of anything.

They are man made concoctions born out fear, ignorance and superstition.

Exactly!

Everybody else is wrong and your right, do you have any idea how absurd your faith argument is..

Your reaction score speaks volumes, nobody agrees with you.

Exactly X 2. But not just absurd, but also arrogant.

 

[Daisy]

Everybody else is wrong and your right, do you have any idea how absurd your faith argument is..

Your reaction score speaks volumes, nobody agrees with you.

lol...this ain't no popularity contest...I graduated high school years ago...

 

[DrewPaul]

You say there are facts, but offer none outside of the universe existing. You're essentially trying to turn it around by trying to shift the burden of proof to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy. Not only do you claim there is a Creator, but that said Creator intentionally created the universe. That's quite a claim to prove.

Its a belief I can offer evidence in favor of. You denied there is any evidence. I'm only giving you the burden you asked for.

The fact life exists is also evidence that favors the belief in the existence of a Creator and that our existence was intentionally caused. The hypothesis of theism is that a Creator caused the universe to exist for the purpose of causing life to exist. The fact life does exist makes the claim more probable than if life didn't exist. A universe without life would falsify the claim it was intentionally caused for life to exist. It would also make the claim the universe was caused by naturalistic forces that didn't intend life to exist, much more probable. That is your claim isn't it?

 

[surada]

Here, argue with these gentlemen:

Sahih International: Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Pickthall: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Yusuf Ali: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Shakir: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Muhammad Sarwar: Fight against those People of the Book who have no faith in God or the Day of Judgment, who do not consider unlawful what God and His Messenger have made unlawful, and who do not believe in the true religion, until they humbly pay tax with their own hands.

Mohsin Khan: Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Arberry: Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.



Now we can add ad homs to the list of fallacies that you use.

Only able-bodied men who would not defend the community paid jizya.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

In short, Religion actually does little good...

It might do some individuals some good.
I am not a religious person, but I have seen some people who seem to get a lot of strength from their faith during difficult times.

 

[Bubber]

Its a belief I can offer evidence in favor of. You denied there is any evidence. I'm only giving you the burden you asked for.

The fact life exists is also evidence that favors the belief in the existence of a Creator and that our existence was intentionally caused. The hypothesis of theism is that a Creator caused the universe to exist for the purpose of causing life to exist. The fact life does exist makes the claim more probable than if life didn't exist. A universe without life would falsify the claim it was intentionally caused for life to exist. It would also make the claim the universe was caused by naturalistic forces that didn't intend life to exist, much more probable. That is your claim isn't it?

And there is the proper word in the proper spot.... A Hypothesis is a proposal seeking evidence. A proposed explanation to fit the facts, but not a proven fact in itself. The real question is why you think that a creator is the best explanation for the existence of the universe. Why do you think a deity is required?

 

[Gordy327]

Its a belief I can offer evidence in favor of. You denied there is any evidence. I'm only giving you the burden you asked for.

The fact life exists is also evidence that favors the belief in the existence of a Creator and that our existence was intentionally caused. The hypothesis of theism is that a Creator caused the universe to exist for the purpose of causing life to exist. The fact life does exist makes the claim more probable than if life didn't exist. A universe without life would falsify the claim it was intentionally caused for life to exist. It would also make the claim the universe was caused by naturalistic forces that didn't intend life to exist, much more probable. That is your claim isn't it?

Belief does not equal fact. If belief is all you have, then you have essentially nothing. Simply calling something "evidence" does not make it so. Neither is it compelling or persuasive. Whether the universe has life or not is irrelevant. You're simply assuming a "creator" is necessary for either. You haven't even defined this Creator, much less proven its existence. You're engaging an an affirming the cosequent fallacy.

 

[soylentgreen]

My burden is to refute the claim you made in the OP. It was what I objected to. It maybe true there is no Creator, it isn't true there is no evidence we owe our existence to a Creator. That is a favorite axiom of atheists and it is false.

First, religion makes statements of "truth" without actually supporting them with anything empirical. The easiest example is the claim that "god exists!" But there is no evidence or proof of any god/s existing outside of someone saying they do.

I'm refuting your claim by showing there are facts which make the existence of a Creator more probable than minus said facts. That is evidence.

If the universe was caused by naturalistic forces, what caused the naturalistic forces? Does this mean it couldn't have been caused unintentionally by naturalistic forces? Of course not. You don't have to know what caused the natural forces, that caused the universe to exist to claim it was the result naturalistic forces and offer evidence that was the case. Either do I.

That does not work at all. As I have no reason to suspect supernatural forces. Especially when I can point out that natural causes are what explains events. To throw in a god is to add an extra complication for which no other basis is given other than we do not know so lets make shit up.

 

[soylentgreen]

You're moving the goal posts again.

This is my first exchange with you.

Gordy: First, religion makes statements of "truth" without actually supporting them with anything empirical. The easiest example is the claim that "god exists!" But there is no evidence or proof of any god/s existing outside of someone saying they do. Some even go so far to claim their god, beliefs, and/or religion are "true" and all others are false. That's just a downright arrogant statement. If someone makes a claim for something, especially an outrageous claim, would you not want some kind of evidence? So why are claims of god generally accepted, no questions asked (or explanations offered)? That segues into the next problem of religion:

My response.

That is the favorite argument of atheists but its false. There are facts that support the belief we owe our existence to a Creator just as there are facts that support belief in evolution. Granted you won't accept any fact as evidence in favor theism. But that can't be helped all atheists empirically declare there is no evidence, no fact that supports belief in a creator. No matter what way I demonstrate its not true.



I claimed there is evidence in favor of the belief we owe our existence to a Creator. That is my burden and I'm offering evidence in favor of the belief in a Creator.

Your burden is to support your claim 'there is no evidence or proof of any god/s existing outside of someone saying they do.'
Do you want to support that statement or retract it?

You claim there is evidence yet all you give is bias thinking . That is not evidence.

 

[soylentgreen]

It might do some individuals some good.
I am not a religious person, but I have seen some people who seem to get a lot of strength from their faith during difficult times.

Which is also proof of how correct marx was when he called religion an opiate. When used correctly religion and opiates can relieve pain. When use incorrectly religion and opiates become an addictive and destructive drug.

 

[stevecanuck]

Only able-bodied men who would not defend the community paid jizya.

Do you even realize that we're talking about the obligations thrust upon people that Muslims have conquered per explicit instruction in 9:29???

Seriously? THAT's your take-away????