A Question for Creationists

[sandy whitelinger]

Which is not an easy thing to do, not the sort of thing that's likely to happen by sheer fluke

Anthropic principle?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Dunno. I just read an interesting article yesterday that said some Japanese species of monkeys are messing around sexually with deer, so I suppose it's possible. But irrelevant to this topic of discussion nonetheless.

Aauugghhh. That's just wrong.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Wrong again. If you want to claim that a god exists the burden of proof is upon you. Until then we understand how life evolved. You are trying to use a tautology, that is a logical fallacy on your part.

No it goes both ways, if you say, there is no God, then the burden of proof is on you also.
Alot of people seem to think it's a one way street and it's not. So It goes both ways.

So if I believe there is God, What's that to you.
I have nothing to prove to anyone, except to myself.

 

[Polymath257]

No it goes both ways, if you say, there is no God, then the burden of proof is on you also.
Alot of people seem to think it's a one way street and it's not. So It goes both ways.

No, actually, it doesn't.

For example, a scientist that claims that a new particle exists has the burden of showing the existence of that particle. Those scientists that do not think it exists do not have a burden to prove non-existence.

The reason is quite simple: proving existence is as simple as showing the object claimed to exist. A proof of non-existence of *anything* is quite hard and may well be impossible. The only ways to actually prove non-existence is to 1) find a self-contradiction in the concept, or 2) find a situation where it *should* appear but does not.

Absent a complete contradiction (which is rare in considering the real world), a proof of non-existence requires a situation where the thing should appear. But *theists* have produced no such situation. They have given no claim that God *should* appear in some situation so we can actually test the claim.

Absent this, the only possibility is an actual existence proof. And that is why the burden of proof is on the one making the positive existence claim.

So if I believe there is God, What's that to you.
I have nothing to prove to anyone, except to myself.

Nothing wrong with that unless you want others to agree or even give it serious consideration. For that matter, you could believe in the existence of garden gnomes, and that would be quite fine unless you want someone else to consider that existence seriously.

 

[Faithofchristian]

No, actually, it doesn't.

For example, a scientist that claims that a new particle exists has the burden of showing the existence of that particle. Those scientists that do not think it exists do not have a burden to prove non-existence.

The reason is quite simple: proving existence is as simple as showing the object claimed to exist. A proof of non-existence of *anything* is quite hard and may well be impossible. The only ways to actually prove non-existence is to 1) find a self-contradiction in the concept, or 2) find a situation where it *should* appear but does not.

Absent a complete contradiction (which is rare in considering the real world), a proof of non-existence requires a situation where the thing should appear. But *theists* have produced no such situation. They have given no claim that God *should* appear in some situation so we can actually test the claim.

Absent this, the only possibility is an actual existence proof. And that is why the burden of proof is on the one making the positive existence claim.



Nothing wrong with that unless you want others to agree or even give it serious consideration. For that matter, you could believe in the existence of garden gnomes, and that would be quite fine unless you want someone else to consider that existence seriously.

Look we're not talking about what scientist will say.
It's about what I believe and what another person does not believe.

So the burden of proof goes both ways.
So don't even try it, to bring up about what scientist will say, that has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Therefore if you say, there is no God, Your called to give proof to what you say, just as much as for anyone else.

But if I say, there is God, What's that to You.

 

[Darkstorn]

Therefore if you say, there is no God, Your called to give proof to what you say, just as much as for anyone else.

I just want to clear something up. Not all atheists will even make that claim. For one simple reason: It's pointless to give a definite answer to something that:

A. Is not verified.

B. Can not be verified.

I don't think he's saying that there is no god. At least i wouldn't say that. I would instead say: There is no reason for me to believe in the existence OR non-existence of something not verified. And in this case, it's not even verifiable, because it is not a testable concept.

However, the following claim is neutral: There is no evidence for the existence or non-existence for gods. The burden of proof IS on the one making a positive claim in this case.

It would be wrong to say that there definitely is no god, i agree. But it's also wrong to shift the burden of proof in cases where no negative claim has been made to begin with.

But if I say, there is God, What's that to You.

Well, to me it means you are in the wrong forum. It's not a proper debate to make a claim that you're not even going to support. It sounds like proselytizing.

"I just know" is not really a valid argument in a debate. Just my two cents.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it goes both ways, if you say, there is no God, then the burden of proof is on you also.
Alot of people seem to think it's a one way street and it's not. So It goes both ways.

So if I believe there is God, What's that to you.
I have nothing to prove to anyone, except to myself.

So you don't even know what atheism is. Atheism is a lack of belief in a God. It is a lack of belief. Now there are some atheists that will claim that a god does not exist, and the burden of proof would be upon them. And it is clear that since the God of the Bible, if you read the book literally, does not exist since he is self contradicting. That is easily shown. That does not even mean that the Christian God does not exist, that is a very wide category. It merely means that if a Christian demands that Genesis is true he is in effect saying that his God does not exist. Specific "God"s can be refuted, but not all of them.

For example, if one claims that his God cannot lie and then that same person believes that his God lies that person has refuted his own version of God. That does not mean that his neighbor who believes in another version of God has had his beliefs refuted. Too many Christians assume that their version of God is the only correct one and when someone shows that their version does not exist they try to claim that the person that showed them that is trying to "refute God". Once again, only that person's personal version has been refuted, not all versions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look we're not talking about what scientist will say.
It's about what I believe and what another person does not believe.

So the burden of proof goes both ways.
So don't even try it, to bring up about what scientist will say, that has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Therefore if you say, there is no God, Your called to give proof to what you say, just as much as for anyone else.

But if I say, there is God, What's that to You.

Even after Polymath explained it to you you do not seem to understand.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god. They are not saying "There is no god". And as he pointed out believing garden gnomes is fine. As long as you do not try to forcibly inflict your belief on others. Creationists believe in a refuted version of "God". They try to inflict that refuted version on others by demanding that their false beliefs be taught in schools. That is a problem for me. If you keep your beliefs to yourself I have no problem with it.

 

[Polymath257]

Look we're not talking about what scientist will say.
It's about what I believe and what another person does not believe.

So the burden of proof goes both ways.
So don't even try it, to bring up about what scientist will say, that has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Therefore if you say, there is no God, Your called to give proof to what you say, just as much as for anyone else.

But if I say, there is God, What's that to You.

If I said I believe in the Loch Ness monster, do you need to prove it doesn't exist? Or do I need to prove it does?

I think the answer is clearly the latter.

 

[Polymath257]

Look we're not talking about what scientist will say.
It's about what I believe and what another person does not believe.

So the burden of proof goes both ways.
So don't even try it, to bring up about what scientist will say, that has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Therefore if you say, there is no God, Your called to give proof to what you say, just as much as for anyone else.

But if I say, there is God, What's that to You.

And what if I simply say I have not been convinced a deity exists? That the proofs offered by theists have have completely failed to convince me. I allow for the possibility a deity exists, but I have not seen any reason to believe such is the case.

Now, who has the burden of proof?

 

[Faithofchristian]

If I said I believe in the Loch Ness monster, do you need to prove it doesn't exist? Or do I need to prove it does?

I think the answer is clearly the latter.

Hey if that's your bag, to believe in the Lock Ness monster. Why would that bother me.

Why would I care, whether it's real or not, if that's what you believe, go for it.

 

[Faithofchristian]

And what if I simply say I have not been convinced a deity exists? That the proofs offered by theists have have completely failed to convince me. I allow for the possibility a deity exists, but I have not seen any reason to believe such is the case.

Now, who has the burden of proof?

Do you really believe that I would care what you believe.
Just don't tell me what I am to believe, and everything will be just fine.

I don't come here going about telling people what they are to believe and what not to believe.

That's their bag, what people want to believe and not to believe.

If I believe that there's a God, What's that to you.
If you want to believe in the Spaghetti Monster, What's that to me, But nothing,
I'm sure not going to ask you to prove that the Spaghetti Monster exist. If that's your bag, Then go for it.

Therefore if I choose to believe in God.
What's that to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey if that's your bag, to believe in the Lock Ness monster. Why would that bother me.

Why would I care, whether it's real or not, if that's what you believe, go for it.

You did not understand the question. Or if you did you realize your error and will not own up to it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you really believe that I would care what you believe.
Just don't tell me what I am to believe, and everything will be just fine.

I don't come here going about telling people what they are to believe and what not to believe.

That's their bag, what people want to believe and not to believe.

If I believe that there's a God, What's that to you.
If you want to believe in the Spaghetti Monster, What's that to me, But nothing,
I'm sure not going to ask you to prove that the Spaghetti Monster exist. If that's your bag, Then go for it.

Therefore if I choose to believe in God.
What's that to you.

The topic was the burden of proof and how it is upon you. Now it is rather clear that you know that there is no valid evidence for your beliefs.

And thanks for admitting that your belief in God is irrational. When it comes to rational thought one cannot choose to believe. No matter how hard I try to believe it I just can't believe that I can fly by flapping my arms.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The topic was the burden of proof and how it is upon you. Now it is rather clear that you know that there is no valid evidence for your beliefs.

And thanks for admitting that your belief in God is irrational. When it comes to rational thought one cannot choose to believe. No matter how hard I try to believe it I just can't believe that I can fly by flapping my arms.

No the burden of proof is on you. Just because I believe in God, What is that to you.
And if you believe in the Spaghetti Monster, what is that to me.
I don't go around asking people to give proof in what they believe.

You seem to think just because someone believe's in something or someone. They have to prove it.

I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else.
If you chose not to believe, What is that to me. But nothing.
But if I chose to believe, What is that to you.

People like you seem to think for who knows for what reason, has to prove what they believe, I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.
What I believe is what I believe, So what is that to you.
You seem to let things bother you, which you shouldn't.
Just because an Atheist chooses not to believe in God, What is that to me.
I sure in the heck are not going to go around asking for their proof. I could give a heck less what people want to believe and not believe.
I have nothing to explain to you or anyone else.
If you chose to believe in the Spaghetti Monster Go for it.
But don't think for one minute, that I'm going to ask you to prove why you believe in the Spaghetti Monster. I could careless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No the burden of proof is on you. Just because I believe in God, What is that to you.
And if you believe in the Spaghetti Monster, what is that to me.
I don't go around asking people to give proof in what they believe

Nope, you tried to make a false claim. The Loch Ness Monster was used only as an example.

.

You seem to think just because someone believe's in something or someone. They have to prove it.

No, but if you want to claim that your belief is valid then the burden of proof is upon you. Your belief in God is no different from a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else.
If you chose not to believe, What is that to me. But nothing.
But if I chose to believe, What is that to you.

No, you know that you can't support our beliefs. Tell me, why did you make your earlier claims about the burden of proof? A Christian is supposed to be honest.

People like you seem to think for who knows for what reason, has to prove what they believe, I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.
What I believe is what I believe, So what is that to you.
You seem to let things bother you, which you shouldn't.

Then once again, what are you doing here? You were just caught making foolish mistakes. If you can't own up to your mistakes you can't learn.

Just because an Atheist chooses not to believe in God, What is that to me.
I sure in the heck are not going to go around asking for their proof. I could give a heck less what people want to believe and not believe.

Wrong again. Atheists do not choose not to believe in God. Once again, only the irrational can choose what they want to believe in. Did you not understand the explanation?

I have nothing to explain to you or anyone else.
If you chose to believe in the Spaghetti Monster Go for it.
But don't think for one minute, that I'm going to ask you to prove why you believe in the Spaghetti Monster. I could careless.

And you keep repeating your errors. You are the one that has admitted to having an irrational belief. That is not the case for me or for most atheists.

Perhaps you should try to narrow your focus. Let's go over these concepts one at a time. Perhaps the first thing you need to understand for your own good is that one cannot rationally choose what to believe.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You seem to think just because someone believe's in something or someone. They have to prove it.

Actually, the Bible explicitly commands you to do that very thing:

1 Peter 3:15 - Bible Gateway

 

[Faithofchristian]

Nope, you tried to make a false claim. The Loch Ness Monster was used only as an example.

.


No, but if you want to claim that your belief is valid then the burden of proof is upon you. Your belief in God is no different from a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.



No, you know that you can't support our beliefs. Tell me, why did you make your earlier claims about the burden of proof? A Christian is supposed to be honest.



Then once again, what are you doing here? You were just caught making foolish mistakes. If you can't own up to your mistakes you can't learn.



Wrong again. Atheists do not choose not to believe in God. Once again, only the irrational can choose what they want to believe in. Did you not understand the explanation?



And you keep repeating your errors. You are the one that has admitted to having an irrational belief. That is not the case for me or for most atheists.

Perhaps you should try to narrow your focus. Let's go over these concepts one at a time. Perhaps the first thing you need to understand for your own good is that one cannot rationally choose what to believe.

What is it that you don't understand, I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.

You seem to think, that I have to prove to you what I believe. Unto which I don't.

Get use to it, What I believe is what i believe and what is that to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is it that you don't understand, I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.

You seem to think, that I have to prove to you what I believe. Unto which I don't.

Get use to it, What I believe is what i believe and what is that to you.

You butted into a discussion that you did not understand. Or have you forgotten already? You made this error filled post:


"No it goes both ways, if you say, there is no God, then the burden of proof is on you also.
Alot of people seem to think it's a one way street and it's not. So It goes both ways.

So if I believe there is God, What's that to you.
I have nothing to prove to anyone, except to myself."

Several people have now tried to explain your errors to you. Also, as ImmortalFlame pointed out you are going against what your own Bible says that you need to be able to do.

All you have to do is to either admit your errors or try to learn what was wrong with that post of yours. And then this will go away. You are complaining after you joined a debate where you were not able to hold up your end. That is not proper behavior for anyone.

 

[Darkstorn]

Get use to it, What I believe is what i believe and what is that to you.

If you really aren't interested in what others say or don't want to see content that disagrees with you, then what are you doing in the debate forums?

You seem to be throwing a tantrum because people say you can't use a definite statement in a debate if you're not going to support it.

Your argument is kindergarten level. You're totally allowed to believe in whatever you feel like but here you are guilty of trying to shift the burden of proof even when you're the only one making a claim.

When no negative claim has been presented, and you make a positive claim, the burden of proof is on you the moment you try to use it in a debate.

You are very close to proselytising with your behavior. And you did read the same forum rules I did. Or did you?