Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[Ella S.]

If we define God as the timeless, spaceless consciousness that created the universe, then such a being is logically impossible.

You cannot "exist" without space and time to exist in. You can't cause causality without a causality to cause it. Causality requires time, which is a facet of spacetime, which is a part of the universe. These are contradictions.

I would also say that we have evidence that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of matter. So it is highly unlikely that a conscious being created all matter since, as far as we know, consciousness can only exist due to complex arrangements of matter that take billions of years to evolve. Granted, it is not impossible, but the current evidence points to consciousness requiring matter.

Since most people (where I live in the US) are referring to a "timeless, spaceless consciousness that created the universe" when they use the word "God," then I can safely say that I have compelling evidence that there is no God.

There are other forms of "God" that are not the Deist or monotheist interpretation given above. The God of panpsychism and the God of monism, for instance, but these are generally not what people mean when they refer to God here.

 

[Ella S.]

There's quite a gap between "not crazy" and "rational in every respect."

I might say that it's conceivable that, through misinformation or ignorance, it can be perfectly rational to believe in things that are not true through no personal fault of your own.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually, it does.

No, it doesn't.

At least it includes every atheist that claims that they can't accept the existence of a God that they can't know to exist by objective, evidential proof.

Which is a rational position in response to the unevidenced claim "a god exists".
And thus not a claim by itself.

That's a very 'gnostic' position if ever there was one.

No, it is the very opposite of that. Note the "not" in "can't" that preceeds "know".

And pretty much every atheist I've ever encountered makes this claim.

Not a claim.
"god exists" is the claim.
Responding to that claim with "i have no reason to believe that", is not a claim concerning god's existence (or non-existence).

I'm sorry if you can't comprehend to difference between making a claim and responding to one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes If my grandmother tells me that she had an unambiguous experience where she saw an “ape-man” with her own eyes, i would believe in big foot or at least I would move a step towards beliving in it-

Or else, I would have to provide good reasons to think why my grandma was likely mistaken or lying.

Your standards for believing outrageous / extra-ordinary claims are ridiculously, absurdly, low.

Con-men would have a field day scamming you.
You sound like a very easy victim.


On the other hand, I don't believe for a second what you just said there.
If your grandma would tell you she saw sasquatch, more then likely you'll raise an eyebrow and think to yourself "ow granny..." and walk away not giving it a second of thought.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Despite all scientific development, the Mystery will never be resolved. Mystery of Nature will remain forever.
Hence, there can be wonderful God, who makes wonders.

In other words, you believe that you can "explain" a mystery by appealing to an even bigger mystery.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

3 some of this things would have an explanation if we postulate the existence of God. .......(Say we define God as an inteligente being that excist independently of the universe)

No.

You don't explain mysteries by appealing to other mysteries.
That's just moving the question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you know that ?

Do testimonies count as evidence?

Apppart from testimonies how do you know that any fossil from any stegosaurus have been found?

I gave this a "funny" rating, assuming it is a joke.

If it isn't... well.... I don't even know how to respond.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No thats not evidence

That is just an assertion

No. A bare assertion would be claiming that there are such fossils and then not producing those fossils or pointing out where they are located.

But he did point out where they are located.

Derp di derp derp.

Contrast this to people who claim that there are gods. And then don't produce those gods or point out where they are located.

Notice the difference?
I bet you don't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A fully assembled Stegosaurus skeleton from fossilised bones is not evidence, k'ay.

So how do like this little game of pigeon chess?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If there is a God he could create a FT universe if he whants.

He could also have created the universe 5 seconds ago, with all our memories of having lived our entire lives implanted.

If you posit a "god that can do anything", then you can claim anything.

 

[rational experiences]

I don't know what you are talking about since I have not lied to you.

The topic is biblical false preaching.

The public shares comments and information as a consensus and always have as it is a subject topic it's not personal.

If you discuss a topic you can't personally own it.

 

[rational experiences]

Men say until I die a human is dominion consciouness.

Demonstrated by their own pursuit I name anything I study. Still do that behaviour today ...you give anything a name.

This behaviour says your consciousness is dominion owner of all things. Which you name you give human ownership to then say now I'll change it.

So a human summation said a scientist human is a destroyer.

Pretty basic sciences human behaviour.

Seeing you did not create anything.

You take natural you change it by human choice forced.

You claim time is a gas burning. In an atmosphere that advises you life existing is by light.

Biology.

You hence claim there is no life without light.

What about a spirit status that has never owned light?

Removal of any of your beliefs.

You claim it cannot be true.

A body holding a hole says yes it is real..

As space is empty holding heavy objects.

So a body pertaining to holding has to hold space to thesis space is a hole.

You say no I look at space holes. Yet to see a hole light has to be present in a darker empty space body.

Your mind aware says space is a hole.

Which places the eternal as always had existed always did exist. Owns no human explanation as we die and no longer exist ourselves.

We make all claims by a biological human consciousness.

I can explain to my best ability how spirit bodies entered earths heavens from the eternal without any scientific reference.

Science does the same type of thinking first. Stories. Then build then react claiming I have proved my science. Machines.

My conscious review says you own no status to prove the eternal. It does not mean it doesn't exist just because you can't change it or access it by machines.

You ask everyone prove it. No human can.

We can advise such status as why do spirit forms emerge when a cold body once burning is converted.

Which is named a conversion accessing spirit types already in burning that were sealed in by fused.

You then claim by science life begins in water as Microbe s.

Not the same topic.

The story eternal said it caused a separation and a reaction to its own body. And it changed as gods.O.
God was the separated body.


Exist means by its owner terms.

 

[Ella S.]

Men say until I die a human is dominion consciouness.

Demonstrated by their own pursuit I name anything I study. Still do that behaviour today ...you give anything a name.

This behaviour says your consciousness is dominion owner of all things. Which you name you give human ownership to then say now I'll change it.

So a human summation said a scientist human is a destroyer.

Pretty basic sciences human behaviour.

Seeing you did not create anything.

You take natural you change it by human choice forced.

You claim time is a gas burning. In an atmosphere that advises you life existing is by light.

Biology.

You hence claim there is no life without light.

What about a spirit status that has never owned light?

Removal of any of your beliefs.

You claim it cannot be true.

A body holding a hole says yes it is real..

As space is empty holding heavy objects.

So a body pertaining to holding has to hold space to thesis space is a hole.

You say no I look at space holes. Yet to see a hole light has to be present in a darker empty space body.

Your mind aware says space is a hole.

Which places the eternal as always had existed always did exist. Owns no human explanation as we die and no longer exist ourselves.

We make all claims by a biological human consciousness.

I can explain to my best ability how spirit bodies entered earths heavens from the eternal without any scientific reference.

Science does the same type of thinking first. Stories. Then build then react claiming I have proved my science. Machines.

My conscious review says you own no status to prove the eternal. It does not mean it doesn't exist just because you can't change it or access it by machines.

You ask everyone prove it. No human can.

We can advise such status as why do spirit forms emerge when a cold body once burning is converted.

Which is named a conversion accessing spirit types already in burning that were sealed in by fused.

You then claim by science life begins in water as Microbe s.

Not the same topic.

The story eternal said it caused a separation and a reaction to its own body. And it changed as gods.O.
God was the separated body.


Exist means by its owner terms.

"Space is a hole" is quite an elegant way of putting it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The topic is biblical false preaching.

The public shares comments and information as a consensus and always have as it is a subject topic it's not personal.

If you discuss a topic you can't personally own it.

When did I try to do that?

 

[rational experiences]

When did I try to do that?

It's a religious forum... science is about creation as religion theories creation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a religious forum... science is about creation as religion theories creation.

Nope.

 

[leroy]

He could also have created the universe 5 seconds ago, with all our memories of having lived our entire lives implanted.

If you posit a "god that can do anything", then you can claim anything.

How is that an issue ? How is that relevant?

All I am saying is that if we postulate the existence of God some unsolved mysteries would be solved.

If we postulate the existence of stegosaurus living today, no mysteries would be solved.

The point is that God snd stegosaurus are not analogous. (As was suggested a few comments ago)

 

[leroy]

Poop that can be identified as dog poop isn't unidentified poop.

Assume that is has not been identified yet.

Dog poop would steel be a better explanation than stegosaurus

 

[leroy]

No. A bare assertion would be claiming that there are such fossils and then not producing those fossils or pointing out where they are located.

But he did point out where they are located.

Derp di derp derp.

Contrast this to people who claim that there are gods. And then don't produce those gods or point out where they are located.

Notice the difference?
I bet you don't.

There is no evidence that such fossils have ever been produced.

All we have are testimonials (or assertions).... assertions from people who claimed to have found and/or test the fossils. ...... but assertions and testimonials dont count as evidence do they?

So no there is no evidence that stegosaurus ever existed. .... all we have are testimonials

 

[PureX]

He could also have created the universe 5 seconds ago, with all our memories of having lived our entire lives implanted.

If you posit a "god that can do anything", then you can claim anything.

Yes. And if it were true, there'd be no way to know. Or if it were false, there'd be no way for us to know. Because our observed experience would be exactly the same either way. The evidence for is the same as the evidence against. Making the evidence profoundly inconclusive.