Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[questfortruth]

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

Why not? There is infinite mystery of God.

 

[PureX]

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.

The problem here is that none of us knows the limits of what can and cannot exist. None of us knows the source, sustenance, or purpose of what does exist (to us). And we do know that existence is conscious of itself, through us (and likely a great many other beings). So your presumptions are based on some very weak premises.

 

[questfortruth]

limits of what can and cannot exist.

I am separating things into categories:
1. Present - not present.
2. Existent - non-existent.
3. Living - Non-living.
4. Visible- Non-visible.

Existent is what God counts as Existent. The satan is non-visible, non-living, non-existent, but present.
The Harry Potter is sinner, hence he is non-visible, non-living, non-existent, non-present.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Indeed. That's how it goes with unfalsifiable nonsense.

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.

Which is why the burden of proof is on the positive claim, and why claims that have no evidence for them, are ignored and dismissed at face value.

This is why you don't believe in gooblydockboeya.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Why not?

That's why not.

 

[Ella S.]

The problem here is that none of us knows the limits of what can and cannot exist.

Yes, we do. For instance, an unmarried bachelor cannot logically exist.

None of us knows the source, sustenance, or purpose of what does exist (to us).

Assuming that there is a source, sustenance, or purpose?

And we do know that existence is conscious of itself, through us (and likely a great many other beings).

I do not think that we know that existence is conscious of itself. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is no good reason to believe that it is likely that existence is conscious of itself.

We know what consciousness is. It is a form of wakeful metacognition, which is generated mostly by the prefrontal cortex. It is the product of brains, not an inherent property of existence, whatever that might mean.

So your presumptions are based on some very weak premises.

They are at least better premises than your rebuttal.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How is that an issue ? How is that relevant?

It renders it senseless and a meaningless tautology.

If you posit a god that "can do anything", then sure he can "do anything", including creating a universe that is not FT (whatever that means).

In other words: it explains nothing at all and it's just meaningless nonsense. Especially since that god is being posited without a shred of verifiable evidence.

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

No. You don't solve mysteries by appealing to even bigger mysteries.

You might as well posit universe-farting magical unicorns and pretend that that somehow "solves" the mystery of the origin of the universe.

The point is that God snd stegosaurus are not analogous.

I tend to agree with that. We have independently verifiable evidence of stegosaurus, after all.
Stegosaurus demonstrably existed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

This is a new low, even for you.

All we have are testimonials (or assertions)....

Go to a museum.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Assume that is has not been identified yet.

Dog poop would steel be a better explanation than stegosaurus

Even if the poop is, say, too large for a typical dog? Even if the makeup of the poop suggests it was from a herbivore?

What do you think makes a stegosaurus a bad explanation for poop found in the forest? I mean, not only is it established fact that stegosauruses are possible and that stegosauruses do poop, you can actually see, touch, and occasionally buy stegosaurus poop.

To me, this makes a stegosaurus much, much more plausible than, say... an invisible, intelligent, magical alien who understands English and Hebrew.

I guess I'm trying to say that I'm having trouble figuring out where you draw the line for what you'll accept as reasonable, since the existence of God seems much less reasonable than the existence of a living stegosaurus, yet you accept God and reject the stegosaurus.

 

[questfortruth]

That's why not.

The God, being the mystery, is the most simple thing out there:
God is Love.
When we feel Love, then the Love touches our heart.

The infinite mystery is the most simple thing.

Madonna says: "God is the Mystery" here:

 

[Sheldon]

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

I don't believe you, and since all you have offered is a bare subjective claim I think you owe me an irony meter after your denials that the Natural History Museum have a complete fossilised Stegosaurus skeleton on display.

We know the universe exists, and we know natural phenomena are possible, we have no objective evidence a deity using inexplicable magic is even possible. Occam's razor might help here.

 

[Sheldon]

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

That's a falsehood.

Stegosaurus skeleton assembled from fossilised bones on display at the Natural History Museum. <HERE>

If they were creationists, then I'd doubt the claim, as they lie all the time, but this is supported by scientific evidence, and one of the most prestigious Museums in the world.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Still not true.

<EVIDENCE>

 

[Sheldon]

The evidence for is the same as the evidence against.

Yes, non-existent, it's called an unfalsifiable assertion, they're meaningless precisely because they can teach us nothing.

 

[Sheldon]

The God, being the mystery, is the most simple thing out there:
God is Love.

An unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic has no explanatory powers at all, and making assertions about something, in the same sentence you claim it is a mystery, is pretty ironic.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Why not? There is infinite mystery of God.

Because it is irrational, it is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

This is a new low, even for you.



Go to a museum.

He doesn't even need to, they have a website, I posted links to the evidence, his argument reminds of the grandchildren when they were very small, and having done something naughty they hid their face behind their hands thinking they could not be seen. Except their stupidity was cute as hell, whereas creationist denials of this ilk are just pathetic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The God, being the mystery, is the most simple thing out there:
God is Love.
When we feel Love, then the Love touches our heart.

The infinite mystery is the most simple thing.

Madonna says: "God is the Mystery" here:

I like pie. Do you like pie? I do.



(that comment was about as relevant to the point as your response was).

 

[Sheldon]

Dictionaries are compiled from common usage, and I have twice posted that definition. The claim a deity's wonders were and would remain mysterious was yours not mine, and this defines them as magic. If you don't like dictionaries that's your problem, but I no more believe in Satan or sin than I do in any deity, so those claims are meaningless to me.

No word "MAGIC" in this definition:

A miracle is an event that seems inexplicable by natural or scientific laws[2] and accordingly gets attributed to some supernatural of praeternatural cause. Various religions often attribute a phenomenon characterized as miraculous to the actions of a supernatural being, (especially) a deity

Straw man fallacy, again, since I never claimed the word magic appeared in the definition of a miracle. Note the word seems in the definition (emboldened red for you). So a miracle also conforms to an irrational argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Also since magic is defined as "the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." Ipso facto it neatly defines a miracle as well, so thanks for proving my point, again. The two words are synonymous, your only objection is your arbitrary dislike of the word magic as it offends your religious sensibilities.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am separating things into categories:
1. Present - not present.
2. Existent - non-existent.
3. Living - Non-living.
4. Visible- Non-visible.

Existent is what God counts as Existent. The satan is non-visible, non-living, non-existent, but present.
The Harry Potter is sinner, hence he is non-visible, non-living, non-existent, non-present.

Sorry, but you cannot claim that God is Existent until you prove that he exists. This would be a begging the question fallacy on your part.