Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[KWED]

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.

Are you ok?

 

[Sheldon]

My brother-in-law will lie some more, continue lying and stand behind all the lies, just to cover up his initial lie.
I think he actually believes his lies are true. I'm sure there is a lot of saving face involved.

Yes I've encountered the same behaviour once or twice. However what @leroy seems to genuinely not understand, is that someone could believe absolutely in a deity's resurrection, enough to die for the belief, but have no compelling evidence, so they might be more inclined to lie in order to convince others it was true, not less.

 

[Sheldon]

if she says that she saw a distant shadow that moreless lookes like a big ape, her testimony won’t count much

If she directly saw the ape, and even played with it, her testimony would be much stronger

Nope, they're both nothing but subjective unevidenced anecdote.

If other independent witnesses where there and testified the same thing then the testimony would be much stronger to a degree of nearly 100% certainty

Nope, that's an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Because "God" has no definition meaningful in reality. We have no idea what real entity we'd be looking for, nor how to determine whether any real suspect is God or not.

So there's nothing to talk about.

The only manner in which God is known to exist is as a concept or thing imagined in an individual brain.

Can I offer a thought here blu 2, I hope it is not too rude.

I see God has given a meaningful definition, we can not be judged for our response to God, if there is no meaningful definition.

You are correct God in Essence is far beyond our comprehension, as such God has allowed the Attributes to permate creation and for us to know of them. They are manifested in a Human Temple.

Thus the attributes are what define God for us and it is the Messenger that is the embodiment of those Attributes. They are known as the 'Self of God'amongst us. The only way we have come to know God is via the Messenger who was endowed with that capacity. That capacity, which is within all of us is manifested only via Faith, with faith we can embrace those attributes and in turn reflect them into this creation.

I personally see we must use our rational soul to connect to this Spirit and it is via this connection we can become one people. Jesus offered to the world we must be born again from the flesh into the Spirit.

Thus that is the meaningful reality of God, trust and faith in the Messenger that has been sent by God, to guide us in our actions.

Regards Tony

 

[Sheldon]

I am not implying that there must be evidence, because all these people would not otherwise believe in a deity, I am asserting that is the case.

Which is by definition an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Since the number of people who believe something, tells us nothing about the validity of that belief.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It was theists who started the whole thing to begin with by inventing God.

Actually it was the Messengers that started it all, they are the First and Last, they are not men like us. Theist or non theist etc, are but labels used by certain persons within humanity. Humanity is just here for a flash and gone, to be forever forgotten.

Regards Tony

 

[Sheldon]

It was not a straw man because I was not misrepresenting any argument that you made.

That's not what a straw man fallacy is. A straw man fallacy is a false argument created because it is easy to defeat, and assigned to someone else. Which is what you did.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Actually it was the Messengers that started it all, they are the First and Last, they are not men like us. Theist or non theist etc, are but labels used by certain persons within humanity. Humanity is just here for a flash and gone, to be forever forgotten.

Regards Tony

No. They are theists who started advertising the concept of God or Gods.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No. They are theists who started advertising the concept of God or Gods.

A Messenger is not a theist, as by all definition of God, and all of the knowledge we can have of God, they are God. The Essence of the Messenger is the Attributes a Theists comes to know God by.

Regards Tony

 

[KWED]

That simply shows your lack of understanding of FT.

To say that gravity is FT simply means that if gravity would have been a little bit stronger or weaker, life would have been impossible.

Ah, so by "fine tuning" you actually mean "values that correspond to the values we observe".
Do you think a pothole is "fine-tuned" to the shape of the puddle that occupies it?

1 this is objectively true, or in any case it would be objectively wrong (there is nothing subjective there)

Making absolute claims about a universe where conditions are fundamentally different to the one we can observe is meaningless.

2 this is true independently if there are other universes

We can make claims based on observations in this universe. We cannot do it about any other universe whose conditions we are unaware of.

So if you don’t understand the FT argument, then you should adopt a position of agnosticism “I don’t know if the argument is good or not, because I don’t understand it”

But you clearly don't understand the fine tuning argument because you insist that the universe has been finely tuned, which is merely question begging. You also appear to think that because certain conditions are necessary, someone must have made it that way.

No matter which way you look at it, "fine tuning" fails to provide any evidence or even rational argument for the god you claim exists.

 

[KWED]

Irrelevant, all I am saying is that an omnipotent God (if he exists) can create gravity (and other constants) ,

But he wouldn't need to create gravity.
You are implying that gravity is necessary for the universe to work. That necessity places a constraint on god's abilities.
Therefore he is not god.
QED.

Also, gravity is a function of mass and distance. No need for god to create it.

Nobody is claiming that God is constrained to create those laws,

You are, if you are claiming that gravity must have the specific value it does for the universe to exist.

 

[Twilight Hue]

A Messenger is not a theist, as by all definition of God, and all of the knowledge we can have of God, they are God. The Essence of the Messenger is the Attributes a Theists comes to know God by.

Regards Tony

I just can't picture an atheist messenger proclaiming there's a god, and not be a theist.

 

[KWED]

The bolzman brian paradox destroys the multiverse hypothesis.
“if there is a multiverse, each universe with its own “values” then the vast majority of observers would be Boltzmann brains.”

Why? Explain this claim.

This would imply that you are a Boltzmann Brain. (BB)

No it wouldn't.

The argument
P1 If the multiverse hypothesis is true you would be a BB
P2 you are not a BB
Therefore the multiverse hypothesis is not true.[/QUOTE] P1 is an unsupported assertion, so the argument is flawed.

 

[KWED]

Where is the evidence that stegosaurus ever existed?
Whatpart of the question is impolite ?

Another possibility is that you are actually a very sophisticated, atheist troll who is trying (and succeeding hugely) to make creationist religionists looks very, very foolish.

You are that troll and I claim my £5!

 

[KWED]

Yes you finally understood

But you haven't managed to understand that being able to imagine the possibility of something doesn't mean that it necessarily exists.
My gran's ghost invented gravity and all the other universal conditions required for life because after she died she went back in time to before the universe existed and did it by special magic that she suddenly had. This would explain a whole load of mysteries.
QED.

 

[Nimos]

The burden of proof for many things is assumed through experience and probability. They could be the keys to prevent a nuclear launch, so the importance is huge. When an aide says "They could have been stolen by elves", no one wonders whether the elf sceptics need to prove that rogue elves are unlikely to be the cause. It is immediately dismissed as unworthy of consideration not because the issue at hand isn't important, but because no one thinks that it is even remotely likely.

Yes, because the burden of proof is on the person claiming that elves did it. I don't disagree with you, that certain claims are quickly dismissed, but that is irrelevant really. Because again it is never up to the elves sceptics to prove whether elves are unlikely to exist or not. They are completely free to simply state that they don't believe it were elves, just as they could say that they don't believe the person lost their key. They never have to provide evidence for a negative position.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which is by definition an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Nope, because I did not say that God exists because many or most people believe that God exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's not what a straw man fallacy is. A straw man fallacy is a false argument created because it is easy to defeat, and assigned to someone else. Which is what you did.

That is not what I did at all. I did not even present an argument!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

However, a logical person would have to ask why most people in the world would believe in a nonexistent thing. To say that all these believers are all crazy is not a reasoned response. There has to be a reason why so many people believe in God and I think it is because there is evidence for God.

In fact, there are several very good reasons for why so many people would believe in a non-existent thing (in this case, God, but belief in other non-existent things is also popular, perhaps with varying reasons).

1. Because we can; we are able to conceive of the notion of other minds. This probably led, first, to people supposing that the "mind" of a revered leader, since it seems to be something other than body, did not die with his body, and might yet be asked to help when trouble came. It's a very short stretch from that to believing in the existence of mind, or "spirit," in other things, and from there to deities.
2. Because it's a heck of a lot easier than actually learning, which can take an immense amount of study for many topics.
3. And because it provides "answers" (whether true or not) to questions that plague us, and getting an answer, any answer, is so much more satisfying than having to admit you don't know.

 

[Trailblazer]

In fact, there are several very good reasons for why so many people would believe in a non-existent thing (in this case, God, but belief in other non-existent things is also popular, perhaps with varying reasons).

1. Because we can; we are able to conceive of the notion of other minds. This probably led, first, to people supposing that the "mind" of a revered leader, since it seems to be something other than body, did not die with his body, and might yet be asked to help when trouble came. It's a very short stretch from that to believing in the existence of mind, or "spirit," in other things, and from there to deities.
2. Because it's a heck of a lot easier than actually learning, which can take an immense amount of study for many topics.
3. And because it provides "answers" (whether true or not) to questions that plague us, and getting an answer, any answer, is so much more satisfying than having to admit you don't know.

I do not consider these reasons why people would believe in God if there was no evidence for God.
Please allow me to explain why.

1. Because we can; we are able to conceive of the notion of other minds.

We can believe in lots of things, so why believe in God with no evidence?

2. Because it's a heck of a lot easier than actually learning, which can take an immense amount of study for many topics.

You are assuming that believers don't learn anything, but colleges are full of people and most of them are probably believers since most people are believers. I attended colleges and universities for over 15 years and I have two advanced degrees in different fields.

3. And because it provides "answers" (whether true or not) to questions that plague us, and getting an answer, any answer, is so much more satisfying than having to admit you don't know.

That is a valid point but I still don't think that believers believe with no evidence although a numbered few who have no religion do believe with no evidence.

Belief in God provides answers to some questions but it does not provide all the answers and it raises as many questions as it provides answers, since God, the soul and the afterlife are mysteries no mind can fathom. Moreover, I do not think that most believers believe in God because they ant to know the purpose of life, since most believers don't even know what the purpose of life is.

As I told my husband last night, atheists are better of with no belief in God than with a false belief, because at least there is a chance they might come to true belief, if they are searching for truth.