Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[Sheldon]

leroy said: ↑
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?

No no, what he means is that something that we are objectively sure has happened, is astronomically unlikely to have happened.

So they make the assumption adding an unevidenced deity from an archaic superstition, using inexplicable magic makes the whole thing more probable.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

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

That one is called a straw man fallacy, and all anyone has to do is read my initial response quoted above to see that is not what I said. You asserted that there must be evidence for a deity because of the number of people who believe in a deity, which as I pointed out is an argumentum ad populum fallacy, again here:

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.

You simply asserted (your own words) that evidence must exist, and based solely on the number of people who believe in a deity. That is a textbook argumentum ad populum fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

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!

Yes it is here is the post you responded to:

2. Most of humankind is not crazy.

And here is where you presented an argument that icluded the straw man claim atheists think "most of humankind is crazy"

as atheists would have us think.
But it is illogical that 93% of people in the world who believe in God are all crazy, because if they were the world could not function at all.

Then having made a straw man claim, you based your argument on it, making it easy to defeat, but a false argument as you misrepresented it as one atheists make. You then dishonestly added the word many, though this hardly helps as it is equally false.

 

[leroy]

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.

@KWED

Irrelevant

If someone is willing to die for jesus and the truth resurrection, then this person likely belives in the resurrection.

That is all i am saying.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

@KWEDIrrelevant If someone is willing to die for jesus and the truth resurrection, then this person likely belives in the resurrection. That is all i am saying.

This is a windup now, you have made a completely irrelevant response repeating your original claim, and called mine irrelevant for no apparent reason. I will dumb it down with bullet points then:

1. A person believes in the resurrection.
2. They are willing to die for that belief.
3. They therefore have a very compelling reason to lie, in order to create a more compelling narrative.
4. Their motive would be to convince others it was true.

 

[blü 2]

we can not be judged for our response to God, if there is no meaningful definition.

Especially if there's no objective evidence, I'd say.

You are correct God in Essence is far beyond our comprehension

Doesn't that mean that to talk about God is not to know what you're talking about?

God has allowed the Attributes to permate creation and for us to know of them. They are manifested in a Human Temple.

On the basis of what evidence do we conclude that? For example, what the theory of evolution did from its inception was to defeat the Argument from Design, under which the diversity of nature was explained by the existence of God ─ a point which considerably troubled Darwin, at first philosophically and then socially, and caused him to delay publication of The Origin of Species (1859).

Thus the attributes are what define God for us and it is the Messenger that is the embodiment of those Attributes.

If only there were some objective test, some common yardstick, to tell us which claimants were Messengers and which were not.

They are known as the 'Self of God' amongst us.

That's quite a claim, equivalent (it seems to me) to Enlightenment.

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.

Don't get me wrong ─ I have no problem with people having faith, if it helps them to treat others with decency, respect and inclusion, the things I've come to think are what actually matter. But on the debate boards such things may be debated.

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.

Thanks for the exposition, Tony. It's an attractive idea, but it doesn't work for me.

 

[leroy]

This is a windup now, you have made a completely irrelevant response repeating your original claim, and called mine irrelevant for no apparent reason. I will dumb it down with bullet points then:

1. A person believes in the resurrection.
2. They are willing to die for that belief.
3. They therefore have a very compelling reason to lie, in order to create a more compelling narrative.
4. Their motive would be to convince others it was true.

completely irrelevant

Yes it´s completely irrelevant to your straw man version of my original cliam.

All I am saying is that people like Paul (the apostle) honestly and sincerely believed in the resurrection, ………


If you what to make a whole new argument and use your 4 point as a base, feel free to develop your argument,

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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?

Do you have any idea just how much people believe with no evidence? It's not just God -- you forgot about angels, demons, Satan. And Muslims and their djinn. And you've forgotten how many people believe in reincarnation, transmigration of souls, astral travel, auras, fairies, Big Foot and chupacabra. Oh, and witches and wizards (not just Harry Potter and Hermione). Conspiracy theories abound, on every topic under the sun. The list just goes on and on and on! I wouldn't have time to get half way through the list. Try reading Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird things."

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.

You know, as well as I do, that the vast majority of humans alive today lack advanced education. Moreover, it is well understood that religious belief and religious attendance are two different things. It is also known that higher education tends to sort towards less strident religions, and towards more social ones. Thus, there is a well-known tendency for the educated to move away from religions that require belief in dogma -- which the better educated know to be often nonsensical.

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.

But the vast -- very vast -- majority have no evidence at all. Only hear-say, things they've been told others experienced ("witnessed"). And none of the presumed "evidence" is ever repeatable. In science, I could, if I had the will, the skill and the knowledge, set up an experiment to test any theory that has been tested before. But when God supposedly heals a presumed illness, nobody can ever get Him to do it again as a validity check. And the supposed "miracle cures" are invariably those that cannot be verified in any real medical sense.

So as I said, most people have no evidence, and no evidence has ever been produced that clearly demonstrated the existence of God.

Let me expand on that last point. Do you suppose, really, that if such incontrovertible evidence existed, anywhere on earth, that it would not be the biggest news story of all time? Nobody, but absolutely nobody, would not be aware of it -- it be trumpeted so loudly and endlessly everywhere that we'd never be free of it. Yet, sadly, such a thing has never happened.

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.

Look how you've framed that: "most believers don't even know what the purpose of life is." You just made it clear that, a) you think some believers do know what it is, and that b) you don't accept the very real possibility that it has no purpose at all -- that it just 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.

Even if that "truth" is that there is no God to help us, that we are alone in solving our own problems, and that when we die, we no longer exist -- period?

 

[Sheldon]

Yes it´s completely irrelevant to your straw man version of my original cliam.

A straw man is a false argument you assign to someone else, that they have not made, not a counterargument you offer yourself, I never remotely claimed it was your argument.

Someone willing to die for a belief, would axiomatically be willing to lie for it, hence your claim that lies are unlikely is absurd.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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

That is because an athiest Messenger does no exist.

The Messengers are all we will know of God. So it comes back to our choice to search if that is a possibility.

Regards Tony

 

[KWED]

Ok so we don’t have evidence that stegosaurus ever existed.

Oh dear.
For the life of me, I simply cannot fathom what you hope to achieve by taking this approach.

All we have are testimonies from people who claim to have seen (and study) the fossils,

No. We have the actual fossils.
Anyone can study them and challenge the conclusions of others. If you think stegosaurs never existed, why don't you do that?

 

[Sheldon]

Oh dear.
For the life of me, I simply cannot fathom what you hope to achieve by taking this approach.

Over the years I have learned not to look too deeply into the psyche of those who deny objective scientific facts. Just nodd and smile.

No. We have the actual fossils.
Anyone can study them and challenge the conclusions of others. If you think stegosaurs never existed, why don't you do that?

Or he could visit a creationist theme park, and ride one?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@KWED

Irrelevant

If someone is willing to die for jesus and the truth resurrection, then this person likely belives in the resurrection.

That is all i am saying.

Most people who end up dying for a cause don't think they're going to die for it until it's too late to avoid dying.

 

[KWED]

according to atheists standards, there isno evidence that the fossils are authentic.

There is no "atheist standard of evidence".

Because all we have is claims and testimony from people who claim to have found and studied the fossils.

Wrong again. There is far more than mere testimony, as has been explained to you repeatedly.

But I was told by atheists that claims and testimonies are not evidence

Anyone who understands the nature of evidence will tell you that mere testimony is not sufficient to support a claim if that claim is challenged.

Obviously rational people know that testimonials are evidence

Presumably, as a rational person, you consider my testimony that I have had sex with your mother to be "evidence" that it actually happened?
You don't?
Why the inconsistency?

and that there are even methods to determine how "strong" is that testimony.

Would photos change your mind? No? What about a video?

 

[KWED]

Actually, it looks to me like it's your knee that's jerking, here, not @leroy.

Leroy points out that he is skeptical about the claims of scientists, and suddenly, you, the big ole rational "super-skeptic", flies into a litany of insults. How dare he not accept the scientific fountain of all truth and reality at it's word! How dare he claim that the sacrosanct scientific method might be biased, processed, group-think! OUTRAGEOUS!

Either you haven't been following this thread, or you have an anti-reason agenda.

 

[KWED]

And I explained that your analogy is false.

Yes given a lack of evidence for God you are justified to not believe in God (as you do with stegosaurus)

But once evidence is presented you are expected to refute such evidence.

Conversations with atheists look like this:

1 atheists: there is no evidence for stegosauruses living today

2 theist well how about these fresh stegosaurus bones,

3 atheist : no that is not evidence

4 theist , why not?

5 atheist: its a stegosaurus of the gaps argument, just because we don't know where the bones came from nor why the look fresh and recent, that doest mean that stegosaurus did it.

6 atheist: maybe there is an unknown mechanism that produces de appearance of "recent bones" in bones that are millions of years old

7 atheists: the answer is I dont know but you don’t know ether. You cant postulate the existence of an unevidenced recent stegosaurus just because you cant find an explanation for those bones.

8 theist, ok so what would count as evidence

9 atheist, well present your evidence and lets see.

10 theist: i just did (fresh bones)

11 atheists, no no that is not evidence, just claims .

12 theist ok what would count as evidence , whats wrong with the bones, what alternative explanation do you suggest?

13 atheist: no, no i am not your private teacher, go learn it yourself.

.... just change stegosauruses for God, and change fresh bones for say the FT of the universe. And you will have a typical





The issue is that usually we dont have rebuttals for the arguments.

Are you familiar with the FT argument (as defended by william lane creig) ?

What would be your rebuttal for that particular argument?

Is premise 1 false? Is premise 2 false, is any of the premises fallacious, does the conclusion fail to follow from the premises., do you have a positive argument for atheism/naturalism that trumps any argument for design?......these are all possible refutations which do you pick?

What are the "fresh god bones" you are alluding to in your "argument"?

This is what it boils down to. You claim that there is tangible, verifiable evidence for god, but you resolutely fail to present it.

 

[PureX]

Either you haven't been following this thread, or you have an anti-reason agenda.

What he's saying is flying right over yall's heads. It's a weird thing watching people that are so certain of their position that they really just cannot see any other. Like it's completely invisible.

 

[KWED]

"No God" denies the existence of God. "No belief in God" does not. The latter simply denies belief in God's existence. There is a distinct difference.

But "no belief in God" implies that a god exists (or at least might exist), but you don't believe in it, which is an odd position.
The rational position is claiming that there is no god to believe or not believe in. The only real issue is on what you base that position and how certain you are. For me, that depends on which specific god we are talking about. I am certain that many of them definitely do not exist - certainly the ones described in scripture or worshiped by ancient civilisations.
Am I certain that there is no kind of paranormal force in the universe that may be able to affect events in the physical world? No, but I consider it so unlikely as to not warrant serious consideration.

 

[KWED]

see my point @9-10ths_Penguin
Usually atheist don’t like to explain what they mean by evidence.

No. You just ignore or reject whatever people tell you.

I told you I do consider the historical documents in the new testament as evidence for the resurrection .

Do you consider the "historical documents" in the Odyssey to be "evidence" for cyclopses?
Do you consider the "historical documents" in the Mabinogion to be "evidence" for dragons?
Do you consider the "historical documents" in the Norse Sagas to be "evidence" for ice giants?
You don't?
Why the inconsistency?

It is your turn to explain, why is it that you don’t consider them evidence…

They describe an event so extraordinary as to require a suspension of the laws of nature. Therefore there needs to be more than just anecdote from partisan sources. There needs to be contemporary accounts separate from the gospels. Something that unequivocally verifies the event from an independent perspective. After all, such an incredible event would have been news throughout the region - and the Romans were pretty good at keeping records.
So, are there any such records?
No.
In fact, there is almost nothing outside the gospels which mention Jesus at all, so he clearly wasn't big news.
The two accounts that do mention him make no mention of the resurrection, which makes no sense if it actually happened. It would be like a biography of Trump making no mention of his presidency. It is especially odd as one of the accounts was by a person who had an interest in reincarnation, so if one of his subjects really had died and been resurrected, he would have mentioned it. It would be like a football fan writing a biography of Elton John and never mentioning that he owned a football club.

In historical terms, it is not sufficient to find an old manuscript describing an event for it to be accepted that the event actually happened as described. This is pretty basic stuff that even someone using the logic of a child should be able to grasp.

 

[KWED]

The evidence is objective

So you are claiming that the accounts of the resurrection in the gospels is "objective evidence"?