Do You Know Why You Don't Believe?

[Papersock]

Accept what answer? No evidence? There is evidence. There is so much evidence that you could never, ever, hope to travel to all of it.

But you want me to say "It all means nothing to me".

I think what they mean by "accept the answers" is not for you to agree with them and change your beliefs, but to accept that that is the reason why they do not believe in god. No evidence is their answer, whether you think there is evidence or not.

After that we can debate whether there actually is evidence or not.

 

[Super Universe]

[/size]
If a god does exist, it really has no reason for the universe to exist anyway. Unless it needs something to experience it in order for itself to exist. Or god was bored.

BINGO! Now you're thinking.

What needs could God have?

Also, rather than saying God was bored perhaps God simply wanted... more.

 

[Super Universe]

I think what they mean by "accept the answers" is not for you to agree with them and change your beliefs, but to accept that that is the reason why they do not believe in god. No evidence is their answer, whether you think there is evidence or not.

After that we can debate whether there actually is evidence or not.

I do not object to anyone requiring evidence to believe in anything at all. But the proof to persuade should be within the same guidelines the person has already set for believing in other things.

If you believe in the Eiffel Tower yet you have never been to Paris then I wonder why, suddenly, your burden of proof is higher for God?

 

[Fluffy]

Also, rather than saying God was bored perhaps God simply wanted... more.

Until you've established the existence of God, speculating upon his reasons for creating us is meaningless.

Can you please provide the evidence for the existence of God which you've described as both abundant and obvious despite the fact that it has not yet made an appearence in this thread?

 

[Super Universe]

Why do you say that it does?

Because I had a vision that changed me. I cannot change back. It is not possible.

 

[Super Universe]

Until you've established the existence of God, speculating upon his reasons for creating us is meaningless.

Can you please provide the evidence for the existence of God which you've described as both abundant and obvious despite the fact that it has not yet made an appearence in this thread?

It's not meaningless. There is something preventing you from seeing that God created the universe. I simply want to know what that is. You can't open the door until you realize which door to open.

Can I provide evidence? I'll take the universe. What's yours?

 

[UnTheist]

It's not meaningless. There is something preventing you from seeing that God created the universe.

Yeah, it's a lack of evidence.

Can I provide evidence? I'll take the universe. What's yours?

Atheists don't hold the burden of proof since they aren't making the positive claim.

 

[Super Universe]

Yeah, it's a lack of evidence.

Atheists don't hold the burden of proof since they aren't making the positive claim.

It's not a lack of evidence preventing you from seeing. It's lack of understanding. "If God exists, then why does..." Insert any tired old angry comment.

Athiests don't hold the burden of proof? Yeah, I've heard that one before. It's like a child saying over and over "I know you are but what am I?" The truth behind that claim is that you should be exactly in the middle, neither an athiest nor a believer since you will not accept proof of either.

 

[Nanda]

Because I had a vision that changed me. I cannot change back. It is not possible.

And I don't believe. I can't force belief.

 

[Papersock]

If you believe in the Eiffel Tower yet you have never been to Paris then I wonder why, suddenly, your burden of proof is higher for God?

I could go to Paris and see the Eiffel Tower if I wanted to. The evidence for the existence of the Eiffel Tower is much less subjective than the evidences pressented for the existence of god.

The burden of proof is much higher for god because god is a much higher claim.
If I told you I have a pet cat, you can reasonably assume that I do even without coming to my house to see for yourself that I do, indeed, have a pet cat.
If I said I have a pet griffon, you have reason to be more skeptical and you might have a higher burden of proof for my pet griffon.

 

[Super Universe]

And I don't believe. I can't force belief.

Then don't.

 

[UnTheist]

It's not a lack of evidence preventing you from seeing. It's lack of understanding. "If God exists, then why does..." Insert any tired old angry comment.

Uhh, no. That was never my argument. It is the lack of evidence, whether you want to accept it or not

Athiests don't hold the burden of proof? Yeah, I've heard that one before. It's like a child saying over and over "I know you are but what am I?"

Nice ad hom. It ignores the fact that saying "I don't believe in God because of the lack of evidence" is not a positive claim.

The truth behind that claim is that you should be exactly in the middle, neither an athiest nor a believer since you will not accept proof of either.

Atheists are in the middle, realizing the severe lack of evidence for god, and yet leaving some room for the possibility of God existing.

 

[Super Universe]

I could go to Paris and see the Eiffel Tower if I wanted to. The evidence for the existence of the Eiffel Tower is much less subjective than the evidences pressented for the existence of god.

The burden of proof is much higher for god because god is a much higher claim.
If I told you I have a pet cat, you can reasonably assume that I do even without coming to my house to see for yourself that I do, indeed, have a pet cat.
If I said I have a pet griffon, you have reason to be more skeptical and you might have a higher burden of proof for my pet griffon.

You can't go to Paris and see the Eiffel Tower because it doesn't exist.

 

[Papersock]

You can't go to Paris and see the Eiffel Tower because it doesn't exist.

And my griffon's name is Peter.

 

[UnTheist]

You can't go to Paris and see the Eiffel Tower because it doesn't exist.

I went to Paris last year. And guess what I found...?

 

[Papersock]

I went to Paris last year. And guess what I found...?

Was it God?

 

[UnTheist]

Was it God?

Nope, it was something else...

 

[Super Universe]

Uhh, no. That was never my argument. It is the lack of evidence, whether you want to accept it or not

Nice ad hom. It ignores the fact that saying "I don't believe in God because of the lack of evidence" is not a positive claim.

Atheists are in the middle, realizing the severe lack of evidence for god, and yet leaving some room for the possibility of God existing.

You keep saying a lack of evidence is necessary but what would be evidence for you?

My remark wasn't an Ad Hominem. It wasn't an insult directed at you although it wasn't one of my most proud responses either.

God is a positive claim? Fine then, prove your negative claim.

Athiests are in the middle? They realize the possibility of God existing? I think some don't even believe in the possibility.

 

[Super Universe]

I went to Paris last year. And guess what I found...?

Great! Now simply... prove it!

 

[Fluffy]

It's not meaningless. There is something preventing you from seeing that God created the universe. I simply want to know what that is. You can't open the door until you realize which door to open.

It is the lack of evidence which is preventing me from seeing that God created the universe.

To which you respond that there is evidence. And so I ask what evidence:

Can I provide evidence? I'll take the universe. What's yours?

And so now I ask you "How does the universe support the existence of God?"

My claim is that there is no evidence for the existence of God. My evidence is the lack of evidence for the existence God.