Evidence for a god existing or not existing

[KerimF]

I'm saying if believers have evidence of their god to a degree they know it has a penis then they have been keeping a big secret.

Or maybe they just adopted the traditional concept of God being male and there's still no evidence that it exists outside human imagination.

Sorry, it seems in your language, if someone tells you that he is 'son of desert', you conclude that a 'desert' should have a penis or he has to be a liar.
Also if you hear some people calling someone a 'son of sin', you would tell them: "Hey, I never heard that a sin has a penis?!".
I mean, it is the fault of your language if Son of God has to mean that God is a breeding being as humans are.
By the way, I used hearing of the "American Fathers", so I wonder if for you it also means that these Fathers are the ones who gave birth (by using their penis, as you like believing) to the American people in our days!!!

But, truth be told, you didn't surprise me, because good Jews and good Muslims are supposed to also see in 'Son of God' what you say here.

Cheers,
Kerim

 

[KerimF]

Not so:

Thank you for confirming what I said.

 

[F1fan]

post as topic.....in the health section

When the time is right. Be patient.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for confirming what I said.

How does that confirm what you said? Were you scared by HIs Noodly Appendages (Ramen)?

 

[F1fan]

Sorry, it seems in your language, if someone tells you that he is 'son of desert', you conclude that a 'desert' should have a penis or he has to be a liar.

Awesome, so you're suggesting God being male is a metaphor? If so, explain that. And perhaps God itself is a metaphor.

Also if you hear some people calling someone a 'son of sin', you would tell them:

I'm signing you to a record deal because that's a great rap name.

"Hey, I never heard that a sin has a penis?!".
I mean, it is the fault of your language if Son of God has to mean that God is a breeding being as humans are.
By the way, I used hearing of the "American Fathers", so I wonder if for you it also means that these Fathers are the ones who gave birth (by using their penis, as you like believing) to the American people in our days!!!

But, truth be told, you didn't surprise me, because good Jews and good Muslims are supposed to also see in 'Son of God' what you say here.

Cheers,
Kerim

Just like Jesus, and some say was also God. So this only creates more confusion.

 

[firedragon]

I'm saying if believers have evidence of their god to a degree they know it has a penis then they have been keeping a big secret.

Or maybe they just adopted the traditional concept of God being male and there's still no evidence that it exists outside human imagination.

So is that your epistemology? Please confirm.

 

[F1fan]

So is that your epistemology? Please confirm.

Sure, for the third time I use logic and reason. And i defer to what the sciences report about how things are in the universe.

 

[rational experiences]

God In human science. The planet.

Science by design takes earth product as design to a controlled reaction to change God earth as a product.

Human scientist says God gave me power energy. Always said it from planet earth.

Says so himself in science.

Science says I therefore destroyed God. One of presence only. So then God by one condition destroyed nature garden and self human life.

All stories told by human scientist.

So you knew God the earth gave science energy by product change. Of the stone.

Volcano first erection built by God.

Mountain law erection fell. As gas came out of volcano originally not from stone. Science made stone mountain gas change.

Why mountains fell into dust disintegration as you gave dusts owned creation history back to God stone.

By mass of radiation released.

Sun amount calculated was amount of radiation by mass.

Why you were banned from using any sun thesis.

Radiation is just radiation. The sun released the mass of radiation to convert earth as a product. Origin knowledge in science.

Your equals science occult practice eventually released the amount of radiation to form holes and recur disintegration of earth stone.

Science attacked earth's body. Broke the fused law a mountains presence.

 

[firedragon]

Awesome, so you're suggesting God being male is a metaphor? If so, explain that. And perhaps God itself is a metaphor.

Oh. I thin you have made it "he" is "Male" because it is the tense? Then you should do at least a 10 minute research languages and how they work. And have some empathy for linguistics.

Actually, atheists who have some solid learning are way way way beyond this level of understanding.

The masculine tense doesnt always mean male unless it is referring to a male. In the same way, a female tense doesnt refer to a female unless it is referring to a female. For example, the word mother of towns does not mean female. Mother of the book doesn't mean a female.

Take the example of Mary being taken as "God". God is either Ho Theos, or ilah in Arabic which is a masculine but is referred to a woman as ilah which is a masculine noun. When referring to God, the tense of the word does not mean its a male. Please try and understand these nuances in language.

 

[firedragon]

Sure, for the third time I use logic and reason. And i defer to what the sciences report about how things are in the universe.

I asked "is that your epistemology". Not what logic or reason you use.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your question is still silly. You act as if some specific person had to invent a rule.

You invented the rule because you stated the rule.

I have explained to you why you should have realized that it was correct with just a little thought. It appears that you are trying to justify people making false claims that they cannot support.

And we are not talking about mere beliefs here. I pointed out that if someone simply said "I believe" I would not have a problem with that. It is when someone makes the claim of "I know" when they have to be able to support their claims.

I say I know because I know, but that is not something I can prove to anyone else. There are many different ways of knowing and not all of them are based upon facts that can be proven.

Definition of know

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself (3): to recognize the nature of : discern

b(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

Anytime that someone claims to know something they are taking on a burden of proof.

No, not unless they are trying to prove what they know is true in a debate or in a court of law.

Please note, I do not make the mistake of the theists here. I do not claim to know that there is no God. I can refute certain variations of God, but that does not mean that I can refute all of them. And if I do say that I can refute one the burden of proof to do so is upon me.

Go ahead, claim that you believe in a God. I will not say that you do not believe. But if you claim to know then you need to be able to support that claim. The same standard applies to me, which is why there are only certain issues where I will claim to know.

You can claim to know there is no God and many atheists do, and I won’t tell them they have the burden of proof. Here is what I will say and have said on numerous occasions:

There are only three logical possibilities and they are mutually exclusive:

1. God exists and sends Messengers to communicate with humans (theist), or
2. God exists but does not communicate with humans (deist), or
3. God does not exist (atheist)

You can pick from the three and I won’t tell you that you have to support your choice UNLESS we are in a debate about whether God exists or not. Then I might ask you why you made that choice, but I would never ask you to prove that your choice is correct because none of the three choices can be proven correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You invented the rule because you stated the rule.

No, I did not invent the rule. But thanks for the compliment.

I say I know because I know, but that is not something I can prove to anyone else. There are many different ways of knowing and not all of them are based upon facts that can be proven.

Definition of know

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself (3): to recognize the nature of : discern

b(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

Fun. By those definitions people claiming to know god do not.

No, not unless they are trying to prove what they know is true in a debate or in a court of law.

Or post on a forum. Don't forget where you are.

You can claim to know there is no God and many atheists do, and I won’t tell them they have the burden of proof. Here is what I will say and have said on numerous occasions:

There are only three logical possibilities and they are mutually exclusive:

1. God exists and sends Messengers to communicate with humans (theist), or

A weak claim that no theist has been able to support.

2. God exists but does not communicate with humans (deist), or

So what is the purpose of God if that is the case? You are stating that God might was well not exist.

3. God does not exist (atheist)

That is another possibility. There are probably more. Considering how poor your first two were you might want to keep searching.

You can pick from the three and I won’t tell you that you have to support your choice UNLESS we are in a debate about whether God exists or not. Then I might ask you why you made that choice, but I would never ask you to prove that your choice is correct because none of the three choices can be proven correct.

And you miss the point. I do not claim to "know". I am not that arrogant or foolish. The people that I was responding to claimed to know, on a site where they need to support those claims, and refused to do so. That is roughly the same as admitting that one does not know.

Why are you so hung up on this error of others?

 

[Trailblazer]

It is doubtful if anyone "made that rule". It is a generally known maxim.

Generally known to whom? I never even heard of it before and I have been posting to atheists for eight years on various forums.
No atheist except you ever told me “you don’t know what you cannot show.”

They did not know at that time. There was no way for them to know then. They could only know after the fact, after the coroner did his autopsy. At the time of the event they did not even know that Chauvin was dead. And you missed the point. If they later claimed to know they would have a burden of proof. A poster here claimed to know something. That put a burden of proof upon him.

That is true, I will give you that. They did not know he would be convicted of murder until he was convicted, but even after that people could argue that he was not guilty.

I should have stayed with my simple example. Let's say that a man called Mike knows that a man called Jim committed a murder because he was there on the scene and he witnessed the murder. Mike has no burden to prove that to anyone unless he is a prosecutor in a courtroom.

Go ahead, say that you believe something. Hopefully no one is going to say that you do not. But if you claim to know something then you do have a burden of proof.

By the way, you refuted yourself with your Baha'u'llah example. He was ready to defend his beliefs. He did not just say "I know" and leave it at that.

I guess you missed my point. I am not making the claim to know that God exists and He sent a Messenger, Baha’u’llah made that claim. The one who makes the claim has the burden of proof, the one who believes the claim has no burden at all.

The difference between me and Baha’u’llah is that Baha’u’llah did not have beliefs; He had knowledge from God. So Baha’u’llah did not have to defend any beliefs, He had to provide proof that He was really a Messenger of God.

All that said, if I was trying to prove to you that God exists and Baha’u’llah was His Messenger then I would have the burden of proof. I know lots of things but I do not have to prove them to anyone unless I am trying to convince people that what I know is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well you have quite a bit of work to do to show your exception is true.

I have been doing this work for eight years so I know the drill.
I am willing to do the work if anyone is sincerely interested in believing in God.
Work is my middle name.

 

[F1fan]

Oh. I thin you have made it "he" is "Male" because it is the tense? Then you should do at least a 10 minute research languages and how they work. And have some empathy for linguistics.

Actually, atheists who have some solid learning are way way way beyond this level of understanding.

The masculine tense doesnt always mean male unless it is referring to a male. In the same way, a female tense doesnt refer to a female unless it is referring to a female. For example, the word mother of towns does not mean female. Mother of the book doesn't mean a female.

Take the example of Mary being taken as "God". God is either Ho Theos, or ilah in Arabic which is a masculine but is referred to a woman as ilah which is a masculine noun. When referring to God, the tense of the word does not mean its a male. Please try and understand these nuances in language.

Theology gets to make it up as it goes along. It still isn't factual.

 

[F1fan]

I asked "is that your epistemology". Not what logic or reason you use.

That's OK because my comment you quoted had nothing to do with epistemology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Generally known to whom? I never even heard of it before and I have been posting to atheists for eight years on various forums.
No atheist except you ever told me “you don’t know what you cannot show.”

Okay, I may be ahead of the curve. That does not mean that you should not be able to reason this out for yourself once given the concept. It is not that hard to understand.

That is true, I will give you that. They did not know he would be convicted of murder until he was convicted, but even after that people could argue that he was not guilty.

No, no, no. Not convicted of murder. They did not know that he was murdered until after the coroner's report came out. And yes, some people will not accept the evidence that makes it clear that he was murdered.

I should have stayed with my simple example. Let's say that a man called Mike knows that a man called Jim committed a murder because he was there on the scene and he witnessed the murder. Mike has no burden to prove that to anyone unless he is a prosecutor in a courtroom.

That is not accurate. You also trying to fog the matter by using an extreme example. That indicates that you know that you are making a poor argument. If a person claims to know anything anywhere he takes on a burden of proof. Maybe not a legal one, you are conflating a legal burden with a moral one. But if you are on a forum and make a claim of knowing then you have a burden of proof. Otherwise people are perfectly justified by dismissing that person as a liar.

I guess you missed my point. I am not making the claim to know that God exists and He sent a Messenger, Baha’u’llah made that claim. The one who makes the claim has the burden of proof, the one who believes the claim has no burden at all.

I understand that it was not your claim. And I understand that Baha'u'llah tried to defend his claim. I do not think that he succeeded. You do. That he did so is a bit of a red herring in this discussion, but his willingness to support his claims does support my argument.

The difference between me and Baha’u’llah is that Baha’u’llah did not have beliefs; He had knowledge from God. So Baha’u’llah did not have to defend any beliefs, He had to provide proof that He was really a Messenger of God.

No, it appears that Baha'u'llah had beliefs. But at least he was willing to defend his claims. I give him credit for that.

All that said, if I was trying to prove to you that God exists and Baha’u’llah was His Messenger then I would have the burden of proof. I know lots of things but I do not have to prove them to anyone unless I am trying to convince people that what I know is true.

And if I was trying to prove that there was no God I would have the burden of proof. I am trying to do that. You have not made the mistake of claiming to know, and neither have I. Once again why are you defending those that made that error and refuse to defend their beliefs. I do give your prophet for trying to defend his beliefs. He is better than most prophets in that regard.

 

[F1fan]

I have been doing this work for eight years so I know the drill.

I've been debating religion since 1996. I've pretty much seen everything theists can offer in the way of arguments.

I am willing to do the work if anyone is sincerely interested in believing in God.

See, you expose your bias. You're seeking confirmation for your belief. The search should be for what is truthful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's OK because my comment you quoted had nothing to do with epistemology.

It can be a bit frustrating when believers abuse terms such as epistemology, exegesis, eisegesis, and hemeneutics as if those terms give their beliefs any basis in rationality.

 

[firedragon]

Theology gets to make it up as it goes along. It still isn't factual.

Thats not theology. Thats language.