Evidence

[We Never Know]

Isn't "faith," by definition, non-factual, ie: unjustified belief?

Faith is factual to those that have it.

Just like its factual pineapple is good one pizza to those who like it. But to everyone else it sux.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

By the way, proving a negative is often harder than proving a positive and in some cases, requires creativity and thought, but it is possible. Here's an example how:

Someone accuses me of being at a party I wasn't at. I prove that I wasn't at the party by having this person call my friends, who can confirm I was at the library during that time.

 

[We Never Know]

By the way, proving a negative is often harder than proving a positive and in some cases, requires creativity and thought, but it is possible. Here's an example how:

Someone accuses me of being at a party I wasn't at. I prove that I wasn't at the party by having this person call my friends, who can confirm I was at the library during that time.

I gave several examples here..

Evidence

 

[Trailblazer]

You are assuming what he wrote is true. What he wrote is not verified as true. What he wrote is not completely factual.

I am not assuming, I am believing it is true. It cannot be verified, that is IMPOSSIBLE.
I believe it is true since I believe that Baha'u'llah was infallible.

It's not likley he was. It's not believable to objective thinkers. You are not interested in belief that is rational.

It is unlikely *to you* that He was. It is obvious *to me* that He was.
These are just personal opinions, not facts. Why not just agree to disagree?

Lacking facts no rational mind would judge God as existing. You have some other motive to believe.

No rational mind would expect to have facts about an unknowable God.

This isn't objective. The insiders will validate their own texts. The same goes for Mormons and the Mormon Bible, and the Urantia folks and the Urantia Book.

I never said it is objective. All assessment of religions is subjective.

Yet there is no such evidence that is extraordinary, and there is evidence that suggests he made it up himself. If a pwerson claims to be a messenger of God then there had better be extraordinary evidence. It should be overwhelming. It isn't.

It is extraordinary to me. It is not extraordinary to you.
These are just personal opinions, not facts. Why not just agree to disagree?

But you just claimed there was extraordinary evidence. Now you admit it isn't factual.

Extraordinary evidence isn't factual.

 

[Valjean]

Ok intellectual, show me 100% for a fact a god does not exist. If you cannot do so, then all you have is belief and opinion a god does not exist.

Pay attention. I'd have a reasonable disbelief. You're insisting on proof of a negative.
Inability to prove something, is not evidence for the thing's truth.
Appeal to Ignorance

Lack of belief is the epistemic default. Non-existence is the logical presumption.

It's reasonable to lack belief in that for which there is little or no objective evidence. The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion, not on the skeptic.
The rational position is to withhold belief till convincing evidence is proffered, not to believe till the belief is shown to be false.

It's not up to me to prove God doesn't exist. It's up to you to provide evidence that S/He does.
Non-existence is logically assumed, till evidence of existence is produced.

 

[We Never Know]

Pay attention. I'd have a reasonable disbelief. You're insisting on proof of a negative.
Inability to prove something, is not evidence for the thing's truth.
Appeal to Ignorance

Lack of belief is the epistemic default.
It's reasonable to lack belief in that for which there is little or no objective evidence. The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion, not on the skeptic.
Logically, the rational position is to withhold belief till convincing evidence is proffered, not to believe till the belief is shown to be false.

It's not up to me to prove God doesn't exist. It's up to you to provide evidence that S/He does.
Non-existence is logically assumed, till evidence of existence is produced.

See post #1720. I can use science to show a negative in many ways. Saying a negative can't be proven i just a cop out, an avoidance.

 

[We Never Know]

Pay attention. I'd have a reasonable disbelief. You're insisting on proof of a negative.
Inability to prove something, is not evidence for the thing's truth.
Appeal to Ignorance

Lack of belief is the epistemic default. Non-existence is logically assumed.
It's reasonable to lack belief in that for which there is little or no objective evidence. The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion, not on the skeptic.
Logically, the rational position is to withhold belief till convincing evidence is proffered, not to believe till the belief is shown to be false.

It's not up to me to prove God doesn't exist. It's up to you to provide evidence that S/He does.
Non-existence is logically assumed, till evidence of existence is produced.

Not to mention.. Claiming a god does not exist is a positive claim. You are claiming something is right. Like all claims it needs supported.

 

[Valjean]

Why would you believe they are Messengers of God just because they made a claim?
Did they have any evidence to back up their claims?

No -- and that's my point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"According you you she is just making "So what" arguments"

BS! She is stating what she believes for herself. She is not telling you to be like her or you have to accept her beliefs. She is sharing her beliefs. You are attacking her for sharing her beliefs.
There is a difference.

You are not listening again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not to mention.. Claiming a god does not exist is a positive claim. You are claiming something is right. Like all claims it needs supported.

You are still not listening. He did not claim that God does not exist.

 

[Valjean]

Not to mention.. Claiming a god does not exist is a positive claim. You are claiming something is right. Like all claims it needs supported.

Who's claiming God does not exist? I'm claiming there is insufficient evidence to make belief reasonable, making lack of belief the reasonable position; the epistemic default.
"God exists" bears the burden of proof.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

He did not claim that God does not exist.

I don't think he did, either.

 

[We Never Know]

Who's claiming God does not exist? I'm claiming there is insufficient evidence to make belief reasonable, making lack of belief the reasonable position; the epistemic default.
"God exists" bears the burden of proof.

Lets get this clear. According to you does a god exist or not?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Lets get this clear. According to you does a god exist or not?

But he only has the burden of proof if he states, "There is no God."

Edit: Fixed

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think he did, either.

It may not be happening here, but far too many theists try to put the burden of proof on atheists who only say "I don't believe you". They want to make all atheists hard atheists where most of them are not. Most just lack a belief in a God.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Out of curiosity, how would anyone go about proving something didn't exist? I don't mean doesn't exist in my garage, I mean doesn't exist at all.

In a particular situation like that, it'd be difficult if not impossible. It'd be easier to disprove religious scriptures than a god.

 

[We Never Know]

No, they're not. They're positive assertions that something is impossible. You're misunderstanding what's meant by proving a negative.
Because that would be attempting to prove a negative. Do you not see the difference?

Out of curiosity, how would anyone go about proving something didn't exist? I don't mean doesn't exist in my garage, I mean doesn't exist at all.

"something is impossible".... Like a god?

 

[Valjean]

See post #1720. I can use science to show a negative in many ways. Saying a negative can't be proven i just a cop out, an avoidance.

OK. Post #1720:

We Never Know said: ↑
I can show you with science a man can't run at the speed of light.
I can show you with science a man can't flap his natural arms and fly like a bird.
I can show you with science a man can't free dive as deep as a whale in the ocean.
I can show you with science a man can't etc etc.

Those are all proving a negative.

No, they're not. They're positive assertions that something is impossible. You're misunderstanding what's meant by proving a negative.

So why can't you show me with science a god does not exist?

Because that would be attempting to prove a negative. Do you not see the difference?

Out of curiosity, how would anyone go about proving something didn't exist? I don't mean doesn't exist in my garage, I mean doesn't exist at all.

 

[John53]

"something is impossible".... Like a god?

You should google irony.

 

[We Never Know]

No, they're not. They're positive assertions that something is impossible. You're misunderstanding what's meant by proving a negative.
Because that would be attempting to prove a negative. Do you not see the difference?

Out of curiosity, how would anyone go about proving something didn't exist? I don't mean doesn't exist in my garage, I mean doesn't exist at all.

"Out of curiosity, how would anyone go about proving something didn't exist? I don't mean doesn't exist in my garage, I mean doesn't exist at all."

To start with you would have to know with 100% facts. If not, then its belief/opinion.