Existence of God. Can debate satisfy atheist ?

[Faithofchristian]

That seems badly wrong to me. If a scientist does not believe in Bigfoot, it is certainly NOT a waste of time arguing against the existence of Bigfoot.



Nope. Again, if someone does not believe in Bigfoot, the best thing a believer could to is actually produce a Bigfoot. In the absence of that, the person who does not believe merely has to show the proposed evidence is lacking.

It is a waste of time...the scientist should proved the evidence that big foot didn't exist...before I would give anything to support that big foot did exist..

The person that's asking for the evidence.
That person is called into question by their own question..
That person must prove what their asking first...
Before the other person has to say or give any evidence..

That doesn't make any sense. If you tell me that you have a flawless diamond the size of a watermelon buried in your backyard, what do I have to prove before asking you to provide evidence for this alleged diamond? Since there has never, ever been such a thing, I think my request to be quite reasonable.

Well before you ask someone else to prove something.
.your first called into question by your own question..
Your the one to show proof of what your saying first..
How can a person ask another person to show proof of why they believe in what they believe.
When that person is first called into question by their own question.
That person must first prove what their asking first.. otherwise it useless for that person to ask anything..when they can not provide their proof first.

 

[chinu]

If it is a video of an actual deity showing him(her/it)self to people publicly, then sure.

Video should be recorded or live ? And, do you also want God to do something in that video — for example miracle or something ?

 

[Ancient Soul]

What we want is evidence of a god, not evidence that points to there being no god and then told we are the ignorant ones.

Evidence there is no god.
God waited 200,000 years before revealing himself to a group of goat herders.
If he wanted the world to follow him he would of picked a better group to reveal himself to, like a superpower of the time.
Genesis is proven to be wrong so the early writers were not getting messages from god
Jesus was an insignificant man in his time, he's not mentioned in any Roman writing of the time. Only that there are a few followers.
The bible was compiled as a political exercise by Constantine and the council.
Religion was very necessary for the development and cohesion of ancient groups.
Man invented religion, not just Christianity. That came later and before there is a lot of evidence of religions.
There is no link between many of these religions.
We are just a product of evolution like the rest of life on Earth.

That's not any "evidence" to back up your claim that there is no God.

I've stated probably thousands of times on Internet forums that the bible is just man made lies about God. Just like all the other man made religious mythologies. Which in no way can be used to prove or disprove the existence of God.

 

[Tiberius]

For example ?

An example of such an argument? Or an example of such a fallacy?

 

[Tiberius]

Do you care to provide any example of any belief that resort logical fallacies ? So that I could continue.

Argument from incredulity. For example, when believers say, "How can you look at the Grand Canyon/watch a sunset/listen to a baby laugh and not believe in God?"

 

[Tiberius]

I've been told the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy says nothing that is could have been created or eliminated, and that of necessity, this Law was mysteriously exempt around Planck time, aka hand-waving.

God Created.

Or maybe that the total net energy of the universe is zero, and that explains it? What's the Total Energy In the Universe? | Live Science

 

[Polymath257]

Or maybe that the total net energy of the universe is zero, and that explains it? What's the Total Energy In the Universe? | Live Science

This is the basis of most 'universe from nothing' scenarios.

 

[Polymath257]

That's not any "evidence" to back up your claim that there is no God.

Sure there is. The persistent lack of evidence in spite of thousands of years of investigation under circumstances that *should* show evidence is actually evidence against the existence.

But, again, as always, the burden of proof is on the one making a positive existence claim, not on the one denying it.

For example, I do not have to show the non-existence of Bigfoot. Those who claim Bigfoot exists have to supply positive evidence of such.

I've stated probably thousands of times on Internet forums that the bible is just man made lies about God. Just like all the other man made religious mythologies. Which in no way can be used to prove or disprove the existence of God.

One big problem is that believers never describe the type of evidence that would show a difference between a universe with a God and a universe without one. They also never define the properties of this God in such a way that it *could* be tested. And, they never describe an observation that, if it goes the way they don't expect, would convince them of the non-existence.

ALL of these are basic for any honest claims for the existence of something.

 

[Polymath257]

It is a waste of time...the scientist should proved the evidence that big foot didn't exist...before I would give anything to support that big foot did exist..

What? That simply is not how it actually happens in practice.

The person that's asking for the evidence.
That person is called into question by their own question..
That person must prove what their asking first...
Before the other person has to say or give any evidence..

That is never how it actually works in practice.

Well before you ask someone else to prove something.
.your first called into question by your own question..
Your the one to show proof of what your saying first..
How can a person ask another person to show proof of why they believe in what they believe.
When that person is first called into question by their own question.
That person must first prove what their asking first.. otherwise it useless for that person to ask anything..when they can not provide their proof first.

Huh? A scientist that proposes a new particle needs to show the evidence for that particle. It is not up to other scientists to prove it does not exist.

Asking for evidence is not 'calling into question their own position'. I fail to see how that is the case.

 

[Faithofchristian]

What? That simply is not how it actually happens in practice.



That is never how it actually works in practice.



Huh? A scientist that proposes a new particle needs to show the evidence for that particle. It is not up to other scientists to prove it does not exist.

Asking for evidence is not 'calling into question their own position'. I fail to see how that is the case.

If a scientist invented something..then that scientists will have the proof to back up his/her invention...
But if another scientist asks the other scientist to prove his/her invention..
Then the other scientist has to show the other scientific his/her their proof of evidence to back up what their asking.

If a scientist stood up...and said..do you sir have any proof that your invention will work..

The scientist that stood up..they are called into question by their own question..
Therefore that scientists is called into question by their own question..
Before that scientist can ask for proof..that scientist must first have the proof to show how it won't work.

Before you can ask anyone for proof..you first must have the proof to back what your asking first.

Let's for say..that someone came to me ask me..what proof do I have that God exist....
Well that person is called into question by their own question..
That person must first show by proof that God doesn't exist.
Before they can ask anyone for proof.
As I have had people ask me this question...
So I simply turn it back on them....seeing that your asking the question..you first are called into question by your own question....
You first have to show your proof of what your asking first...you just can't walk up to someone and ask them for proof..when you don't have the proof yourself to back up what your asking first.
It's that simple..

 

[MikeF]

If a scientist invented something..then that scientists will have the proof to back up his/her invention...
But if another scientist asks the other scientist to prove his/her invention..
Then the other scientist has to show the other scientific his/her their proof of evidence to back up what their asking.

If a scientist stood up...and said..do you sir have any proof that your invention will work..

The scientist that stood up..they are called into question by their own question..
Therefore that scientists is called into question by their own question..
Before that scientist can ask for proof..that scientist must first have the proof to show how it won't work.

Before you can ask anyone for proof..you first must have the proof to back what your asking first.

Let's for say..that someone came to me ask me..what proof do I have that God exist....
Well that person is called into question by their own question..
That person must first show by proof that God doesn't exist.
Before they can ask anyone for proof.
As I have had people ask me this question...
So I simply turn it back on them....seeing that your asking the question..you first are called into question by your own question....
You first have to show your proof of what your asking first...you just can't walk up to someone and ask them for proof..when you don't have the proof yourself to back up what your asking first.
It's that simple..

Why does it always have to be scientists?
What if a baseball pitcher states to the baseball catcher that she can throw a fastball that will reach or exceed the speed of 100 mile per hour.
By your logic, the catcher can't simply ask the pitcher to prove it. You argue, that before the catcher asks the pitcher to prove his claim, the catcher has to prove to the pitcher why he can't pitch as fast as he claims, then ask the pitcher to prove the catcher wrong.
Why can't the catcher simply ask the pitcher to throw a fastball and see if the pitchers claim is true?

 

[Polymath257]

If a scientist invented something..then that scientists will have the proof to back up his/her invention...

Yes, the scientist has to present evidence of their claim.

But if another scientist asks the other scientist to prove his/her invention..
Then the other scientist has to show the other scientific his/her their proof of evidence to back up what their asking.

Wrong. The *original* scientist is the one that has to prove their invention works or that their claim is valid. The other scientist can criticize the evidence presented by the original one and does NOT have to prove that the invention does not work or that the claim is actually false.

The burden of proof is on the original scientist.

If a scientist stood up...and said..do you sir have any proof that your invention will work..

The scientist that stood up..they are called into question by their own question..

Wrong. The scientist who stood up is completely justified in asking the original one to present evidence their invention works and their claim is valid. The one who stood up is in no way 'called into question' by their own question.

Therefore that scientists is called into question by their own question..
Before that scientist can ask for proof..that scientist must first have the proof to show how it won't work.

Nope, that is simply not how it works. The *original* scientist is the one that must present evidence that their invention works and any claims are valid. Another scientist can question that evidence or the claims and certainly does NOT have to prove the invention does NOT work or that the claim is false before they can ask for evidence.

Before you can ask anyone for proof..you first must have the proof to back what your asking first.

Nope, you have it backwards. before you claim that an invention works or that a claim is true, you must present evidence. Someone else questioning that evidence simply has to show whether the original scientist did not show their claims.

Let's for say..that someone came to me ask me..what proof do I have that God exist....
Well that person is called into question by their own question..

Why do you think that? YOUR claim is the one called into question.

That person must first show by proof that God doesn't exist.

Nope. That isn't how it works. And, in fact, it is rather a silly position to take, I think.

Before they can ask anyone for proof.
As I have had people ask me this question...
So I simply turn it back on them....seeing that your asking the question..you first are called into question by your own question....
You first have to show your proof of what your asking first...you just can't walk up to someone and ask them for proof..when you don't have the proof yourself to back up what your asking first.
It's that simple..

I disagree. The burden of proof is on the one making the existence claim. Period. ANYONE can question the validity of that claim and has nothing to prove beforehand.

 

[rrobs]

Why not? I see no reason to presume the messages must all be uniform, when people are all different, and at different places in their 'existential journey'.

Maybe God told Hitler to kill the Jews?

 

[rrobs]

Oddly, that's not what they seem to say when they write about it, and many have, including Charles Templeton (who used to work with Billy Graham and wrote "Farewell to God"), Bart D. Ehrman (who has a Masters of Divinity degree and has written many books, including 3 college textbooks) and others. In general, what they say is that eventually they came to realize that the teachings of Christianity did not make real sense.

So does that mean Christianity does not make real sense? I guess they are the gods who know the real deal?

In general, there are two kinds of people, those who think the scriptures make sense and those who don't. Let each make up their own mind and live with their decision.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Why does it always have to be scientists?
What if a baseball pitcher states to the baseball catcher that she can throw a fastball that will reach or exceed the speed of 100 mile per hour.
By your logic, the catcher can't simply ask the pitcher to prove it. You argue, that before the catcher asks the pitcher to prove his claim, the catcher has to prove to the pitcher why he can't pitch as fast as he claims, then ask the pitcher to prove the catcher wrong.
Why can't the catcher simply ask the pitcher to throw a fastball and see if the pitchers claim is true?

All your trying to do is have an excuse to avoid the question at hand..
It's always an excuse...

But it's not going to work....
Not this way any how..

If you were to ask me can I prove the existence of God.
You are called into question by your own question first..
You first have to bring forth you proof of evidence to show that God doesn't exist.
Before you can ask your question for proof of evidence..
Therefore how can you ask me for proof of God's existence.
When you have no proof of evidence that God doesn't exist..

It's like going into court and to think that the court is only going on your say..
Without having any proof of evidence on what your saying..
The court will ask you to bring forth your proof of evidence first.
So it is..your called into question by your own question to provide your evidence first.

 

[Faithofchristian]

What? That simply is not how it actually happens in practice.



That is never how it actually works in practice.



Huh? A scientist that proposes a new particle needs to show the evidence for that particle. It is not up to other scientists to prove it does not exist.

Asking for evidence is not 'calling into question their own position'. I fail to see how that is the case.

If I was ask for the proof of evidence that will show the existence of God..

Then your called into question by your own question..
You first have to show proof of evidence that God doesn't exist..
You can not ask someone to prove something..when you don't have the proof of evidence to back up what your asking yourself..
Go Figure

 

[MikeF]

All your trying to do is have an excuse to avoid the question at hand..
It's always an excuse...

But it's not going to work....
Not this way any how..

If you were to ask me can I prove the existence of God.
You are called into question by your own question first..
You first have to bring forth you proof of evidence to show that God doesn't exist.
Before you can ask your question for proof of evidence..
Therefore how can you ask me for proof of God's existence.
When you have no proof of evidence that God doesn't exist..

It's like going into court and to think that the court is only going on your say..
Without having any proof of evidence on what your saying..
The court will ask you to bring forth your proof of evidence first.
So it is..your called into question by your own question to provide your evidence first.

Ok, I'm going to bite. Here it is:
Human beings currently, and throughout history, have believed in things that are not true, both in religious and non-religious beliefs. If we have the ability to believe in things that are not true, we cannot trust that what we personally feel, believe, divine, intuit, or experience is actually true. We must verify a belief outside of ourselves.
If one looks at all the different religious beliefs, now and throughout history, they cannot all be true, therefore, either all are wrong, or all but one is wrong. How do we measure or evaluate the truth of something that doesn't rely on our individual, imperfect selves? We have to use the scientific method of inquiry.
To date, no religious belief fits with, or explains, that which we currently know about the world and the universe. Therefore, God, as postulated in the worlds religions, does not exist.

So now the ball is in your court. Prove God exists.

 

[ppp]

You first have to show proof of evidence that God doesn't exist..
You can not ask someone to prove something..when you don't have the proof of evidence to back up what your asking yourself..
Go Figure

By that reasoning, if you claim to have a winning lottery ticket, the lottery board would first have to show proof that you don't have said ticket before they can ask you to prove that you do. Heh. That's funny.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Ok, I'm going to bite. Here it is:
Human beings currently, and throughout history, have believed in things that are not true, both in religious and non-religious beliefs. If we have the ability to believe in things that are not true, we cannot trust that what we personally feel, believe, divine, intuit, or experience is actually true. We must verify a belief outside of ourselves.
If one looks at all the different religious beliefs, now and throughout history, they cannot all be true, therefore, either all are wrong, or all but one is wrong. How do we measure or evaluate the truth of something that doesn't rely on our individual, imperfect selves. We have to use the scientific method of inquiry.
To date, no religious belief fits with, or explains that which we currently know about the world and the universe. Therefore, God, as postulated in the worlds religions, does not exist.

So now the ball is in your court. Prove God exists.

No actually the balls still in your court..

Your still called into question by your question..
So what proof do you that God doesn't exist..
As you can see..I will not fall for your excuses and that's all your doing is trying to avoid answering your own question.
Therefore your called into question by your own question..
So what proof of evidence do you have that God doesn't exist..
So therefore the ball is still in your court..

 

[Faithofchristian]

By that reasoning, if you claim to have a winning lottery ticket, the lottery board would first have to show proof that you don't have said ticket before they can ask you to prove that you do. Heh. That's funny.

Just another excuse..but it will not work at least not this way
I had the something that your giving..but the ball is still in your court..
So your called into question by your own question..
Nice try though