Existence of God. Can debate satisfy atheist ?

[Tiberius]

It violates logic to say ALL was always here. We both beg the question of infinite regression but you are powerless to explain the numinous or the metaphysical.

Woah, hold on there.

When did I say the universe was always here?

 

[Polymath257]

And the UN-create-able matter and energy was created how? You're begging the question.

No, you are assuming it was created.

More specifically, you are assuming there was a time when there was absolutely nothing and a time when there was something. In no model that I am aware of is that the case.

In particular, whenever there was time, there was matter and energy.

 

[Ancient Soul]

NO!

Atheists do NOT want to accept any amount of evidence or proof of God.

They delight in wallowing in their ignorance and insist that everyone else join them.

If the evidence could get to the strength of the current evidence for dark matter, there would be something to discuss. But the evidence for a deity is nowhere close to that level from what I can see.

Not required. I don't have to prove unicorns don't exist. Those who claim they do are the ones that have to prove that they do.

But, to play along, give me a few properties of God and we will see if they are consistent or not.

I re-posted the first post of mine to Chinu that you replied to.

Nowhere did I try proving anything about God. so I'm STILL waiting for you to prove that God does not exist, as that is your claim. And you made it first, so you go first.

 

[Tiberius]

I re-posted the first post of mine to Chinu that you replied to.

Nowhere did I try proving anything about God. so I'm STILL waiting for you to prove that God does not exist, as that is your claim. And you made it first, so you go first.

If we are discussing the existence of leprechauns, then the burden of proof is on the one who claims leprechauns are real, not the one who claims they are imaginary.

Likewise, here the burden of proof is on eht one who claims God is real, not the one who claims that God is imaginary.

 

[Ancient Soul]

I re-posted the first post of mine to Chinu that you replied to.

Nowhere did I try proving anything about God. so I'm STILL waiting for you to prove that God does not exist, as that is your claim. And you made it first, so you go first.

If we are discussing the existence of leprechauns, then the burden of proof is on the one who claims leprechauns are real, not the one who claims they are imaginary.

Likewise, here the burden of proof is on eht one who claims God is real, not the one who claims that God is imaginary.

Look, it's clear enough.

I re-posted the whole conversation, and nowhere did I try to prove anything or make any claims about God.

So you're getting your panties in a bunch for nothing.

 

[Tiberius]

Look, it's clear enough.

I re-posted the whole conversation, and nowhere did I try to prove anything or make any claims about God.

So you're getting your panties in a bunch for nothing.

I'm just pointing out that the person who claims God does not exist does not bear the burden of proof. @Polymath257 does not have to prove that God does not exist. The burden of proof lies on the person who makes the positive claim. All Polymath is doing is responding to the claim that God exists by saying "prove it." When you claim Polymath has to support their position, you are essentially saying that anyone can prove anything by claiming it exists, and when asked to provide proof that the thing exists they can reply with, "Prove it doesn't!"

 

[Ancient Soul]

I'm just pointing out that the person who claims God does not exist does not bear the burden of proof. @Polymath257 does not have to prove that God does not exist. The burden of proof lies on the person who makes the positive claim. All Polymath is doing is responding to the claim that God exists by saying "prove it." When you claim Polymath has to support their position, you are essentially saying that anyone can prove anything by claiming it exists, and when asked to provide proof that the thing exists they can reply with, "Prove it doesn't!"

Ha, you are contradicting your own "burden of proof" standard.

You claim that anyone who claims God exists HAS to PROVE it!!! (Of which I didn't, yet you are STILL badgering me to prove God to you.)

But now you claim that anyone who claims God does not exist, does NOT have to PROVE anything, WTF???? (Of which YOU are claiming, that God does not exist.)

LOL!!!

 

[Tiberius]

Ha, you are contradicting your own "burden of proof" standard.

You claim that anyone who claims God exists HAS to PROVE it!!! (Of which I didn't, yet you are STILL badgering me to prove God to you.)

But now you claim that anyone who claims God does not exist, does NOT have to PROVE anything, WTF???? (Of which YOU are claiming, that God does not exist.)

LOL!!!

No I'm not.

I never said you claimed God exists, did I? Of course, if you disagree with me, please feel free to point out which I posts I made that claim in.

I am simply saying that if Polymath rejects the claim that God exists, then Polymath does not need to prove their position.

 

[Polymath257]

I re-posted the first post of mine to Chinu that you replied to.

Nowhere did I try proving anything about God. so I'm STILL waiting for you to prove that God does not exist, as that is your claim. And you made it first, so you go first.

Which God? What properties does this God have?

I never made the claim that there is no God. I did make the claim that the existence has not been proved.

 

[Polymath257]

Ha, you are contradicting your own "burden of proof" standard.

You claim that anyone who claims God exists HAS to PROVE it!!! (Of which I didn't, yet you are STILL badgering me to prove God to you.)

But now you claim that anyone who claims God does not exist, does NOT have to PROVE anything, WTF???? (Of which YOU are claiming, that God does not exist.)

LOL!!!

Yes, that is completely correct. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive existence claim.

If someone claims that unicorns exist, it is NOT on someone else to prove they do not. It is on the person claiming they exist to prove they do.

It is actually a very simple principle that is used universally.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Ok, perhaps you are saying the principle in informal logic know as an "argument from ignorance" applies. To say the statement "God exists" is false because it has not been proven true, is a fallicious argument, just as it is fallicious to say "God does not exist" is true because it has yet to be proven false.

On the other hand it hasn't been proven either that God doesn't exist .

So the question comes back you..
Your called into question by your own question.
Before you ask a Christians for proof of evidence that God exist..you first have to bring forth evidence to provide proof that God doesn't exist.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Because the burden of proof is on the one making the positive existence claim. That means that if you claim something exists, it is *your* job to show it does, NOT someone else's job to show it doesn't.

In the case of God, the problem starts even before that, though. Even defining what it is that the existence is claimed for is a problem. What are the detectable properties of God? How would we even determine whether such a creature exists or not?

Nope not at all..
If you were to ask me do I have any proof of God existence..

Your called into question by your own question..
You first have to bring forth the evidence that backs up what your asking first.
Otherwise you have nothing and it useless to continue..

 

[Faithofchristian]

That makes absolutely no sense. If you claim something exists, you have the job of providing evidence for that existence. If I am simply asking whether you have a proof, I am not making a statement at all. I am simply asking if you actually have proof of your claim.

Now, if I was actually claiming that no God exists, you would have a point: you could legitimately ask me to prove my position. But that is not the case. YOU make the existence claim. It is YOUR job to prove it.



Asking for proof is not a claim you are wrong: it is an investigation as to your reasons for thinking what you do.



There are too many different ideas about what the word 'God' means to deal with all of them.

For example, if you define God to be 'the universe', then I believe God exists. But I also think that this would be an abuse of language.

Part of asking for a proof is also seeing what you mean by the term 'God' and what it takes to show existence of non-existence. if the concept is too vague, then there is no real discussion possible.



I disagree. When the HIgg's particle was proposed, it was NOT the job of those who thought it didn't exist to *prove* it didn't exist. It was the job of those claiming it does to prove it. That burden of proof is universal, but you seem to want to dodge it because you know there is no proof of the existence of your deity.

I'll tell you what. YOU give me an observation that could be made and that, if it doesn't go the way you expect, would convince you that your God does not exist. Then we can go and do the observation.

The point being made is..
If you ask a Christian do you have any proof of God existence..

Your called into question by your own question.
You first has to have the evidence to back up what your asking first .
That by the nature of your question.
You don't believe in the existence of God.

So therefore your called into question by your own question.
You first has to have the proof of what asking first.
Otherwise it's useless to continue.

 

[Faithofchristian]

OK, I claim that I have a proof that God does not exist.

But, if you ask me to give it to you, I will ask you to prove I am wrong first.

Now why would I a Christian want to ask you ask something that would be totally silly.
Nice try though

 

[Milton Platt]

If, atheists predetermined that they will NOT accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence / proof -- do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them ?

Atheism is not monolithic. Some do not believe any gods exist. Some take the agnostic approach and simply say they do not know if any exist, therefore withhold belief until evidence is sufficient for belief. Some may want to know if there is a god, some may not really care one way or the other, some may also be anti-theist and are opposed to such things. So your question is a bit broad.

Answering for myself only, I do not know if there are any gods, but do not believe any of those thus far proposed are viable for various reasons, depending on the description of the nature and character of said god.

 

[Milton Platt]

Now why would I a Christian want to ask you ask something that would be totally silly.
Nice try though

What is silly about asking for evidence of a claim?

 

[Tiberius]

Ha, you are contradicting your own "burden of proof" standard.

You claim that anyone who claims God exists HAS to PROVE it!!! (Of which I didn't, yet you are STILL badgering me to prove God to you.)

But now you claim that anyone who claims God does not exist, does NOT have to PROVE anything, WTF???? (Of which YOU are claiming, that God does not exist.)

LOL!!!

Wow, you really don't get it.

John meets with Steven. John tells Steven that Fairies are real. John has the burden of proof to demonstrate that fairies are real. Steve does not have to show that fairies are imaginary.

Your argument would be something like:

John: Hey Steve, did you know that fairies are real?

Steve: No they aren't.

John: Yes they are.

Steve: Can you provide any evidence for your claim?

John: I don't have to. You have to prove that fairies are imaginary. Until then, I'm perfectly justified in saying that fairies are real!

 

[Milton Platt]

Let me be clear when I say I always support silliness.

Well, that’s just silly.

 

[Polymath257]

The point being made is..
If you ask a Christian do you have any proof of God existence..

Your called into question by your own question.

And I say that is clearly wrong.

It simply isn't how it happens for any other subject.

Asking for evidence is not the same as making a claim you are wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

Now why would I a Christian want to ask you ask something that would be totally silly.
Nice try though

Why would they not?

I really don't understand this mindset, I have to admit. Asking questions is how we learn. Asking for evidence is how we know people are right.