Who has the burden of proof?

[Thief]

Looks like I'm doing ok here.
Nothing but shallow retort....and no need to pursue it.

 

[McBell]

Looks like I'm doing ok here.
Nothing but shallow retort....and no need to pursue it.

If you want more than shallow retort you should offer more than shallow declarations.

But since we have already been down this road more than once and you have not changed your song or dance, I shall not be holding my breath for anything deeper from you.

 

[Thief]

If you want more than shallow retort you should offer more than shallow declarations.

But since we have already been down this road more than once and you have not changed your song or dance, I shall not be holding my breath for anything deeper from you.

NO sweat.....and someday you won't have to hold your breath.

 

[McBell]

If you want more than shallow retort you should offer more than shallow declarations.

But since we have already been down this road more than once and you have not changed your song or dance, I shall not be holding my breath for anything deeper from you.

NO sweat.....and someday you won't have to hold your breath.

 

[raw_thought]

I think that agnosticism is the only rational option.* To say that God exists or that God does not exist, is mere speculation. To know the ultimate answer requires a god-like intelligence. Heck, we are probably too stupid to even form a proper question.
Sometimes I think that asking if God exists is like asking ," is the number 5 married?" The question itself is meaningless. One cannot say, " yes the number 5 is married" because that is absurd. It is also absurd to say that the number 5 is not married, in other words the number 5 is a bachelor! God is ineffable, undefinable and infinite. Let "X" represent something undefined. Would it be a meaningful answer to say, " X exists"? Or even that X does not exist?
* I am using "agnostic" in the original sense ( before it became defined as simply not knowing) that God is beyond understanding and so therefore to say, " I believe in X" is absurd. It is also absurd to say, "I do not believe in X".

 

[RitalinOhD]

I think that agnosticism is the only rational option.* To say that God exists or that God does not exist, is mere speculation.

Who says god "does or does not exist"? I certainly don't, nor does every single atheist I know. Hell, I can't think of a single theist i know that makes that claim.

* I am using "agnostic" in the original sense ( before it became defined as simply not knowing) that God is beyond understanding and so therefore to say, " I believe in X" is absurd. It is also absurd to say, "I do not believe in X".

So you think it's absurd to not believe in something that has absolutely zero evidence of existing? You think it's absurd to not believe in leprechauns? What about Chupacabra? I would say it's completely absurd to hold belief in those things.

 

[Willamena]

I think that agnosticism is the only rational option.* To say that God exists or that God does not exist, is mere speculation.

If you don't know whether God exists or not, then it would be the case. But if you've defined the word, then it would not.

To know the ultimate answer requires a god-like intelligence.

Now that's speculation.

Heck, we are probably too stupid to even form a proper question.

That's just self-depreciation.

Sometimes I think that asking if God exists is like asking ," is the number 5 married?" The question itself is meaningless. One cannot say, " yes the number 5 is married" because that is absurd. It is also absurd to say that the number 5 is not married, in other words the number 5 is a bachelor! God is ineffable, undefinable and infinite. Let "X" represent something undefined. Would it be a meaningful answer to say, " X exists"? Or even that X does not exist?

God must be defined to have a quality or characteristic, such as "ineffable" or "infinite," no?

 

[raw_thought]

The property of being undefinable is like unknowable. It pertains to the thinker rather than the subject.

 

[raw_thought]

Who says god "does or does not exist"? I certainly don't, nor does every single atheist I know. Hell, I can't think of a single theist i know that makes that claim.
.

?????? You are saying that theists do not claim that God exists?
Or are you saying that you do not believe in logic? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

 

[raw_thought]

So you think it's absurd to not believe in something that has absolutely zero evidence of existing? You think it's absurd to not believe in leprechauns? What about Chupacabra? I would say it's completely absurd to hold belief in those things.

Reread my post. What you wrote is a total non-sequitur.

 

[RitalinOhD]

?????? You are saying that theists do not claim that God exists?
Or are you saying that you do not believe in logic? Law of excluded middle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Im stating that not all theists state "There is definitely a God". Just as not all, I would even wager most, atheists do not claim there is definitely no God.

Saying you believe in God, and there is a God are two completely different inferences.

 

[raw_thought]

If you don't know whether God exists or not, then it would be the case. But if you've defined the word, then it would not.

I honestly do not understand what you are saying. Are you saying that if I define God, then I will know if he exists?

 

[raw_thought]

Im stating that not all theists state "There is definitely a God". Just as not all, I would even wager most, atheists do not claim there is definitely no God.

Saying you believe in God, and there is a God are two completely different inferences.

There is a difference between belief and truth. However, in the present context that is superfluous.
Theists do not just claim that they believe in God. Theists claim that God exists.
It would be very odd to claim." I believe ( am convinced) that "X" is true, but it might not be." That sentence contradicts itself.

 

[George-ananda]

I think that agnosticism is the only rational option.

As a theist I like to consider myself rational too.

After reading your post one thing that comes to my mind is that you are restricting us to our rational mind. My study of mystics, eastern (Hindu) sages and paranormal experiences provides evidence (not proof) that there is more to this reality than our finite rational minds can reach. We can intelligently consider this evidence in forming our personal stance on the issue.

 

[RitalinOhD]

There is a difference between belief and truth. However, in the present context that is superfluous.
Theists do not just claim that they believe in God. Theists claim that God exists.
It would be very odd to claim." I believe ( am convinced) that "X" is true, but it might not be." That sentence contradicts itself.

You should explain that to all my theist friends then. I've had many conversations with them about this topic, as they like to grill me for being a "Heathen".

And I never stated they both believe "that "X" is true, but it might not be."

Saying I believe in God, but I have no direct empirical evidence that he exists is not contradictory. What you stated borders on Pascals wager.

 

[raw_thought]

Please show me how Pascal's wager is related to what we are talking about.
Pascal's wager claims to prove that it is in one's personal best interest to believe in God. * It has nothing to say about whether God exists or not.
True, people can say absurd things such as, " I am convinced that "X" exists but I may be wrong." Can't you see that that is a contradiction? If I believe that I may be wrong I am obviously not convinced.
* It even fails at that task. The form of the argument can apply to any proposition and so therefore is meaningless. For example, the logical form of Pascal's wager proves that it is in ones best interest to believe that an elf lives in the Washington monument.

 

[Thief]

Please show me how Pascal's wager is related to what we are talking about.
Pascal's wager claims to prove that it is in one's personal best interest to believe in God. * It has nothing to say about whether God exists or not.
True, people can say absurd things such as, " I am convinced that "X" exists but I may be wrong." Can't you see that that is a contradiction? If I believe that I may be wrong I am obviously not convinced.
* It even fails at that task. The form of the argument can apply to any proposition and so therefore is meaningless. For example, the logical form of Pascal's wager proves that it is in ones best interest to believe that an elf lives in the Washington monument.

Pascal's wager has a weak point.
It plays to consequence.

Believe in God....for your best interest.

I believe in God because I can see what is above my head.
I believe in science and the notion all of this came from one 'point'.

And God was there.

The proving is in the spin and rotation.
The expansion would have been one sphere of ever increasing size and hollow.
A simple explosion.

It was the pinch and snap of God's 'fingers' that set the spin BEFORE the 'bang'.

 

[adi2d]

Pascal's wager has a weak point.
It plays to consequence.

Believe in God....for your best interest.

I believe in God because I can see what is above my head.
I believe in science and the notion all of this came from one 'point'.

And God was there.





The proving is in the spin and rotation.
The expansion would have been one sphere of ever increasing size and hollow.
A simple explosion.

It was the pinch and snap of God's 'fingers' that set the spin BEFORE the 'bang'.

God has fingers. Before big bang. Oh please continue. That bs never gets old

 

[Thief]

God has fingers. Before big bang. Oh please continue. That bs never gets old

But it DOES get old.
The universe has been around a very long time!

As for the everyday head nodding.....that won't last.
Soon as reality sets in, the spirit that can continue will.
The spirit that cannot....won't.

It's not that Pascal's Wager is altogether incorrect.
It's just not enough to want to live.

I say you enter heaven by allowance....by grace.
If you enter....it's because you belong there.

Having said this much.....
My belief is not based on my desire to go to heaven.
That's my desire....but I don't have the final say on that.

I believe because the laws of motion seem rather firm.
Substance (once formed) would remain at rest.
Once it begins to move.....the speed would be constant.
From a common starting 'point'.....the singularity.....that motion would be a hollow sphere, ever expanding.

The rotation would need to be there BEFORE the expansion begins.
It has also been noticed....the speed is NOT constant.
The expansion is gaining velocity!

 

[raw_thought]

"Im stating that not all theists state "There is definitely a God". Just as not all, I would even wager most, atheists do not claim there is definitely no God.
Saying you believe in God, and there is a God are two completely different inferences."
RitalinOhD
"There is a difference between belief and truth. However, in the present context that is superfluous.
Theists do not just claim that they believe in God. Theists claim that God exists.
It would be very odd to claim." I believe ( am convinced) that "X" is true, but it might not be." That sentence contradicts itself."
raw_thought
And from post 316, "
"True, people can say absurd things such as, " I am convinced that "X" exists but I may be wrong." Can't you see that that is a contradiction? If I believe that I may be wrong I am obviously not convinced."

And I never stated they both believe "that "X" is true, but it might not be."

.

Actually, you did.
If you are not definite that God exists, you are unsure that he/she exists ,which means that you believe that you might be wrong.