Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hopefully, you realize how ridiculous this sounds. By this standard, Santa is real.
It sounds ridiculous to you, because you do not understand.
It was not about upfront "truth"...is was relative to who it was upon to provide the "evidence" (Burden of Proof) when making a claim that deviates from a "Standard".
Note the Galileo example.
When the fantasy of Santa is revealed, it is backed with evidence...full and absolute verification of how the toys REALLY get there is given.
So ..where is your evidence of "No God Exists"?
Why is it my problem to solve? I am under no obligation to prove God to the defiant atheists who stands with arms crossed saying "convince me". If you won't even define the parameters of verifiable evidence then that shows a desire to maintain a position where you can easily reject any evidence brought to the table. Furthermore, God is not going to waste His time revealing Himself to those who have already rejected and harden their hearts against Him. How do i know this? Because of the atheists who tell me that they would choose to burn in hell so they could give God the finger. That's the level of hardness against God.
How ironic that atheists assert as fact that God does not exist which is an unverified claim.
You asserted a claim in post 394 that there was life after death and only the body dies. I asked you to provide evidence of a soul or spirit that survives death. You asked how to prove this event. I said it is your problem to prove being it is your positive assertion.
It sounds ridiculous to you, because you do not understand.
It was not about upfront "truth"...is was relative to who it was upon to provide the "evidence" (Burden of Proof) when making a claim that deviates from a "Standard".
Note the Galileo example.
When the fantasy of Santa is revealed, it is backed with evidence...full and absolute verification of how the toys REALLY get there is given.
So ..where is your evidence of "No God Exists"?
Again, Santa is the standard, yet he does not exist. Just because a lot of people believe something does not make it true. To suggest otherwise is to dwell in the realm of make believe.
Why is it my problem to solve? I am under no obligation to prove God to the defiant atheists who stands with arms crossed saying "convince me".
Yes you are...because you keep claiming that your god exists. Your BoP.
Quote:
If you won't even define the parameters of verifiable evidence then that shows a desire to maintain a position where you can easily reject any evidence brought to the table.
Many of us have already told you what would convince us that your god exists. We are all still waiting.
Quote:
Furthermore, God is not going to waste His time revealing Himself to those who have already rejected and harden their hearts against Him.
Yet only yesterday we had one of your team claiming that we have no choice in the matter, that your god makes the decisions regarding who does and who doesn't believe. You need to get your stories straight.
Quote:
How do i know this? Because of the atheists who tell me that they would choose to burn in hell so they could give God the finger. That's the level of hardness against God.
Quote:
How ironic that atheists assert as fact that God does not exist which is an unverified claim.
No. Atheists do not normally assert that. They assert that they have no belief that gods exist based on the lack of verifiable evidence for gods.
How ironic that theists assert that gods exist, which is an unverified claim.
Again, Santa is the standard, yet he does not exist. Just because a lot of people believe something does not make it true. To suggest otherwise is to dwell in the realm of make believe.
AGAIN...It isn't about the upfront truth.
Just as Galileo provided proof of the error that Earth was the center of the Universe, and verified that was NOT TRUE...you must provide evidence that the existence of a God Entity is NOT TRUE.
Just as when it is revealed that the existence of Santa is NOT TRUE, there is EVIDENCE provided to verify the claim that goes against the current understanding.
Please provide the evidence of your claim that goes against the current consensus understanding.
Just as Galileo provided proof of the error that Earth was the center of the Universe, and verified that was NOT TRUE...you must provide evidence that the existence of a God Entity is NOT TRUE.
Just as when it is revealed that the existence of Santa is NOT TRUE, there is EVIDENCE provided to verify the claim that goes against the current understanding.
Please provide the evidence of your claim that goes against the current consensus understanding.
you have a point.
The toys are there. Thats the fact.
how "children" see it is another matter. Claiming the toys are not there or that "nothing' put them there is false too.
The fact is ... there is no "random" as untrained people use the word. We are better explained in a system that resembles life over the explanation of naturally random. life is naturally random.
of course atheist priest and pastors will push a belief statement as "a better truth", but the rest of us don't have to play fundy/milli-mental deer games.
Why is it my problem to solve? I am under no obligation to prove God to the defiant atheists who stands with arms crossed saying "convince me".
You aren't. Unless you pop in here posting god -claims, never mind saying that atheists are mistaken. If you won't then even defend you claims - it makes you look very poor indeed.
Quote:
If you won't even define the parameters of verifiable evidence then that shows a desire to maintain a position where you can easily reject any evidence brought to the table.
Well, no. In fact we have a number of parameters for defining God and the evidence for God, Jesus or Bible, but the problem is that to much ground has been lost and we are asking for what Religious apologetics can't supply - no more than flat earthists can now validate a flat earth, though they did a good job of fiddling the evidence to make a flat earth sound possible.
Quote:
Furthermore, God is not going to waste His time revealing Himself to those who have already rejected and harden their hearts against Him.
Translation into English God will only reveal himself to those who are already brainwashing themselves into belief. How do I now this? because those who have un-brainwashed themselves have explained how they deluded themselves into believing what was not believable.
Quote:
How do I know this? Because of the atheists who tell me that they would choose to burn in hell so they could give God the finger. That's the level of hardness against God.
You misunderstand (and misrepresent) the position. If a half-way decent god put in the effort to make himself known, atheist would be convinced. They might even give support and respect if he showed that he merited it.
But if the god that we get is more the one that puts denial of evidence above acceptance of it, as a parameter for salvation, rather than how we live our lives, if he casually lets a believer be killed, struck by lightning, ruined or raped, just to see if their faith will hold, and sets up an elaborate system of eternal torture and then blames man for it -then atheists will respond to the hellthreat by saying, they cannot worship such a beast, not even under threat of torture.
Quote:
How ironic that atheists assert as fact that God does not exist which is an unverified claim.
The actual atheist position is that we with -hold belief until the unvalidated god -claim is validated. That is the logical position.
"God does not exist; there is not God" is really what we believe about the god of the Bible, and should always be taken with the caveat that applies to everything we believe "So far as reason and evidence seems to show".
As I explained to Mystic once, even if 'there is no God' was a claim to definite knowledge that no possible god could exist, the logicians only need to point out that this is an untenable claim and we would HAVE to moderate it to the logically valid position of disbelief until the God claim is proven. And as i say, Jeff you can refuse to do so, but then you can't bef about it if we continue to disbelieve.
(ps typo corrected -no charge)
I'm not even going to waste time on Goldie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
I do not even know why they bother asking what you would accept as verification. It's the Atheists that are in the subordinate position, with the obligation on them.
See, y'all need to face---THE REALITY OF THE WORLD about "God Belief". And why that reasonably puts the onus on the Atheists to "represent" and "prove their claim".
See..."Burden of proof" would be on the "God Exists" claim...all else being equal--But, all things ARE NOT equal.
"God Exists" has been the "norm" (8to9 out of 10) for THOOOOOOOUSANDS of years. It's the "incumbent position"...the "ruling viewpoint"...the "champion concept"! "God Exists" doesn't have to prove itself...it currently "holds office"!
"God Exists" has been sooooooo prolific, for sooooooo long...it can be considered a "Standard of Human Understanding".
When a concept reaches a "saturation point" that is to such a degree that it is considered to be "The Standard"...a position that deviates from that will have to prove itself to be given merit against the long established standard.
Since "GOD EXISTS" is the looooooong established WORLD STANDARD...anyone that wants to contest that, is going to have to prove THEIR case.
Just like Galileo had to PROVE the universe DOES NOT revolve around the Earth, since that concept was in opposition to the "long established standard" that it did...the Atheists will have to PROVE God DOES NOT exist, if they want their concept to be accepted as valid.
BTW...good luck with that. It will be much harder for you than it was for Galileo...since he was right, and you are wrong.
Except that the crux of his argument fails.
The universe was known to exist. Just what revolved about what was the only matter of debate.
God is NOT known to exist (and I will leave the semantic trick for others to look at and laugh at). So the burden of proof is on those who claim that it does. And that is what every point of you argument fails, as it begins with the false assumption that a god exists until disproved.
That sounds as absurd as saying that there could be no credibility for evolution -theory if there were not people who did not believe it.
Even if one is talking about Faith without good evidence, that people didn't believe it would hardly make any difference to the belief of those who did.
Back to the drawing board on that one, old son.
lmao, not.
you change things to meet your beliefs. Not surprising at all with people that have had the past experiences and personality traits you have.
Yes you are...because you keep claiming that your god exists. Your BoP.
Many of us have already told you what would convince us that your god exists. We are all still waiting.
Yet only yesterday we had one of your team claiming that we have no choice in the matter, that your god makes the decisions regarding who does and who doesn't believe. You need to get your stories straight.
No. Atheists do not normally assert that. They assert that they have no belief that gods exist based on the lack of verifiable evidence for gods.
How ironic that theists assert that gods exist, which is an unverified claim.
mmmm. As to your last statement here. A willingness to believe given positive proof would be an agnostic, not a true atheist, if I'm not mistaken. After you brought up the "pantheist" term on the other thread I looked up some definitions and that's how it was broken down on the site I went. Think it was Wiki. A true atheist just flat denies the existence of any deity while an agnostic would believe given positive proof. Not trying to nit pick. Just addressing what defines what in terms of what one chooses to call themselves as to a belief system. As I understood it a true atheist does not believe any proof could be offered and wouldn't accept it even if there was.
If I misunderstood those definitions please feel free to correct me.
Just as Galileo provided proof of the error that Earth was the center of the Universe, and verified that was NOT TRUE...you must provide evidence that the existence of a God Entity is NOT TRUE.
Just as when it is revealed that the existence of Santa is NOT TRUE, there is EVIDENCE provided to verify the claim that goes against the current understanding.
Please provide the evidence of your claim that goes against the current consensus understanding.
When you prove that an invisible Godzilla doesn't live in my backyard. The burden of proof is on you that god exists. The burden of proof is on me that an invisible Godzilla lives in my backyard.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
God will only reveal himself to those who are already brainwashing themselves into belief. How do I now this? because those who have un-brainwashed themselves have explained how they deluded themselves into believing what was not believable.