Science has much better answers than "God did it" (church, agnostics)
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.
We cannot both start from there. Debate is from two or more sides, not from the same point. Because there is no evidence for that possibility, I start from a stance of disbelief. You however, are just falling back on a variation of Pascal's Wager, which is frankly ludicrous.
No, but if someone ever showed me scientific proof that one did, I would take it under consideration.
You are the one with the gross preconception. You want to start from a point in the discussion that is ridiculous for me to assume. You're trying to move my starting point to the same spot yours is, which is not how a debate works. You say a creator exists. I say I don't believe that to be accurate, show me the science behind your statement. Your assertion in the positive shifts the proof on to you, and I need do nothing to support my claim.
I am saying if you are open see what is out there as far as knowledge on the subject. I already said I cannot say whether a maker exists. I may think such force may exist that does not prove anything. I am willing to put what I think aside and look at whatever evidence on both sides exist, compare and go from there. If it is difficult for you to put asside your conclusions then you start with a bias. I am not trying to convince you of anything. One of the reasons I asked anyone is to see what is out there and go from there.
I asked this on my first message because I saw this thread with people generally attacking each other without really going into whatever evidence on both sides may exists. I thought why not just see what we is out there. I am not going to cite the Bible as proof as some do. Or say the Lord this or that and I am not just say science does not prove this or that. Both sides I see not presenting anything that just repeating what to me is a lot of faith, take care.
We cannot both start from there. Debate is from two or more sides, not from the same point. Because there is no evidence for that possibility, I start from a stance of disbelief.
You are the one with the gross preconception. You want to start from a point in the discussion that is ridiculous for me to assume. You're trying to move my starting point to the same spot yours is, which is not how a debate works. You say a creator exists. I say I don't believe that to be accurate, show me the science behind your statement. Your assertion in the positive shifts the proof on to you, and I need do nothing to support my claim.
This is a repost of a previous offering, with modifications.
MercC...what you...and the rest of TAC refuse to face, is---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 Merc..."Burden of proof" would be on the "God Exists" claim...all else being equal--But, all things ARE NOT equal.
When you are the veeeeeeeeery slight majority...contesting the worldwide "standard"...that's a totally different story.
Belief 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"! It's upon the weak challenger (Atheism) of nearly negligible merit/influence to prove itself. So far it's gotten steamrolled and flattened, in every "race". If it were seen as an "election"...Atheism would be viewed as being defeated in the biggest landslide EVER.
It's actually a joke that the insignificant pipsqueak Challenger with a 1W-9L record would have the nerve to "call out" the REEEEEEEIGNING, AND DEFENNNNNNDING, UNNNNNN-DE-FEATED, CHAAAAAAAM-PI-OOOOOOON CONNNNNNNCEPT, OOOOOOF THE WORRRRRRRLD...and demand it "prove" itself. LOL!
And anyone can blow off with all the "ad Pop/Logical Fallacy" rebuttals they want...but the Atheist viewpoint STILL won't ever do anything but get trounced in the arena of world merit.
And before anyone gets all mentally irregular...I hold Atheism in higher regard, and view it as superior, to most concepts...and certainly above all organized religious dogma. I'm just pointing out the REALITY as to what "the way of the world" is.
"GOD EXISTS" is the looooooong established WORLD STANDARD...and anyone that wants to contest that, is going to have to prove THEIR case.
BTW...good luck with that...so far "The God Exists Concept" has "taken on all challengers" for thousands of years and "dusted them" like they weren't even there.
This is a repost of a previous offering, with modifications.
MercC...what you...and the rest of TAC refuse to face, is---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 Merc..."Burden of proof" would be on the "God Exists" claim...all else being equal--But, all things ARE NOT equal.
When you are the veeeeeeeeery slight majority...contesting the worldwide "standard"...that's a totally different story.
Belief 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"! It's upon the weak challenger (Atheism) of nearly negligible merit/influence to prove itself. So far it's gotten steamrolled and flattened, in every "race". If it were seen as an "election"...Atheism would be viewed as being defeated in the biggest landslide EVER.
It's actually a joke that the insignificant pipsqueak Challenger with a 1W-9L record would have the nerve to "call out" the REEEEEEEIGNING, AND DEFENNNNNNDING, UNNNNNN-DE-FEATED, CHAAAAAAAM-PI-OOOOOOON CONNNNNNNCEPT, OOOOOOF THE WORRRRRRRLD...and demand it "prove" itself. LOL!
And anyone can blow off with all the "ad Pop/Logical Fallacy" rebuttals they want...but the Atheist viewpoint STILL won't ever do anything but get trounced in the arena of world merit.
And before anyone gets all mentally irregular...I hold Atheism in higher regard, and view it as superior, to most concepts...and certainly above all organized religious dogma. I'm just pointing out the REALITY as to what "the way of the world" is.
"GOD EXISTS" is the looooooong established WORLD STANDARD...and anyone that wants to contest that, is going to have to prove THEIR case.
BTW...good luck with that...so far "The God Exists Concept" has "taken on all challengers" for thousands of years and "dusted them" like they weren't even there.
I cannot agree that because the majority and for a long time the belief is that God exist is proof of his/her existence. There are many beliefs in history that were the world standard and later it was found to be false. I will say that atheist do look at science and logic as a measuring standard to say whether a God exists or not. I believe they have a valid request for believers to show scientific and logic priniciples to do so. After all, if God does exist and is the creator of all things then he was the master scientist and logician in history. So using science and logic show also help establisht that there is enough science and logic to show a strong and valid conclusion that he exists. However, those that demand science and logic to show that a god may exist I get the impression that they do show a lot faith on many scientific conclusions just as many God believers do. Also, it is my perception that many non believers of the existence of God tend to think of the God as described in the Bible. Well, there are many other differents views about God. To me that tend to be a mental block they tend to have when they debate the existance of God, take care.
The problem with SCIENCE is...it is a human made conceptual tool of learning and gaining knowledge with Weak based IDEALS that seem to change over time...to correct error, and sometimes not to correct error in what is known to be true!
vs. a book written by man thousands of years ago when men believed the earth was flat......... yea, I'll stick with science, and the process of continually testing and challenging findings instead of saying goddunnit, end of discussion, cause a 2,000 - 3,000 year old book said so.
Science indeed has better answers than 'God Did It'.
But science lacks in some extremely important categories...
Can science be used to justify burning someone at the stake?
Can science provide an excuse (and defender) for hatred?
Can science be used to justify war?
Does science promise eternal life?
Does science threaten the non-religious with eternal torture?
Can a person be arrogant, mean spirited, hateful, greedy, intolerant of others, and be forgiven for it by science?
So, you see that science lacks in the more important areas.
God Ble$$ Religion!
I cannot agree that because the majority and for a long time the belief is that God exist is proof of his/her existence. There are many beliefs in history that were the world standard and later it was found to be false. I will say that atheist do look at science and logic as a measuring standard to say whether a God exists or not. I believe they have a valid request for believers to show scientific and logic priniciples to do so. After all, if God does exist and is the creator of all things then he was the master scientist and logician in history. So using science and logic show also help establisht that there is enough science and logic to show a strong and valid conclusion that he exists. However, those that demand science and logic to show that a god may exist I get the impression that they do show a lot faith on many scientific conclusions just as many God believers do. Also, it is my perception that many non believers of the existence of God tend to think of the God as described in the Bible. Well, there are many other differents views about God. To me that tend to be a mental block they tend to have when they debate the existance of God, take care.
I wasn't addressing the issue of whether a God does or doesn't exist in that post. I was just making the case for what side "The Burden of Proof" would reasonably be on. I believe I put forth a solid case.
Others will have a differing viewpoint. They're wrong...but that doesn't mean they won't think they aren't.
None-the-less...it is still A FACT...that in the "Arena of World Mojo"..."GOD EXISTS"....is, and has been, (and will continue to be) the "UNDISPUTED CHAMPION CONCEPT".
OTOH...Atheism gets trounced by the Champ EVERY TIME it comes up against it...and I mean TROOOOOOONCED!! It is not now...has never been...and will never be...anything but the insignificant challenger to "God Exists". Because...weeeeeeell...it's contesting ***GOD***---So what do you expect? Of course it's going to get whooped!!
I am saying if you are open see what is out there as far as knowledge on the subject.
What makes you think I haven't already done that, extensively and exhaustively? You're just assuming I haven't. How do you think I came to my conclusions? You think I just got up one morning and said, "Today I feel like being an atheist! Tra-la-la! Feedle-dee-dum!"?
Quote:
Both sides I see not presenting anything that just repeating what to me is a lot of faith, take care.
It is not up to "my side" to present any evidence whatsoever, because we aren't the ones making the assertion that something exists. The god-believers are the ones who carry 100% of the burden of evidence to prove what they say exists actually does exist. See the link I left in my post to jaada if you don't understand why this is so.
In short: atheists do not carry the burden of proof.
What makes you think I haven't already done that, extensively and exhaustively? You're just assuming I haven't. How do you think I came to my conclusions? You think I just got up one morning and said, "Today I feel like being an atheist! Tra-la-la! Feedle-dee-dum!"?
It is not up to "my side" to present any evidence whatsoever, because we aren't the ones making the assertion that something exists. The god-believers are the ones who carry 100% of the burden of evidence to prove what they say exists actually does exist. See the link I left in my post to jaada if you don't understand why this is so.
In short: atheists do not carry the burden of proof.
No I did not assume anything. I wrote "if" because I do not know. No more no less.
Is there anything wrong with you taking the first step and show people why you believe science refutes the existence of a supernatural force that created things? Is it so difficult to do that? Sure the burden of proof may be theirs but what is wrong if you do bring up your logic? I understand the what you tried to say in the link you listed. I have read about it before and I did read the article too.
In this sense I give more credit to those that believe in the existence of a god even though many my just quote the Bible. Ok, so when they do, tell them they need to show the science and logic behind the Bible account, not just that it is not scientific and may state a scientific principle that shows them incorrect. Why is not scientific that a supernatural force created things once they quote the Bible? Not just comment that it is a lot of faith with no science. Well, that does not say anymore than those that quote the Bible as a reply
It is not unusual in a conversation that if I say Roosevelt knew about the Pearl Harbor attack ahead of time and let it happen and someone says it is not true for me to ask why not? Usually that person may say why, not just take your stance "You have the burden of proof". Conversations like this happen all the time and it does not violate any logic principles if you decide to prove why an intelligent force that created things does not exist, does it? It is good to use the laws of logic but we could get so blinded like a horse with blinders and think about logic as if there are no other ways to debate and still stay within the logic principles.
GlndRule said that becuase the majority in the world believe in the existence of God the onus is on others to prove their case. I say the same thing to him as I said to you above.
That is why this thread keeps going on and on with people in some case putting down others views, expecting the other to prove the point, and along the way not much substance, only dismissing comments, take care.
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.
