"Prove It (Using My Proofs)" (mythology, atheist, paranormal)
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.
Please supply objective, verifiable evidence for this claim.
Please supply objective, verifiable evidence for this claim.
Please supply objective, verifiable evidence for this claim.
This with regard to something where the only evidence of the matter was scripture.
Yeah, right. "Prove" something that is a testament of faith by science.
Does anyone else see what a rigged game this is? People of any religion are asked to present proof of their assertions, only most evidence of the subject is placed in books of myth or paranormal, even if it was a true story. Meanwhile if I do come up with proof from science itself (I've despite everything, showed science laws or theories such as the Conservation of Matter, First Laws of Thermodynamics, or just Causality to show that run counter to a belief set like that the big bang came from nothing, WHICH BY THE WAY IS NOT EVEN SAID IN A CHILDREN'S SCIENCE BOOK I READ TO MY NEPHEW, that clearly states that the universe before the big bang was a superdense and superhot matter that expanded outward), I hear "this is an old theory" or "new study shows" this isn't true anymore.
Yeah, ummm sorry, but you DON'T get to do this. Laws are the results of repeated tests. One solitary new study is not sufficient to disprove a law that has worked in multiple occasions, just because you want the rules to work except when you say so. Fine that's great. You know, gravity is inconvenient today. I think I'll ignore it. A new study says gravity doesn't exist.
So, yea. You tell us to prove something, where the burden of proof is actually on you, the accuser. Then you tell us that you will not accept proof using logic (the foundation of any sane debate), and will not accept scriptural quotes from any religion. You only want "objective, verifiable evidence." Which the average person who is not a historian or scientist will not have, though they might have a rational mind and be able to logically show something as making sense a certain way. Or all they might use some nice scripture passages if this counted as convincing evidence.
Two can play at this game. I'm going to assert that God exists, and you must prove otherwise. But I will only accept quotes from a respected source biased towards me, like the Bible, the Quran, the Tao te Ching, the Analects. No logic will work on me because I am insane, and besides which logic (of course) has no place in a discussion. And forget using any science. I have decided, just this Tuesday, that all science is invalid. You have to disprove God or whatever else you wanna disprove, using scripture from any religion.
1. So, yea. You tell us to prove something, where the burden of proof is actually on you, the accuser.
2. Two can play at this game. I'm going to assert that God exists, and you must prove otherwise.
3. You have to disprove God or whatever else you wanna disprove, using scripture.
Good luck.
As a Christian I need to say a couple of things: You should have stopped at point 1. That was perfect. When an atheist asserts there is no God the burden of proof is upon he or she.
You blew your credibility with point 2 as you made an assertion and now the burden of proof is upon you.
Point 3 is all over the map. For one; Scripture is based on the assumption that God exists. Secondly, you cannot prove God does not exist. One can only assume so, based on the rejection of evidence and logic. Yes, the Big Bang makes perfect sense in light of a Creator. If one assumes there is no Creator, there is a lot of saying "I don't Know" and illogical hypothesis being offered up (like stuff just happens and here we are thanks to random chance).
This with regard to something where the only evidence of the matter was scripture.
Yeah, right. "Prove" something that is a testament of faith by science.
Does anyone else see what a rigged game this is? People of any religion are asked to present proof of their assertions, only most evidence of the subject is placed in books of myth or paranormal, even if it was a true story. Meanwhile if I do come up with proof from science itself (I've despite everything, showed science laws or theories such as the Conservation of Matter, First Laws of Thermodynamics, or just Causality to show that run counter to a belief set like that the big bang came from nothing, WHICH BY THE WAY IS NOT EVEN SAID IN A CHILDREN'S SCIENCE BOOK I READ TO MY NEPHEW, that clearly states that the universe before the big bang was a superdense and superhot matter that expanded outward), I hear "this is an old theory" or "new study shows" this isn't true anymore.
Yeah, ummm sorry, but you DON'T get to do this. Laws are the results of repeated tests. One solitary new study is not sufficient to disprove a law that has worked in multiple occasions, just because you want the rules to work except when you say so. Fine that's great. You know, gravity is inconvenient today. I think I'll ignore it. A new study says gravity doesn't exist.
So, yea. You tell us to prove something, where the burden of proof is actually on you, the accuser. Then you tell us that you will not accept proof using logic (the foundation of any sane debate), and will not accept scriptural quotes from any religion. You only want "objective, verifiable evidence." Which the average person who is not a historian or scientist will not have, though they might have a rational mind and be able to logically show something as making sense a certain way. Or all they might use some nice scripture passages if this counted as convincing evidence.
Two can play at this game. I'm going to assert that God exists, and you must prove otherwise. But I will only accept quotes from a respected source biased towards me, like the Bible, the Quran, the Tao te Ching, the Analects. No logic will work on me because I am insane, and besides which logic (of course) has no place in a discussion. And forget using any science. I have decided, just this Tuesday, that all science is invalid. You have to disprove God or whatever else you wanna disprove, using scripture from any religion.
As a Christian I need to say a couple of things: You should stopped at point 1. That was perfect. When the atheist asserts there is no God the burden of proof is upon he or she.
You blew your credibility with point 2 as you made an assertion and now the burden of proof is upon you.
Point 3 is all over the map. For one; Scripture is based on the assumption that God exists. Secondly, you cannot prove God does not exist. One can only assume so, based on the rejection of evidence and logic. Yes, the Big Bang makes perfect sense in light of a Creator. If one assumes there is no Creator, there is a lot of saying "I don't Know" and illogical hypothesis being offered up (like stuff just happens and here we are thanks to random chance).
Sorry, no atheist has made such an assertion. It is the theist who makes a positive claim against the default position and who must provide the proof. Using your logic, you must then also believe in Thor, Odin, the FSM, and the revolving teapot unless you can prove they do not exist.
As a Christian I need to say a couple of things: You should have stopped at point 1. That was perfect. When an atheist asserts there is no God the burden of proof is upon he or she.
You blew your credibility with point 2 as you made an assertion and now the burden of proof is upon you.
Point 3 is all over the map. For one; Scripture is based on the assumption that God exists. Secondly, you cannot prove God does not exist. One can only assume so, based on the rejection of evidence and logic. Yes, the Big Bang makes perfect sense in light of a Creator. If one assumes there is no Creator, there is a lot of saying "I don't Know" and illogical hypothesis being offered up (like stuff just happens and here we are thanks to random chance).
This is my point. Atheists in these threads make "my assertion is this now you must prove it" all the the time. No, sorry, it isn't. But I'm phrasing this section exactly as they would.
Also, assuming you manage to pull it off, I will tell you that "new scriptures" that I pulled out of my ass completely disprove what you just said, and have a smug "these are the facts" stance.
I can show you entire threads built on just this faulty stance (point 3), and even if I have them dead to rights, they just ignore it and ask for "real proof" which only meets their criteria. The Proof of Creation thread finally closed about a page after I posted an actual mathematical proof of God (which has some flaws, but the point was it was a proof in every sense of the word). It is frustrating enough that I now have a headache.
Quote:
Sorry, no atheist has made such an assertion. It is the theist who makes a positive claim against the default position and who must provide the proof. Using your logic, you must then also believe in Thor, Odin, the FSM, and the revolving teapot unless you can prove they do not exist.
Ummm, do you have any proof that atheism is the default position? I appear to remember animist cults in every primitive culture, and cave bear cults dating back to prehistory.
Last edited by bulmabriefs144; 12-29-2015 at 06:07 PM..
Sorry, no atheist has made such an assertion. It is the theist who makes a positive claim against the default position and who must provide the proof. Using your logic, you must then also believe in Thor, Odin, the FSM, and the revolving teapot unless you can prove they do not exist.
I am sorry, but when someone says "I believe that God does not exist", they are making an assertion. The default position for 95% world's population is that deity does exist. Ask anyone on the street. An assertion has nothing to do with a so called default position. And BTW, did I ever say I believe in Oden or the teapot? That is an unfounded assumption! Go back to your canned anti-theist websites and find something that makes logical sense.
Atheists seem to want to make up rules then ask anyone who disagree to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. Sorry, but real life doesn't work that way. No true Scotsman, indeed!
This with regard to something where the only evidence of the matter was scripture.
Scriptures are not evidence.
The simple fact that all the scriptures were written by people, who by virtue of their placement on planet earth, had little to no access to scientific knowledge or even common sense. They lived during a time that their world view would be considered today to be very narrow and unworldly. These people knew nothing of the facts that are now relevant in today’s world in the 21 Century. They knew nothing about the origins of life, the relationship between the mind and brain, they did not even know that mental illness actually existed in humans. They knew nothing about DNA or viruses. Nothing about computation, technology or even electricity. None of this is in scripture. They had no idea why people became sick and died.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Yeah, right. "Prove" something that is a testament of faith by science.
There are no testaments of faith by science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Does anyone else see what a rigged game this is?
There is no game...it's just how it works in the real world. There are many ways to seek out understanding and knowledge. However, the Scientific Method accomplishes this in a logical, unbiased, methodical, credible, verifiable, testable, repeatable, peer reviewed method.
Scientists over the centuries found they faced the same problems when it came to sorting out the truth from non-truths. To solve the problem, they devised a methodical framework within which to work. This framework is known as the scientific method. It's the best method that we have today at understanding the Universe we live in.
The Scientific Method is an organized way that helps scientists (or anyone!) answer questions or begin to solve a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Yeah, ummm sorry, but you DON'T get to do this. Laws are the results of repeated tests.
Ummm yeah we do.
It's clear that you don't understand how Scientific Laws and Theories work.
Two can play at this game. I'm going to assert that God exists, and you must prove otherwise.
Well, this has the burden of proof reversed. It’s not that I have proof that there is no God—I can’t prove that there is no Apollo, or Zeus, or Isis, or Shiva. These are all gods who might exist, but, of course, there’s no good evidence that they do, and there are many signs that they are all the products of literature. When you’re looking at the Mythology shelf at the bookstore, you’re perusing the graveyard of dead gods. And the God of Abraham has exactly that status.
This is the Russell’s teapot argument: can you prove that there is not a china teapot circling the sun between Mars and Earth? No, you can’t prove that.
But is there any reason to think that such a teapot exists?
No, and the burden of proof is, of course, on the one who asserts this seemingly outrageous truth claim.
I am sorry, but when someone says "I believe that God does not exist", they are making an assertion. The default position for 95% world's population is that deity does exist. Ask anyone on the street.
Atheists seem to want to make up rules then ask anyone who disagree to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. Sorry, but real life doesn't work that way. No true Scotsman, indeed!
Assuming your point is correct, still you must believe in Zeus, Polaris, Posidon, and all of the thousands of other Gods for which you have no proof does not exist. How are you planning on pleasing them all?
Atheists are saying that you have not proven your assertion and we will not believe your claim until such proof is provided. Here's a video that explains your faulty logic.
Assuming your point is correct, still you must believe in Zeus, Polaris, Posidon, and all of the thousands of other Gods for which you have no proof does not exist. How are you planning on pleasing them all?
Atheists are saying that you have not proven your assertion and we will not believe your claim until such proof is provided.
Whatever. I have no personal interest in the Greek gods. No do I care if atheists reject my proofs for God. Atheist seem to care deeply. They must live with the burden of their angst. Me? I am fine with life. No angst.
The default position for 95% world's population is that deity does exist.
Could you provide a source for this statement?
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.
