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.
Fine, let's accept that "lack of belief either way" is a logical starting point. Does it not follow, however, that the extraordinary claims in the direction of a god (see: Bible) should require extraordinary evidence? And that, in the absence of such extraordinary evidence, the more likely (probable) conclusion is in the other direction, of there not being a god? In other words, that the scales are tipped toward the negative (no gods), if we leave that starting point in the middle?
At least that's how I think about it...
That tends to be the erroneous thinking most atheists who claim the default should be "No God" engage in. The first error is in assuming the existence of God is an extraordinary claim just because the Bible and other writings in religions make extraordinary claims ABOUT God. Those claims must be supported but they have no effect on the empirical question of the existence of God. No one has established that the existence of God IS extraordinary since we don't even know the status of our entire Reality (which is extraordinarily "God-like" with respect to us and the existence of everything).
That tends to be the erroneous thinking most atheists who claim the default should be "No God" engage in. The first error is in assuming the existence of God is an extraordinary claim just because the Bible and other writings in religions make extraordinary claims ABOUT God. Those claims must be supported but they have no effect on the empirical question of the existence of God. No one has established that the existence of God IS extraordinary since we don't even know the status of our entire Reality (which is extraordinarily "God-like" with respect to us and the existence of everything).
I don't exactly see it as a default position. Before I will acknowledge that something exists, I want to see the evidence of its existence. Why is that so unreasonable?
... the extraordinary claims in the direction
of a god (see: Bible) should require extraordinary evidence?
Absolutely.
I am not a big proponent of blind faith.
Seeing is believing.
It does take a commitment, tho...if a person is set that One does not exist ...
Why would they bother? As I see it. So the circle goes round and round.
Makes no diff...what is is...what isn't isn't...Be Happy either way.
I don't exactly see it as a default position. Before I will acknowledge that something exists, I want to see the evidence of its existence. Why is that so unreasonable?
It isn't. In fact it's perfectly logical. That is why the 'No God' position has to be forced on atheism as a Claim in order to shift the burden of proof to us.
It isn't. In fact it's perfectly logical. That is why the 'No God' position has to be forced on atheism as a Claim in order to shift the burden of proof to us.
It's like the other day when someone told me there was a Chik-Fil-A in my neighborhood, and I said I didn't think there way. But when I drove over to a particular intersection...oops, there it was...just opened. I had to see it to believe it.
And that's the way I now feel about christianity. Now that I'm out of it, I have to see what I never saw when I was in it in order to believe in it again.
That tends to be the erroneous thinking most atheists who claim the default should be "No God" engage in. The first error is in assuming the existence of God is an extraordinary claim just because the Bible and other writings in religions make extraordinary claims ABOUT God. Those claims must be supported but they have no effect on the empirical question of the existence of God. No one has established that the existence of God IS extraordinary since we don't even know the status of our entire Reality (which is extraordinarily "God-like" with respect to us and the existence of everything).
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
I don't exactly see it as a default position. Before I will acknowledge that something exists, I want to see the evidence of its existence. Why is that so unreasonable?
It is unreasonable if there is no sufficient reason to assume it does NOT exist and given our Reality that is simply not possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
It isn't. In fact it's perfectly logical. That is why the 'No God' position has to be forced on atheism as a Claim in order to shift the burden of proof to us.
It isn't forced on atheism, it is implicit in the demand that "No God" be the default. That asserts that there is "No God and one needs to be proven to exist by evidence beyond what already exists in our Reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
It's like the other day when someone told me there was a Chik-Fil-A in my neighborhood, and I said I didn't think there way. But when I drove over to a particular intersection...oops, there it was...just opened. I had to see it to believe it.
And that's the way I now feel about christianity. Now that I'm out of it, I have to see what I never saw when I was in it in order to believe in it again.
That is a legitimate point about Christianity because it encompasses beliefs ABOUT God that must be substantiated, but it in no way impinges on the empirical question of the existence of God.
It is unreasonable if there is no reason to assume it does NOT exist and given our Reality that is simply not possible.
...
So that opens the door to believing in evil spells, voodoo, ghosts, and lots of other things that go bump in the night...not to mention all the Hindu gods.
So that opens the door to believing in evil spells, voodoo, ghosts, and lots of other things that go bump in the night...not to mention all the Hindu gods.
No it does NOT. Our Reality is a very specific phenomenon responsible for the existence of EVERYTHING that actually exists. The responsibility alone sufficiently defines God to prevent any dismissal or demand for other proof. That is NOT the case for any of the other nonsense you list.
No it does NOT. Our Reality is a very specific phenomenon responsible for the existence of EVERYTHING that actually exists. The responsibility alone sufficiently defines God to prevent any dismissal or demand for other proof. That is NOT the case for any of the other nonsense you list.
No it doesn't. Hindu gods are no less significant than a christian god.
Fine, let's accept that "lack of belief either way" is a logical starting point. Does it not follow, however, that the extraordinary claims in the direction of a god (see: Bible) should require extraordinary evidence? And that, in the absence of such extraordinary evidence, the more likely (probable) conclusion is in the other direction, of there not being a god? In other words, that the scales are tipped toward the negative (no gods), if we leave that starting point in the middle?
At least that's how I think about it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
That tends to be the erroneous thinking most atheists who claim the default should be "No God" engage in. The first error is in assuming the existence of God is an extraordinary claim just because the Bible and other writings in religions make extraordinary claims ABOUT God. Those claims must be supported but they have no effect on the empirical question of the existence of God. No one has established that the existence of God IS extraordinary since we don't even know the status of our entire Reality (which is extraordinarily "God-like" with respect to us and the existence of everything).
You'll note that I made specific reference to the Biblical God, as an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. Since you seem to support that notion, I'll take what I can get.
Are we in agreement that the Biblical God (i.e., the one who molded Eve from a rib, and plagued the Egyptians, and flooded the world, and used his finger to carve commandments in stone for Cecil B DeMille, and turned Lot's wife into salt, and impregnated a virgin, and raised his son/self from the dead, and...and...and) is unlikely to have existed with those extraordinary characteristics and that extraordinary track record... and that I am therefore justified in moving in that direction, if I choose to move from the starting point of "don't know either way?"
As for what kind of god does exist, and whether it is found within or outside of reality, I am willing to remain standing at the starting line. But I will admit that I'm looking in one direction more than the other, if I have to pick a direction to run.
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.
