Does God exist? (17 Viewers)

[nikolas]

The counter being:

- Athiests claim no God exists
- Athiests (sighting evidence) support claim

It's really easy to turn around the burden of proof, and both sides do it.

No, that is just plain wrong. An Atheist simply denies the Theists claim.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

Bertand Russel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

-Theists claim there is a good.
-Theists provide evidence based on God.
-Agnostic athiests decides based on the evidence provided if there is a god. Comes to two possible conclusions, either-

A. There is a God (based on the evidence provided.)
B. There is no/conclusive/convincing evidence given, to believe God exists.


Edit* also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

 

[A High Way Man]

GOD MUST EXIST

It's the only way this thread is still alive

 

[tommykins]

NOTE: Evolution does not disprove a god in any way shape or form. Those who say evolution is incompatible with Xtanity have a fundamental lack or understanding of the nature of the christian god. If the christian god is all powerful, isn't it equally plausible to say the bible is fully valid (the christian god has full command of timelines, spacetime, etc) and say we are created in god's image (God has cultivated us individually through evolution).

Utterly sickening those who disagree. Evolution and religion are fully compatible and those who say otherwise are tricksters, charlatans and intellectually-dishonest fools.

question mate - if that is so, why doso many christians try to disprove evolution to make God more valid?

i remember at scripture they even showed us a video on it.

 

[Lukybear]

question mate - if that is so, why doso many christians try to disprove evolution to make God more valid?

i remember at scripture they even showed us a video on it.

This is "Suppressed Assumption", just because some christian try to disprove evolution dosent mean evoltuion disproves God. Ironic isnt it? How you guys are like read the fallacies page...anywaz

Because it just different beliefs of different people... However they are still united throguh the church by their faith in christ...

Evolution does in no way dissprove God, INFACT NOTHING DISPROVES GOD.

If we define God as an omnipotent (all powerful) being who can do anything, then Creationism and Evolutionism can co-exist. This is the same logic in saything that God can make 2+2=5. This is saying that scientific, philosophical and even logical arguements fail to disprove God...

 

[Josip Broz Tito]

You mean when i realized scripture was a load of shit?

It is easy for me to claim that theists are brainwashed, leading basically to a "no u" argument. Which is pointless for both sides.

and BTW brainwashed by who exactly? The satanic-atheist-Scientist agenda?

haha sorry. it was meant for the gibbo gronk. i quoted the wrong thing.

 

[KFunk]

The counter being:

- Athiests claim no God exists
- Athiests (sighting evidence) support claim

It's really easy to turn around the burden of proof, and both sides do it.

No, I think it can be strongly argued that burden of proof lies on the individual trying to prove the existence of an entity. If it were the other way around then burden of proof would require us to believe in all entities whose existence cannot be disproven, starting with the invisible, undetectable lemur and so on, ad infinitum. It should be fairly apparent why this is an untenable intellectual position (that is, unless you like to embrace the absurd).

 

[KFunk]

I didn't claim it to be correct, merely pointing out the ease of which you can shift the burden (and people on both sides do).

And so in reply I provided a simple but strong argument which must be defeated before such a shift can take place.

And yes, i love embracing the absurd.

Say hello to the lemur for me (Frank is his name).

 

[Lukybear]

I dont disagree that the burden of proof lies in us, but we, and most christians on this board is trying to argue against the arguements provided by athiests

 

[nikolas]

I dont disagree that the burden of proof lies in us, but we, and most christians on this board is trying to argue against the arguments provided by athiests

You might wanna re-read this.

But, there are no arguments provided by the atheists, the atheists only provide rebuttals to your arguments.

 

[nikolas]

This is "Suppressed Assumption", just because some christian try to disprove evolution dosent mean evoltuion disproves God. Ironic isnt it? How you guys are like read the fallacies page...anywaz

Because it just different beliefs of different people... However they are still united throguh the church by their faith in christ...

Evolution does in no way dissprove God, INFACT NOTHING DISPROVES GOD.

If we define God as an omnipotent (all powerful) being who can do anything, then Creationism and Evolutionism can co-exist. This is the same logic in saything that God can make 2+2=5. This is saying that scientific, philosophical and even logical arguements fail to disprove God...

He is questioning, the general logic and reasoning skills of such people, he is not making a suppressed assumption.

But evolution does prove the bible wrong.(literal interpretations anyway)

I'd also like you to provide some sort of evidence for a Guided evolution before implying that it is.

 

[Lukybear]

He is questioning, the general logic and reasoning skills of such people, he is not making a suppressed assumption.

But evolution does prove the bible wrong.(literal interpretations anyway)

I'd also like you to provide some sort of evidence for a Guided evolution before implying that it is.

Evolution does not prove the bible wrong... why must God be logical?

+ yeas please show us guided evolution

 

[Empyrean444]

I'm afraid that it does prove the "literal" intepretation of the genesis story wrong, hence why it cancels out and eliminates the general creationist theory. It is less problematic to argue, say, that God created the process/thing which created the universe. I think a stalemate is arguable in this latter instance.

 

[nikolas]

Evolution does not prove the bible wrong... why must God be logical?

+ yeas please show us guided evolution

Because then the Spaghetti monster does not have to be logical. Besides its more your arguments not being logical, rather than God.

Evolution disproves literal interpretations of the bible. (6000 years is not a adequate time frame for evolution)

+ Are you suggesting i provide evidence for your claim?

 

[gibbo153]

question mate - if that is so, why doso many christians try to disprove evolution to make God more valid?

i remember at scripture they even showed us a video on it.

i never liked the scripture teachers at caringbah.
that rodd guy, and the matt guy. they were weird

 

[gibbo153]

Because then the Spaghetti monster does not have to be logical. Besides its more your arguments not being logical, rather than God.

Evolution disproves literal interpretations of the bible. (6000 years is not a adequate time frame for evolution)

+ Are you suggesting i provide evidence for your claim?

the bible should not be interpreted as a historical textbook, seeing it is not written with intention of being one

 

[nikolas]

the bible should not be interpreted as a historical textbook, seeing it is not written with intention of being one

I did say, the literal interpretation could not be true.

 

[gibbo153]

haha sorry. it was meant for the gibbo gronk. i quoted the wrong thing.

haha yeah i noticed that, and was like. but he was supporting your opinion? why are you calling him a brainwashed idiot?

meh, i don't think this thread will ever work, because it is focused on scientific evidence. i konw i will get flamed for proposing this, but consider trying to prove scientifically that a song was written by a certain artist. before you start writing 'OMGZZZ YOU CAN'TT MAKE DIS ABOUT LYK A SONG DATS STUPID"

say someone claimed they didn't write the song.

the person has no way of scientifically proving that they did write the song, just as god can obviously not be scientifically proven.

scientific evidence can not be used as a be-all-and-end-all indicator of whether something can exist/have happened

 

[gibbo153]

I did say, the literal interpretation could not be true.

if it is to be literally interpreted (which it isnt) then you must also apply literally the verses in which god is said to be outside of time.

 

[tommykins]

haha yeah i noticed that, and was like. but he was supporting your opinion? why are you calling him a brainwashed idiot?

meh, i don't think this thread will ever work, because it is focused on scientific evidence. i konw i will get flamed for proposing this, but consider trying to prove scientifically that a song was written by a certain artist. before you start writing 'OMGZZZ YOU CAN'TT MAKE DIS ABOUT LYK A SONG DATS STUPID"

say someone claimed they didn't write the song.

handwriting analysis of the earliest copy of the paper in which the song was written on anyone?

 

[gibbo153]

what he dictated to a friend? he still wrote the song, but no tangible evidence attests to it