Is God... PG Version

[GwJ]

Lol, you've been doing that for a while Nicholas.

 

[Dre89]

I'm glad at least that you don't believe in the tooth fairy Dre! Tell me, are you so afraid of death that you had to throw your away your brain for a sense of security? Be a man and live up to the facts, God is not real, nothing separates you from any other animal, and when you die it will be exactly the same as before you were born. GROW UP

Security after death? I'm not religious so I don't believe in an afterlife. Nice assumption there buddy.

It's pretty evident he's just trolling now. Let him get his attention elsewhere.

 

[ballin4life]

No one ever said the tooth fairy is the first cause.

Also we do have actual evidence for the tooth fairy existing. I mean, how else could those teeth under my pillow have disappeared?

 

[GwJ]

If you're a child, that's perfect evidence.

 

[Dre89]

Too bad we're concerned with rational arguments.

 

[GwJ]

God's a rational arguement?

News to me.

 

[Sucumbio]

if the last 6 posts in this thread before mine are any indication as to where this thread has gone, then I see little reason to keep it open. just sayin'

 

[GwJ]

This thread should've been closed on the first page. Anyone could've known this thread would go nowhere; it's impossible to proceed forward.

 

[_Keno_]

Eww, this thread is dying. I'll pose a question that I've been wondering for a bit, which will hopefully provide a better topic.

How do "false" religions begin and sustain themselves in the Christian worldview? and how is Christianity immune to this concept?

 

[Dre89]

The thread is dying because of posts like "there's rational arguments for God?" and "there's no empirical evidence for God so we shouldn't believe in Him", which make no contribution at all.

You'd think in the DH people would be beyond this. If you think the God debate is meaningless, stay out of the thread and let the people who do find it meaningful debate it. Also, stay out of the thread if all you're going to do is pointless one liners in an attempt to be funny and witty, you can go to User Blogs for that.

 

[_Keno_]

I'll have to agree with Dre. about Gw and his one-liners.

I would like a response though =D

 

[GwJ]

If someone would like to tell me why a god is rational, go right ahead. No posts in this thread have come close.

 

[Dre89]

Ok, when I'm at home I'll provide my full argument for God (it'll be good for me to have it typed up for the future).

Conversely, show us why God is irrational or improbable.

 

[Mike]

Conversely, show us why God is irrational or improbable.

Nobody has shown that its existence is necessary for anything. You attempt to argue that the universe must have a "first cause" and then that this cause must have a number of characteristics that are either arbitrary or internally contradicting (such as having free will and the capacity to act but not having any desires or preferences). It's no wonder why those arguments are not taken seriously.

 

[Dre89]

If they're not taken seriously, why have they basically shaped western culture for the last few centuries, and why are there public debates for educated people which use employ arguments?

Also, no one has shown that the natural world can exist without something supernatural. Claiming so is a metaphysical claim. That claim is not accessible through the scientific method, because science cannot observe what is beyond the observable. That's why the burden of proof is equal on both sides of the debate.

However, if in general discussion, a personal makes the claim "there are no rational arguments for God", the BoP is on them to address the main arguments, and subsequently refute them, because he/she made the initial claim. It's absurd to say that the BoP is on the opposition to provide an example of a rational argument, and if not the claimer automatically wins.

Finally, you can't just keep saying "no one has made a rational argument" without proving it. You shouldn't be in the DH if you think you can just make claims like that and expect to win a debate.

In fact, I take back my statement that I will present my God argument, because the BoP is not on me.

So Mike and Gw, the BoP is on you to successfully refute all the prominent theistic arguments, then construct a case for athiesm in place of them. Better get started.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Why is there a need to construct a case for atheism?

Atheism does not attempt to disprove God, but theism attempts to show that there is a God. You are claiming that a supernatural entity exists and therefore the BoP is on you.

In any case, what are the main arguments, exactly?

 

[Mike]

Also, no one has shown that the natural world can exist without something supernatural. Claiming so is a metaphysical claim. That claim is not accessible through the scientific method, because science cannot observe what is beyond the observable. That's why the burden of proof is equal on both sides of the debate.

No, actually this is where I honestly say "I don't know" instead of force myself to take a position. Although I would argue that this very topic is completely absurd and has no potential for a good debate.

Finally, you can't just keep saying "no one has made a rational argument" without proving it. You shouldn't be in the DH if you think you can just make claims like that and expect to win a debate.

Um, yes I can. Because it's TRUE.

So Mike and Gw, the BoP is on you to successfully refute all the prominent theistic arguments, then construct a case for athiesm in place of them. Better get started.

Hardly. I'm not here to argue against points that haven't been brought up. Specifically, your idea of god has already been shown to be self-contradictory, so the burden of proof is on YOU.

 

[ballin4life]

Show your work guys ...

 

[Ganonsburg]

Why is there a need to construct a case for atheism?

Atheism does not attempt to disprove God, but theism attempts to show that there is a God. You are claiming that a supernatural entity exists and therefore the BoP is on you.

In any case, what are the main arguments, exactly?

The burden of proof is on whoever wants to win the debate more. Whether you have a positive claim or a negative claim doesn't matter. Making the first claim is a big factor as to who has the burden of proof, but it really comes down to how much you want to show you're right.

(Recently discussed at my university)

 

[Mike]

@ballin4life: Explanations are on the previous pages. It's not necessary to repeat them on every post. This thread is just becoming one huge circlejerk...

@Ganonsburg: No, only those holding a position have burden of proof. Someone without a position only has burden of proof if he needs to refute a point made from the one with the claim.

 

[Theftz22]

Depends if you define your atheism as "belief that there is no god" or "lack of belief in a god". The former has burden of proof while the latter does not. As long as one simply maintains lack of belief on account of lack of good proof or arguments to prove the existence of a god, then you are asserting nothing but the rejection of theistic claims, so no burden of proof exists. And as far as I'm concerned, once you show that there are no good reasons to believe in a god, mission accomplished.

 

[ballin4life]

One of the things that causes threads to go in circles is when people don't show their work. If you just quote the relevant posts again it will be simpler. Although people don't really address many of my points either...

But one of the ways to convincingly win a debate in the eyes of bystanders is to repeatedly point out the arguments you make that the opponent never addresses.

 

[Mike]

If God has a will then he has desires. What gives him one set of desires over any other? How can a self-necessary, simple being have a particular set of desires? He could easily have different desires.

You attempt to argue that the universe must have a "first cause" and then that this cause must have a number of characteristics that are either arbitrary or internally contradicting (such as having free will and the capacity to act but not having any desires or preferences).

Dre conveniently ignores this point. He does this a lot actually.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Depends if you define your atheism as "belief that there is no god" or "lack of belief in a god". The former has burden of proof while the latter does not. As long as one simply maintains lack of belief on account of lack of good proof or arguments to prove the existence of a god, then you are asserting nothing but the rejection of theistic claims, so no burden of proof exists. And as far as I'm concerned, once you show that there are no good reasons to believe in a god, mission accomplished.

The first does, as you said, carry the burden. The second is irrelevant to a debate really, as it says nothing and is not actually a claim. Of course, someone may say it just to avoid providing proof, so for all intensive purposes both claims are equal in a debate (also something discussed recently at my university).

Basically, you can say it like this:

There is no god = I believe there is no god = I do not believe there is a god

While they all say slightly different things, in a debate or any real discussion they are treated the same out of necessity. The first two statements are already the same if you assume that people believe what they say (and if they say that they don't believe it and are simply debating to debate, then it's still a non-issue because the person won't be using the second statement). The second and third are also the same for all intensive purposes, as the person must have an opinion of some sort. When you have two mutually exclusive claims ("God exists" "God does not exist"), there can not be a third option ("I do not know if God exists", for example).

That's an extremely condensed version, but that's the idea.

 

[Theftz22]

I disagree. I believe there is no god =/= I do not believe in a god. One can lack belief in a god simply because you have not been presented sufficient evidence to believe in one. Then the sole burden of that claim is in refuting theistic claims. You're correct in saying that it is not essentially a claim, but rather the rejection of a claim.

It's use in a debate is dependent upon what the topic of the debate is. If the topic is, does god exist, then of course it has no use. But that is not a particularly useful topic. An absolute knowledge claim such as god exists or god does not exist, seems unfounded to me. A much better topic would be, should you believe in god? In that debate it would have use. The key thing is to show that there are no good reasons to believe in god, because I think we can both agree that believing in something there is no evidence for is ridiculous.

To sum up I think I'll rephrase on of the most popular theistic catch-phrases: Absence of belief is not belief of absence.

 

[Dre89]

If I ignore points it's usually because a number of posts are addressed to me.

It doesn't matter if you're an athiest or agnostic, if you reject thiest claims, you need to show why they're rejectable. It's absurd to say you only need to reject them if you're an athiest.

Also, show how my arguments are self refuting.

I could do the same thing as you and just say all your arguments are rubbish, but I don't.

 

[Mike]

If I ignore points it's usually because a number of posts are addressed to me.

I don't believe that. You replied to Ballistic's post which was made well after ballin4life's (and not even directed directly at you). You also ignored one of my posts from beforehand showing why your arguments for the "improbability of universal constants" don't work even after i repeatedly asked you to reply to it.

Also, show how my arguments are self refuting.

I could do the same thing as you and just say all your arguments are rubbish, but I don't.

Reread ballin4life's post that I quoted. It's pretty clear what we're asking.

 

[ballin4life]

Hey guys. Just want to point out here that even "the belief that there is no God" does not have the burden of proof. It's just like how "the belief that there are no unicorns" does not have the burden of proof. We don't believe in things until there is evidence presented.

That's why there is really no difference between "the belief that there is no God" and "the lack of belief in a God" (although there is still a difference between that and saying "it is impossible for there to be a God")

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

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

^^^
That's right!
The lack of faith is what makes some people not believing in God.
But everyone has its own belief it's not an obligation to believe in something.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Hey guys. Just want to point out here that even "the belief that there is no God" does not have the burden of proof. It's just like how "the belief that there are no unicorns" does not have the burden of proof. We don't believe in things until there is evidence presented.

That's why there is really no difference between "the belief that there is no God" and "the lack of belief in a God" (although there is still a difference between that and saying "it is impossible for there to be a God")

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

"I believe there is a God" and "I believe there is no God" are both claims. Anyone who makes a claim carries the burden of proof. While it's a lot harder to show the nonexistence of something (though it can be done), a negative claim is still a claim.

 

[GwJ]

"I don't believe in unicorns."

If you were to ask me why, I'd say there's no reason to believe in them. How is that different to saying that I don't believe in a god.

On top of that, if someone told you they exist and you said they don't, who has the BoP? Don't tell me the non-believer either.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

While it's a lot harder to show the nonexistence of something

That's why scientists says that a bunch of theories are true, just because nobody have aver been able to prove they're wrong.
If the opposite can not be reveal, then is true. (that's what they say, which is not totally true imo)

 

[GwJ]

It's just extremely likely. If you ask a scientist about it though, they'll tell you there's a ossibility they're wrong. They save facts for the laws of science.

 

[Ganonsburg]

"I don't believe in unicorns."

If you were to ask me why, I'd say there's no reason to believe in them. How is that different to saying that I don't believe in a god.

On top of that, if someone told you they exist and you said they don't, who has the BoP? Don't tell me the non-believer either.

They both do. Or, if you just want one person, it's whoever wants more to be right.

And simply not having a reason to believe in something is a poor reason. It doesn't explain anything, and shows nothing. I could say years ago there was no reason to believe that there's a bug that mixes explosive chemicals in its own body and then shoots it out. Yeah, people would have agreed at the time but then I'd be proven wrong when humanity discovered the bombadier beetle.

Actually, that sounds like a rather poor argument from ignorance. "I can't understand how it could possibly exist, so therefore it doesn't."

That's why scientists says that a bunch of theories are true, just because nobody have aver been able to prove they're wrong.
If the opposite can not be reveal, then is true. (that's what they say, which is not totally true imo)

But it's still possible to prove that something doesn't exist. ie, the existence of ether (the medium through which light supposedly traveled). It just happens far less often.

 

[ballin4life]

Yes beliefs can be wrong ... what's your point? No one ever said "I am 100% certain there are no bombadier beetles", and that's not what we mean when we say that we believe there are no unicorns.

I believe that there are no unicorns, simply because I have never seen or heard of one, but I could be proven wrong tomorrow if I saw a unicorn walking down the street.

Argument from ignorance is a formal fallacy - and no one is using the absence of evidence as a formal proof that there is no God. But absence of evidence is a fine reason for having a belief (as long as you realize that absence of evidence does not constitute a proof).

Can you give your stance on unicorns?

 

[GwJ]

It's not an arguement from ignorance. It's a simple lack of evidence.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Yes beliefs can be wrong ... what's your point? No one ever said "I am 100% certain there are no bombadier beetles", and that's not what we mean when we say that we believe there are no unicorns.

I believe that there are no unicorns, simply because I have never seen or heard of one, but I could be proven wrong tomorrow if I saw a unicorn walking down the street.

Argument from ignorance is a formal fallacy - and no one is using the absence of evidence as a formal proof that there is no God. But absence of evidence is a fine reason for having a belief (as long as you realize that absence of evidence does not constitute a proof).

Can you give your stance on unicorns?

My point wasn't that beliefs can be wrong, but that saying "I don't have a reason to believe x" is a poor reason for a belief and is hardly a solid argument in a debate.

My stance on unicorns: Because unicorns have not been seen or left any evidence behind, nor have they impacted the lives of millions upon millions of people (of all races, all intelligence levels, all economic standings, both genders, and so on) as the belief in God and first hand experiences attributed to God, nor can we show that their existence is necessary (as in the case of God, as a first cause AND as the one to sustain the universe), I do not believe that unicorns exist in the form it is commonly depicted as.

Why was that so wordy? Because there are significant differences between a unicorn and God. The biggest one being that a unicorn actually exists within the universe and is therefore subject to the laws of the universe.

 

[GwJ]

You can add all the words you want to make it seem smarter, but is there really a reason to believe in a god? It's been asked multiple times and no one tries to answer. Instead, we get lectured on who has the BoP.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

"I don't believe in unicorns."

If you were to ask me why, I'd say there's no reason to believe in them. How is that different to saying that I don't believe in a god.

On top of that, if someone told you they exist and you said they don't, who has the BoP? Don't tell me the non-believer either.

They both do. Or, if you just want one person, it's whoever wants more to be right.

@Ganonsburg
What?
Could you tell me what do you mean by that, because it makes no sense to me.

 

[ballin4life]

My point wasn't that beliefs can be wrong, but that saying "I don't have a reason to believe x" is a poor reason for a belief and is hardly a solid argument in a debate.

My stance on unicorns: Because unicorns have not been seen or left any evidence behind, nor have they impacted the lives of millions upon millions of people (of all races, all intelligence levels, all economic standings, both genders, and so on) as the belief in God and first hand experiences attributed to God, nor can we show that their existence is necessary (as in the case of God, as a first cause AND as the one to sustain the universe), I do not believe that unicorns exist in the form it is commonly depicted as.

Why was that so wordy? Because there are significant differences between a unicorn and God. The biggest one being that a unicorn actually exists within the universe and is therefore subject to the laws of the universe.

That's fine. In your wordiness you gave (well, implied really) actual arguments for God. But my point was that without those arguments, you are justified in saying "I believe that unicorns do not exist".