Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Roquentin

Safehands wrote: »

You know, I visited the Museum of Modern art last year. I saw a pint of water on a glass shelf. It was an exhibit. The artist declared that it was actually a tree, not a glass of water, and he presented an articulate argument explaining his reasoning. I'm sure some people looked at it and wondered. No matter how well his explanation was presented, it was still a glass of water, not a tree. The facts revealed that no matter what the artist wanted it to be it was always going to be what the evidence declared it to be, a glass with water in it. Always look at the evidence, then decide!

is the glass half empty or half full, it depends on ones interpretation

Safehands

Roquentin wrote: »

is the glass half empty or half full, it depends on ones interpretation

Ah! now that is a different argument, optimism v pessimism. Nothing to do with the discussion on this thread.

Roquentin

Safehands wrote: »

Ah! now that is a different argument, optimism v pessimism. Nothing to do with the discussion on this thread.

thats your interpretation

Safehands

Roquentin wrote: »

thats your interpretation

Always look at the evidence Roq!

Harika

Thisname wrote: »

No one here can prove that there is a God (or that there isn't) I could mention things like the origins of the universe, life, intelligent design etc etc But the only way you'll know for sure is if you give Him the benefit of the doubt. Why not since you're not 100% convinced either way anyway? Take a step of faith and talk to Him, ask Him to reveal Himself. (Don't expect the clouds to part and God to reach down and take you by the hand!) But if you seek Him with an honest heart you'll find He's true to His word.

And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.
Jeremiah 29:13

Sure we can do that, but first we need to clarify to which god will we give the benefit of a doubt? The christian god, shiva, thor, the flying spaghetti monster ... ? I agree more with the latter, but I guess you meant the christian god.
Even when I try to believe really hard in this god I will always ask myself if it is the right thing to do, because some of the requirements from that god is to do things I don't agree with or condemn things I have no objections from my set of morals. Why should I do things I think are wrong and hurt other people when they are only backed up by faith while I see that those people are suffering and with simple changes in our system we all can live happy together?
Also play this thought experiment with me. Three children were born 30 years ago, one in Ireland, one in Saudi Arabia and one in India.
The irish one, got baptised, then confirmation, then sunday school, then religious school education, then with 20 married in a church another catholic.
The Saudi and Indian child had the same procedure going on with their respective state religion. How high is the chance today for them to have the same religion as they were born into? Very high or is it likely that they have switched in the meantime?
What does this tell about faith? One it depends where you are born if you are going through salvation or to hell. Also ask yourself do those three people love god and their religion because of free will or because it was set for them from their parents and social system? If they don't love god because of their free will, can they get to heaven? All three of them?

Brian Shanahan

Thisname wrote: »

No one here can prove that there is a God (or that there isn't) I could mention things like the origins of the universe, life, intelligent design etc etc But the only way you'll know for sure is if you give Him the benefit of the doubt. Why not since you're not 100% convinced either way anyway? Take a step of faith and talk to Him, ask Him to reveal Himself. (Don't expect the clouds to part and God to reach down and take you by the hand!) But if you seek Him with an honest heart you'll find He's true to His word.

And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.
Jeremiah 29:13

We may not be able to disprove the existence of a god (mainly because it is impossible to disprove an undefined entity) but we can disprove specific gods, given enough effort. For example, a thorough reading of the torah & tanakh will disprove yhwh. First of all the description of his "creation" (there areactually two, which contradict each other) bear no relation to reality, and if he created everything, shouldn't he have gotten it right in the retelling? Second comes the large number of logical impossibilities attributed to him, such as the omnipotence omniscience problem, or the omniscience existence of free will problem. And third is the fact that he breaks physics so often that we either have to throw out yhwh or throw out reality. I know what I'd rather keep.

It is obvious from reading the bible (which contains translations of jewish scripture) that yhwh was a concept invented by a people trying to explain natural phenomena they didn'tunderstand, and to gain control over others while creating a divide between jews and their neighbours (the many rules and taboos). It is clear that he is a group imaginary figment.

tommy2bad

Roquentin wrote: »

thats your interpretation

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

We may not be able to disprove the existence of a god (mainly because it is impossible to disprove an undefined entity) but we can disprove specific gods, given enough effort. For example, a thorough reading of the torah & tanakh will disprove yhwh. First of all the description of his "creation" (there area ctually two, which contradict each other) bear no relation to reality, and if he created everything, shouldn't he have gotten it right in the retelling?

All fully answered and explained over on the other mega-thread.
... so I'm not going to 'go there' with you on this mega-thread.:)

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Second comes the large number of logical impossibilities attributed to him, such as the omnipotence omniscience problem, or the omniscience existence of free will problem. And third is the fact that he breaks physics so often that we either have to throw out yhwh or throw out reality. I know what I'd rather keep.

An omnipotent God is also omniscient ... so there is no problem ... other than for somebody who wants to deny both aspects of God.
... and physics is broken in many situations ... we have a good reason for it (that a good God did it) ... whilst the materialist can only use special pleading that physics as we now know it didn't/doesn't exist whenever, it suits them ... which is a bit of a 'cop-out' TBH!!!:)

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

It is obvious from reading the bible (which contains translations of jewish scripture) that yhwh was a concept invented by a people trying to explain natural phenomena they didn't understand, and to gain control over others while creating a divide between jews and their neighbours (the many rules and taboos). It is clear that he is a group imaginary figment.

The actual imaginary figment is that everything can be explained by materialistic explanations ... when we know that free-will, Human souls/personality, love, good and evil (among many other phenomena) can't.

J C

Roquentin wrote: »

is the glass half empty or half full, it depends on ones interpretation

How about always full of liquid and/or gas!!!:)

... be positive ... be happy.:)

... and drink ... but not to excess ... or before driving.;)

RikuoAmero

An omnipotent God is also omniscient

The two attributes are diametrically opposed and cannot co-exist in the same entity. I love how you just say essentially "He's both" all without any sort of explanation, reasoning or logic to back up your assertion.
Omnipotence is the ability to do anything.
Omniscience is having all knowledge. If an entity is omniscient, he knows what he will do for every moment throughout all of time. He thus becomes trapped by it (for a great example, read Frank Herbert's "Dune Messiah", where the protagonist, Paul Muad'Dib, loses his physical eye-sight, having to rely on his ability to predict the future in order to 'see'...only for him to become trapped by it, as he loses any ability to change the future). A being who is trapped by his own omniscience is thus by definition NOT omnipotent, as he does not then have the ability to do anything.

physics is broken in many situations

You really don't know how stupid this is? We rely on predicting the future in order to survive, which essentially means mathematics/physics. If you throw the reliable nature of physics out of the window, then for all you know, you could be eating poison when you thought you were eating bangers and mash.

that a good God did it

Insert standard retort of "A good god wouldn't drown an entire planet full of innocent people" and let's move on. Don't bother with saying "They were all evil" or anything of that nature, because that only reveals you to be the sickest, most depraved individual imaginable, a person who is okay with the thought of outright genocide of an entire planet.

J C

RikuoAmero wrote: »

The two attributes are diametrically opposed and cannot co-exist in the same entity. I love how you just say essentially "He's both" all without any sort of explanation, reasoning or logic to back up your assertion.
Omnipotence is the ability to do anything.
Omniscience is having all knowledge. If an entity is omniscient, he knows what he will do for every moment throughout all of time. He thus becomes trapped by it (for a great example, read Frank Herbert's "Dune Messiah", where the protagonist, Paul Muad'Dib, loses his physical eye-sight, having to rely on his ability to predict the future in order to 'see'...only for him to become trapped by it, as he loses any ability to change the future). A being who is trapped by his own omniscience is thus by definition NOT omnipotent, as he does not then have the ability to do anything.

God is omnipotent and can do anything He wishes to do ... and He is omniscent and knows exactly what He will do at all times, whilst exercising His omnipotence. Knowing what He will do, doesn't trap Him, as He will still be exercising His omnipotence, irrespective of Him knowing what he is going to do.
On a Human level, it is something like me knowing that I will exercise my free-will to drive to work tomorrow. Me knowing what I will do, in a particular situation, doesn't affect my ability to decide what I will do, in the first place.
Indeed, unlike me, where many things may conspire to prevent me driving tomorrow, God's omnipotence means that He can choose to do exactly what He wants to do ... whereas my lack of both omnipotence and omniscience, means that my intentions are always subject to change.:)

RikuoAmero wrote: »

You really don't know how stupid this is? We rely on predicting the future in order to survive, which essentially means mathematics/physics. If you throw the reliable nature of physics out of the window, then for all you know, you could be eating poison when you thought you were eating bangers and mash.

How stupid is it?
... it could happen ... it's called food poisoning.:)

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Insert standard retort of "A good god wouldn't drown an entire planet full of innocent people" and let's move on.

Please take this remark over to the other mega-thread ... if you really want an answer.;)

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Don't bother with saying "They were all evil" or anything of that nature, because that only reveals you to be the sickest, most depraved individual imaginable, a person who is okay with the thought of outright genocide of an entire planet.

I'm not OK with evil ... but I leave it to the state and to God to deal with it ...
... and God isn't OK with evil either ... and we would all do well to remember this.

RikuoAmero

On a Human level, it is something like me knowing that I will exercise my free-will to drive to work tomorrow. Me knowing what I will do, in a particular situation, doesn't affect my ability to decide what I will do, in the first place.

This is what you have decided to, chose to do, intend to do (choose your favourite phrase there). However, you don't know 100% for a fact, that this is what you will do. You've chosen to drive tomorrow, great...except that once you go to do it, you find out, to your surprise, that you forgot to buy petrol the previous day, or it's broken down or something. In other words, you didn't have omniscience. Something outside of your knowledge acted contrary to your will.
This is not the case with your god, who is described as having omniscience. He supposedly knows, 100%, what he will do tomorrow. Nothing can change that (otherwise it wouldn't be omniscience), thus he cannot be omnipotent.

J C

RikuoAmero wrote: »

This is what you have decided to, chose to do, intend to do (choose your favourite phrase there). However, you don't know 100% for a fact, that this is what you will do. You've chosen to drive tomorrow, great...except that once you go to do it, you find out, to your surprise, that you forgot to buy petrol the previous day, or it's broken down or something. In other words, you didn't have omniscience. Something outside of your knowledge acted contrary to your will.
This is not the case with your god, who is described as having omniscience. He supposedly knows, 100%, what he will do tomorrow. Nothing can change that (otherwise it wouldn't be omniscience), thus he cannot be omnipotent.

Like I have said, unlike me, where many things may conspire to prevent me driving tomorrow, God's omnipotence means that He can choose to do exactly what He wants to do ... whereas my lack of both omnipotence and omniscience, means that my intentions are always subject to change.
God knows 100% what He and everybody else will do ... and He can choose to do whatever He decides to do, as His sovereign will decides - so He is both omniscient and omnipotent.:)

RikuoAmero

He can choose what to do tomorrow, but once he makes that choice, it's locked. Part of omniscience is awareness of what happens in the future. I as a human can choose right now to drive to work, but because I don't have knowledge of the future, I am free to change my mind. Your god cannot.
In fact, I'm skeptical that your god (if he exists) even has the ability to choose. Choosing implies time, moving from a state of non-choice to having made a choice. It implies options, of deciding between several exclusionary choices. Do I go to work tomorrow by car, or by bus? I can't take both at the same time. Can your god? Can your god take several choices that are mutually exclusive? Omnipotence suggests yes, but this goes in violation of the law of non-contradiction.

mister gullible

J C wrote: »

Like I have said, unlike me, where many things may conspire to prevent me driving tomorrow, God's omnipotence means that He can choose to do exactly what He wants to do ... whereas my lack of both omnipotence and omniscience, means that my intentions are always subject to change.
God knows 100% what He and everybody else will do ... and He can choose to do whatever He decides to do, as His sovereign will decides - so He is both omniscient and omnipotent.:)

Does it get any more ridiculous?

J C

RikuoAmero wrote: »

He can choose what to do tomorrow, but once he makes that choice, it's locked. Part of omniscience is awareness of what happens in the future. I as a human can choose right now to drive to work, but because I don't have knowledge of the future, I am free to change my mind. Your god cannot.
In fact, I'm skeptical that your god (if he exists) even has the ability to choose. Choosing implies time, moving from a state of non-choice to having made a choice. It implies options, of deciding between several exclusionary choices. Do I go to work tomorrow by car, or by bus? I can't take both at the same time. Can your god? Can your god take several choices that are mutually exclusive? Omnipotence suggests yes, but this goes in violation of the law of non-contradiction.

You're going around in illogical circles using invalid tautologies.
God does (omnipotent) as He sees fit and knows (omniscient) what He will do for the rest of eternity ... as well as what we all will do, as well.:)

J C

mister gullible wrote: »

Does it get any more ridiculous?

By the looks of things ... it certainly could.:)

RikuoAmero

God does (omnipotent) as He sees fit and knows (omniscient) what He will do for the rest of eternity ... as well as what we all will do, as well.

A being that is omniscient who makes all of its choices throughout all of eternity, those choices become locked in. He knows 100% that two days from now, he will do X. That becomes a fact to him, something that is without question.
If you bring in omnipotence, (in other words, give him the ability to change his mind) this then renders his knowledge that two days from now, he will do X, false. He does Y instead. This negates omniscience.
It's one or the other, J C.
Remember, this isn't from the human point of view, where the future is forever unknown to us (I can intend to do something two days from now, but I don't know perfectly whether I actually will do it). The christian god claim I've heard plenty of times says that God knows the future perfectly. He is supposed to know it as perfectly as I know my own name.
If he knows the future, he knows what actions he will take. He cannot then have the ability to change his mind, otherwise that negates his knowledge of the future.

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

A being that is omniscient who makes all of its choices throughout all of eternity, those choices become locked in. He knows 100% that two days from now, he will do X. That becomes a fact to him, something that is without question.
If you bring in omnipotence, (in other words, give him the ability to change his mind) this then renders his knowledge that two days from now, he will do X, false. He does Y instead. This negates omniscience.
It's one or the other, J C.
Remember, this isn't from the human point of view, where the future is forever unknown to us (I can intend to do something two days from now, but I don't know perfectly whether I actually will do it). The christian god claim I've heard plenty of times says that God knows the future perfectly. He is supposed to know it as perfectly as I know my own name.
If he knows the future, he knows what actions he will take. He cannot then have the ability to change his mind, otherwise that negates his knowledge of the future.

You are probably posting this in the wrong forum as the concept of omnipotence you are talking about is not the Christian one.

Omnipotence, as understood in Christian theology, does not mean the ability to do anything at all. For example, omnipotence does not include the power to create a square circle, the power to make something that simultaneously exists and yet does not exist, or to do anything that would be contrary to one's nature (such as sinning).

I think you are also erring by talking as if God were within time, rather than being an Eternal Being. It would be better as thinking of God as being outside of time - so that to Him there is no past, present or future. To Him all is present as He sees it all at once.

It's a difficult concept for some people to grasp, particularly if they persist in viewing time in an outdated Newtonian fashion as being a straight line running from A to B. If we take on board Einstein's ideas then it is much easier to think of a space/time loaf where our perception of events in time are like slices through the loaf at various angles. Brian Greene explains it in layman's terms (easy enough for a non-scientist like myself to grasp the concept) in 'The Fabric of the Cosmos.'

RikuoAmero

Nick Park wrote: »

You are probably posting this in the wrong forum as the concept of omnipotence you are talking about is not the Christian one.

Omnipotence, as understood in Christian theology, does not mean the ability to do anything at all. For example, omnipotence does not include the power to create a square circle, the power to make something that simultaneously exists and yet does not exist, or to do anything that would be contrary to one's nature (such as sinning).

In other words, what one is logically able to do, and in their nature. That definition defeats your god claim, since I can do only those things that I am logically able to do (for example, I cannot flap my arms and expect to defy gravity). My nature restricts my actions yet again - it is not in my nature to go around commanding others to dash infants heads against rocks (yes, that is from the OT, what God is claimed to have commanded his followers to do).
Under that mode of thinking, the label of omnipotent applies to me and applies to you.

As for the outside time nonsense, that is an assumption that theists make, without any evidence whatsoever. It is a game of moving the goalposts. First, God was depicted as a powerful being who walked bodily around the earth. Then our knowledge advanced, and he was said to live in the clouds. Our knowledge advanced, we invented air-travel and found there were no gods in the clouds. So God was moved yet again, this time to...outside time? We currently define something that exists as something that is within space and time. If you put your god outside of time, you might as well say he doesn't exist at all. This is also a situation of you wanting to eat your cake and have it too - God is outside time, but also interacts with the universe (in other words, is inside space and time)...which is it?

Also, you don't want to bring in Einsteinian notions of time. For one, the notion that time is relative (and not absolute), would defeat the notion of an absolute observer whom you would call God. Also, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle defeats the notion of God (at least in terms of his supposed omniscience: you can't know both the position and the momentum of a given particle simultaneously)

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

In other words, what one is logically able to do, and in their nature. That definition defeats your god claim, since I can do only those things that I am logically able to do (for example, I cannot flap my arms and expect to defy gravity). My nature restricts my actions yet again - it is not in my nature to go around commanding others to dash infants heads against rocks (yes, that is from the OT, what God is claimed to have commanded his followers to do).
Under that mode of thinking, the label of omnipotent applies to me and applies to you.

It would if you're interested in playing smart-aleck games rather than discussing what Christians believe.

I was, of course, referring to God's moral nature rather than to physical attributes or capabilities.

As for the outside time nonsense, that is an assumption that theists make, without any evidence whatsoever. It is a game of moving the goalposts. First, God was depicted as a powerful being who walked bodily around the earth. Then our knowledge advanced, and he was said to live in the clouds. Our knowledge advanced, we invented air-travel and found there were no gods in the clouds. So God was moved yet again, this time to...outside time? We currently define something that exists as something that is within space and time. If you put your god outside of time, you might as well say he doesn't exist at all. This is also a situation of you wanting to eat your cake and have it too - God is outside time, but also interacts with the universe (in other words, is inside space and time)...which is it?

Unhistorical waffle.

Christians have believed in God as an eternal Being long before we invented air travel. Why not try to engage with what Christians actually believe (which is the purpose of this thread) rather than making stuff up?

There is no contradiction with a God who exists outside of time and is able to interact with time and space. In everyday life we often speak of someone being outside of something yet having the ability to interact with that same thing.

And as for your claim that "We currently define something that exists as something that is within space and time" - that is purely your arbitrary claim based on a prior assumption that an Eternal God outside of time and space does not exist. You are, therefore, committing the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Also, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle defeats the notion of God (at least in terms of his supposed omniscience: you can't know both the position and the momentum of a given particle simultaneously)

Given that Heisenberg was a lifelong Lutheran, who often gave lectures about how he reconciled his faith with his science, he probably wouldn't agree with you on that.

In fact, in his last letter to Einstein he wrote that while in the new quantum mechanics Einstein’s beloved causality principle is baseless, “We can console ourselves that the good Lord God would know the position of the particles, and thus He could let the causality principle continue to have validity.”

RikuoAmero

Nick Park wrote: »

It would if you're interested in playing smart-aleck games rather than discussing what Christians believe.

I am discussing what christians (generally) believe. There is one problem here: that of the many different denominations. Who are you to say what is and is not a christian belief?

I was, of course, referring to God's moral nature rather than to physical attributes or capabilities.

So was I, with my comment about what I find morally acceptable to do and not to do.

Unhistorical waffle.

How so? This is historically accurate: the view of what and where a god is has changed over time. The Greeks believed they lived in bodily form atop Mt. Olympus for example; Jews believed God walked around in Eden (so to do literal christians) Check medieval art: how often are God, the angels, etc, depicted as coming from the sky? Now that we have airplanes and space-craft, does any modern christian theologian depict God as coming from the sky?

Christians have believed in God as an eternal Being long before we invented air travel. Why not try to engage with what Christians actually believe (which is the purpose of this thread) rather than making stuff up?

Re-read what I said. What I said about God having once been thought to live in the clouds has nothing at all to do with him supposedly being eternal. Those are two separate things. In the past, God was presumed to be in the clouds, because the sky was a mysterious realm, thought unreachable for eternity. Now fast forward to modern times, where we have reached that realm, and suddenly he is said to be outside time instead (according to you). Well now you have just reached the problem of never being able to substantiate your argument: how can we reach outside time to verify this claim?

There is no contradiction with a God who exists outside of time and is able to interact with time and space. In everyday life we often speak of someone being outside of something yet having the ability to interact with that same thing.

Only when I and the thing both exist within space-time. For example, I can be outside a house, reach inside of an open window with my arm and interact with something inside the house. Both I and the house exist, with space-time.

And as for your claim that "We currently define something that exists as something that is within space and time" - that is purely your arbitrary claim based on a prior assumption that an Eternal God outside of time and space does not exist. You are, therefore, committing the logical fallacy of begging the question.

A necessary assumption, unless you want to falsify it and give me evidence of something that exists outside of space and time...instead of just saying there is this one thing?

What you're doing there is the cosmological argument, which is very easily refuted (and in fact leads to yourself being the one guilty of begging the question).
Your goal here is to prove God through logic. Your method is to try and give us two sets
1) Objects within space-time
2) Objects outside space-time
(The kalam version of this argument tries to insert the property of "begins to exist" but the end result is still the same)
God is defined as being within that second set. However, God is said to be the only thing within that second set. So it's essentially a mask for God, we might as well rename the second set so now we have
1) Objects within space-time
2) God
So now God is being used as proof...for God. It puts God in the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God’s existence, and we are now at the point of begging the question.

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I am discussing what christians (generally) believe. There is one problem here: that of the many different denominations. Who are you to say what is and is not a christian belief?

No, you are not discussing what Christians generally believe. You are discussing a misconception of omnipotence that is not part of general Christian belief.

As for the issue of what many different denominations believe - that in itself should show you the inadequacy of your arguments. This is a thread about debates to do with the existence of God. If your argument depends on addressing what one denomination believes, rather than general Christian belief in God, then you are hardly presenting an effective argument against God's existence, are you? All you are doing, at best, is arguing with one denomination's views.

How so? This is historically accurate: the view of what and where a god is has changed over time. The Greeks believed they lived in bodily form atop Mt. Olympus for example; Jews believed God walked around in Eden (so to do literal christians) Check medieval art: how often are God, the angels, etc, depicted as coming from the sky? Now that we have airplanes and space-craft, does any modern christian theologian depict God as coming from the sky?

It might have escaped your notice, but art (medieval or otherwise) is intended to convey ideas - not people's literal ideas of how things are in space/time.

Otherwise that Edvard Munch guy knew some pretty odd looking people:

Now fast forward to modern times, where we have reached that realm, and suddenly he is said to be outside time instead (according to you). Well now you have just reached the problem of never being able to substantiate your argument: how can we reach outside time to verify this claim?

As I said, unhistorical waffle. Augustine of Hippo, in the Fifth Century AD in his famous book 'The City of God', wrote about God being outside of time and living in 'The Eternal Present'. This is not something that I or anyone else came up with suddenly or 'in modern times'. It's part of historic Christian theology.

A necessary assumption, unless you want to falsify it and give me evidence of something that exists outside of space and time...instead of just saying there is this one thing?

It's not a necessary assumption at all - at least not according to some of the greatest philosophers and scientists in history.

What you're doing there is the cosmological argument

No, I haven't presented anything that even remotely looks like the cosmological argument. Maybe you should look it up on wikipedia and then point out where I've made any argument that seeks to establish the necessity of a first cause?

Your goal here is to prove God through logic.

Again you are spectacularly wrong. I haven't made any attempt to prove God through logic. I've simply pointed out your own poor arguments and your own trip into a logical fallacy. I'm not the slightest bit interested in proving God through logic.

RikuoAmero

Nick, if you're just going to make claims about God, but are not interested at all in proving them...what are you doing here?

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Nick, if you're just going to make claims about God, but are not interested at all in proving them...what are you doing here?

I'm pointing out the inadequacy of your arguments against God. I'm also correcting your misrepresentations and misunderstandings concerning Christian belief. I don't see that there is any onus on me to prove those beliefs at all - certainly not in the Christianity Forum.

Now, if I was posting in the Atheism and Agnosticism Forum and telling the people there. "You've got it all wrong - there is a God!" then there would be an onus upon me to prove such claims.

marienbad

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm pointing out the inadequacy of your arguments against God. I'm also correcting your misrepresentations and misunderstandings concerning Christian belief. I don't see that there is any onus on me to prove those beliefs at all - certainly not in the Christianity Forum.

Now, if I was posting in the Atheism and Agnosticism Forum and telling the people there. "You've got it all wrong - there is a God!" then there would be an onus upon me to prove such claims.

So what is the point of the thread title then ?

RikuoAmero

So...your reason for not defending your beliefs...is simply because this thread is in the christian section? I understand that that is in the christian section's charter, but still...that is not how a debate works (where one side is allowed to present unsubstantiated claims, but the other side has to).

I'll admit that I did heavily butcher the cosmological argument up above, but my point still stands (just re-read it and mentally delete the title I gave it).

Nick Park

marienbad wrote: »

So what is the point of the thread title then ?

The thread title says the thread is for debates about God's existence. I'm open to correction by the mods, but my understanding is that on boards.ie you are free to expose errors and poor arguments in the posts of others without being required to prove all of one's beliefs. So, as I see it, I am participating in a discussion and remaining on topic.

Brian Shanahan

Nick Park wrote: »

Now, if I was posting in the Atheism and Agnosticism Forum and telling the people there. "You've got it all wrong - there is a God!" then there would be an onus upon me to prove such claims.

Nick, you're wrong. The setting where you make a claim imparts no difference on whether you have to substantiate it. The nature of the claim is what demands whether you prove it.

If you make a claim that if true would materially change our understanding of the universe, then you have to prove the claim. Claiming god exists is one such claim, another example would be to claim the universe contains a luminiferous aether through which all celestial bodies move. You have to prove your claim whether you make it here, in A&A or when you're stuck in a deep cave on mars.

Now, conversely a claim such as me saying the "Earth orbits the sun" or "Evolution occurs" do not need proof, because both are so well evidenced that conclusive proof of their truth is already well established. However, if I made a well proven claim that was not well known (or well known hereabouts), like for example "peppered moths have been shown to evolve" it would be polite of me (if not necessarily necessary) to show the evidence.

This is all part of the common procedure of debating. It is frankly shocking that on a website which is set up to debate topics that you wish to recuse yourself from the same procedures that others have to use.