This_person
Well-Known Member
You over-estimate the value of your opinion.
I'll offer you more than your opinion is worth (the whole $0.02) to explain how you can "prove" something which requires faith.
Burden of Proof
- Thread starter 2lazy2P
- Start date
2lazy2P
nothing unreal exists
AGAIN - not up to me to prove anything. Up to those who believe in the tall tales that God put in the Holy Book to prove this unknowable being. No worries though, guess I'll never get the answers any of us want. I have no choice but to continue on my lonely road searching out the truth in philosophical naturalism.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Here's a shocking piece of news - you missed the question entirely. I didn't ask you to prove anything. I asked you how someone can prove something that requires faith. Your statement was that "the theist fails to meet his burden of proof and therefore, atheism stands by default." Since what the theist has does not require (in fact, requires no) proof, why would your statement have any standing?
2lazy2P
nothing unreal exists
Here's another shocking piece of news - you missed an important part of what I originally said entirely. "Of course not, nobody can prove God exist, yet they will stand on there heads saying they're sure." So go ask the apologetics why they believe in the hidden giant.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Here's another shocking piece of news - you missed an important part of what I originally said entirely. "Of course not, nobody can prove God exist, yet they will stand on there heads saying they're sure." So go ask the apologetics why they believe in the hidden giant.
I know why I believe. You said "no proof, therefore atheists win by default". You are simply wrong. There is no reason for proof, so why ask for it, or use it as a default position?
Zguy28
New Member
I only have to see one piece of evidence to know that God exists.
The atheist however does not have this advantage. They must examine every atom of time and space to know He doesn't exist, which is impossible unless you are God Himself, at which you know better than to pursue such foolishness as atheism.
The atheist however does not have this advantage. They must examine every atom of time and space to know He doesn't exist, which is impossible unless you are God Himself, at which you know better than to pursue such foolishness as atheism.
2lazy2P
nothing unreal exists
It is the default position because everyone, you included, is born an Atheist - babies do not believe in God. Your religion often depends on your upbringing - if your parents are Southern Baptist, you also will probably be a Southern Baptist. If your parents are Muslims, then you will probably be one also. Which God do you believe in? I'm betting it's entirely dependent on geography. It's a bit of lottery, isn't it?
2lazy2P
nothing unreal exists
Which advantage/evidence is this?
ItalianScallion
Harley Rider
And, if what you say is true, you should also agree that no one can prove He doesn't exist..."Of course not, nobody can prove God exist, yet they will stand on there heads saying they're sure." So go ask the apologetics why they believe in the hidden giant.
It's always better to err on the safe side 2L. If He doesn't exist, you're fine; but if He does....
That's a false statement right there 2L. You cannot say that a new born child is an atheist. If anything they're closer to Christian because they go right to Heaven if they happen to die before a certain age.
That second statement is partly true but not always...Many people change their religious affiliations later in life. Some for the good and some for the worse...
Last edited:
hvp05
Methodically disorganized
This argument makes me
every time. (<-- See?)So someone decides to believe in a god. What then? Why pick the same one you have, objectively speaking?
Doesn't god want true followers only? Believing in him to be "on the safe side" is not a true, loving reason; it's purely fear. If someone does base their faith on such a thing, won't god reject their plea for its superficiality?
The logical extension of that is if an infant were raised to adulthood in some sort of cultural and informational vacuum, they would not only believe in a god, but the same one you do. Is that what you are implying?
ItalianScallion
Harley Rider
Are you kidding? "Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom". He will take them any way He can. He doesn't care how you come to Him as long as you do. Once you start seeing how good He is, you'll want to see more...He's addictive.
I never said that. I'm didn't assume they would live to adulthood, you did and that's a whole other scenario...hvp05 said:
hvp05
Methodically disorganized
Seems contradictory to me, but oh well.
That's why I asked you a question.
whistle: 
)Considering that infants cannot coherently communicate with us to express their thoughts and feelings, we will never know what they "believe". It's a matter of faith.
Zguy28
New Member
The advantage is only needing one piece of evidence, I don't have to look very far. The evidence is all around you, yet you choose to walk through life like a blind person.
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
If you claim their is no God, you better start looking, because there is a lot of time and space to examine in order to verify that He is not there.
2lazy2P
nothing unreal exists
And, if what you say is true, you should also agree that no one can prove He doesn't exist...
It's always better to err on the safe side 2L. If He doesn't exist, you're fine; but if He does....
No IS, Pascal's Wager is completely selfish in its application when used by believers. I think I have mentioned this before, but you fail to apply the argument to yourself and your faith. What if you are worshiping the wrong God? The odds are to great to pick one God, so doesn't it make perfect sense then to stay neutral on the issue? Wagering on unknowns is bad enough - just ask anybody who lost their money gambling!
This_person
Well-Known Member
No. I believe very differently than my parents.
Doesn't really answer the question though. You suggest that proof is needed, and I suggest to you that proof is the exact opposite of faith. You stated that, without proof, atheism is therefore correct. That is as illogical as saying that they believe simply because they believe. There is no logic in either.
However, I've yet to see proof that there is no god of any kind. Once again, lack of proof of the alternative is not proof. There can be no proof of a negative, therefore, atheism is clearly wrong. (see how stupid blanket statement like that sound?)
hvp05
Methodically disorganized
The best ways to go are either Deism or Unitarian Universalist, then ALL your bases are truly covered.
2lazy2P
nothing unreal exists
So my five year old still has faith that a large man in a red suit will land on his roof guiding his flying reindeer in six months. Should the whole world just belive that this will happen since he has a book in his room written by a man that said this is true?
Starman3000m
New Member
Telling the Truth
This is a very good comment on the basis that most parents lead their children to believe in that "large man in a red suit..." when the parents know it isn't true. In other words, when parents perpetuate the false belief in a Santa Claus with flying reindeer there will come a time when the parents have to tell the child that this was a lie all along. The next thing growing children may wonder is what other lies have they been told by the parents whom they trusted.
In the case of the existence of a Supreme Creator God, There Is Only One Truth:
1.) God exists
2.) God does not exist
This is a very good comment on the basis that most parents lead their children to believe in that "large man in a red suit..." when the parents know it isn't true. In other words, when parents perpetuate the false belief in a Santa Claus with flying reindeer there will come a time when the parents have to tell the child that this was a lie all along. The next thing growing children may wonder is what other lies have they been told by the parents whom they trusted.
In the case of the existence of a Supreme Creator God, There Is Only One Truth:
1.) God exists
2.) God does not exist
ItalianScallion
Harley Rider
What is contradictory? When I say it doesn't matter how they come to God, I mean it doesn't matter how they came to believe in God but they still have to come through Jesus...Seems contradictory to me, but oh well.
Considering that infants cannot coherently communicate with us to express their thoughts and feelings, we will never know what they "believe". It's a matter of faith.
As for the baby thing, it has nothing to do with them "coherently communicating with us". In God's eyes, they have no accountability for anything if they aren't old enough to be accountable. Accountability comes when a child is old enough to know right & wrong AND to make their own choice for or against God. Since a baby can't, he/she is not accountable and therefore goes to Heaven. One of the passages we use is that of David's 7 day old baby with Bathsheba. We know that David went to Heaven so note the last verse:
18 "On the seventh day the child died. David’s servants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead... How can we tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate.
David noticed that his servants were whispering among themselves and he realized the child was dead. Is the child dead? he asked. Yes, they replied, he is dead...
David answered, While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.
But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.” (2 Samuel 12)
Nothing you've said here applies to me. Paschal has no bearing on this, nor do I worship the wrong god. The ones who need to worry are those who don't believe. The evidence is clear and should be heeded while there is still time...
Just for you 2L:
"Santa Clause was derived from the Dutch word Sinter Klaas which, in turn, was the name for a 4th century bishop from Turkey named Saint Nicholas. He was a man that regularly gave gifts to small children and was at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. where he supported the doctrine of the Trinity.
Until the 1800’s the image of St. Nicholas was a tall thin man wearing a bishop’s robe. Washington Irving offered a new image in 1809 that was expanded by Clement Clark Moore in his 1822 poem. Moore was a professor at the General Theological Seminary in NY.
On Christmas Eve 1822, Moore was helping Jan, his grounds keeper, shovel snow. Jan was a chubby man with a white beard, twinkling eyes and rosy cheeks. That night Jan was driving Moore to the market to get a turkey and Moore got an idea. As the snow fell, Moore composed a poem. Later, one of his kids took it to school and read it to the class. The teacher was impressed by it and took it to the local newspaper (Troy Sentinel) that published it anonymously on December 23, 1823. It is believed that the red suit came from a German artist because the bishop’s robe was red". (From the Christian Research Institute).