Atheist are always saying there is no God, well why don't you prove it. And when answering this question, don't just think about the Christian God, but all the other religions who believe in one creator. Because everybody has a different interpretation of what God is.
prove that a god does exist. and if you can't (which you obviously can't), then rationally justify believing in something so extraordinary.
we've had this discussion a million times here. i know you think you are issuing a revolutionary challenge to atheists, but that is not so. you dont prove a negative, you prove a positive. you prove that god exists, you cannot disprove something for which there is already absolutely no evidence. prove leprachauns don't exist. or unicorns. go ahead.
Arete, Please familiarise yourself with what "atheism" means. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26679 It is essentially not about claiming that gods do not exist but more about the theist inability to show they do exist.
The onus of the claim belongs to the one making the claim. Basically your correct, an atheist claiming that there's no god, basically claims that: He knows what god is, and it don't exist. He can prove that a god does not exist. But you know he can't. Right Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So basically you came here thinking you have such a challenge. But you don't the onus of proof is also on your shoulders, because you "believe" that god exists. See you claim to know what god is, and that it exists. Since you presume to know what god is, and you know that it exists, go ahead and prove it then. You will claim that you can't, so your are in the same boat. What happened though, is you "believe" atheist claim that there's no god, some might, but many don't make that judgement call to put themselves in that onus position. Basically you need to learn the concepts of "strong atheism & weak atheism". I'm from the school of weak atheism, that is I can't make claims that can't be proven with emperical evidence. There's no way to prove a negative. So the claim is totally on your shoulders. Because you "believe" god exists. A strong atheist, claim that there's no god, and basically he/she is in the position to refute the idea, and puts himself in the onus position to prove to you that a god does not exist. This can be done by using logic. Though I've yet to see an strong atheist convince a theist, that there's no god. The existence of God is not enough to explain the existence of the Universe Godless
There is no evidence that a god does exist. However, absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence, thus a god would be an unknown unknown, instead of an unknown known or a known unknown or a Known Thing. In other words, there is not really proof either way, and it is entirely and utterly unknowable, thus...agnosticism.
Although an absence of evidence lasting many thousands of years seems to me to be very strong evidence that gods do not exist.
You do know that agnosticism is not actually a separate viewpoint to atheism or theism? A/theism is concerned with "belief" (or lack thereof) in the theological God(s). Agnosticism is concerned with epistemology - the nature and limits of human knowledge around, in this case, God. I, for example, am an agnostic atheist. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Arete: Proving Existence or Non-Existence. The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing. To put that another way: - When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain. From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing: The thing exists. It is unknown if the thing exists or not. It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria. If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence. sinbad Who has the Burden of Proof? Using that phrase makes it sound like a person has to definitely prove, beyond a doubt, that something is true; that, however, is only rarely the case. A more accurate label would be a “burden of support” — the key is that a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof. Which of those must be presented will depend very much upon the nature of the claim in question. Some claims are easier and simpler to support than others — but regardless, a claim without any support is not one which merits rational belief. Thus, anyone making a claim which they consider rational and which they expect others to accept must provide some support. An even more basic principle to remember here is that some burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it. In practice, then, this means that the initial burden of proof lies with the theist, not with the atheist. Both the atheist and the theist probably agree on a great many things, but it is the theist who asserts the further belief in the existence of a god. This extra claim is what must be supported, and the requirement of rational, logical support for a claim is very important. The methodology of skepticism, critical thinking, and logical arguments is what allows us to separate sense from nonsense; when a person abandons that methodology, they abandon any pretense of trying to make sense or engage in a sensible discussion. a cline does this clarify things for you.
arete, you people make me laugh, with your prove god question. the onus is on you to provide prove, this will help you understand. Do you think a woman should have a double mastectomy because she presumes the existence of cancer cells, without evidence? Of course not. She ASSUMES the non-existence of cancer cells, until presented with evidence that cancer cells are present. Therefore, presuming the existence of God and acting accordingly is exactly the same as presuming the existence of cancer cells and having surgery accordingly. One should always assume non-existence, until presented with evidence supporting the idea of existence. So you see it's your problem, your the one with the sky daddy fixation.
why is everyone so rude to the threadstarter, just because he posts an argument that is used so often on this forum (in reverse). sure, he is incorrect on the etiquette of discourse, but is that any reason to be as rude as some of you have been?
Perhaps, but this kind of conclusion has led to mistakes.... For decades there has been an utter lack of evidence for the existence of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. It was presumed extirpated. Recent evidence may now prove otherwise.
a direct answer to your exact question would go something like this. i cant prove god dosent exist, just like i cant prove he does exist. a unicorn? i have no trouble believing a horse with a horn existed at some point in history. its not that amazing just a horse/pony type creature with a horn. like a rhino? peace. peace.
Empty: It might be logically possible that a unicorn-like species might have existed, but without evidence that they did exist, I don't think you'd want to say that you positively believe they existed. Right?
Empty: The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being of great spiritual power. We know this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically know that she is invisible because we can't see her.
Audible was not rude in his statement. And the reason you find rudeness in answering this question, is that it has been rehashed several thousand times allready all over the internet. Basically any atheistic forum you find will have the same consequence with this typical ignorant question. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Godless
Prove to me there isn't a diamond the shape of Britney Spears burried under my garden... You see, the scope of that statement is too large for any man-made desire (such as God) to be true, and you can still conclude that it is as close to 100% likely to be false. So far, countless times throughout history science has proved religious superstitions false. Some major things like the beginning of the world, the universe, life and other much smaller things. And as for the things that have not yet been proven false, I think common sense is a good judge. We can safely conclude from our findings that all religions are false. The only thing still left to be proven is that the universe wasn't created by intelligence
It was only Audible and only the first sentence. That doesn't qualify as 'everybody' Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
