Atheists what is your proof?

[Jan Ardena]

You dodged it. Why do you need to know the point of the question ?

I asked you if you believe or know that god exists.

You said you believe.

I asked why do you only believe ?

Can you answer the question ?

Here's an answer.
Let me see what you got.

"the scriptures make the only real sense to me".

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

Because trying to argue rationally with a belief system is futile.

Why?

jan.

[glaucon]

So what is meant by "there is no evidence of God"?

jan.

Precisely what it means.

[glaucon]

What? no and non- make your statement positive...

Incorrect. Linguistics and logic aren't mathematical.

...
There is your evidence of no evidence.

Again, incorrect.

The only possible way to have evidence of non-evidence, would be to have access to a complete understanding of the entirety of reality. Only then could one deductively infer a negative.

[Jan Ardena]

Precisely what it means.

From your earlier response, it seem we have different opinions
of its meaning.
So i'm asking what it means to you, in the context of the discussion?

jan.

[jpappl]

Here's an answer.
Let me see what you got.

"the scriptures make the only real sense to me".

jan.

You didn't answer my question. Please comprehend.

Why do you ONLY believe ?

IOW

What is it that keeps you from knowing god exists ?

[Jan Ardena]

glaucon,

The only possible way to have evidence of non-evidence, would be to have access to a complete understanding of the entirety of reality. Only then could one deductively infer a negative.

So by claiming there is no evidence of Gods' existence, are you claiming to
have such knowledge?

Or are you making that extra-ordinary claim on what you think the evidence
would be, were God to exist?

jan.

[M00se1989]

God is Dead, and we have killed him, but his greatest efforts still lie in caves. Caves of blissful ignorance all across the globe.

The same should be applied in science, right away it clears the air of anything scientific. There is always this abstract "concept" of unknown...

I see closed mindedness on both sides of the fence.

what cave of thoughts are you hiding under, that you do not "understand" yourself.

Religion is repeating the same aspects over and over expecting different results. What will we think of science in a few hundred years? A religion of the same insanity?

Is there no way to let the children suffer not these obvious questions?

[Jan Ardena]

You didn't answer my question. Please comprehend.

Why do you ONLY believe ?

IOW

What is it that keeps you from knowing god exists ?

My lack of intelligence.

jan.

[jpappl]

My lack of intelligence.

jan.

Well at least you have a sense of humor.

Goes like this.

Why do you only believe and not know god exists ?

Answer

I don't know because there is no evidence for such a claim.

IE, all you can have is faith because there is no way to gather the type of information to make it a fact.

Maybe one day we can create a test that is repeatable and prove that a god is having an effect in some way.

Maybe upon this discovery god will show itself and we all get cake that day. Congratulating us our success in finding it.

Until then, there is no sense acting as if you have evidence of god, umkay.

[gmilam]

How do you know it's a myth?

jan.

Did I use the word "know"?

Read it again.

[glaucon]

So by claiming there is no evidence of Gods' existence, are you claiming to
have such knowledge?

I made no such claim.

My point was that, you're asking for evidence of non-evidence is not only impossible, but also wholly illogical.

In any case, to be clear: you are correct to assert that a lack of evidence does not grant one the right to conclude a denial of existence.

However, in cases such as these, it is nonetheless rational to say that the burden of proof does indeed lie with that party that asserts the existence of that thing for which there is no evidence.

[AlexG]

“ Originally Posted by AlexG
Because trying to argue rationally with a belief system is futile. ”

Why?

jan.

Because as you said in the previous post, only your scripture makes sense to you. Rather than debating or considering any opposing view presented here, you simply dismiss it.

Thus, there's no point in arguing with you. You're not hear to listen, only to talk.

[Trooper]

Rather than debating or considering any opposing view presented here, you simply dismiss it.

Thus, there's no point in arguing with you. You're not hear to listen, only to talk.

http://www.free-smiley.info/various/yes.gif That's for sure.

[Crunchy Cat]

Atheists and theists alike have to face the problem of something from nothing.

I wanted to point out that this doesn't appear correct. To my knowledge, there is not a single instance of *nothing* (i.e. absence of anything/everything) that can be pointed to. The implication of course is that *something* always exists.

[M00se1989]

agree cat with a slightly different interpretation. Point out beyond all stars at the edge of time, the space between. Yet even that is something in and of itself... so what "something" goes into nothing is the better question here...

[gmilam]

I wanted to point out that this doesn't appear correct. To my knowledge, there is not a single instance of *nothing* (i.e. absence of anything/everything) that can be pointed to. The implication of course is that *something* always exists.

There is that option.

My personal "hypothesis" is the the universe has always existed. It runs in cycles, like an eternal sine wave. I understand that that's not a popular viewpoint among the scientific community. Myself, I wouldn't know how to even begin testing or computing the likelyhood.

But I don't lose any sleep over it either.

[M00se1989]

But the same thing exists here: it is just being pushed inward from "out there" and allows matter to hold its shape and control its expansion.

[wynn]

However, in cases such as these, it is nonetheless rational to say that the burden of proof does indeed lie with that party that asserts the existence of that thing for which there is no evidence.

Translation: "I am a lazy, insecure, bored, but extremely proud couch potato, who rather waits around and teases passersby, rather than trying to figure out and do something myself."



Taking the "the burden of proof is on the one making a claim" line once or twice is a sign of intelligent discernment. But doing it over and over again is a sign of the lack of such discernment.

It's your life, William!

[science man]

You convolved evolution and cosmology. There are no convincing answer when you asked muddled questions. Do you want to talk about cosmology, abiogenesis, or evolution?

I don't see what's so muddle about my question but let's tr this.

No, I said it was shocking because you wanted the biological theory of evolution to explain the physics theory of cosmology. You call yourself 'Science Man' but don't even seem to grasp the separate branches. That is truly shocking.

you got me all wrong then. The fact that the theory of evolution cannot work for cosmology is exactly my point (it's why I don't understand the reasoning behind atheism because it doesn't fill in the big gap of cosmology)

Sure, we got herded into church every know and again but I was there under duress and always thought it was bullshit. Simply, I've never met an honest believer.

that's the first part of the answer I was looking for. Now, did you ever debate with your parents on this?