Is there a God?

[Kenny]

Kenny,

Yes, yesterday I was distracted and trying to write on a tablet which is very frustrating.

Trying to make me look like a fool huh? I think people will see through your charade and links.

I have never said the other person doesn't have a burden of proof, I think I made that clear. The point has been centered on the assumption they have attempted to and as such their arguments are centered on the evidence we do have.

Now since you mentioned God as a can't prove negative in one of your last examples I will use that.

Now theists DO shoulder their burden of proof with the evidence we do have. Whether you deem it sufficient or not is irrelevant. You must therefore justify why it is insufficient since that is a claim in response.

Responding with can't prove a negative. Is what the point is. And when you say that and don't interact with their arguments you are circular reasoning unless you provide WHY in this case God cannot be proven.

Or respond with arguments against Gods existence from the same evidence or additional evidence supporting your claim as to why.

Also if you hold to the belief God does not exist and justify it by can't prove a negative, then you are circular reasoning.

You are left with straws and have made a meager attempt to distort what's been said, I'm confident others will see that.



Go back to the kids table.

I have not used an inability to prove a negative to justify my skeptism of your concept of God. You might want to find someone who has and take our arguments there.

Ken

[Kurieuo]

All this A-theist and burden of proof "nonsense" is based on Flew's thinking.
(although Flew's thinking is not really nonsense since he goes into detail to make a case in the Presumption of Atheism -- it gets distorted so much by Atheists into thinking they never have any burden of proof)

BUT, if Theists have good evidence and arguments for believing in God's existence, then the ball in now in the Atheist's court.
In order to then maintain Atheism, it is no longer good enough to just "presume" Atheism.
More positive steps must be taken in order to maintain Atheism.

TURNING A BLIND EYE does not mean Atheists do not shoulder any evidence. If you do this as an Atheist, it just means that you are dropping the ball.
And, not all Atheists drop to ball but do attempt to argue for their position over and against Theism.

Some like Flew are forced to reconcile what they see as evidence for God and turn towards some form of Deism.
He just could not believe that God really was personally involved in His creation beyond having created it/us.

Many who visit this board claiming to be Atheists I think are in fact closer to being strong Apatheists.
i.e., the attitude I see is one of:
"If God exists, why should I care given he doesn't seem to care about us. And if God doesn't exist, that makes sense of why he doesn't care. Either way, I'm not interested to discuss questions of God/non-God."

THAT, is possibly the hardest position to counter.
For how do you make someone care, to even entertain arguments for God if they have zero interest?

[Squible]

Kenny,

It was just an example.

However there was nothing about a conception of God was there?

It was about existence.

Cheers.

[Kenny]

Kenny,

It was just an example.

However there was nothing about a conception of God was there?

It was about existence.

Cheers.

Probably both.

K

[Squible]

Kenny,

It was just an example.

However there was nothing about a conception of God was there?

It was about existence.

Cheers.

Probably both.

K

They are two distinct questions Kenny.

One shouldn't put the horse before the cart, or for that matter the horse in the cart.

[Kenny]

Kenny,

It was just an example.

However there was nothing about a conception of God was there?

It was about existence.

Cheers.

Probably both.

K

They are two distinct questions Kenny.

One shouldn't put the horse before the cart, or for that matter the horse in the cart.

As far as existence, I don't see that. As far as conception; I've noticed various people have various concepts of who God is. Thus far I haven't found any of them that I've heard of credible.

Ken

[Squible]

Kenny,

It was just an example.

However there was nothing about a conception of God was there?

It was about existence.

Cheers.

Probably both.

K

They are two distinct questions Kenny.

One shouldn't put the horse before the cart, or for that matter the horse in the cart.

As far as existence, I don't see that. As far as conception; I've noticed various people have various concepts of who God is. Thus far I haven't found any of them that I've heard of credible.

Ken

What's do you mean by "As for existence, I don't see that"?

[Squible]

Kenny,

I just can't let this go...

Why do you think in legal cases; the burden of proof lies on the prosecutor, who is making claim/acusation. The fact that you are unaware of this says much about your ignorance concerning debating.

I see, so defense never provides evidence / has a burden of proof for the contrary (for example an alibi) and/or another way to interpret the evidence provided by prosecution (for example someone was well and truly framed)?

And have you noticed, defense does in fact interact with the evidence provided?

Interesting that...

Then again philosophical debate especially when it comes to ontological/metaphysical topics doesn't have the same requirements (ie: beyond reasonable doubt) that legal cases do. But, you would know that since I happen to be ignorant according to you.

[Kenny]

Kenny,

I just can't let this go...

Why do you think in legal cases; the burden of proof lies on the prosecutor, who is making claim/acusation. The fact that you are unaware of this says much about your ignorance concerning debating.

I see, so defense never provides evidence / has a burden of proof for the contrary .

Of course the defense refutes what the prosecutor claims. Maybe we have been misunderstanding each other all this time; perhaps I haven't explained myself well enough. My point was it doesn't start with the defense, the prosecutor does not say, "we accuse you of such and such, prove you didn't do it" that is the point I was trying to make.

What I meant by "as for existence I don't see that" I was talking about my inability to see any evidence (that I am aware of) for the existence of the Christian God as credible

K

[Squible]

Here's another little nugget for you... get some popcorn... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJmS5oVBfJY It took me a while to find but it might help you understand my position a little more.

What I meant by "as for existence I don't see that" I was talking about my inability to see any evidence (that I am aware of) for the existence of the Christian God as credible
K

Okay.. I get that..

How about you just investigate the God exists claim independent of Christianity first...

I'm not asking you to answer these here.. I am just proposing them as ways of thinking about things differently..

For example ever sat out on a starry night and wondered why it exists at all? Why would there be conscious beings at all? Or even more so interesting consciousness at all?

Given we have strong evidence for a beginning of the universe (all of space/time) (even if the multiverse existed given BGV therom), ever considered what the cause may be? Given that, whatever was prior is spaceless and timeless, what fits that immateriality, if you will, other then something like "mind/consciousness" or abstract objects what alternatives do we have? In this case the problem is abstract objects don't sit in causal relations, however something like "mind" does.

Is it logical to believe that it is more likely that we have a rationally ordered universe from an ultimately mindless process or perhaps one that comes from something analogous to "mind"?

What would cause the impeccable initial fine-tuning conditions of the universe?

What's the best explanation for the laws that govern all of physical reality?

What I am about to say I'm not using this as evidence for Christianity or God, But I found out today George Ellis who is arguably the top cosmologist in the world, is a Christian. To hear that, even gave me pause for a moment.

These are merely starting points to ponder... Like I said don't answer these but just think on them deeply. And sure there are atheist responses to these.. but I would urge you try and be unbiased if you do choose to investigate and think them deeply. In all honesty, for many it is the deepest existential question to a human being, I'm not saying it isn't for you, but there is more then one way to interpret the evidence we do have.

Cheers..

[Kurieuo]

Here's another little nugget for you... get some popcorn... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJmS5oVBfJY It took me a while to find but it might help you understand my position a little more.

Nice video find Mr. Squible.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJmS5oVBfJY[/youtube]

[Kenny]

Here's another little nugget for you... get some popcorn... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJmS5oVBfJY It took me a while to find but it might help you understand my position a little more.

What I meant by "as for existence I don't see that" I was talking about my inability to see any evidence (that I am aware of) for the existence of the Christian God as credible
K

Okay.. I get that..

How about you just investigate the God exists claim independent of Christianity first...

I'm not asking you to answer these here.. I am just proposing them as ways of thinking about things differently..

For example ever sat out on a starry night and wondered why it exists at all? Why would there be conscious beings at all? Or even more so interesting consciousness at all?

Given we have strong evidence for a beginning of the universe (all of space/time) (even if the multiverse existed given BGV therom), ever considered what the cause may be? Given that, whatever was prior is spaceless and timeless, what fits that immateriality, if you will, other then something like "mind/consciousness" or abstract objects what alternatives do we have? In this case the problem is abstract objects don't sit in causal relations, however something like "mind" does.

Is it logical to believe that it is more likely that we have a rationally ordered universe from an ultimately mindless process or perhaps one that comes from something analogous to "mind"?

What would cause the impeccable initial fine-tuning conditions of the universe?

What's the best explanation for the laws that govern all of physical reality?

What I am about to say I'm not using this as evidence for Christianity or God, But I found out today George Ellis who is arguably the top cosmologist in the world, is a Christian. To hear that, even gave me pause for a moment.

These are merely starting points to ponder... Like I said don't answer these but just think on them deeply. And sure there are atheist responses to these.. but I would urge you try and be unbiased if you do choose to investigate and think them deeply. In all honesty, for many it is the deepest existential question to a human being, I'm not saying it isn't for you, but there is more then one way to interpret the evidence we do have.

Cheers..

My problem is I don’t know enough about astronomy, or stars, or the Universe to consider answers to these questions. I have had people who know much more in that area than I, give explanations that are so far above my head that I cannot tell if they are right or wrong. I sometimes feel like the person who is being told by someone more advanced in math that the square root of 9,567,231 is 432, and having them explain it in a way that I do not understand. I would object because I would assume the square root of such a large number would be much more than just 432, but I can’t prove him wrong because I have no idea what the answer is.
I guess I may not always know the right answer, but I sometimes feel like I can recognize a wrong answer when I see it.

When people talk to me about Astronomy and they talk about a time before matter, space, or time existed; they talk about multiple Universes, it doesn’t make sense to me, I cannot understand it. So even though I may not be able to prove what they say wrong, or refute what they are claiming; all I know is it doesn’t feel right; it just seems the answer should be something else. I know a lot of this stuff may be backed up by science, but a lot of stuff science says doesn’t make sense to me either. I can’t refute it, but it just doesn’t sound right.

That’s why when I look at the stars in the sky and the wonders of nature, I don’t see God, I see a bunch of stuff I don’t understand but appreciate. When I think of God, I think of the book that discribes who he is, and what he does. If I were to invistigate God, even a God outside of christianity; that is the only way I would be able to do it.

Ken

PS
I liked the video. There was one person who made a good point that caught my attention. I don’t know who he is but at 2:28 of the video, he said

The propisition is not shown to be false by the absence of evidence, it could still be true in the absence of evidence we just wouldn’t know it were true.

I would agree that is a good point but would also add; if you don’t know it to be true, you shouldn’t claim that it is.

[Squible]

Kenny,

I guess what I am saying is that once you are somewhat confident God exists the rest seems to fall in line with Christianity.

You don't need to be an astronomer, in any case the issue is a philosophical one which may draw upon those evidences. There are plenty of books from basic to advanced available.

At the very least you may understand where we are coming from.

Cheers.

[Squible]

Kenny,

I thought you would pick that out of the video and like that. What about the core of what it was saying?

Also you realise the person who said that is a Christian philosopher?

Mind you that is consistent with my position, in that I have never claimed absolute certainty, also claimed my position is probabilistic, take a holistic approach and that I have good reasons to believe what I do with what we do know and also experiential as well.

I beleive there is positive evidence for Gods existence.

To me the proposition God exists is more likely true then it is false.

Anyway I think you are capable, don't be so hard on yourself.

Cheers.

[Kenny]

Kenny,

I guess what I am saying is that once you are somewhat confident God exists the rest seems to fall in line with Christianity.

You don't need to be an astronomer, in any case the issue is a philosophical one which may draw upon those evidences. There are plenty of books from basic to advanced available.

At the very least you may understand where we are coming from.

Cheers.

Yes! I understand where you are coming from; and I understand why you believe the way you do.

Ken