Evidence for God from Science

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote:
How about this one; Prove Santa Clause does not exist! To do this you would have to comb every inch of the North Pole, while checking all the air space over the world just in case he is cruising around in that flying sleigh he is known to ride around in.

Exactly.

I was waiting for this old chest nut. I have good reasons to believe he doesn't exist, actually very strong ones. (unless you mean his clones that walk around at Christmas )
We could go through them if you like, but I think you know what they are.

Kenny wrote: It is easy to think of a scenario when a negative can be proven, but often negatives cannot be proven. A friend of mine recently claimed he could still dunk a basketball like he did when he was in high School. (he is over 40 years old) I doubted and he dunked proving his claim correct. Now suppose he were to ask me to prove he is unable to dunk? Wouldn’t it be foolish for him to expect me to believe he can simply because I am unable to prove he cannot?

It is easy to prove a positive claim; all you have to do is demonstrate and your point is proven. But to prove a negative claim is often impossible; thus it is foolish to expect the two claims (positive claims vs negative claims) to be considered equal

I think we "prove negatives" considerably more than you realize. In the last week I realized I had quite a number of times which is what made me ponder on it a little more. I have kids and I am a software developer so trust me I can rattle off a tone of cases, and find plenty more outside of that too. Say in the case of software development when dealing with millions of lines of legacy code, you may need to conclude a bug does not exist, in some cases you may not be able to easily, since it is difficult to access all the code paths (or too time consuming so there is a trade off), so you infer from the evidence you do have. While there may not be complete certainty due to complexity (or worse technical debt which is often the case with legacy code), you are justified in believing that a bug does not exist , or no further ones have been introduced. And I most certainly don't say to my boss it's too hard so I can't prove a negative in those cases. Could you imagine what their response would be? My boss would simply expect justification for my belief based on inferences from what evidence was accessible for that case.

In any case, just because you think it is almost "often impossible" or "too hard", doesn't mean one ought to hold to the belief "you can't prove a negative". You certainly proved that you could in your Santa Claus example.

And in the case where it isn't easy, you ought to have good reasons for why you believe ("the negative"), with what you do know, and come from that point. It doesn't have to be about absolute certainty.
I am sure when you said you had doubts about your friend, you could back it up with what evidence you did have and be justified in what you believed. For example, he was not as fit as he use to be, his eye sight was poor and he was fumbling the ball and so on.

Say I said to you I had a conversation with a stranger last week. And you said prove that stranger exists and what you said. Well could I easily in that case? What I would do is offer good reasons for it and/or find what evidence I could that could be inferred from. I could come up with stacks of scenarios like this. The "positive" can have same problems, as such you can't always easily prove a "positive" either. And given that it doesn't mean we are not justified in affirming the "positive" with what evidence we do have.

My point wasn't about absolutes Kenny, or which is "easier". My point is you can't say "we can't prove negatives" because we do, thus you might want to rethink that that claim.

The same rules apply to the existence of God, in that we work with what evidence we do have, but that is a discussion for another time.

Squible
Exactly.

I was waiting for this old chest nut. I have good reasons to believe he doesn't exist, actually very strong ones. (unless you mean his clones that walk around at Christmas )
We could go through them if you like, but I think you know what they are.
Ken
I didn’t say anything about “having good reasons to believe he doesn’t exist” I said PROOF he doesn’t exist! Now do you have absolute proof? If so I would love to hear it.

Squible
I think we "prove negatives" considerably more than you realize. In the last week I realized I had quite a number of times which is what made me ponder on it a little more. I have kids and I am a software developer so trust me I can rattle off a tone of cases, and find plenty more outside of that too. Say in the case of software development when dealing with millions of lines of legacy code, you may need to conclude a bug does not exist, in some cases you may not be able to easily, since it is difficult to access all the code paths (or too time consuming so there is a trade off), so you infer from the evidence you do have. While there may not be complete certainty due to complexity (or worse technical debt which is often the case with legacy code), you are justified in believing that a bug does not exist , or no further ones have been introduced. And I most certainly don't say to my boss it's too hard so I can't prove a negative in those cases. Could you imagine what their response would be? My boss would simply expect justification for my belief based on inferences from what evidence was accessible for that case.
Ken
Hey I have a couple; how ‘bout “I cannot create a rock so big that I can’t lift, or I cannot fit an elephant into a match box?”As I said before, I can come up with all kinds of scenerios when it is possible to prove a negative. But when people say they can’t prove a negative, they say it when they are in a situation when the negative is unprovable.

Squible
And in the case where it isn't easy, you ought to have good reasons for why you believe ("the negative"), with what you do know, and come from that point. It doesn't have to be about absolute certainty.
Ken
I disagree! Proof IS about absolute certainty.

Squible
I am sure when you said you had doubts about your friend, you could back it up with what evidence you did have and be justified in what you believed. For example, he was not as fit as he use to be, his eye sight was poor and he was fumbling the ball and so on.
Ken
The only justification I had was the fact that he was 42 years old.

Squible
Say I said to you I had a conversation with a stranger last week. And you said prove that stranger exists and what you said. Well could I easily in that case? What I would do is offer good reasons for it and/or find what evidence I could that could be inferred from. I could come up with stacks of scenarios like this.
Ken
All you would have to do is challenge me to go to his house and meet him in person. If I choose not to come to his address, that is on me; not you.

Squible
My point wasn't about absolutes Kenny, or which is "easier". My point is you can't say "we can't prove negatives" because we do, thus you might want to rethink that that claim.
Ken
My point is, you can’t claim proving a postivie as equal to proving a negative. If you disagree, give me a scenerio where it is nearly impossible to prove a positive claim.


Ken

Kenny wrote: I didn’t say anything about “having good reasons to believe he doesn’t exist” I said PROOF he doesn’t exist! Now do you have absolute proof? If so I would love to hear it.

Kenny, cut the rubbish. the only thing that is absolute are mathematical proofs.

The problem with your position is most positive claims DO NOT have absolute certainty, and we accept them on good reasons. What you are doing is special pleading.

Kenny wrote: Hey I have a couple; how ‘bout “I cannot create a rock so big that I can’t lift, or I cannot fit an elephant into a match box?”As I said before, I can come up with all kinds of scenerios when it is possible to prove a negative. But when people say they can’t prove a negative, they say it when they are in a situation when the negative is unprovable.

Listen to yourself. The examples of yours are simply childish.

I actually provided a real world example and can give plenty many more its not just made up scenarios it's real world ones, based on experience.

If you want to go down this path and say "only when the negative is unprovable." - this is a claim itself so therefore prove that it is unprovable. And by your own standard with absolute certainty. I'd like to see that.

And if you can't you now have more reasons to rethink this belief too.

Kenny wrote: Squible
And in the case where it isn't easy, you ought to have good reasons for why you believe ("the negative"), with what you do know, and come from that point. It doesn't have to be about absolute certainty.
Ken
I disagree! Proof IS about absolute certainty.

Incorrect. Perhaps you should go an learn more before making crazy statements. The only proofs (in the way you are defining it) that are absolutely certain are mathematical. Not even science operates on your unreasonable terms.

Having said that the statement "Proof IS about absolute certainty." - Is a positive claim so therefore prove this statement is absolutely true.

I also suggest you learn what proof actually means:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof?s=t

So is proof is about absolute certainty?
It says...
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

In philosophy, you will often see Proofs for/against Gods existence WHY? because they are logically sound and backed by SUFFICIENT evidence.

Science operates on what is believed to be SUFFICIENT evidence. ... it doesn't run on absolute certainty when they claim they have "proof".

Kenny wrote: Squible
Say I said to you I had a conversation with a stranger last week. And you said prove that stranger exists and what you said. Well could I easily in that case? What I would do is offer good reasons for it and/or find what evidence I could that could be inferred from. I could come up with stacks of scenarios like this.

Ken
All you would have to do is challenge me to go to his house and meet him in person. If I choose not to come to his address, that is on me; not you.

I said stranger, you don't know where they are or live. It seems you are distorting this positive claim example and not understanding it.

Kenny wrote: My point is, you can’t claim proving a postivie as equal to proving a negative. If you disagree, give me a scenerio where it is nearly impossible to prove a positive claim.

Example: Proving ALL events/situations/thoughts that have happened to us in the past throughout our lives. We make positive claims about these all the time and many are nearly impossible to prove.

It is never about two things being equal Kenny. That is irrelevant.

The way I see is your argument goes like this:

We can prove positive claims more then negative, therefore we can't prove a negative.

That is completely Illogical!

Kenny we justify negative claims in our experience daily.

You really ought to rethink that belief.

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote: I didn’t say anything about “having good reasons to believe he doesn’t exist” I said PROOF he doesn’t exist! Now do you have absolute proof? If so I would love to hear it.

Kenny, cut the rubbish. the only thing that is absolute are mathematical proofs.

The problem with your position is most positive claims DO NOT have absolute certainty, and we accept them on good reasons. What you are doing is special pleading.

Kenny wrote: Hey I have a couple; how ‘bout “I cannot create a rock so big that I can’t lift, or I cannot fit an elephant into a match box?”As I said before, I can come up with all kinds of scenerios when it is possible to prove a negative. But when people say they can’t prove a negative, they say it when they are in a situation when the negative is unprovable.

Listen to yourself. The examples of yours are simply childish.

I actually provided a real world example and can give plenty many more its not just made up scenarios it's real world ones, based on experience.

If you want to go down this path and say "only when the negative is unprovable." - this is a claim itself so therefore prove that it is unprovable. And by your own standard with absolute certainty. I'd like to see that.

And if you can't you now have more reasons to rethink this belief too.

Kenny wrote: Squible
And in the case where it isn't easy, you ought to have good reasons for why you believe ("the negative"), with what you do know, and come from that point. It doesn't have to be about absolute certainty.
Ken
I disagree! Proof IS about absolute certainty.

Incorrect. Perhaps you should go an learn more before making crazy statements. The only proofs (in the way you are defining it) that are absolutely certain are mathematical. Not even science operates on your unreasonable terms.

Having said that the statement "Proof IS about absolute certainty." - Is a positive claim so therefore prove this statement is absolutely true.

I also suggest you learn what proof actually means:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof?s=t

So is proof is about absolute certainty?
It says...
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

In philosophy, you will often see Proofs for/against Gods existence WHY? because they are based on what is believed to be SUFFICIENT evidence.

Science operates the same way... it doesn't run on absolute certainty when they claim they have "proof".

Kenny wrote: Squible
Say I said to you I had a conversation with a stranger last week. And you said prove that stranger exists and what you said. Well could I easily in that case? What I would do is offer good reasons for it and/or find what evidence I could that could be inferred from. I could come up with stacks of scenarios like this.

Ken
All you would have to do is challenge me to go to his house and meet him in person. If I choose not to come to his address, that is on me; not you.

I said stranger, you don't know where they are or live. It seems you are distorting this positive claim example and not understanding it.

Kenny wrote: My point is, you can’t claim proving a postivie as equal to proving a negative. If you disagree, give me a scenerio where it is nearly impossible to prove a positive claim.

Example: Proving ALL events/situations/thoughts that have happened to us in the past throughout our lives. We make positive claims about these all the time and many are nearly impossible to prove.

It is never about two things being equal Kenny. That is irrelevant.

The way I see is your argument goes like this:

We can prove positive claims more then negative, therefore we can't prove a negative.

That is completely Illogical!

Kenny we justify negative claims in our experience daily.

You really ought to rethink that belief.

Squible
Kenny, cut the rubbish. the only thing that is absolute are mathematical proofs.
Ken
Didn’t I just give an example of my friend providing absolute proof that he was able to dunk a basketball when he demonstrated he could? Now can you provide the same kind of proof for the non-existence of Santa Clause? I think not.

Squible
The problem with your position is most positive claims DO NOT have absolute certainty, and we accept them on good reasons. What you are doing is special pleading.
Ken
The positive claims that can be demonstrated can be.


Squible[/b
]Listen to yourself. The examples of yours are simply childish.

I actually provided a real world example and can give plenty many more its not just made up scenarios it's real world ones, based on experience.
Ken
You aren’t getting it are you. As I said before, we can come up with a million scenerios where a negative can be proven; I am not disputing this! I am saying it is up to the person who makes a positive claim, to provide proof. If he can’t, he should understand if he is not believed, and it would be foolish for him to expect to be believed if his claim can’t be disproven.
The fact is, most positive claims can be demonstrated; most negative claims cannot.

If I told you to Santa Clause were coming to town in 2 months; and insisted you believe me unless you could prove he is not, Would you take me seriously? Of course not! If I make a claim, it is up to me to provide the evidence/proof not you.

Ken

Kenny,

Firstly the use of Santa Claus is just meaningless parody. We all know as adults the gig is up for Santa. The same goes for other silly remarks of a similar nature.

Having said that, Santa Claus parody aside, and drawing upon the essence of what was said, I will answer your example; I would ask for what evidence and reasons you had, if you couldn't provide it sufficiently (note not with absolute certainty) I wouldn't say to you "can't prove a negative" and dismiss it, rather I would attempt to research and justify my belief on the topic either way and have good reasons with what evidence was available in order to justify it. That's what a real thinker does Kenny.

As for your friend the situation may change at later point so your reasoning is demonstrably flawed in relation to absolute certainty. If something changes throughout time it isn't an absolute. Also asking someone to prove if they are unable to do something is different to proving (and remember proof doesn’t mean absolute certainty either) whether something exists or not which is what you were using the "can't prove a negative" in relation to in the first place. So there is a slight of hand going on here (or we could also say a red herring) in order to attempt to prove your point when in reality its attempting to prove it from a completely unrelated example. To then use the potential success of that in order to apply it against the "negative" existence proposition, which doesn't logically follow. The other issue is him getting you to prove what he can't do is almost like asking someone to prove what red smells like, it's absurd, and it almost appears like it is some odd categorical error, since it assumes you have control over his will when clearly you don't have that ability/property in relation to your friend (or another human being), and then it raises bigger questions even if you did as to who was unable to dunk the ball. What I would tell your friend is that his proposition is nonsense to begin with and demonstrate why. And as I said previously your example is completely different to proving if something exists or not, which isn't absurd because it is logically possible and you are a personally capable of forming arguments from the evidence we do have just like others do and have. Kenny your example is simply incoherent and doesn't prove your point at all since it is premised on nonsense to begin with. You need a logically coherent example in order to demonstrate your position.

So now this means the claim we can't prove a negative is a claim that needs to be proven with absolute certainty according to your own standard if you wish to remain consistent. See how you go with that.. if you can't do it you ought to reassess your beliefs.

You are not getting it, that the fact is there is never complete certainly on a heaps of positive claims either. The positive vs negative is not equal as justification for your position is a fallacious argument.

Also, if we cannot get direct evidence for a claim either way we use what evidence we do have and use various forms of reasoning such as inductive / abductive. We can also use logic to disprove something by demonstrating logical contradictions.

The can't prove a negative ilk especially when unsubstantiated is a rhetorical device in order to escape justifying your position. Quite frankly it's intellectually lazy.

Further more if you hold to the "can't prove a negative" claim in order support the belief God does not exist is to in fact commit the logical fallacy of begging the question because you have accepted the conclusion, therefore your position is based on circular reasoning. To add insult to injury further, if we simply go on the premise that we "can't prove a negative because it is unprovable" again assumes that what you are proving is in fact unprovable, which is to again commit the fallacy of begging the question, unless you care to successfully substantiate that it is in fact unprovable.

There is still a burden of proof on your shoulders if you believe God does not exist, you should have good arguments from the evidence we have for why you believe that, other than you can't prove a negative. And if you believe that you can't prove a negative which you seem to then that is a claim that YOU have a burden of proof now to justify why Gods existence cannot be proven at all. Be honest with yourself instead of being lazy and sitting there hand waving. The burden of proof rests on any claim regardless of who makes it whether "negative or positive" as you put it. You harp on about "logic and reason", well you owe it to yourself to be honest about what's just been said, otherwise your beliefs boil down to ignorance.

Just think on it before you respond.

Squible wrote:

Kenny wrote: I didn’t say anything about “having good reasons to believe he doesn’t exist” I said PROOF he doesn’t exist! Now do you have absolute proof? If so I would love to hear it.

Kenny, cut the rubbish. the only thing that is absolute are mathematical proofs.

The problem with your position is most positive claims DO NOT have absolute certainty, and we accept them on good reasons. What you are doing is special pleading.

Kenny wrote: Hey I have a couple; how ‘bout “I cannot create a rock so big that I can’t lift, or I cannot fit an elephant into a match box?”As I said before, I can come up with all kinds of scenerios when it is possible to prove a negative. But when people say they can’t prove a negative, they say it when they are in a situation when the negative is unprovable.

Listen to yourself. The examples of yours are simply childish.

I actually provided a real world example and can give plenty many more its not just made up scenarios it's real world ones, based on experience.

If you want to go down this path and say "only when the negative is unprovable." - this is a claim itself so therefore prove that it is unprovable. And by your own standard with absolute certainty. I'd like to see that.

And if you can't you now have more reasons to rethink this belief too.

Kenny wrote: Squible
And in the case where it isn't easy, you ought to have good reasons for why you believe ("the negative"), with what you do know, and come from that point. It doesn't have to be about absolute certainty.
Ken
I disagree! Proof IS about absolute certainty.

Incorrect. Perhaps you should go an learn more before making crazy statements. The only proofs (in the way you are defining it) that are absolutely certain are mathematical. Not even science operates on your unreasonable terms.

Having said that the statement "Proof IS about absolute certainty." - Is a positive claim so therefore prove this statement is absolutely true.

I also suggest you learn what proof actually means:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof?s=t

So is proof is about absolute certainty?
It says...
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

In philosophy, you will often see Proofs for/against Gods existence WHY? because they are based on what is believed to be SUFFICIENT evidence.

Science operates the same way... it doesn't run on absolute certainty when they claim they have "proof".

Kenny wrote: Squible
Say I said to you I had a conversation with a stranger last week. And you said prove that stranger exists and what you said. Well could I easily in that case? What I would do is offer good reasons for it and/or find what evidence I could that could be inferred from. I could come up with stacks of scenarios like this.

Ken
All you would have to do is challenge me to go to his house and meet him in person. If I choose not to come to his address, that is on me; not you.

I said stranger, you don't know where they are or live. It seems you are distorting this positive claim example and not understanding it.

Kenny wrote: My point is, you can’t claim proving a postivie as equal to proving a negative. If you disagree, give me a scenerio where it is nearly impossible to prove a positive claim.

Example: Proving ALL events/situations/thoughts that have happened to us in the past throughout our lives. We make positive claims about these all the time and many are nearly impossible to prove.

It is never about two things being equal Kenny. That is irrelevant.

The way I see is your argument goes like this:

We can prove positive claims more then negative, therefore we can't prove a negative.

That is completely Illogical!

Kenny we justify negative claims in our experience daily.

You really ought to rethink that belief.

Squible, wow great posts . I learned a lot from it . I never really knew the definition of proof and the way it's used in science . One of the best posts on this forum for me as it taught me something I never knew before
Are you a philosopher or philosophy student ?

bippy123 wrote: Squible, wow great posts . I learned a lot from it . I never really knew the definition of proof and the way it's used in science . One of the best posts on this forum for me as it taught me something I never knew before
Are you a philosopher or philosophy student ?

Technically we are all philosophers, for me personally I have an absolutely deep passion for philosophy and take it quite seriously.

I started reading from the basics many years ago, beginning with logic, argumentation, fallacies etc. truth theories, belief theories, knowledge theories, metaphysics, ethics, and trust me it took a lot initially to push through all of that because it can be very dry. Not to mention you start thinking about how you are currently thinking and then about how you ought to think about things. Initially I realized how messed up I was .. Reading about different belief / knowledge / truth theories for example challenged me significantly, you just don't think about that kind of stuff in day to day life. But once you have it greatly improves you. And there are times when I will go back to the foundation to reassess where I am it.

Once you have your foundation, generally you will choose what you want to specialize in because philosophy is massive! Now I read academic level, you can either buy books and/or download papers (some I do pay for occasionally). There are plenty of academic level philosophy sites which are free for anyone to access, but you need a good foundation first otherwise it will not even make sense. A single term can have a stack of discussion/background on it. There are even lectures online from universities. The other thing is that you ought to research all sides of a topic in order to understand it, so I actually do that. A true critical thinker will. In fact research is critical. You should also attempt to argue against your own position and think of what an interlocutor would come back with.. And to be honest it can change your perspective on things, you could realise the incoherence of what you believe or where your position is weak. You will often go into other fields which makes it quite interesting and challenging again. I also found the history of philosophy to be quite elucidating, because it tells you how we got to where we are today. A huge turning point in philosophical history is arguably from Rene Descartes on, also I find Locke (an influential enlightenment thinker), Hume, Kant and Popper to be very significant as well, these guys have affected society quite profoundly for example.

My wife and kids will tell you I read a lot, and there are times where I am simply shutdown deeply thinking about things, my wife wonders where I am . Put it this way I'd rather be reading something intellectual and challenging myself then watching the garbage that comes out of the TV. I also feel blessed to have the mind that I do, Gods good grace is amazing!

One of my favorite professional philosophers once said, if you want to become better read something that is a notch above your current level, properly understand it and then move the notch up to the next level and so on.

My interests are obviously God., currently I am reading about Scholastic/Aristotelian Metaphysics, however I also read a lot on naturalism/materialism, a little on the philosophy of science and various other topics. Sometimes I find it can take weeks to go through a single concept and understand it. In Australia naturalism is something people inadvertently just hold to, so I found it quite challenging to my thinking initially to read arguments against it, I had no idea how just holding to it without realizing had affected my own thinking. To be honest I was very upset about that realisation and how deeply it had affected me. I still struggle with some ingrained beliefs centred on the inadvertent acceptance of naturalism.

Anyone can do this, it's irrelevant if you are a professional philosopher or not, if someone attacks you based on that then they commit an ad hominem fallacy / genetic fallacy. One should attack the propositions not the person or its origin. I will admit there are occasions when I break this rule especially when the other person is just being silly or completly irrational and wouldn't see any response you gave as reasonable..

In fact prior I would have put garbage on philosophy but several years later I have found it to be one of the most liberating experiences of my life (but nothing beats the liberation of coming to know Christ of course). To understand that we are controlled by philosophy and actually see the unseen mechanisms which drive our thinking and set yourself free from that is what makes philosophy liberating. Quite frankly you start to see the rhetoric on TV, see through marketing and see that many people are simply illogical although they sound logical on the surface, more importantly you begin to understand more about yourself and what philosophical views you picked up along the way without even realizing it! You realize how easily fooled we are once you embark on this kind of journey....

I have been contemplating going back to university, and doing theology or philosophy or both officially.

Anyway I see I have ranted , but it's like a bottle I can't keep the lid on!

On a final note I would encourage anyone to get into philosophy...

Kenny,

I edited my previous post since I realised more about your point with regard to your basket ball example, and took it a little differently at first, and possibly not the way it was intended. I wish not to misrepresent any persons position whether unintentionally or not.

It seems to me your example is worse then I first realized.

I also polished other areas because I can't help but think on these things deeply and try to support your position and my own position and attack both to finally come to a conclusion that's sound.

I am thinking I should learn to write my response off-line first.


Also the your response "The positive claims that can be demonstrated can be" to me saying "The problem with your position is most positive claims DO NOT have absolute certainty, and we accept them on good reasons.".
Is a tautology and as such contains absolutely no useful information. So really it is pointless and offers nothing in response. It wasn't even worth the time you spent typing it.

Cheers

Squible wrote:Kenny,

Firstly the use of Santa Claus is just meaningless parody. We all know as adults the gig is up for Santa. The same goes for other silly remarks of a similar nature.

Having said that, Santa Claus parody aside, and drawing upon the essence of what was said, I will answer your example; I would ask for what evidence and reasons you had, if you couldn't provide it sufficiently (note not with absolute certainty) I wouldn't say to you "can't prove a negative" and dismiss it, rather I would attempt to research and justify my belief on the topic either way and have good reasons with what evidence was available in order to justify it. That's what a real thinker does Kenny.

As for your friend the situation may change at later point so your reasoning is demonstrably flawed in relation to absolute certainty. If something changes throughout time it isn't an absolute. Also asking someone to prove if they are unable to do something is different to proving (and remember proof doesn’t mean absolute certainty either) whether something exists or not which is what you were using the "can't prove a negative" in relation to in the first place. So there is a slight of hand going on here (or we could also say a red herring) in order to attempt to prove your point when in reality its attempting to prove it from a completely unrelated example. To then use the potential success of that in order to apply it against the "negative" existence proposition, which doesn't logically follow. The other issue is him getting you to prove what he can't do is almost like asking someone to prove what red smells like, it's absurd, and it almost appears like it is some odd categorical error, since it assumes you have control over his will when clearly you don't have that ability/property in relation to your friend (or another human being), and then it raises bigger questions even if you did as to who was unable to dunk the ball. What I would tell your friend is that his proposition is nonsense to begin with and demonstrate why. And as I said previously your example is completely different to proving if something exists or not, which isn't absurd because it is logically possible and you are a personally capable of forming arguments from the evidence we do have just like others do and have. Kenny your example is simply incoherent and doesn't prove your point at all since it is premised on nonsense to begin with. You need a logically coherent example in order to demonstrate your position.

So now this means the claim we can't prove a negative is a claim that needs to be proven with absolute certainty according to your own standard if you wish to remain consistent. See how you go with that.. if you can't do it you ought to reassess your beliefs.

You are not getting it, that the fact is there is never complete certainly on a heaps of positive claims either. The positive vs negative is not equal as justification for your position is a fallacious argument.

Also, if we cannot get direct evidence for a claim either way we use what evidence we do have and use various forms of reasoning such as inductive / abductive. We can also use logic to disprove something by demonstrating logical contradictions.

The can't prove a negative ilk especially when unsubstantiated is a rhetorical device in order to escape justifying your position. Quite frankly it's intellectually lazy.

Further more if you hold to the "can't prove a negative" claim in order support the belief God does not exist is to in fact commit the logical fallacy of begging the question because you have accepted the conclusion, therefore your position is based on circular reasoning. To add insult to injury further, if we simply go on the premise that we "can't prove a negative because it is unprovable" again assumes that what you are proving is in fact unprovable, which is to again commit the fallacy of begging the question, unless you care to successfully substantiate that it is in fact unprovable.

There is still a burden of proof on your shoulders if you believe God does not exist, you should have good arguments from the evidence we have for why you believe that, other than you can't prove a negative. And if you believe that you can't prove a negative which you seem to then that is a claim that YOU have a burden of proof now to justify why Gods existence cannot be proven at all. Be honest with yourself instead of being lazy and sitting there hand waving. The burden of proof rests on any claim regardless of who makes it whether "negative or positive" as you put it. You harp on about "logic and reason", well you owe it to yourself to be honest about what's just been said, otherwise your beliefs boil down to ignorance.

Just think on it before you respond.

Squible
Firstly the use of Santa Claus is just meaningless parody. We all know as adults the gig is up for Santa. The same goes for other silly remarks of a similar nature.

Ken
The Gig is up? Is that the best proof you have that Santa doesn’t exist? How effective do you think that would be against someone who does believe in Santa? How effective would it be against you if someone claimed “the gig is up” concerning one of your beliefs? Try again.

Squible
Having said that, Santa Claus parody aside, and drawing upon the essence of what was said, I will answer your example; I would ask for what evidence and reasons you had, if you couldn't provide it sufficiently (note not with absolute certainty) I wouldn't say to you "can't prove a negative" and dismiss it, rather I would attempt to research and justify my belief on the topic either way and have good reasons with what evidence was available in order to justify it. That's what a real thinker does Kenny.

Ken
Did you do research on Santa before claiming “ the gig is up”? What about Easter Bunny, Marvin the Martin, or Super Chicken? In other words, do you expect me to believe you are going to go out of your way to investigate every ridicules claim someone is capable of making before dismissing it? Heck no! If somebody came to you with some ridicules noise like that you would dismiss it without a second thought! Admit it! The only way you would investigate such a claim is if you felt it had merit

Squible
As for your friend the situation may change at later point so your reasoning is demonstrably flawed in relation to absolute certainty. If something changes throughout time it isn't an absolute.

Ken
The situation may change? What on Earth are you talking about? Did you actually read what I said? In case you didn’t, my friend (age 42) claimed he could still dunk a basket ball like he did in High School. After I showed doubt, he demonstrated he could by dunking while I watched. There was no change in situation, and the only absolute certainty was me! I was absolutely certain he could do it upon witnessing his demonstration. Whatever "absolute certainty, or situation change you are talking about has absloutely nothing to do with this conversation.

My point was, it would be ridicules for him to expect me to either accept his claim without proof; or prove he was unable to dunk, because it would be next to impossible for me to prove he can’t do it without his cooperation. Do you agree?

Squible
So now this means the claim we can't prove a negative is a claim that needs to be proven with absolute certainty according to your own standard if you wish to remain consistent. See how you go with that.. if you can't do it you ought to reassess your beliefs.

Ken
As I’ve said over and over again; we can always come up with a scenario where a negative can be proven. People don’t use that claim unless confronted with a negative they can’t prove

Squible
You are not getting it, that the fact is there is never complete certainly on a heaps of positive claims either.

Ken
Certainty for whom? Everyone? Or just the person whom the claim is made to? Absolute certainty only needs to be accomplished with the person whom the claim is being made to. You and I can receive the same evidence; I am absolutely certain but you are not; if the claim is only made to me, your lack of certainty doesn’t matter. In other words, absolute certainty CAN be accomplished on an individual basis.

Squible
Also, if we cannot get direct evidence for a claim either way we use what evidence we do have and use various forms of reasoning such as inductive / abductive. We can also use logic to disprove something by demonstrating logical contradictions.

Ken
Who is this WE??? Not we, YOU! If you are going to make a statement it is YOUR job (when I say you I don’t mean you squible, I mean the person making the claim) it is your job to substantiate your claim. You have no right to insist the person you are trying to convince accept your claim unless you do this.

Squible
The can't prove a negative ilk especially when unsubstantiated is a rhetorical device in order to escape justifying your position. Quite frankly it's intellectually lazy.

Ken
No, the intellectual lazy person is the one who makes an unsubstantiated claim then insists someone else does the ground work and prove him wrong if he doesn’t want to accept it. In the real world, if you make a claim, you need to back it up otherwise nobody is likely to believe you.


Squible
Further more if you hold to the "can't prove a negative" claim in order support the belief God does not exist is to in fact commit the logical fallacy of begging the question because you have accepted the conclusion, therefore your position is based on circular reasoning. To add insult to injury further, if we simply go on the premise that we "can't prove a negative because it is unprovable" again assumes that what you are proving is in fact unprovable, which is to again commit the fallacy of begging the question, unless you care to successfully substantiate that it is in fact unprovable.

There is still a burden of proof on your shoulders if you believe God does not exist, you should have good arguments from the evidence we have for why you believe that, other than you can't prove a negative. And if you believe that you can't prove a negative which you seem to then that is a claim that YOU have a burden of proof now to justify why Gods existence cannot be proven at all. Be honest with yourself instead of being lazy and sitting there hand waving. The burden of proof rests on any claim regardless of who makes it whether "negative or positive" as you put it. You harp on about "logic and reason", well you owe it to yourself to be honest about what's just been said, otherwise your beliefs boil down to ignorance.

Just think on it before you respond.
Ken
Oh so now you going to add God into the mix? Why am I not surprised? I knew it was just a matter of time before you took it there!
Look it doesn’t matter if your claim is the existence of God, dunking a basketball at age 42, or Santa Claus coming to town; if you make a claim, you need to back it up! If you choose not to or can’t do it, you shouldn’t be surprised if your claim is dismissed.
It isn’t someone else’s job to do the ground work and prove a negative against your claim, it’s your job to prove your claim.

Ken

Kenny,

Firstly, As for Santa, we all know our parents were Santa unless you have continued to believe otherwise. And if that's true I am sorry to have been the one to break it too you. Moreover, I explained how I justify my beliefs and that my position has never been based on absolute certainty (I base my justification probabilistically), it's you who claims that there is absolute certainty. I find that quite ironic coming from a so called skeptic..

Secondly, you used the can't prove a negative in relation to God or claim centred around that to begin with. If it wasn't that then I am mistaken, these things happen, I guess there isn't absolute certainty after all.

Thirdly, you are dead set wrong about burden of proof. Show me an academic philosophy paper from an atheist where their response was "can't prove a negative" and "I have no burden of proof with my claim God does not exist". You certainly won't get it from the likes of Flew (when he was an influential atheist, since he became a deist in the end), Mackie, Quinten Smith et al. that's for sure. I have the deepest respect for those men, I can assure you.

Forth, as for your WE remark, Kenny, yes humans operate that way regularly. Inductive and abductive reasoning is very valid. Perhaps you haven't seen what forensic scientists do, or perhaps you haven't been following SETI, or read philosophy papers on the mind/body problem, or for that matter what any "historical based science" does, archaeologists and others such the like do.. So it's just not me. If you think it is, you're dreaming or ignorant.

I see you are still attempting to use your failed basket ball example, and not understanding how logically flawed it is to begin with. To then use separate types of claims as some sort of knock down evidence for the "can't prove a negative" claim such that it applies to all types "negative claims", rather then also substantiate why something is unprovable on a case by case basis. Yeah some real reason and logic going on there, it's mind blowing. How could I have missed it!

I also note you haven't substantiated your "can't prove a negative" with absolute certainty as per your own standards. Actually in general I note you have not substantiated yourself at all, or actually responded to what was said, all you have done is just reassert your position.

Anyway, let others decide for themselves.

To me your "logic and reasoning" you claim to have is an abomination. I am beginning to wonder if we would get more sense out of someone doped up on crack looking for their next hit.

Squible wrote:Kenny,

Firstly I never argued using the Santa example you did. I wouldn't have claimed it anyway. We all know our parents were Santa unless you have continued to believe otherwise. And if that's true I am sorry to have been the one to break it too you. Moreover, I explained how I justify my beliefs and that my position has never been based on absolute certainty, it's you who claims that there is. I find that quite ironic coming from a so called skeptic..

Secondly, you used the can't prove a negative in relation to God or claim centred around that to begin with. If it wasn't that then I am mistaken, these things happen, I guess there isn't absolute certainty after all.

Thirdly, you are dead set wrong about burden of proof. Show me an academic philosophy paper from an atheist where their response was "can't prove a negative" and "I have no burden of proof with my claim God does not exist". You certainly won't get it from the likes of Flew (when he was an influential atheist, since he became a deist in the end), Mackie, Quinten Smith et al. that's for sure. I have the deepest respect for those men, I can assure you.

Forth, as for your WE remark, Kenny, yes humans operate that way regularly. Inductive and abductive reasoning is very valid. Perhaps you haven't seen what forensic scientists do, or perhaps you haven't been following SETI, or read philosophy papers on the mind/body problem, or for that matter what any "historical based science" does, archaeologists and so on.. So it's just not me. If you think it is, you're dreaming or ignorant.

I see you are still attempting to use your failed basket ball example, and not understanding how logically flawed it is to begin with. To then use separate types of claims as some sort of knock down evidence for the "can't prove a negative" claim such that it applies to all types "negative claims". Yeah some real reason and logic going on there, it's mind blowing. How could I have missed it!

I also note you haven't substantiated your "can't prove a negative" with absolute certainty as per your own standards. Actually in general I note you have not substantiated yourself at all, or actually responded to what was said, all you have done is just reassert your position.

Anyway Let others decide for themselves.

To me your "logic and reasoning" you claim to have is an abomination. I am beginning to wonder if we would get more sense out of someone doped up on crack looking for their next hit.

Squible
Firstly I never argued using the Santa example you did. I wouldn't have claimed it anyway.

Ken
On 10/31/14 at 2:00pm you said “was waiting for this old chest nut. I have good reasons to believe he doesn't exist, actually very strong ones. (unless you mean his clones that walk around at Christmas )
We could go through them if you like, but I think you know what they are.”Now it sounds like you are trying to backtrack, and again you are missing my point. The point is not about santa, but about how difficult it would be to prove a negative.

Squible
Secondly, you used the can't prove a negative in relation to God or claim centred around that to begin with. If it wasn't that then I am mistaken, these things happen
Ken
Yes you are mistaken. I never even mentioned God; you did.

Squible
Thirdly, you are dead set wrong about burden of proof. Show me an academic philosophy paper from an atheist where their response was "can't prove a negative" and "I have no burden of proof with my claim God does not exist".
Ken
This conversation is not about Atheists academic philosophisers or whatever the heck you are talking about, it is about people who make the claim; you can’t prove a negative; and why they use it. Humm... first you throw God into the mix; now you are throwing in atheists academic philophisers. What’s next? Are you going to accuse me of bringing them into the conversation too?
.
Squible
I see you are still attempting to use your failed basket ball example, and not understanding how logically flawed it is to begin with. To then use separate types of claims as some sort of knock down evidence for the "can't prove a negative" claim such that it apply to all types "negative claims". Yeah some real reason and logic going on there, it's mind blowing. How could I have missed it!
Ken
You have said nothing here. I have used various scenarios to make a point, and all you seem to do is to try to poke holes in my scenarios instead of addressing the point! Obviously you feel you would have more success attacking my scenerio than addressing my point. Now why am I not surprised?

Squible
Anyway Let others decide for themselves as they read through the comments.
Ken
Finally! Something we can agree on.

Ken

I re-edited the post... and you got to it before I saved it..

The Santa example , my point was you were the one who wanted to use is it. It is absurd to begin with anyway. You have evidence for why it is not true.

I see you are still attempting to justify that only selected claims require burden of proof when it is in fact all claims.

You seemed to have missed the critique on your basket ball example? Or are you trying to obfuscate it?

Kenny, you are not reasoned or logical, or properly understand what burden of proof really is.. In fact you barely understand those concepts.

Also Kenny the point of raising those philosophers is to demonstrate to you that even they acknowledge that they have a burden of proof no matter whether a claim is negative or positive as you put it or what it is about.

Furthermore you may want to reread what I wrote I didn't realise you were online. I had too many distractions here at the time so I realised I didn't articulate my position correctly.

In any case who cares despite my occasional mistake, I beleive others have seen enough to see what real logic and reason is. And that you're actually unable to justify your position well.

As for poking holes in your scenarios, why am I no surprised you can't see what you're doing? Perhaps you should use ones which are logical to begin with, asking someone to prove you can't do something is an illogical question to begin with, no different to asking someone to prove what red smells like. Also you are attempting to use claims centered around "will/volition" of people/beings in order to prove the "can't prove a negative claim", in order to use that potential success against an existence type claim. They are two entirely different claims and I think others can see the red herring here too. Besides that, the reality is each and every claim should be assessed on its own merits, and justified accordingly.

Also no backtracking on the Santa, we know the situation already. Same goes for your other parodies. These kinds of examples show that you have to resort to ridiculousness in a meager attempt to prove your position while grasping at straws. That says more about you then it does me, especially while using it to attack how I would go about actual substantive claims. Grow up! What are you a little boy or a man? It's just childish, my 7 year old doesn't even behave like that. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Perhaps you can sit over at the kiddies table while we serve up some cheerios with a dollop of tomato sauce, while you open your kinder surprise and speculate what's not in there.

I think it's clear for everyone else reading this what we are dealing with here.

I guess making others do all the hard work, and not having good justification for why you don't believe certain things, or not justifying many of your own claims and living in a bubble of ignorance is an easier path to life.

Others can decide and read the comments. I need to focus on other things for a while and take a break.

Cheers

Squible
The Santa example , my point was you were the one who wanted to use is it. It is absurd to begin with anyway. You have evidence for why it is not true.
Ken
Santa is a good example of why the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Everybody knows Santa doesn’t exist, but it is nearly impossible to prove it. An inability to prove something false does not make it true.

Squible
Kenny, you are not reasoned or logical, or properly understand what burden of proof really is.. In fact you barely understand those concepts.
Ken
Even the most elementry of debaters knows the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi ... n_of_proof

Squible
Also Kenny the point of raising those philosophers is to demonstrate to you that even they acknowledge that they have a burden of proof no matter whether a claim is negative or positive as you put it or what it is about.
Ken
What are you talking about? You never listed any philosophers that supported your claim! Go back and read what you wrote! You are starting to not make sense again.

Squible
Furthermore you may want to reread what I wrote I didn't realise you were online. I had too many distractions here at the time so I realised I didn't articulate my position correctly.

In any case who cares despite my occasional mistake, I beleive others have seen enough to see what real logic and reason is.

Ken
Occasional mistake? I think that is a bit of an understatement; and you appear to be doing it again. I think you need to chill out on the distractions.

Squible
As for poking holes in your scenarios, why am I no surprised you can't see what you're doing? Perhaps you should use ones which are logical to begin with, asking someone to prove you can't do something is an illogical question to begin with,
Ken
Are you distracted again? There is something very wrong here. Asking someone to prove you can’t do something is an example of asking someone to prove a negative! For the last 3 days I have been trying to pound it into your head that the burden of proof lies on the person asserting the claim! Have I not? Now you are accusing ME of asking someone to prove they can’t do something? You are accusing ME of asking someone to prove a negative???
Dude! I’ve debated with you before; you’re better than this! I am giving you the benifit of doubt and will assume you are distracted again. Perhaps you should go handle your business and get back with me when you have enough unobstructed time on your hands to articulate a coherent response.

Peace
Ken

Audie wrote:...No reason to be accountable to my family, to myself and my society? That is so far from so! I do apparently have different reasons from yours, but they are none the less compelling. Possibly in some way, more so, as I dont have any comfort in a belief that my sins can be washed away. If I did it, Im responsible.

Living a life of depravity just because in the end I can get away with it is so unappealing! Every minute of my life is then something spoilt. That is no life.

I am certainly not the "arbiter of what is right." (Truth is not the topic here)

Truth is the topic here – look at the thread title– Is there a God? You are claiming a truth that - God is not, so this is about truth. So let’s look at some truths from what you wrote above:

For example, you answered wisely that you are not the arbiter of what is right. Yet, you stated this truth:

No reason to be accountable to my family, to myself and my society? That is so far from so…

Cannot you see the inconsistency in your own comments? How can you be certainly not the "arbiter of what is right." and then say No reason to be accountable to my family, to myself and my society? That is so far from so…

That is called having a conscience concerning fidelity to family and family culture. Please ponder this for a moment: If the truth is that there is no God, then why live in ordered fidelity?

Again truth is, folks in such order fidelity do get on each other’s nerves and slander or brow beat one to submission. How can that really be fidelity? You see, one’s own standards whether cultural or personal cannot be lived up too. True?

So would not the truth show that, in your own words… being certainly not the "arbiter of what is right." (Truth is not the topic here) is a mere excuse and admittance of inability to live even to your own standards? Think about it…

Does not your conscience convict you to live by fidelity to family and society? How did that get there when there, in the eternal scheme of nothingness, there is no lasting value in it at all?

Audie wrote:My cultural background provided me with the moral standards that I should live by.

B. W. wrote:I do not know your cultural background but can only summarize it maybe of Chinese decent so if that is the case, was Chairman Mao correct in killing 45-70 million folks who did not hold the party line? What of Tiananmen Square? Are these not forms that represent a cultural point of view?

Again, one cannot rely on cultural background for truth as culture twist truth. The one truth that cannot be twisted is that Jesus died and rose from the dead to release you from shame, guilt of your sins, and granting you a new found freedom no cultural can take away.

Many horrible things are done by people Such events as you describe are certainly not a part of the ethical and moral tradition of my culture.

As I understand the oriental culture values order, harmony, and beauty. Mao most certainly thought he would bring such order to society. How can that desire be wrong? Who can say he was wrong, if there is no standard that can eternally determine what right and wrong is?

If no such standard exist, then Mao got away with harming, maiming, and killing multiplied millions of fellow human beings to bring about order, harmony, and beauty to usher in utopia.

He twisted culture to have a cultural revolution and you know more about that than I do. So how could he be wrong – because he harmed cultural? Or does not an internal conscience reveal what is right and wrong about Mao and henchman's deeds?

Audie wrote:

B. W. wrote:Have you ever thought why should human beings have a conscience? So Where did your conscience come from Audie?

I have thought about why human beings do have a conscience, and addressed that in a post to Paul, tho he said..

" that argument has been done to death and the reality of that argument is that without God morals are totally subjective, period".

I can express the same ideas to you in different words if you like..?

I dont know what it would mean to think about why people should have a conscience.

Simple, where did it come from? Why do you and I have a conscience?

Audie wrote:

B. W. wrote:Audie, you appear to me to be hung up on the word believe. In the Greek and Hebrew text the word translated believe in English is a verb of action meaning in the ancient Greek - to be absolutely persuaded so that one commits one's life too. The ancient Hebrew Pictograph for the word believe/faith paints the illustration of securing yourself to the total care of the house master or master craftsman. Therfore idea of the biblical definition of faith and belief is one of security, not in flippant cultural values, but security, wholeness, real life. Hence, trusting - believing in God is entrusting yourself into the care of one who will make you secure by freeing you from doubts, shame, guilt, pain, past wounds of the heart, the mental shackles that bind us up, free us from abuse, neglect, abandonment, rejection, etc. One who comes to God must believe He is and a rewarder of those who seek him.

We have very different perceptions of the nature of reality.

But you do mention "to be absolutely persuaded". That is so different from "choosing to beleive'.

As you said reflects how atheist understand believe / faith as choosing to believe. In that exposes a fundamental error of understanding faith that Christians have. Atheist, agnostics, are absolutely persuaded in their atheism, agnosticism, science, reason, cultural/societal norms etc… So they have faith. So I hope I helped you in some way to better understand what believe/faith means so there is no more cross cultural misunderstandings.

Audie wrote:

B. W. wrote:The world defines belief/faith, as trusting cultural values, or in programmed genome familial responses to stimuli, or that there is no objective truth, or that all truth is relative, that human conscience just evolved for the sake of breeding, or even in various forms evolutionary Utopianism, etc and etc, in these people are fully persuaded of. Are you not also fully persuaded in some of these same things and therefore, you do have a measure of faith to find God and have him set you free from guilt and shame so you can have a clear conscience.

Not totally sure what you are getting at but as for "fully persuaded' can I substitute the term, 100% certain? If so, I am not 100% certain of anything. I think in terms of probabilities, not certainties.

Is it a certainty that you have a conscience? That is not probable is it? One day, we will all die, there is no of probability there, only certainty. We all become angry, betray, lie, steal hearts, reject, abandon, mock, beat, harm folks, put them on trial in our minds with certainty no matter our fidelity. That is not probable – it is certainty. Therefore, there is a need for forgiveness and healing which is not of probability but certainty. That can only come from the one who designed human beings with a conscience – a certainty.

Audie wrote:

B. W. wrote:Where did the old proverb what goes around comes around - come from. It maybe noble gesture to accept your responsibility for your sins but to neglect God's salvation of freeing you of that responsibility is another matter.

I suppose every culture has some version of the proverb, its a common observation on the nature of life.

Yes, how can it work that way, being observable cross cultures, if there is no God who holds people to account?

The pride of life causes many to deny that God has anything to with anything or simply likes to blame him for one’s own shortfalls. Fact, is, this - what goes around comes around – phenomena speaks volumes that there is a God and he speaks to each in diverse ways. How is God speaking to you that you need him so what you have done wrongly does not come back at you in the future when it counts the most?

Audie wrote:

B. W. wrote:This is what Jesus came to do Audie:

Isa 61:1-4, "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners; 2 To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn, 3 To grant those who mourn in Zion, Giving them a garland instead of ashes, The oil of gladness instead of mourning, The mantle of praise instead of a spirit of fainting. So they will be called oaks of righteousness, The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified. 4 Then they will rebuild the ancient ruins..." NASB

And he will do so for you...

Thank you for expressing these thoughts. I dont know what else to say. I dont see it, feel it, its not real to me. Maybe it is real. I dont do certainties. Where do I go from there?

Where do you go from there?

How about to a simple prayer? So I ask you to consider repeating this prayer and adding to it your own heartfelt words at the end as that is a good place to start:

Heavenly Father, I am not sure you exist but I ask you to prove yourself to me in this way. I ask you to forgive me of all my wrongs because what Jesus has done on the cross, Guide me to understand this more and to know Jesus as real and my friend. Therefore, make me born again of your Holy Spirit and reveal yourself to me. I come to you just as I am – not perfect – fully human and frail and not knowing and lost – save me and make real the words of Isaiah 61:1-4 in my life so that I may grow to know you… In Jesus name – amen…

(add your own words from your own heart here as that is where you go from there)

Audie wrote:

B. W. wrote:Would you like your sins washed away and be relieved from the guilt and shame they impose?

As a child, I thought the Christmas story was so beautiful, it made me cry. There were a couple of songs in English.. one had a line about "stand near to the child so dear, cast aside your fears and be thankful".

Its not about what I like or dont like, itw what I find myself able to believe. Im a sincere person; I do what I can, I dont do what I cant.

He can wash you clean and heal the broken heart, set at liberty those bound and set them free from one’s personal prison. He will grant the oil of joy that will see anyone through the worst and best of times. He will grow with you and help change your life and let you help others as well as restore things profoundly, which sets forth real true lasting purpose for your life.

You are right – you can’t do these things on your own. However Jesus Christ can. So pray the prayer, adding your own heartfelt words to it and simply find out.

Blessings…
-
-
-

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.