Evidence for God from Science

Kenny, I thought our fledgling discussion deserved its own thread, so as not to derail Alright, I got a good question.

Kenny wrote: IMO The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. This goes for Atheist, or Theist; or even in situations outside of the God question (Scientist, prosecutor, etc.)

If the Atheist goes around saying God doesn’t exist, and the theists simply says; I don’t believe you, the atheist is making a claim and has the burden of proof. If the atheist believes God doesn’t exist, but he keeps his opinions to himself, he has nothing to prove to nobody but himself.

If the Theists goes around saying God exist, and the atheists says “I don’t believe you”, the Theist is making the claim and has the burden of proof. If the Theists believes God exist but he keeps his opinions to himself he has nothing to prove to nobody but himself.

Of course if you have two people and they are both making claims, they both have a burden of proof. if you have two people and nobody is making claims; you have no conversation.

Ken

I agree with you so far. If you are not personally convinced the arguments for Christianity are good enough, there's no reason you should share those beliefs. I get the impression, though, from your discussions on this board that you're implicitly arguing that Christians should be Agnostics -- i.e. that they ought to claim that they don't know anything when it comes to matters such as the Bible. If so, that would be a positive argument, and I'm curious what your reasoning for that might be.


For other nonbelievers, I'm curious what you're seeking. I'm half-wondering if most here aren't just trying to better explain why they don't believe -- which is perfectly valid, as Christians tend to evangelize, but would be good to know.

patrick wrote:Kenny, I thought our fledgling discussion deserved its own thread, so as not to derail Alright, I got a good question.

Kenny wrote: IMO The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. This goes for Atheist, or Theist; or even in situations outside of the God question (Scientist, prosecutor, etc.)

If the Atheist goes around saying God doesn’t exist, and the theists simply says; I don’t believe you, the atheist is making a claim and has the burden of proof. If the atheist believes God doesn’t exist, but he keeps his opinions to himself, he has nothing to prove to nobody but himself.

If the Theists goes around saying God exist, and the atheists says “I don’t believe you”, the Theist is making the claim and has the burden of proof. If the Theists believes God exist but he keeps his opinions to himself he has nothing to prove to nobody but himself.

Of course if you have two people and they are both making claims, they both have a burden of proof. if you have two people and nobody is making claims; you have no conversation.

Ken

I agree with you so far. If you are not personally convinced the arguments for Christianity are good enough, there's no reason you should share those beliefs. I get the impression, though, from your discussions on this board that you're implicitly arguing that Christians should be Agnostics -- i.e. that they ought to claim that they don't know anything when it comes to matters such as the Bible. If so, that would be a positive argument, and I'm curious what your reasoning for that might be.


For other nonbelievers, I'm curious what you're seeking. I'm half-wondering if most here aren't just trying to better explain why they don't believe -- which is perfectly valid, as Christians tend to evangelize, but would be good to know.

Great thread!
Nothing like a guy with a good question

patrick wrote:Kenny, I thought our fledgling discussion deserved its own thread, so as not to derail Alright, I got a good question.

Kenny wrote: IMO The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. This goes for Atheist, or Theist; or even in situations outside of the God question (Scientist, prosecutor, etc.)

If the Atheist goes around saying God doesn’t exist, and the theists simply says; I don’t believe you, the atheist is making a claim and has the burden of proof. If the atheist believes God doesn’t exist, but he keeps his opinions to himself, he has nothing to prove to nobody but himself.

If the Theists goes around saying God exist, and the atheists says “I don’t believe you”, the Theist is making the claim and has the burden of proof. If the Theists believes God exist but he keeps his opinions to himself he has nothing to prove to nobody but himself.

Of course if you have two people and they are both making claims, they both have a burden of proof. if you have two people and nobody is making claims; you have no conversation.

Ken

I agree with you so far. If you are not personally convinced the arguments for Christianity are good enough, there's no reason you should share those beliefs. I get the impression, though, from your discussions on this board that you're implicitly arguing that Christians should be Agnostics -- i.e. that they ought to claim that they don't know anything when it comes to matters such as the Bible. If so, that would be a positive argument, and I'm curious what your reasoning for that might be.


For other nonbelievers, I'm curious what you're seeking. I'm half-wondering if most here aren't just trying to better explain why they don't believe -- which is perfectly valid, as Christians tend to evangelize, but would be good to know.

Why I dont believe, as in detailed response to all reasons why others do believe in your god?

What are you asking for?

I have myself often wondered about the incredible number of posts - which for some, are in the many hundreds - unbelievers spend here debating the belief of Christians, in a God they don't believe exists. Why the obsession and need to relentlessly spar over something one thinks is non-existent? Really, it's the equavalent of me believing in no God or gods, but spending vast quantities of time attempting to refute belief in Zeus, or whatever. I mean, if I'm an agnostic or atheist, and you want to believe in Zeus, and that belief is not harming yourself or others - well, by all means, have your fun fantasies celebrating Lord Zeus with others, if that makes you happy. Go celebrate, even worship that unseen, unheard deity - why should that matter to me. One man's god is another one's dog - actually, they may even be the same (to some). Why would I be obseessed with refuting belief in a God who brings His believers such joy, confidence, and sense of purpose? Good for them! Why should I care, unless that belief were harming me or others?

But, I don't believe that the unbelievers here relentlessly post because they think it important to refute belief in Christ, or that they believe that to be any more harmful than belief in any other supposed deity. I think the unbelievers obseessively debate here because they realize that if THE are WRONG, if the Bible is TRUE, that they are in terrible danger and headed for a horrific fate. And so, they relentlessly debate - NOT to convince the Christians here - but to convince THEMSELVES that they have the superior argument, and thus, themselves, have absolutely nothing to fear or worry about. It's bad enough to have no hope in anything but dumb luck, but far worse to think that they could ever be wrong about Christ and eternity. So, it is hugely important to such people to have confidence that they are correct, that there is no Jesus, no eternal judgment, no God to revere. And thus the unbelievers' relentless postings.

I would also argue, as Romans 1 makes clear, that God has made His existence "clear" to ALL people. BUT that in wanting instead to follow their own desires and rules, they have so long suppressed knowledge of God that they have mostly convinced themselves that He does not exist. I do believe, in most such people, there is still a remnant knowledge, perhaps now only operating with the faintest doubt, that the knowledge of God's existence they have so long deliberately suppressed, might have at least a slight possibly of being true. And so, to snuff out even the remotest of possibility of worry that they might be wrong, and to also maintain self confidence that they MUST be right, they continually debate their position's views. Any unbeliever here, even briefly, knows that if they are wrong that they are in grave eternal danger.

I also hope that the unbelievers here also realize the believers here desperately are trying to have them accept the solution to this danger: Jesus! He is the ONLY freedom and peace they can ever truly have. But, they must want it before they can recieve it.

I'm not sure I've asked Audie. Or perhaps I did and it was left a bit in the air, or I forget.

What do you believe best describes you: Atheist or Agnostic ?

What do you believe best describes you: Atheist or Agnostic ?

K, surely you realize those two answer options are insufficient for a non-binary thinker?

Philip wrote:

What do you believe best describes you: Atheist or Agnostic ?

K, surely you realize those two answer options are insufficient for a non-binary thinker?

Yes K. Please stop being obtuse.

RickD wrote:

Philip wrote:

What do you believe best describes you: Atheist or Agnostic ?

K, surely you realize those two answer options are insufficient for a non-binary thinker?

Yes K. Please stop being obtuse.

Hmmm, are you sure you got the right k?
Usually it's kenny you describe as obtuse

Kurieuo to Audie: What do you believe best describes you: Atheist or Agnostic ?

Philip: K, surely you realize those two answer options are insufficient for a non-binary thinker? :

Rick: Yes K. Please stop being obtuse.

Nessa wrote:

RickD wrote:

Philip wrote:

What do you believe best describes you: Atheist or Agnostic ?

K, surely you realize those two answer options are insufficient for a non-binary thinker?

Yes K. Please stop being obtuse.

Hmmm, are you sure you got the right k?
Usually it's kenny you describe as obtuse

Listen Ms. Smartypants,

I'll call anyone obtuse, who is being obtuse. Except you. I try not to upset premenopausal women. That's just asking for trouble.

So, as Kenny can clearly see, he's not the only one who can be obtuse. It's nothing personal against him. Believe it or not, I actually like Kenny. Even though we get on each other's nerves, I wish him the best. But as for K, he should know better. He needs to pay more attention to what Audie is saying. All women want, is for men to listen to them. My wife was telling me that for the millionth time last night. She told me some other stuff too, but I don't know what she said, because I wasn't listening.

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:

RickD wrote:

Philip wrote:

What do you believe best describes you: Atheist or Agnostic ?

K, surely you realize those two answer options are insufficient for a non-binary thinker?

Yes K. Please stop being obtuse.

Hmmm, are you sure you got the right k?
Usually it's kenny you describe as obtuse

Listen Ms.blah blah

I'll call anyone obtuse, who is being obtuse. Except you. I try not to blah blah blah blah blah

So, as Kenny can clearly see, he's not the only one who can be obtuse. It's nothing personal against him. Believe it or not, I actually like Kenny. Even though we get on each other's nerves, I wish him the best. But as for K, he should know blah blah blah blah blah. All women want, is for men to listen to them. My wife was telling me that for the millionth time last night. She told me some other stuff too, but I don't know what she said blah blah blah*

Just trying to see it from your point of view




* all bold words are mine and some words left out, not that it matters

If you're not a good listener (few men are), at the very least, you must master the art of APPEARING to be intently listening, occasionally nodding and smiling,while also praying she doesn't later give you a pop quiz on what she said. This usually works. Oh, and try hard to keep both eyes open in the process. For the ladies here, please keep these tried and true tips to yourself, no reason to cause any trouble.

Philip wrote:If you're not a good listener (few men are), at the very least, you must master the art of APPEARING to be intently listening, occasionally nodding and smiling,while also praying she doesn't later give you a pop quiz on what she said. This usually works. Oh, and try hard to keep both eyes open in the process. For the ladies here, please keep these tried and true tips to yourself, no reason to cause any trouble.

Omg,

Please tell my wife that I am not the only man who doesn't listen sometimes. She thinks I'm the most uncaring, unthoughtful person.

I asked her what she wanted for her birthday, and she said, "I just want you to listen to me".

Of course I had to ask her to repeat that, because I didn't hear her.

I blame a genetic condition I have, called audientes electionem selectivam.

It affects approximately 100% of the male population.

RickD wrote:

Philip wrote:If you're not a good listener (few men are), at the very least, you must master the art of APPEARING to be intently listening, occasionally nodding and smiling,while also praying she doesn't later give you a pop quiz on what she said. This usually works. Oh, and try hard to keep both eyes open in the process. For the ladies here, please keep these tried and true tips to yourself, no reason to cause any trouble.

Omg,

Please tell my wife that I am not the only man who doesn't listen sometimes. She thinks I'm the most uncaring, unthoughtful person.

I asked her what she wanted for her birthday, and she said, "I just want you to listen to me".

Of course I had to ask her to repeat that, because I didn't hear her.

I blame a genetic condition I have, called audientes electionem selectivam.

It affects approximately 100% of the male population.

It usually happens after marriage...

Nessa wrote:
It usually happens after marriage...
When the song 'When you say nothing at all' comes on... Kerry grins
All men want their wives to really take that song on board, right?

you say it best, when you say nothing at all

I tried to listen to the song, but my iPhone won't play it. But maybe it's because I have the "drippy country song" filter on.