Something new to think about.

[Athena_Ritashe]

The problem with God is this divine force/being is not necessarily consistent of matter. You cannot test for God because he/she/it transcends the physical plane. Does that mean God does not exist, or that God should be disregarded? Justice, honor, greed and other concepts are real, and have a place in the world. They are not material objects but they have an impact nonetheless.

The whole problem with the "prove he does/prove he doesn't exist" argument is you'll never see God unless you are open to the idea to begin with. I think those that are athiest have a set issue with God. They are angry at God, so angry that they want to insist he isn't there. Many atheist see religion as evil, and there is truth to the criticisms they place to religion. However, I think theists should respect atheists and leave the quarral they have with God between them and God. We should let them believe as they like and not interfere. If God wants to prove himself to them he is more then capable of.

[Athena_Ritashe]

Athena the thread killer strikes again!

[Aereian]

Lord Kronus

i can only say something so many times before it gets irritating. but i am a nice guy so i will say it once more.

the person who claims a non falsifiable idea are the ones who have to provide proof. i shouldn't have to prove god doesn't exist nor can i for that matter, since any non falsifiable idea by its nature can not be proved false. but that by no means makes it the least bit true. for something to be true it has to provide evidence and has to have the capacity to be tested and retested, if it does not or can not then it is not a fact. if new information, and i mean real concrete data that could be tested and retested that proved that a god existed, then by all means the entire argument and the entire concept of everything we know will change, that is the magic of scientific progress., but to this date none has emerged for god, gods, spirits or an afterlife any more than any has for the flying spaghetti monster or the celestial teapot, and that is why none of them exist.

along the actual lines of burden of proof, i not the one who has to explain my claim, because no one ever has to prove something false, ever. for example, look at the American law system, no one has to prove there innocent of a crime, they are assumed innocent until evidence shows that they could be guilty. but that is a little touchy and has soem openness for interpretation, here is a common sense example. what if someone came onto the thread and claimed that god did exist, we would all think that they would have to explain there idea, of course we would. thats because he or she choose to claim something exists without evidence, obviously. why do i mention this, well this is why. you can't jump around with rules in arguments, or nothign will ever happen and no one would ever get anything done, the rule is the person asserting, the impossible idea of something exiting, like when proving a new theory, has to prove it is true, no one around them has to prove that it is false, before the person who created the idea has even done anything yet. that is just silly.

so there you have it god doesn't exist, and i can say that with the fullest confidence.

You have in no way proven that God doesn't exist, and pretty much killed your own argument. In the beginning, you say that the idea of God is non falsifiable. But in the end, you say God doesn't exist. You demand evidence from us, so we have the absolute right to demand evidence from you! Just as the concept of God cannot be proven false, it cannot be proven true, and anyone with half a brain can tell you that. Real concrete data or a true method to prove God exists will never be found, because God is a supernatural being, and therefore cannot be sensed by something natural [i.e., a human]. No, you don't have to prove something false. But, you do have to prove something true: the nonexistence of God. The nonexistence would be just as much a fact as the existence, and therefore you have to prove it. You see, I'm not even going outside your own logic. You present the example of someone asserting the existence of God, and the fact that he or she would have to have evidence supporting this claim, or else the argument would be completely useless. That's absolutely true. On the other hand, you have just waltzed in here and asserted the nonexistence of God without providing any "real concrete data." You are just as much at fault as your hypothetical theist. The existence of God can never be proven, nor can the nonexistence. So, to answer your question, MajicArtist, there is no point. We are all insecure about our beliefs, so we argue about them. The longer we spend defending our theory, the stronger it becomes cemented in our minds, and the safer we feel in our belief.

@ Athena:
On a lighter note, you made me laaugh. >3< -gigglesnort-

[dragonmatt5]

l F i r e f l y l

You have in no way proven that God doesn't exist, and pretty much killed your own argument. In the beginning, you say that the idea of God is non falsifiable. But in the end, you say God doesn't exist. You demand evidence from us, so we have the absolute right to demand evidence from you! Just as the concept of God cannot be proven false, it cannot be proven true, and anyone with half a brain can tell you that. Real concrete data or a true method to prove God exists will never be found, because God is a supernatural being, and therefore cannot be sensed by something natural [i.e., a human]. No, you don't have to prove something false. But, you do have to prove something true: the nonexistence of God. The nonexistence would be just as much a fact as the existence, and therefore you have to prove it. You see, I'm not even going outside your own logic. You present the example of someone asserting the existence of God, and the fact that he or she would have to have evidence supporting this claim, or else the argument would be completely useless. That's absolutely true. On the other hand, you have just waltzed in here and asserted the nonexistence of God without providing any "real concrete data." You are just as much at fault as your hypothetical theist. The existence of God can never be proven, nor can the nonexistence. So, to answer your question, MajicArtist, there is no point. We are all insecure about our beliefs, so we argue about them. The longer we spend defending our theory, the stronger it becomes cemented in our minds, and the safer we feel in our belief.

@ Athena:
On a lighter note, you made me laaugh. >3< -gigglesnort-

no, the burden to present proof rest with the person making the claim of existence. If i said there was a 10,000 pound gorilla in my back yard who was purple and cured cancer, you would ask me to prove that. If i asked you to disprove it in return, you'd call me an idiot, and rightfully so. If your defense is solely that it can't be proven or disproved then there is fault in your idea. An invisible, insubstantial man can not be proven or disproved

[Grand Master Po-Tate]

dragonmatt5

no, the burden to present proof rest with the person making the claim of existence. If i said there was a 10,000 pound gorilla in my back yard who was purple and cured cancer, you would ask me to prove that. If i asked you to disprove it in return, you'd call me an idiot, and rightfully so. If your defense is solely that it can't be proven or disproved then there is fault in your idea. An invisible, insubstantial man can not be proven or disproved

You say his existence cannot be proven or disproved, and yet you keep saying he doesn't exist.

And yeah, if you said that, I'd ask you to prove it, because you are the one making the claim.
No one has said God exists, but you have claimed he doesn't. You make a claim, you have to prove it.

[Wumbo Ragamuffin]

error[dot]exe

Wumbo Ragamuffin

Quote:

i have tried to speak normally but my comments are dissected and misinterpreted and honestly ignored.

I don't think I ignored any comments.Besides, I've asked several times if my understanding of you was correct, and you declined to answer me.
Thirdly In ED, we dissect posts and break them down to individual statements and point. That's just how everyone does things. You'll get used to if you hang out around here.

Some of us do it because it helps our brain process the information, too. I have difficulty processing information if it's in large chunks, and it has a serious impact on people with dyslexia, which we do have here.

That was the very reason I gave him the first time he complained about it. His grammar does'nt make it any easier to read him.

[Gho the Girl]

MagicArtistJIN

First off I know this question I am bringing up is not so much a Religious debate, but this section of the forum brings me this question.

What is the point?

Not so much to life, but this debate about who is right. ReligionTheism (organized or otherwise) or Athiest

Fix'd.

Quote:

99.9% of the people who go back and forth on all of these issues think themselves to be so sure and set in their beliefs that one party will not effect the others opinion and vise versa. So what are we left with? Nothing gained that is for sure. And I know discussion is fun from time to time but it seems that some peoples only joy in life is to nay say. Go out and enjoy life and try not to care what other people think sometimes.

God/Gods bless you
Or God/Gods don't exist and enjoy life.
Does it really matter?

To some, yes.

And also, what is wrong with debating?

Is possibility for victory required to enjoy constructed argumentation?

[garra_eyes]

Kinomi Kasuimiko

Lord Kronus

i understand where your coming from, believe me, but my problem is these people will not listen to reason. i have tried to speak normally but my comments are dissected and misinterpreted and honestly ignored. They, and you additionally, are wrong in this sense. i do not have to prove a negative, that is impossible, no one ever has to prove that something doesn't exist. for example if you and i are sitting at a table and i say a monkey is sitting in front of you, you do not have to prove that the monkey isn't there, i have to prove it does.

the same principle applies to god and anything else that cannot be proven to really exist or not exist. the burden of proof, the liability to have to provide evidence or a defense, in these situation, rests with the person that makes or supports the original impossible assertion not the person who questions it.

i am terribly sorry if my other comments were confusing or contradictory. but the above is what i meant to convey in those comments.

I would have to disagree with never having to prove a negative. Say that you have an empty jar that would otherwise be filled with cookies. You could either say, "Prove to me that this jar is empty", or, "prove to me that there are no cookies in the jar". One is positive and the other, negative, but both are proving the same thing: the state and nature of the inside of the jar. In the same way, asking someone to prove whether God does or does not exist leads to answering the same question, leading to the same end, to prove the same thing: the state and nature of how/what controls the universe. It goes both ways, and I find it is silly to say that just because you cannot prove it with scientific experience does not mean it does not exist/did not exist. For instance, there is such a thing as historical proof, used constantly in court procedures in the place of scientific experimental proof. Why? Because you cannot replicate an event through scientific experiment. A court cannot prove I was or wasn't in a particular location at a particular time using the scientific method. They must use records, eye witnesses, and etc. to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' where I was at that particular time. To say that if something cannot be proven by scientific means it does not/never existed is logical fallacy; that is like saying that just because I cannot be definitely proven to have been in a particular location by scientific means, I was never there; to go further, it would be almost impossible for me to prove via science that I existed yesterday without historical evidence.

The burden of proof is always on the person who suggests the idea. It is common courtesy, after all; also, if you can prove that God does not exist, why should you object on the grounds that you ought not to prove He does not exist because it is a negative proof? As far as I have seen, as well as heard from every scientist I have come across, theories are put out by scientists into the scientific community to be tested - that is, tried in order to figure out if they are incorrect or not. Is that not, in a way, negative proof? If you were absolutely sure a theory was correct, why would you be testing it? You are testing it because of doubt - because there is the possibility of a flaw. You are trying to prove the negative - that the theory is NOT true - at least, not in its entirety.

I realize that not all theories are performed this way, nor are all performed under this assumption. However, I would like you to reconsider the idea that you do not need to bring up proof and logical extrapolations and explanations of your claims, as the rest of us do, and that it is actually possible to prove a negative. After all, for every positive proof, there is an equivalent negative proof that will lead to answer the same question. It is neither fair nor right of you to accuse us of being incorrect, and sit back and do nothing to make your opinion more valid with actual facts, data, historical evidence, logical extrapolations, etc. It is, quite simply, a characteristic of poor debate skills, ignorance of the subject, and lack of validity to your own argument.

*applause*
This was a very thorough and accurate explination. It was also very easy to follow.


To Kronus: We're not trying to say that you need to believe in God. We're just trying to get you to realize that making the claim that God doesn't exist is equally as ridiculous as making the claim that He does exist. As Wumbo brought up before, Ad Ignorantium (appeal to ignorance) is a logical fallacy. One commits this fallacy when one claims that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or is false only because it has not been proven true. Lack of proof for one claim does not prove the negative claim.
Now, you can concede the point and retract your claim without changing your belief in the inexistence of God. You would simply be making the concession that it is just opinion. I highly suggest you take this out, because the only way to continue with your current line of logic is through logical fallacies.

[Lord Kronus]

i found this written by someone else, so i will use it because it explains my point much better than i seem too XP

enjoy

Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:

"A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist".

However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:
"Scientists don't know for sure what natural forces caused the first single-cell life, so it must be intelligent design."

Suppose that there is a debate between two teams sometime in the past. Team 1 has the goal of showing that global warming is real. In this case, if Team 1 simply says to Team 2 that Team 2 has to prove them wrong or they win, then there is a logical fallacy.

The reason why Team 1 holds the burden of proof is because 'no global warming' holds truth prior to global warming as being fact. In other words, we did not have an idea of global warming until at least one person came up with the idea. The clean slate, or default position is therefore 'no global warming' until someone comes along to demonstrate that there is global warming.

Today, the burden of proof would be on Team 2: all the data tells us that global warming is real, therefore the new claim would be that global warming is not true. The default position shifts to global warming as being a fact.

Thus it is important to consider who has the proving to do. In the first case, Team 2 would not be committing a logical fallacy by saying that there is no reason or evidence for global warming.

Replace "Global Warming" in the last bit with god, its the same thing.
This is what a negative proof is, and this explains why i do not have to prove anything.

[jaden kendam]

Lord Kronus

i found this written by someone else, so i will use it because it explains my point much better than i seem too XP

enjoy

Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:

"A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist".

However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:
"Scientists don't know for sure what natural forces caused the first single-cell life, so it must be intelligent design."

Suppose that there is a debate between two teams sometime in the past. Team 1 has the goal of showing that global warming is real. In this case, if Team 1 simply says to Team 2 that Team 2 has to prove them wrong or they win, then there is a logical fallacy.

The reason why Team 1 holds the burden of proof is because 'no global warming' holds truth prior to global warming as being fact. In other words, we did not have an idea of global warming until at least one person came up with the idea. The clean slate, or default position is therefore 'no global warming' until someone comes along to demonstrate that there is global warming.

Today, the burden of proof would be on Team 2: all the data tells us that global warming is real, therefore the new claim would be that global warming is not true. The default position shifts to global warming as being a fact.

Thus it is important to consider who has the proving to do. In the first case, Team 2 would not be committing a logical fallacy by saying that there is no reason or evidence for global warming.

Replace "Global Warming" in the last bit with god, its the same thing.
This is what a negative proof is, and this explains why i do not have to prove anything.

Plagerism is against the rules. Yes, I know I spelled it wrong.

But, if you make a claim, then someone has the right to ask you to prove it. If all you say is, "Global warming does not exist," then the Burden of Proof is on you.

[Lord Kronus]

along the lines of argument from ignorance fine, i can't prove god doesn't exist, i said that already, but you also can't prove he does exist either. What i can say with full confidence, yes i know i used this before but now it ,makes more sense, that it si far far far more likely that god does not exist, to the point of him basically not existing at all. I can say this because of evidence. there is none, yes i said none, for the existence of god, but a lot of information against it.

please ask if you'd like to hear some of it, and even more please please give me some information to prove i am wrong in my assessment beyond how i worded it.

[Lord Kronus]

jaden kendam

Lord Kronus

i found this written by someone else, so i will use it because it explains my point much better than i seem too XP

enjoy

Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:

"A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist".

However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:
"Scientists don't know for sure what natural forces caused the first single-cell life, so it must be intelligent design."

Suppose that there is a debate between two teams sometime in the past. Team 1 has the goal of showing that global warming is real. In this case, if Team 1 simply says to Team 2 that Team 2 has to prove them wrong or they win, then there is a logical fallacy.

The reason why Team 1 holds the burden of proof is because 'no global warming' holds truth prior to global warming as being fact. In other words, we did not have an idea of global warming until at least one person came up with the idea. The clean slate, or default position is therefore 'no global warming' until someone comes along to demonstrate that there is global warming.

Today, the burden of proof would be on Team 2: all the data tells us that global warming is real, therefore the new claim would be that global warming is not true. The default position shifts to global warming as being a fact.

Thus it is important to consider who has the proving to do. In the first case, Team 2 would not be committing a logical fallacy by saying that there is no reason or evidence for global warming.

Replace "Global Warming" in the last bit with god, its the same thing.
This is what a negative proof is, and this explains why i do not have to prove anything.

Plagerism is against the rules. Yes, I know I spelled it wrong.

But, if you make a claim, then someone has the right to ask you to prove it. If all you say is, "Global warming does not exist," then the Burden of Proof is on you.

no it isn't you are wrong.
i can not be more clear, read the section i presented again.

[jaden kendam]

Lord Kronus

no it isn't you are wrong.
i can not be more clear, read the section i presented again.

I'm wrong because you used plagarized something? Or because you actually think that you have a leg to stand on?

[Lord Kronus]

Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
Examples of Burden of Proof

1. Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

2. Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

3. "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

[Lord Kronus]

jaden kendam

Lord Kronus

no it isn't you are wrong.
i can not be more clear, read the section i presented again.

I'm wrong because you used plagarized something? Or because you actually think that you have a leg to stand on?

sorry. and i didn't plagiarize per say i used a definition that someone had to have written at some point
if you'd like citations i'll go find them for you.

anyways, read other comment, that will further prove my point with another definition.