The God Topic

Author: Tradesecret ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 64
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    Atheists tend to suggest that there is no evidence the existence of God. Ok. Or perhaps they put it more crudely "they have found no evidence for the existence of God". 

    For me as a theist, I always find this a rather ignorant suggestion.  Atheists also tend to believe that the BoP is on the theist to provide the evidence for the existence of God. 

    Yet this too for the theist is an absurd suggestion as well.  Yes, it is fair for a person making an assertion to demonstrate why they are making that assertion. And it is certainly fair for the opposing side to require that the assertion is demonstrated satisfactorily. 

    Yet, in the God issue, this is not straightforward and is complicated by many things.  

    When asked to produce evidence for God's existence, I am actually limited by nothing because everything is evidence for God's existence.  Yet, the atheist takes each piece of evidence, not the total of course, and says "sorry that is not evidence".  Their most used argument is "that this can be explained by something else".  I really do not see how that argument is actually used since  it does not refute God or his existence. 

    What would be helpful in the discussion is this. For an atheist to produce any evidence that GOD does not exist.  

    And if they did this, then perhaps it might narrow the type of evidence that they tell us they are looking for? 

    After all, for an atheist to assert they have seen no evidence for the existence of God, implies and asserts that they have been looking for evidence. The question I have is what type of evidence are you looking for? Philosophical? Biological? Geological? Rational? Revelation? Magical? Supernatural?  If the atheist refuses to narrow it down, then they are implicitly saying "I shut my eyes to any and all evidence". If you aim at nothing - you hit it everytime. 

    Now hopefully many of you will see this is sort of reversing the burden of proof - but not really.  What I am attempting to do here is to narrow the issues. Currently, the BoP can go nowhere because the atheist refuses to provide the kind of evidence that they say they have not seen. This is an assertion which needs to be satisfied before the theist can actually begin to produce evidence for God. 

    And it is a fair thing to request. And not unreasonable - at least for people who want to reasonably pursue truth. 
  • BearMan
    BearMan avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 1,021
    3
    4
    11
    BearMan avatar
    BearMan
    --> @Tradesecret
    I don't like to debate religion and never do, because it will almost always insult someone.

    The challenge of evidence as an atheist is a perfectly fine refute. Merely saying that "everything" is evidence is a baseless claim, as you have to prove every single thing in existence is solid proof that a God exists. The fact of the matter is if an atheist challenges the evidence correctly, there shouldn't be any reason why the atheist should believe in that piece of evidence you have provided.

    You claim that it's not really reversing the burden of proof, which it actually entirely is. This claim that "Atheists should prove the existence of no god" is very relevant, as, in most religious debates, it is as you stated, on the theist to prove God truly exists. The problem with this is that there is little to no evidence there is no existence of a God. Atheists are atheists not because they have evidence there is no god, rather that the evidence provided by a theist that God exists is weak.

    And again, when an atheist asks for evidence, you try to give them the strongest evidence. You don't merely give up and say "everything is evidence." 

    That's how I see it.




  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,627
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Tradesecret
    Now hopefully many of you will see this is sort of reversing the burden of proof - but not really. 

    You / Christians believe and claim the bible to be the words of god or god "inspired". You Christians also claim their is a god

    Now I am sure that I do not have to remind you; "a lawyer"  where and who with, the Burden of Proof lays, do I? 

    Atheist, to my knowledge  do not claim the bible to be entirety true and neither do they claim the existence of a  creator God. .

    This is you isn't it? Claiming to be a lawyer, isn't it?

     "  I am a lawyer. [......................] But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care.  And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation.  I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications". #20  Tradesecret




  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    Some Christians claim the bible to be inspired by God. I agree that it is breathed out by God. 

    Most Christians claim there is a God. I agree with most Christians there is a God. 

    Atheists don't claim anything about anything. This includes who has the burden of proof for proving God exists. 

    As far as I know and have been advised by every atheist on this site the only thing Atheist's believe or rather not believe is that there is no evidence for God.  Of course you can feel free to contradict all of your fellow atheists.  Hence what the atheist claims or not claims about the bible is irrelevant. 

    The burden of proof falls on the person making an assertion which is contrary to the default position.   The default position does not need to prove their position because it is the default position.  The person who makes an assertion against that position is free to do so - so far as they make their case. 

    I take the view that existence of God is the default position.  You can disagree with this if you like. I can hardly care. 






  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,627
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Tradesecret
    Some Christians claim the bible to be inspired by God. I agree that it is breathed out by God. 
    (A)  And your proof for that claim is where? 


    Most Christians claim there is a God. I agree with most Christians there is a God. 

    (B) And your proof for that claim is where? 


    The burden of proof falls on the person making an assertion which is contrary to the default position.   

     A lawyer attempting to shift the goal posts, in this case where , and who with, the Burden of Proof. actaully lays.
      You won't forget (a) & (b) above now will you, our resident lawyer ?

  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,677
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @Tradesecret





    .
    TRADESECRET, a Bible 2nd class woman NOW, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, an admitted sexual deviant, and had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, 


    YOUR QUOTE DIMINISHING JESUS THE CHRIST: "Atheists tend to suggest that there is no evidence the existence of God. "

    As I have had to school you many times before when only mentioning the term "God" instead of using His name of "Jesus," therefore to distinguish Jesus from the OTHER Gods that still remain in existence today, you once again slap Jesus in the face in not separating Him from Yahweh and Allah.  You once again take the ignorant position as a pseudo-christian in showing disrespect to Jesus. Whats new? Absolutely NOTHING!



    YOUR QUOTE IN SHOWING THE MEMBERSHIP IN HOW JESUS CAN BE A REAL SOB:  "When asked to produce evidence for God's existence, I am actually limited by nothing because everything is evidence for God's existence." 

    Barring the fact that you are correct in your statement above where EVERYTHING is evidence for Jesus' existence,  it once again shows how our assumed ever loving and forgiving Jesus  can continue to MURDER His creation at will as a few examples  below so states:

    Jesus created cancer and ALL other serious diseases. He created devastating hurricanes, starvation in many nations upon His earth, and basically whenever there is death upon this planet, Jesus is responsible for it, plain and simple.

    "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." (Proverbs 16:33)



    YOUR QUOTE IN SHOWING THE TRUTH ABOUT OUR JESUS AS A BLATANT SERIAL KILLER, THEREFORE PROVING JESUS DOES EXIST FOR US CHRISTIANS: "And it is a fair thing to request. And not unreasonable - at least for people who want to reasonably pursue truth. "

    Yes, when pursuing the REAL TRUTH about our Jesus the Christ, as Yahweh God incarnate within the scriptures, it is outright shown in just what a serial killer He truly is.  To save us Christians from further embarrassment upon this actual biblical fact, I will include only a few of MANY examples as shown  below:

    Jesus' word says to KILL Homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13)

    Jesus' word says to Kill Fortunetellers (Leviticus 20:27)

    Jesus' word says Death for Hitting a father (Exodus 21:15)

    Jesus allows women to be ripped open and raped! (2 Kings 15:16)

    Jesus' word says Death for Cursing Parents (Leviticus 20:9) OF WHICH YOU AGREED WITH, PRAISE!

    Jesus' word says Death for Adultery (Leviticus 20:10)

    Jesus' word says Death for Fornication (Leviticus 21:9)

    Jesus' word says Death to Followers of Other Religions (Exodus 22:19)

    Jesus' word says to Kill Nonbelievers of his religion (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)

    Jesus says to Kill False Prophets (Zechariah 13:3)

    Jesus' word says to Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night (Deuteronomy* (22:20-21)

    Jesus' word says to Kill Followers of Other Religions (Deuteronomy (13:7-12)

    Jesus" word says Death for Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10-16)

    Jesus' word says Gays Should Die (Romans 1:24-32)

    Jesus' word says to Kill People for Working on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-15)

    Jesus' word says to Kill Sons of Sinners (Isaiah 14:21 )

    Jesus Will Kill babies and Children through his abortions! (Hosea 9:11-16)

    Jesus condones Rape and Baby Killing (Isaiah 13:15-18)

    Jesus Will Kill the Children of Sinners (Leviticus 26:21-22)

    Jesus orders killing of Old Men and Young Women (Jeremiah 51:20-26)

    Jesus' word says to Kill Men, Women, and Children (Ezekiel 9:5-7)

    Jesus orders the killing women (Numbers 31:17)

    Jesus praised for killing babies (Psalms 135:8 & 136:10)

    Jesus commands killing of helpless babies (1 Samuel 15:3)

    Jesus orders eating of children (Lev 26:28)

    Jesus makes people eat their children (Jeremiah 19:9)


    Tradesecret, listen, to save yourself from even further embarrassment in opening up the flood gates regarding our serial killer Jesus, just remain silent because you DO NOT in any way have the acumen to discuss this topic with me as shown before, okay? You have made yourself enough of a Bible fool within this forum, therefore why add more proverbial egg to your face?  Get it?   Therefore,  in  you remaining silent upon this post, reaffirms the fact that I and many others completely OWN your Bible ignorance upon this forum. Thank you for agreeing to this simple notion.


    You are excused at this time until you remove one foot to insert the other again.


    NEXT BIBLE IGNORANT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WILL BE .... ?





    .



  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    The Truth is God.


    Atheists do not acknowledge The Truth as God.

    That is why the debate is always about the existence of God rather than the nature of reality.

    It's a stupid debate, because anyone who denies The God of Truth is crazy. The fact that no delusion can override The Truth should be proof enough that The Truth is God.




  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    Some Christians claim the bible to be inspired by God. I agree that it is breathed out by God. 
    (A)  And your proof for that claim is where? 
      2 Timothy 3:16. 

    Most Christians claim there is a God. I agree with most Christians there is a God. 

    (B) And your proof for that claim is where? 
    I believe there is a God.  Or are you asking for proof that most Christians claim that there is a God?  

    The burden of proof falls on the person making an assertion which is contrary to the default position.   

     A lawyer attempting to shift the goal posts, in this case where , and who with, the Burden of Proof. actaully lays.
      You won't forget (a) & (b) above now will you, our resident lawyer ?
    Please back up your assertion that I attempted to shift the burden or the goal posts.





  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    I read your post - but could not even find one question. If there is one there - I missed it. 

    Could you be so kind dear Brother and just cut out the fat and go straight to the meat? 

    Please. 
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,627
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    Some Christians claim the bible to be inspired by God. I agree that it is breathed out by God. 
    (A)  And your proof for that claim is where? 
      2 Timothy 3:16. 

     Yes, everyone that has read the scripture knows what Timothy wrote,  but I asked you for your evidence of your claim and not for evidence that it was first claimed in writing  by Timothy,  someone you have never met.. Your dupes -  sorry - "students" may fall for this slight of hand bs, but I am not one of your imagined students.

    So when you are ready, I would like to see the evidence of your claim that the bible was  "inspired by  or breathed out by, god".




    Most Christians claim there is a God. I agree with most Christians there is a God. 

    (B) And your proof for that claim is where? 
    I believe there is a God. 

    I don't doubt that you believe it. But I didn't ask you that did I?  Stop trying to  change the question.   I asked you for your evidence that there is a god? 

     So, where is your evidence that there is a god?




     A lawyer attempting to shift the goal posts, in this case where , and who with, the Burden of Proof. actaully lays.
      You won't forget (a) & (b) above now will you, our resident lawyer ?
    Please back up your assertion that I attempted to shift the burden or the goal posts.


    " The burden of proof falls on the person making an assertion which is contrary to the default position.....The default position does not need to prove their position" <<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<this is YOU  attempting to shift the burden of proof when anyone know that it is to s/he that makes the claim that carries the burden of proof.   So don't bother with you logical fallacy bs. You simply cannot prove your claims. 


    Claiming  that there is a god simply because you believe there is a god is not evidence that there is a god.  

    Claiming that because you believe that a  god "breathed the words" of the scriptures is not evidence that a  god breathed the words of the scriptures.

    But you know all this don't to you Chaplin, Pastor, Lawyer, ? #20   OR  at least you should with all of your imagined qualifications and all your years of study and being  " tutored by all of those learned academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church". #91



  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,677
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @Tradesecret



    .
    TRADESECRET, a Bible 2nd class woman NOW, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, an admitted sexual deviant, and had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, #1 Bible hypocrite,


    YOUR RUNAWAY LAME POST AGAIN: "I read your post - but could not even find one question. If there is one there - I missed it."

    Yep, it is slowly being shown to the membership that you have been Bible Slapped Silly®️ so many times by me, that you are now having to use "little girly excuses" to TRY and hide yourself from Jesus' true modus operand, and that you are too AFRAID to debate me about, but only to RUN AWAY from! 

    A good analogy to your lame excuse in there not being a question within said post, is in a trial setting the following where YOU address the Judge, to wit: "Your honor, just because my client admitted to the murder of his wife, it was not in the form of a "question," therefore I want it to be stricken from the record in  my clients self incriminating admittance, would this be okay with you your honor?"   

    Listen, Jesus and I have seen YOUR type of runaway pseudo-christian before many times where I have easily put them in their place. You're not the first, and you will not be the last pseudo-christian in trying to find another sophomoric excuse to RUN AWAY from the Brother D's godly inspired posts!  LOL


    You are excused for now, until I call upon you again in showing this forum what an outright HYPOCRITE AND BIBLE FOOL you are regarding the JUDEO-Christian Bible. 




    .
     

  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    You missed another opportunity to ask  a question. 

    Please pretty please.  
  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,107
    3
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    If you can't  prove nor disprove something.  You wouldn't  ( I think ) make it the most important thing in ya life.  

    You wouldn't just pick one and obey and follow every single thing it asks of you for the rest of ya life. 
    Doing this on the back of something you can never possibly prove seem a bit, I don't know, Over the top.   

     
  • ludofl3x
    ludofl3x avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,359
    3
    2
    2
    ludofl3x avatar
    ludofl3x
    --> @Tradesecret
    The question I have is what type of evidence are you looking for? Philosophical? Biological? Geological? Rational? Revelation? Magical? Supernatural?  
    You missed the ones people actually care about: demonstrable. Independently verifiable. Irrefutable. Got anything like that? Also you skipped the first real question: which god or gods do you propose evidence for?

    When asked to produce evidence for God's existence, I am actually limited by nothing because everything is evidence for God's existence.  
    This doesn't seem like  very compelling evidence. How, for example, is covid19 evidence for a god's existence? Specifically. I am sure you must have some answer besides "Well god put it there, and therefore it's evidence of god." Certainly you can see what a ridiculous argument this would make . 

    Their most used argument is "that this can be explained by something else".  I really do not see how that argument is actually used since  it does not refute God or his existence. 
    Because the alternate explanation doesn't REQUIRE god to exist in order to explain anything. For example, why do earthquakes happen? Is it because of divine retribution or anger? Or is it because the tectonic plates and a cooling planet are subject to complete natural laws like contraction and fluid dynamics, and every once in a while they rub up against one another or go under one another or unstick from one another and release  energy that we feel as an earthquake? The correct answer is the latter, which modern day theists tend to accept, but they say "Also because that's how god set it up, though." You can see which part of this argument can be DEMONSTRATED to be true, and the other is a tacked on assertion with no substantiation. Earthquakes are evidence of plate tectonics being real and the science behind their study being sound. We can agree on that, right? Now, tell me why you think it's true to add a god to the mix, like what problem does that solve? How do you get there, what convinces you that leaves so many others (i.e. anyone who does not believe in your god) unconvinced? In order to disagree with plate tectonics, which you're free to do, of course, you'd have to demonstrate a better theory at work. In order to disagree with it AND PUT GOD IN ITS PLACE, you simply just say "because Jesus" or "because VIshnu" or "Because Hephaestes / Gaia / Odin." 

    What would be helpful in the discussion is this. For an atheist to produce any evidence that GOD does not exist.  

    You're asking the juror in a criminal case to prove that the person accused by the prosecution didn't do what they're accused of. That's not how it works. Theists essentially accuse god of existing. Atheists simply say "Let's evaluate the evidence," then you present terrible evidence, and when we find ourselves unconvinced, you essentially tell the jury to prove your case is faulty and how.  LEt's take an example: you wake up tomorrow to find our your neighbor, who lived alone, was killed in their house overnight. You and your neighbor were not at odds, and you live alone. It's reasonable to assume, according to your standard, that you murdered your neighbor because (a) he's dead and (b) he's your neighbor and (c)  you can't prove that you didn't do it. In your estimation, should you be arrested? Where should the burden of proof be in this case?  In a court of law, you don't get to accuse someone of murder, then wait for the defense attorney to prove definitively that their client DIDN'T do it. You are making the claim, you have to provide the evidence. If you were accused of a crime, would you want the law to treat you thus? "The accusation of a crime is evidence of that crime, so therefore, Tradesecret, you must prove definitively that you didn't do what we're accusing you of, if you can't, you did it"? 

    ETA: the reason I'm not the defense attorney is atheists are NOT accusing god(s) of not existing.  Atheists only evaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion. YOu're mistaking "I don't see any reason to believe what you're telling me is true, so I'm concluding that your argument is wrong, and it looks for all intents and purposes like no god esists to me," for  plainly "God doesn't exist and I am sure of it and can prove it." 
  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,677
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @Tradesecret



    .
    TRADESECRET, a Bible 2nd class woman NOW, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, an admitted sexual deviant, and had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, #1 Bible hypocrite,

    TRADESECRETS RUNAWAY QUOTE TO MY POST #11: "You missed another opportunity to ask  a question.  Please pretty please."  


    TRADESECRET AS AN ALLEGED ATTORNEY IN COURT:  "Your honor, just because my client admitted to the murder of his wife, it was not in the form of a "question," therefore I want it to be stricken from the record in my clients self incriminating admittance, would this be okay with you your honor?"   


    Tradesecret, as shown throughout you RUNNING AWAY from my posts, you can't answer the questions that I make to you in the first place! LOL

    Run along SEXUAL DEVIANT.......
     

    NEXT?


    .
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,627
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @ludofl3x

    What would be helpful in the discussion is this. For an atheist to produce any evidence that GOD does not exist.  

    You're asking the juror in a criminal case to prove that the person accused by the prosecution didn't do what they're accused of. That's not how it works. Theists essentially accuse god of existing. Atheists simply say "Let's evaluate the evidence," then you present terrible evidence, and when we find ourselves unconvinced, you essentially tell the jury to prove your case is faulty and how.  LEt's take an example: you wake up tomorrow to find our your neighbor, who lived alone, was killed in their house overnight. You and your neighbor were not at odds, and you live alone. It's reasonable to assume, according to your standard, that you murdered your neighbor because (a) he's dead and (b) he's your neighbor and (c)  you can't prove that you didn't do it. In your estimation, should you be arrested? Where should the burden of proof be in this case?  In a court of law, you don't get to accuse someone of murder, then wait for the defense attorney to prove definitively that their client DIDN'T do it. You are making the claim, you have to provide the evidence. If you were accused of a crime, would you want the law to treat you thus? "The accusation of a crime is evidence of that crime, so therefore, Tradesecret, you must prove definitively that you didn't do what we're accusing you of, if you can't, you did it"? 

    ETA: the reason I'm not the defense attorney is atheists are NOT accusing god(s) of not existing.  Atheists only evaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion. YOu're mistaking "I don't see any reason to believe what you're telling me is true, so I'm concluding that your argument is wrong, and it looks for all intents and purposes like no god esists to me," for  plainly "God doesn't exist and I am sure of it and can prove it." 


     Well that aged well, Ludofl3x

     Only 4 replies from the author out of 15 posts. And no reply to your own post above;   and s/he being a lawyer too.#20

  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @BearMan
    I don't like to debate religion and never do, because it will almost always insult someone.
    And yet here you are on a forum for religions. I certainly have no intention to initiate insults. Unfortunately I have a bad habit of returning fire once it has been pinged at me. You certainly have encouraged me to be more careful in the future.

    The challenge of evidence as an atheist is a perfectly fine refute. Merely saying that "everything" is evidence is a baseless claim, as you have to prove every single thing in existence is solid proof that a God exists. The fact of the matter is if an atheist challenges the evidence correctly, there shouldn't be any reason why the atheist should believe in that piece of evidence you have provided.
    The problem of course is narrowing the field.  For me everything is proof - so it would be good to know where to start.  I look at humanity. Humanity is evidence for God's existence. Humanity is as distinct and unique on this earth as anything else. There is no discernable purpose for its existence, unlike every other creature. Humanity has an awareness of self-existence. It has language. It has writing skills. It has the ability to worship God. Something which is clearly a complex evolved creature is able to do - but the less complex forms of creation do not. 

    You claim that it's not really reversing the burden of proof, which it actually entirely is. This claim that "Atheists should prove the existence of no god" is very relevant, as, in most religious debates, it is as you stated, on the theist to prove God truly exists. The problem with this is that there is little to no evidence there is no existence of a God. Atheists are atheists not because they have evidence there is no god, rather that the evidence provided by a theist that God exists is weak.
    Well it is not is it? Reversing the burden would suggest that Atheists need to prove that God does not exist.  I am not asking that. I am asking for the kind of evidence that would be acceptable.  Quite a different position. I am asking you in other words to provide some goal posts for me to shoot at. I find atheists tend to move the goal posts in order to avoid addressing the facts or the evidence. 

    And again, when an atheist asks for evidence, you try to give them the strongest evidence. You don't merely give up and say "everything is evidence." 
    But that is the point.  Atheists do not recognize any evidence. They start with the premise - there is no god and then every bit of evidence is conveniently, unacceptable. 


    That's how I see it.

    Well thanks for your contribution. 
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Deb-8-a-bull
    If you can't  prove nor disprove something.  You wouldn't  ( I think ) make it the most important thing in ya life.  

    You wouldn't just pick one and obey and follow every single thing it asks of you for the rest of ya life. 
    Doing this on the back of something you can never possibly prove seem a bit, I don't know, Over the top.
    Hi Deb-8-a-bull

    your logic is impeccable.  This is why I neither try to prove or disprove the existence of God.  Not with any real excitement.  

    The Christian God is not one that any one can pick.  He chooses you. This is why he becomes the most important thing in your life. 

    If I had to pick a god, it would not be the Christian God. In fact I would probably pick the Mormon God. He is not the Christian God. HE is a polytheistic god who looks a lot like me. But the best thing about the Mormon God is that everyone can live however they want and still go to heaven. There is no bad move. 

    Yet, thankfully, I did not choose the Mormon God. And to be honest - I am glad that choice is actually nothing to do with religion or God. 

    It might be the way that people who believe in the Hollywood notion of love like to think  - but it is not the way that God thinks. 

    The difference between choosing God or not choosing God can be likened to the difference between arranged marriages and marriage for love. 

    In arranged marriages, the parents decide who is going to be the best bride for their son.  In other marriages- we marry for love. 

    God chooses who will be part of the bride who will marry the bridegroom. It is not a marriage for love in the Hollywood style or American romance stories. 


  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,107
    3
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    --> @Tradesecret
    It begs the question. 
    What come first?  ( Beliving in god )  orrrrrr  ( joining a religious group ) 


    I've a feeling Trade that I would pick the wrong one. 
    It would take me 10 maybe 15 atempts with half a dozen of these being " non book writing gods " . 

    I suspect that, if I was to ask all the religious people on this site.  Are you in the correct religious group. I'm thinking 96% would say yes. ( 100% would )  but 96%. 
    This fact is incredible.  ( this needs to be utilized ) 

    Theists are BRILLIANT religious group pickers .
    You guys need to teach the atheists this ummmmm, ' skill. '



     

     
     
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Deb-8-a-bull
    It begs the question. 
    What come first?  ( Beliving in god )  orrrrrr  ( joining a religious group ) 


    I've a feeling Trade that I would pick the wrong one. 
    It would take me 10 maybe 15 atempts with half a dozen of these being " non book writing gods " . 

    I suspect that, if I was to ask all the religious people on this site.  Are you in the correct religious group. I'm thinking 96% would say yes. ( 100% would )  but 96%. 
    This fact is incredible.  ( this needs to be utilized ) 

    Theists are BRILLIANT religious group pickers .
    You guys need to teach the atheists this ummmmm, ' skill. '

    Hey young Deb,

    I suspect if I asked everyone here on this site and indeed in the world if they thought they were thought they were right, there would be 100% people say they think they are . Otherwise they would be thinking something different. 

    I think that bears thinking about.  Especially if only 96% of religious people think they are right. 

    LOL!

  • ludofl3x
    ludofl3x avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,359
    3
    2
    2
    ludofl3x avatar
    ludofl3x
    --> @Tradesecret
    Humanity is as distinct and unique on this earth as anything else. 
    So, completely indistinct, then?  

     There is no discernable purpose for its existence, unlike every other creature. 
    I'm not clear on this: there's no purpose for humanity's existence, but there IS a purpose  for, say, cave frogs that never see the light of day? This seems an unusual position to take in support of the existence of the christian god. 

    Humanity has an awareness of self-existence. It has language.
    As do animals, unless I misunderstand what you mean. Also, all animals have language.  We just don't understand it. 

     It has the ability to worship God. Something which is clearly a complex evolved creature is able to do - but the less complex forms of creation do not. 
    How do you know for certain that monkeys, for example, do  not contemplate some monkey god?
  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,107
    3
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    Picture god making Adam and filling him up with A+ type blood and then eve let's say B  and then having to hold on to ummmmm, a bag of blood type AB and a bag of type O  And Just Waiting for the next.  

    And.  Orrrrr. 

    Picture God choosing what blood type to fill you up with.  

    I wonder what type of blood god had.



  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,107
    3
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    How handy is having Unlimited time to prove a God exists? 

    Why This fact makes me Agnostic.  Well position agnostic.  

    But You theists ain't the sporting type 
    We need to write up a um , clause of sorts. 

    I'm sure The Atheists would be more then happy to give you theists another 5000 years to prove a god exists.  

    And at the end of the alotted time , if you guys haven't proved a God , THE WIN GOES TO THE ATHEISTS.      
    Fairs,  fair. 
    If this was put into place, I could be a Atheist now.  

    Until then,  we play on. 

    God exists. 
    No he doesn't. 
    Does to. 
     Nope. 
    Yep. 
    He does exist. 
    He doesn't. 
    Yes he does.
    Does not. 
    Does.

     



     









  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,627
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Tradesecret
    This is why I neither try to prove or disprove the existence of God.  
     No. You just believe he exists. Follow his commands and  "pass on"  without question what you have been taught about both;  to your students  " the teaching you yourself have received. when  "lecturing at universities" in your qualified  capacity as either a Pastor or Chaplin. 

    I think that is what you told us here >   "I in most parts are merely passing  on the teaching of what i have received. ".    #20


    The Christian God is not one that any one can pick.  He chooses you. 

    How? You have told us that god didn't choose you via words in the bible: you said "   A calling is not from the bible - it is from GOD the Holy Spirit" #45

    So how did he contact you to let you know that you had been called? 



  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    This is why I neither try to prove or disprove the existence of God.  
     No. You just believe he exists. Follow his commands and  "pass on"  without question what you have been taught about both;  to your students  " the teaching you yourself have received. when  "lecturing at universities" in your qualified  capacity as either a Pastor or Chaplin. 

    I think that is what you told us here >   "I in most parts are merely passing  on the teaching of what i have received. ".    #20


    The Christian God is not one that any one can pick.  He chooses you. 

    How? You have told us that god didn't choose you via words in the bible: you said "   A calling is not from the bible - it is from GOD the Holy Spirit" #45

    So how did he contact you to let you know that you had been called? 

    We all love how you just repeat things - thinking that if you say it again - and again, then we all have to answer it again and again,. Well enough already. 

    My dad was an atheist. He schooled me in atheism from a young age. I do pass on teaching. And that is absolutely appropriate. It means that I won't get caught up in my own self-delusions. Thinking that somehow I have secret ways to understand the mysteries - like you Stephen. It means I don't come up with all sorts of novel interpretations that people such as yourself and David Koresh come up with.  It means I won't get seduced into a cult. 

    But what you omit again is the information I also told you - that I study the original languages, translate them to English, and compare and contrast with others in relation to the meaning of the texts.  And when I do my independent studies and research - I come more or less to the same conclusions and analysis that others do - and within the range which demonstrates my translations are not left field or novel.  The range I have already explained is from the very leftist atheist theologians to the rightist conservative theologians - and also includes theologians from other religions and non-religions.  In other words, there are many people with whom I disagree with fundamentally on a particular interpretation -  and who disagree with me on a particular interpretation - yet who still accept my interpretation because it is within the acceptable range of what is plausible.  You on the other hand - just do it yourself. And NO ONE at all apart from your self comes to the same conclusions. You are totally on your own in your novel ideas. 

    And you berate the scientific methodology which I use - and which others use.  Hence why I called you a pseudo- fake.  

    Telling you how God calls me is akin to explaining to a blind man -the color blue.  Or explaining to the deaf man, the sound of a child laughing.  

    I could explain to you the medical definition of what a kiss is.  "The anatomical juxtaposition of two orbicularis oris muscles in a state of contraction." -- Henry Gibbons, Sr., MD (1808-1884). This would be technically correct - but it would not capture what a kiss is. 


    And so far as you can see or hear or feel - you are in your own little dilemma.  The only way to know God is for him to kiss you. And since you don't want to be kissed by God, you are going to keep searching for the meaning in words.  Ironic really.   Words which I have said before are words. Yes powerful words. Influential Words. But not able to cause to do anything. You might evaluate them and respond to them - but that is still you doing the responding or non-responding. 

    But there is no point in me trying to give you a deeper understanding of anything - while you want to wade in the shallows - thinking that you have the answers to the deeper issues.