RE: Evidence Against God
April 17, 2012 at 12:09 pm
(This post was last modified: April 17, 2012 at 12:34 pm by Abishalom.)
Quote:How does it suggest that a higher power was required? You'll need to demonstrate that this 'god' exists before you can assert that he/it was the cause. Otherwise your argument can't stand. It's like building a house without a foundation.A house without a foundation is one built of the assumption of no God. Why do you think scientists fail to answer so many questions (especially ones concerning origins)? They rationalized God out of the picture.
Quote:I haven't claimed that god doesn't exist. I simply lack the belief that he does. I don't know whether a god exists or not, I have simply rejected the claim due to inconsistencies and a total lack of evidence. The burden of proof is on you.You may believe that you do not claim that God does not exist (through rationalization). But I am aware of the "weak" atheist position. You accept nonexistence by default. However, nonexistence is not the default position. It parallels the position of the prosecutor who must prove beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt a guilty verdict (nonexistence). Based on what is required to prove this position (all possible evidence or at least all known evidence definitively backing this position) it holds the burden of proof.
Quote:The evidence and understanding of the cosmos actually shows that a god isn't required. Doesn't disprove god, it demonstrates that he isn't needed.What exactly do you mean by the evidence shows that He isn't needed? How so? This sounds like a bunch of rationalization of naturalism.
Quote:Can't disprove what hasn't been proven. Try and disprove the tea pot that's orbiting the sun or the invisible dragon in my garage.What are you saying? Let's not go in circles my friend. The evidence and understanding of the cosmos suggest a beginning of the universe. Either God did it or He didn't. What do you suppose?
