Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Theo Zacharias]

I have no idea what you mean by agnostics making a claim not to know if there is knowledge. That sounds unfocussed and silly to me; perhaps you'd like to clarify?

I never said that (all) "agnostics making a claim not to know if there is knowledge". Maelstrom said that before. I certainly disagree if he meant *all*. It's clear if you read my post correctly/completely. So what do you what me to clarify?

Without wishing to put words into Maelstrom's mouse, that (generally speaking) is not what atheists do. I agree that an assertion of non-existence, whether that be a knowledge or a belief claim, would be irrational without evidence. Do you have any? Or are we to conclude that your belief is irrational?

I said many time that, as far as I know, there is no evidence that God exist. Why do you ask for evidence? I also have mentioned that I have a reason (not evidence) to believe God existence so you shouldn't jump to conclusion that my believe is irrational without refuting my reasoning.

Are you saying that some people who works on SETI projects who believe that extraterrestrial intelligence exists are nuts?
Note that most of them are scientist searching for extraterrestrial intelligence using scientific methods. Are they nuts?

Probably, if they really believe that before the evidence suggests is in (and certainly if they let that belief interfere with their work). Case in point: the famous "LGM-1" signal. If that had been found by someone convinced that extraterrestrials exist, or claimed to know it as a fact, they would have pounced upon it as proof of contact without further investigation. Luckily, they did decide to investigate it and that led to the discovery of pulsars.

As you point out, these people are searching, I.e. trying to find evidence. However, you're still confusing belief with knowledge. As we've seen, belief without evidence is irrational. Knowledge without evidence probably is nuts.

I fail to see the connection between "LGM-1" signal, pulsar or anything you said above with evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence.
Let's make it simple. Is there any evidence of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence? If you answer yes, what's the evidence? If you answer no, do you believe that extraterrestrial intelligence exists? Same question for graviton.

There are many examples of this on science.
One other example is the existence of graviton. There is no evidence of its existence at the moment. Yet, several physicists working on string theory believes that the particle exists. Are you calling them nuts too?

Until the evidence is in, every claim to the particle's existence is going to be irrational by default. That's why they're looking for it. But why are you tossing red herrings regarding modern science, instead of addressing the real issue of a god - any god?

I certainly does not agree about "going to be irrational be default". I have explained before about my position in my first post. You make many claims without supporting them with reason/argument.

The reason I brought up this issue is that I want to show that there are several scientists that do believe without evidence, e.g. several scientist working on SETI projects and on string theory. And for me it's a rational belief because there is a reason to believe in graviton and extraterrestrial intelligence existence. What do you think? Do you think there is no reason at all to believe in the existence of graviton and extraterrestrial intelligence?

In other words, I want to show that if I can give a valid reason (even without evidence) to believe in God existence, then it's a rational belief (of course as long as the reason is valid).

I agree that there is no evidence or proof that God exists at the moment, but I disagree that there is no valid reason (other than evidence) to believe in existence of God.

Great - disagreement is good for debate, which above all else is the bread and butter of a forum. You have the floor: please explain why there is no valid reason to believe in the existence of "God" if as you say there is no evidence that it exists at the moment.

If you read my previous post, I have posted my reasoning. Please read again. What's your reasoning?

Just to be clear, I'm not stating that there never be a proof that God exist or does not exist. I'm stating that *at the moment & as far as I know*, there is no proof that God exist and there is no proof that God does not exist.

In which case, the only rational course open to you is not to believe in its existence.

You certainly does not read my previous posts. If you do, you won't say that without at least refuting my reasoning why I choose to (stay to) be a theist.

I'm still open to the possibility that I don't know enough or that in the future someone will discover the evidence of God existences or non-existences.

Healthy, but weak. You're basically holding on to your belief with the hope that someone might validate it someday.

I also said above that someone might come with evidence of God non-existences. So it's a wrong interpretation from you to judge me to hope that someone might validate it someday. I'm searching for the truth. If someone can come with evidence of God non-existences, I will be an atheist. But so far, no evidence (either way).

I have said my reason to (stay to) be a theist and my reason to not change my position to atheist. I don't see any argument from you refuting my reasoning.
If you think you have any argument, do you think I should change my position to atheist under my circumstance? What's the reason?

Well, if I had to give a reason, it would probably be that atheism - a.k.a. not holding a position of belief - is the only rational option. That any help?

You haven't given any reason yet. An irrational theist (just like irrational atheist) can say the opposite thing without giving any reason, something like this:

"Well, if I had to give a reason, it would probably be that theism - a.k.a. holding a position of belief - is the only rational option. That any help?"

---

You never state any evidence nor reason why you think God does not exist.

How hard is it to understand that the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim? From a logical standpoint, there is no evidence for god's existence. Therefore, he does not exist. When someone comes along and makes a claim that something exists for which there is no evidence, the burden of proof is on that individual for making the positive claim. If you still do not understand the burden of proof after this explanation, please kindly go fuck yourself.

Now I'm repeating myself, I *never* claim that I know God exists.