(February 8, 2018 at 8:35 am)polymath257 Wrote: There is evidence when one looks for it, it's just that you do not look for it. God has also given me personal evidence about who He is. You can deny God through your blindness all you want it changes nothing.

----------------------------


There is confirmation bias when one looks for it. But objective evidence is lacking. Your 'personal evidence' is also known as an anecdote. And we know that anecdotal evidence is unreliable in many ways.

And yes, I am sure you are now so convinced that no amount of actual evidence will sway you. That is what we call delusion: One of the characteristics of delusional thinking is impermeability to contrary evidence.

  Well then why don't you give me some evidence God doesn't exist. I'm not delusional because no one has ever tried to give me evidence that God doesn't exist. Again I say show me the contrary evidence please.
   So we are not allowed to look for evidence when it concerns God or we will be labeled. Try looking at the grandsons of Noah, I think you will be surprised at how much of the world is connected to them. Their names or derivatives of their names are on many places in the world even today. Ancient gods are named after them. Here's you some evidence to look at, oh but wait you can't or you ill be labeled.
GC

---

(February 8, 2018 at 5:30 am)Cod Wrote:

(February 8, 2018 at 2:09 am)Godscreated Wrote: God has also given me personal evidence about who He is.

Well lucky you! Can you reveal what that evidence is, and how God relayed it to you?

 I can on both accounts but you will reject it and why because you did not experience it and it wasn't meant for you. So I guess you'll have to go on wondering what the Creator of the universe relayed to me.

GC

Define what it means to be 'God' well enough that it can be tested. Remember, the burden of proof is on *you* to prove existence, not on others to prove non-existence. It is always the positive existence claim that has the burden of proof.

So, present a test that can be done publicly, that will give a demonstration of God's existence. This should be a test, that if it *fails* you will be willing to admit the non-existence. Then we can all do the test.

So you propose city names, which are often based on legends and myths, as evidence Noah's sons actually existed? Really? I guess Athens shows Athena existed, right?

---

If it is evidence 'not for us', it isn't public evidence. So it is anecdotal and thereby not admissible as real evidence. Your delusion isn't evidence that can convince others.

No, nobody is wondering what the creator of the universe whispered in your ear.

There is no reason or rule that states only the one making the positive claim had the burden of proof. It is on anyone making a claim. If if you claim something as false, you are still making a claim of truth

The claim of most atheists is that theists haven't made a case that they find convincing.

(February 9, 2018 at 10:08 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: There is no reason or rule that states only the one making the positive claim had the burden of proof. It is on anyone making a claim.   If if you claim something as false, you are still making a claim of truth

How many times does this have to be explained to you?

Quote:If someone has presented you with an idea and says that the burden of proof is on you to disprove the idea, work out what the null hypothesis is and then put their evidence for the idea against it.
The person claiming something is possible or has happened needs to produce evidence to refute the null hypothesis.
If they have considerable and well-tested evidence, the burden of proof may reasonably be considered to be on the person claiming that the evidence does not hold.

Regarding the highlight: That is where you fail.

The Null Hypothesis

(February 9, 2018 at 10:08 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: There is no reason or rule that states only the one making the positive claim had the burden of proof. It is on anyone making a claim.   If if you claim something as false, you are still making a claim of truth

Is god/supernatural belief falsifiable in your opinion? If it is, then in your opinion, what makes it falsifiable, and out of curiosity, how would you go about falsifying the existence of the Christian deity or any deity?

(February 9, 2018 at 10:08 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: There is no reason or rule that states only the one making the positive claim had the burden of proof. It is on anyone making a claim.   If if you claim something as false, you are still making a claim of truth

And this is where you have an issue. Atheists, for the most part, do NOT claim no deities exist. Instead, they claim that there is no proof of the existence of deities.

But, again, the *default* is non-existence. This is as true for deities as it is for fundamental particles and it is for Bigfoot. The burden of proof is *always* on the side making the existence claim.

And there is good reason for this. An absolute disproof of non-existence is very rare *for anything*. Again, this is true for deities, Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster. Especially if something can 'hide' effectively, an absolute disproof is impossible.

But a proof of existence is easy if the thing in question does, in fact, exist: produce it.

because of this dichotomy, it is the positive existence statement that has the burden of proof *almost always*.

The one exception I can think of is when the object in question is so well defined that we know *when* it *should* appear. If it fails to then appear, the non-existence is shown. But this is a very rare case.

So the ball is in your court. Either
1) produce a deity to show the existence.
OR
2) Give a situation where that deity is guaranteed to be observable if it does exist. This is a stronger condition, but is required if you demand a proof of non-existence.

In the absence of either 1) or 2), the default is a position of non-existence.

(January 30, 2018 at 3:14 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: One of the (many) things I don't understand about Christianity is the notion of wanting Jesus to be your lord.  To want to genuflect before him and be ruled over by him.  As an American, the idea of a central, non-democratically elected leader is completely anathema to my beliefs, and it confuses me that so many self-proclaimed patriots here seem so willing to be lorded over in a divine sense.  IMO, a beneficial dictator is still a dictator.

So, Christians of AF, why do you want to be lorded over by Jesus?  Why is this something you desire?

Humans are elastic and can be indoctrinated to want anything, especially if the indoctrination contains an “or else” clause calculated to induce superlative terror.


Millions of people have been indoctrinated to want to die for emperors, or for gods who are said to be avowed cannibals.

(January 30, 2018 at 3:19 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(January 30, 2018 at 3:18 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Because I believe Jesus is God, and I believe God is goodness and love. Also, "I am the way and the truth and the life", and all that. I want to surrender myself to those things because I think they are the ultimate fulfillment.

But why is surrender necessary?

Good point.  I think we need to decide whether God wants man to stand up or surrender the wheel to Him.  If xtians believe He created man in his image does that mean God too surrenders Himself to something higher?  That might explain His OT behavior and that should stand as warning to xtians who think surrendering responsibility is such a good idea.

(February 8, 2018 at 7:41 pm)polymath257 Wrote: An infinite regress of causes is not inherently illogical. You are assuming there is a start, and *then* an infinite sequence of causes. That *would* be problematic (requiring an infinite amount of time, potentially), but that is NOT the situation. Even with an infinite regresss, there is a finite number of causes between any two.

I am not assuming a start--that's nonsense. I am saying that with an actual infinite number of events that must pass before you get to the present event--you will NEVER get to to the present event--ever. Your last sentence is truly silly and has absolutely no basis in reality. 

Quote:No, the subatomic particles *are* the fluctuating fields. The fluctuations are uncaused. There is no mechanism for producing fluctuations.

You require the field (which was caused)--so there is no real parallel to the very first event having a cause now is there. So which is it: Did the universe (or multiverse) come about uncaused or are you hanging your hat on the infinite past event concept above?

Quote:I'm having difficulty finding a case where Aristotle gets the metaphysics correct. he does OK with basic logic, but even fails with quantifiers.

I'm not specifically a positivist. That philosophers dismiss them, however, doesn't make the position unreasonable. But I am a verificationalist. Ultimately, claims about the real world need to be testable to gain truth value.

You said my metaphysics was faulty. Non-specific complaints about Aristotle has nothing to do with that claim. Should I wait for a response with some substance? 

Fine, you want to hold to a philosophical position that all the professional philosophers reject--that's fine. But any arguments you make using it will be rejected for the very same reasons.

---

(February 8, 2018 at 9:04 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(February 8, 2018 at 4:36 pm)SteveI Wrote: Sure. That's why I don't take stranger's experiences as proof of anything. It is entirely rational to take one's own experiences and of those he trusts as evidence. You have no logical grounds to deny this. When you go from the position of "I don't know" to "you are delusional" and "brain-fart" you have assumed the burden of proof by making a positive claim of knowledge. You have no evidence to help shoulder that burden. Instead, your argument seems to amount to "some people are obviously wrong, therefore everyone must be wrong". Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. 

If you, as an eye-witness, claim something happened that directly contradicts known laws of physics that have been extensively tested, I will justifiably conclude you are mistaken and misinterpreted your experience. Unless you have *very, very* good evidence, enough to show the otherwise testable results are wrong, I will make that conclusion. If you persist, I will conclude you are delusional.

You can believe I am mistaken. You cannot know I am mistaken. When call a group of people "delusional" and they are having a "brain fart" you are saying that you know they are wrong. You have made an unjustified logical leap. Gleaning from the rest of your comments, you think you know because you believe beforehand that the supernatural does not exist and miracles cannot happen. But that is the very question you are saying experiences and miracles can't prove. This is a perfect example of question begging. 

Quote:And yes, that is fully justified.

And that goes tenfold for writings from a superstitious culture, where the provenience of the writing is unknown, and the claims are 'miracles'. Even if Matthew was an eye-witness, my conclusion is that he was mistaken in his interpretation and/or elaborated on the story for effect.

More question begging. You are assuming your conclusion about the very thing Matthews evidence shows. 

Quote:Now, for areas that have not been extensively tested, or where results are ambiguous there are allowances that can be made.

But that is not the case in Biblical myths.

You are just another in a long line of atheists who are so sure their position is right that they feel like Christianity will crumble before your enlightened reasoning. Two things. One, you are not as good at reasoning as you think, and two, there are a thousand books written for every objection that you can come up--written by way smarter people that you. 

Your confidence is so very unwarranted.