(October 28, 2011 at 9:16 am)Rhythm Wrote: Blah blah blah, I have no evidence and so I shift the burden of proof and make wild claims, blah blah blah.

You've claimed many times my God doesn't exist. You're not one of those atheists who pretend they don't have a belief in God, you actually come out and say He doesn't exist. So, you have an equal burden of proof which you have never met.

In light of your refusal to accept any evidence beyond a video recording, I've resolved my burden by telling you that no believer can absolutely prove the existence of God to you. Only God can do that, and He isn't necessarily going to do that unless you seek Him out. Since you refuse to do that, it's on you.

Real easy. Firstly, no evidence that it exists. Secondly, the evidence we have overwhelmingly leads us to the conclusion that the testable claims made by the bible are bullshit. Thirdly, the miracles described within the bible that cannot be tested (due to being matters of "testimony" alone) are impossible, and it's not just that these things have never been observed to happen, but that if they could happen we could not exist in the universe that allowed them. Finally, on top of all of this, there is no argument for the existence of your god that works, none, nada.

No evidence for, all evidence against, not even an argument to consider.

Done. Next?

(October 28, 2011 at 9:00 am)lucent Wrote: You've already admitted that interaction with humans effects animal behavior, and I just showed you how animal behavior effects animal behavior, so I have nothing left to prove.

You have shown nothing, just made claims.

So again, where is your evidence?

---

(October 28, 2011 at 9:21 am)lucent Wrote: You've claimed many times my God doesn't exist. You're not one of those atheists who pretend they don't have a belief in God, you actually come out and say He doesn't exist. So, you have an equal burden of proof which you have never met.

In light of your refusal to accept any evidence beyond a video recording, I've resolved my burden by telling you that no believer can absolutely prove the existence of God to you. Only God can do that, and He isn't necessarily going to do that unless you seek Him out. Since you refuse to do that, it's on you.

As has been stated elsewhere it is probably impossible to prove or disprove the existence of "a god". i.e an intelligent first cause.

But disproving the existence of your god? that is quite easy.

Since the ONLY "evidence" for your god is the bible and that has been proven repeatedly to be nothing but a tissue of lies, fallacies and bullshit from start to finish.

Then logically the deity in it must also be a fallacy.

Q.E.D

(October 28, 2011 at 9:26 am)Rhythm Wrote: Real easy. Firstly, no evidence that it exists.

There is evidence, you just reject it. You have already admitted your 100 percent bias as well.

(October 28, 2011 at 9:26 am)Rhythm Wrote: Secondly, the evidence we have overwhelmingly leads us to the conclusion that the testable claims made by the bible are bullshit.

Such as?

(October 28, 2011 at 9:26 am)Rhythm Wrote: Thirdly, the miracles described within the bible that cannot be tested (due to being matters of "testimony" alone) are impossible, and it's not just that these things have never been observed to happen, but that if they could happen we could not exist in the universe that allowed them.

How so?

(October 28, 2011 at 9:26 am)Rhythm Wrote: Finally, on top of all of this, there is no argument for the existence of your god that works, none, nada.

By logic alone it is easy enough to show that a God does exist. From there, there are many arguments to prove who that God is.

(October 28, 2011 at 9:26 am)Rhythm Wrote: No evidence for, all evidence against, not even an argument to consider.

I've told you how to get that evidence and you refuse. You only have yourself to blame for your ignorance.

So just WHERE is your "evidence" Lucy??

Haven't you seen "The Bible Unearthed"?

How does one get evidence that an imaginary "friend" exists??

Lucy??

(October 28, 2011 at 9:30 am)Zen Badger Wrote: You have shown nothing, just made claims.

So again, where is your evidence?

My claim was that the humans effected the animals, and the animals effected the other animals. You agreed that humans can effect animals, and I showed how animals effected other animals. I have nothing left to prove here.

(October 28, 2011 at 9:21 am)lucent Wrote: As has been stated elsewhere it is probably impossible to prove or disprove the existence of "a god". i.e an intelligent first cause.

But disproving the existence of your god? that is quite easy.

Since the ONLY "evidence" for your god is the bible and that has been proven repeatedly to be nothing but a tissue of lies, fallacies and bullshit from start to finish.

Then logically the deity in it must also be a fallacy.

Q.E.D

The bible isn't the "ONLY" evidence, but it is the primary evidence. Now the bible has been under attack for nearly 2000 years, and more rabid atheists than you have tried to take it down. If you think you've cracked it, feel free to take your best shot. I've heard it all before and the error is most certainly on your side of the fence.

(October 28, 2011 at 9:46 am)lucent Wrote: There is evidence, you just reject it. You have already admitted your 100 percent bias as well.

Such as?

How so?

By logic alone it is easy enough to show that a God does exist. From there, there are many arguments to prove who that God is.

I've told you how to get that evidence and you refuse. You only have yourself to blame for your ignorance.

I reject bullshit trotted out as evidence, yes. I have a 100% bias against bullshit.

Testable claims regarding origins, history, catastrophic events etc, in short, the entirety of your fairy tale that can be tested.

If there were a mechanism by which the things we call "the laws of nature" could be suspended, this universe would not be conducive to the life we find here. If death could be reversed, if the earth could suddenly cease in it's orbit around the sun, the list is long.

Apparently it isn't so easy, since it's never been done, by yourself or anyone else. Care to take a crack at it?

You've made a claim with nothing to support it. You'd have to first demonstrate that this thing even exists before you could begin to imply that there is any knowledge to be had, or that I am ignorant of this body of knowledge. Start there.

The bible, btw, isn't primary evidence for anything other than the beliefs of those who dreamt it up, and the gullibility of those such as yourself who are apparently incapable of distinguishing fantasy from reality.

(October 28, 2011 at 9:49 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: So just WHERE is your "evidence" Lucy??

Haven't you seen "The Bible Unearthed"?

How does one get evidence that an imaginary "friend" exists??

Lucy??

I'm not female, so please drop the nickname "lucy". I won't be responding to any posts from anyone who addresses me in this manner.

Bring forth your evidence, primary or otherwise please Lucent, stop saying there is evidence and not bring it forth.

Not evidence of the contrary, but interesting to say the least.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2...n-God.html

(October 28, 2011 at 9:21 am)lucent Wrote: You've claimed many times my God doesn't exist. You're not one of those atheists who pretend they don't have a belief in God, you actually come out and say He doesn't exist. So, you have an equal burden of proof which you have never met.

Oh no that's just wrong. I too am a strong atheist. I would happily assert god/s does/do not exist. In making that claim I would happily accept that I attract a burden of proof. But it's asymmetric, theism has the higher burden of proof here. Atheism is presumed as is the case for all other supernatural claims.

Arguments for strong atheism are wide ranging and it is too large a topic for one thread. Let me give you one from non-cognitivism

A being has a primary attribute, from which the secondary and relational attributes depend (such as a humans have an identified primary attribute of being homo sapiens and a number of associated secondary attributes eg bi-lateral symmetry)
The concept of a god is a being with identified secondary attributes (such as his omni qualities)
The concept of god has no identified primary attribute (the concept is mysterious)
As secondary attributes depend on a primary attribute, to describe a being with knowledge only of it's secondary attributes is meaningless
Therefore the concept of god is meaningless
Therefore Theism is meaningless