Abishalom Wrote:That's false. To prove definitively nonexistence of God you have to evaluate all evidence and it must be unanimous. Why? Because to prove a negative conjecture (nonexistence) you must exhaust through all possible evidence. Even if that were the case. Can you prove that any evidence proves that that the universe and all matter in it was not created (without rationalization)?

What you fail to grasp is that it is not up to anyone to prove god doesn't exist. It is up to the believers to prove he does with the evidence, and when they can't, the default postion should be to not believe in it. You seem to be conflating not believing in god with believing god does not exist, which would require proof. I am not saying the evidence does prove that he does not exist. I am saying the evidence fails to prove he does, which then requires us to take the position of lack of belief.

Abishalom Wrote:You're right in that it was written thousands of years ago. But you did not honestly contemplate my question. I did not ask for your rationalization of it. I asked for a logical reason for why modern science theories on origins are diametrically opposed (exactly opposite) to the biblical account.

Do not tell me what I did or did not contemplate. You are under the impression that I had never thought of this question until you posed it. Assumptions do not further this discussion.

That being said, the reason they are so opposed is the method with which the conclusions they were formed. The authors of the bible simply looked at the world and pondered what its origins were to the best of their imagination. The scientific theories are based on evaluations of the evidence, not simply what the imagination can create after taking a mere glance at the world.

---

Abishalom Wrote:Exactly. What is supernatural evidence? The proof for God is in nature. God is not in nature, but the proof of His existence is in His creation. Think of it like a signature. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. I am making no claims. I believe that God exists, and that He created everything. I gave my reason (or proof) for this belief. The only claims being made is by the prosecutors(God does not exist or the evidence concludes nonexistence).

We are claiming we do not believe in god due to lack of evidence. You are claiming god does exist, because of the evidece. Therefore, the burden of proof falls on you. This conversation will go nowhere until you understand that.

(April 17, 2012 at 1:54 pm)Abishalom Wrote: I've already read both of the articles. I doubt yall have based on what yall are claiming. The question was about atheism being the default position of babies. We talking about children being PREDISPOSED to such beliefs.

From the article...
"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion...laims.html

Babies lack belief in a gods. A-theism means lacking belief in gods.

Does it account for the fact that most children are indoctrinated to believe in god from the moment they can speak? Also the fact that children generally have an amazingly simplistic view of the world and its workings. The difference is that people are supposed to grow up and put away childish things but most people who believe in god are not able to put away the comfort of a friendly anthropomorphized universe.

The other problem is that belief does not equal existence. Just because people believe something does not make it true.

When I was young I wanted to be a dinosaur when I grew up.

(April 17, 2012 at 3:35 pm)Abishalom Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 2:57 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 3:45 am)Abishalom Wrote:

(April 16, 2012 at 11:25 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(April 16, 2012 at 11:04 pm)Abishalom Wrote: If all we can see is the natural world, then how does our knowledge of the natural world prove that God does not exists? Evidence does not actually talk to you. It depends on your worldview on how you perceive the evidence. But you have to rationalize heavily to come to conclusion that with all the complexities and intricacies (to the minute details) we see around us suggests that God did not do all this. Just my 2 cents.

Fair enough, show us some supernatural evidence. :-)

What is supernatural evidence? All we have is natural evidence and it suggests that it was created by some higher power (God). The burden of proof lies on the prosecutor who has to prove beyond reasonable doubt guilty/nonexistence. So in other words to claim that God does not exists you would to possess all possible evidence (we do not have). So the best you could do is prove that all the natural evidence we have suggests nonexistence unanimously without a hint (reasonable doubt) that God did it.

So... you don't have any "supernatural evidence"? Is that what you're saying? It seems suspiciously close to that.
Look, its a very simple question. Did I sound like I was claiming anything? The burden of proof is on the person trying to prove something exists and before you say you aren't, you are. You're going on about how natural evidence doesn't cut it for the supernatural, well fine.
Do you have any supernatural evidence or not.

Wipe away the tears, sweat and shame and try again. Honestly, its fine. I'll wait. :-)

Exactly. What is supernatural evidence? The proof for God is in nature. God is not in nature, but the proof of His existence is in His creation. Think of it like a signature. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. I am making no claims. I believe that God exists, and that He created everything. I gave my reason (or proof) for this belief. The only claims being made is by the prosecutors(God does not exist or the evidence concludes nonexistence).

Oh ho ho ho. *Bad* choice of words. You said there was no natural evidence and now you're saying proof of his existence is in nature! Do I sense bullshit? I think I do! I also think you'll find thats a claim in itself without any justification. Can you back that claim up? No? Could you point out the claims I've made in this thread? No!?
I think you'll find thats game, set and match. :-)

Hm... you know what... why the hell not. I've earnt it:

(April 17, 2012 at 2:08 pm)Abishalom Wrote: Ok. Well obviously to definitively prove that God does not exist we would need all possible evidence. Which we do not possess. Therefore, we cannot definitively prove this. So what we can do is evaluate all the known evidence. You would have to prove unanimously that all the known evidence points to no God. I guess a start would be prove that the universe and everything in it had no beginning.

Well, then, I guess you should be an atheist once you study up on big-bang cosmology, according to which, time and space exist only within the context of this universe and therefore the term "beginning of the universe" makes no sense.

(April 17, 2012 at 2:08 pm)Abishalom Wrote: Yes I did say that, but I asked for the logic of your conclusion (you said I changed my position).

You said this and later on you said that natural evidence points to god. This is the change in your position I'm talking about.

(April 17, 2012 at 2:08 pm)Abishalom Wrote: Anyway...Don't you see that now? Did you know that when it comes to the origin theories they are diametrically opposed (mutually exclusive) to the biblical account. So you have to ask yourself an honest question. Why do these theories on origin (evolution, big bang, abiogenisis, ones concerning the order of the formation of stars and planets etc) have an EXACT opposite account on the beginnings from the biblical account?

I don't have to ask myself - I already know the answer. The biblical account is a lie.

(April 17, 2012 at 3:40 pm)Faith No More Wrote: What you fail to grasp is that it is not up to anyone to prove god doesn't exist. It is up to the believers to prove he does with the evidence, and when they can't, the default postion should be to not believe in it. You seem to be conflating not believing in god with believing god does not exist, which would require proof. I am not saying the evidence does prove that he does not exist. I am saying the evidence fails to prove he does, which then requires us to take the position of lack of belief.

No I don't. Where does it say in the bible that I have to prove to you that God exists? I do not. I am not trying to make you believe. I am just showing why the burden of proof lies of the prosecutor. What is logically required to hold the position of nonexistence parallels exactly with what is require for the prosecutor to prove a defendant guilty. By law, a defendant is not guilty until he can be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Anybody claiming God does not exist or that lack of evidence for existence leads to the default position of nonexistence fulfills the roll of the prosecutor. I just have a belief that science cannot disprove. They want to but they cannot. Which is subjective in nature and the opposite of searching for the objective proof.

Quote:Do not tell me what I did or did not contemplate. You are under the impression that I had never thought of this question until you posed it. Assumptions do not further this discussion.

That being said, the reason they are so opposed is the method with which the conclusions they were formed. The authors of the bible simply looked at the world and pondered what its origins were to the best of their imagination. The scientific theories are based on evaluations of the evidence, not simply what the imagination can create after taking a mere glance at the world.

---

Your claim was clearly an attempt to rationalize your belief in those theories. No assumption was needed. I simply asked you to contemplate why would modern science have origin theories diametrically opposed to the biblical account? Obviously the biblical account was around longer. Who is to say that the scientific theories are true? They were well aware of the biblical account when they were conceived. Yet the biblical authors were not aware of the modern science theories when the bible was written.

Quote:We are claiming we do not believe in god due to lack of evidence. You are claiming god does exist, because of the evidece. Therefore, the burden of proof falls on you. This conversation will go nowhere until you understand that.

Now you are being deceptive with you words. Your non belief is attributed to lack of evidence. In what way?

---

(April 17, 2012 at 3:44 pm)mediamogul Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 1:54 pm)Abishalom Wrote: I've already read both of the articles. I doubt yall have based on what yall are claiming. The question was about atheism being the default position of babies. We talking about children being PREDISPOSED to such beliefs.

From the article...
"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion...laims.html

Babies lack belief in a gods. A-theism means lacking belief in gods.

Does it account for the fact that most children are indoctrinated to believe in god from the moment they can speak? Also the fact that children generally have an amazingly simplistic view of the world and its workings. The difference is that people are supposed to grow up and put away childish things but most people who believe in god are not able to put away the comfort of a friendly anthropomorphized universe.

The other problem is that belief does not equal existence. Just because people believe something does not make it true.

When I was young I wanted to be a dinosaur when I grew up.

Where did I suggest that this article prove God is true. I only said that it proves that babies are predisposed to a belief in a higher being and that things exist to serve a purpose.

(April 17, 2012 at 3:54 pm)Abishalom Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 3:40 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

Quote:We are claiming we do not believe in god due to lack of evidence. You are claiming god does exist, because of the evidece. Therefore, the burden of proof falls on you.

This conversation will go nowhere until you understand that.

Now you are being deceptive with you words. Your non belief is attributed to lack of evidence. In what way?

In the way I just demonstrated in our little conversation. Keep up old boy. :-)

I think I'm going to talk to my one year old instead of continuing this conversation. At least there is a possiblity that he can understand simple concepts.

(April 17, 2012 at 3:49 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 3:35 pm)Abishalom Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 2:57 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 3:45 am)Abishalom Wrote:

(April 16, 2012 at 11:25 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Fair enough, show us some supernatural evidence. :-)

What is supernatural evidence? All we have is natural evidence and it suggests that it was created by some higher power (God). The burden of proof lies on the prosecutor who has to prove beyond reasonable doubt guilty/nonexistence. So in other words to claim that God does not exists you would to possess all possible evidence (we do not have). So the best you could do is prove that all the natural evidence we have suggests nonexistence unanimously without a hint (reasonable doubt) that God did it.

So... you don't have any "supernatural evidence"? Is that what you're saying? It seems suspiciously close to that.
Look, its a very simple question. Did I sound like I was claiming anything? The burden of proof is on the person trying to prove something exists and before you say you aren't, you are. You're going on about how natural evidence doesn't cut it for the supernatural, well fine.
Do you have any supernatural evidence or not.

Wipe away the tears, sweat and shame and try again. Honestly, its fine. I'll wait. :-)

Exactly. What is supernatural evidence? The proof for God is in nature. God is not in nature, but the proof of His existence is in His creation. Think of it like a signature. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. I am making no claims. I believe that God exists, and that He created everything. I gave my reason (or proof) for this belief. The only claims being made is by the prosecutors(God does not exist or the evidence concludes nonexistence).

Oh ho ho ho. *Bad* choice of words. You said there was no natural evidence and now you're saying proof of his existence is in nature! Do I sense bullshit? I think I do! I also think you'll find thats a claim in itself without any justification. Can you back that claim up? No? Could you point out the claims I've made in this thread? No!?

When did I ever say there was no natural evidence? Either you lack comprehension or you are being manipulative with my words. I don't think you're dumb, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Quote:I think you'll find thats game, set and match. :-)

Well you got the game part right because you obviously like playing games. But you're the atheist. What is the logic behind this position?

(April 17, 2012 at 4:01 pm)Abishalom Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 3:49 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 3:35 pm)Abishalom Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 2:57 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 3:45 am)Abishalom Wrote: What is supernatural evidence? All we have is natural evidence and it suggests that it was created by some higher power (God). The burden of proof lies on the prosecutor who has to prove beyond reasonable doubt guilty/nonexistence. So in other words to claim that God does not exists you would to possess all possible evidence (we do not have). So the best you could do is prove that all the natural evidence we have suggests nonexistence unanimously without a hint (reasonable doubt) that God did it.

So... you don't have any "supernatural evidence"? Is that what you're saying? It seems suspiciously close to that.
Look, its a very simple question. Did I sound like I was claiming anything? The burden of proof is on the person trying to prove something exists and before you say you aren't, you are. You're going on about how natural evidence doesn't cut it for the supernatural, well fine.
Do you have any supernatural evidence or not.

Wipe away the tears, sweat and shame and try again. Honestly, its fine. I'll wait. :-)

Exactly. What is supernatural evidence? The proof for God is in nature. God is not in nature, but the proof of His existence is in His creation. Think of it like a signature. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. I am making no claims. I believe that God exists, and that He created everything. I gave my reason (or proof) for this belief. The only claims being made is by the prosecutors(God does not exist or the evidence concludes nonexistence).

Oh ho ho ho. *Bad* choice of words. You said there was no natural evidence and now you're saying proof of his existence is in nature! Do I sense bullshit? I think I do! I also think you'll find thats a claim in itself without any justification. Can you back that claim up? No? Could you point out the claims I've made in this thread? No!?

When did I ever say there was no natural evidence? Either you lack comprehension or you are being manipulative with my words. I don't think you're dumb, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Quote:I think you'll find thats game, set and match. :-)

Well you got the game part right because you obviously like playing games. But you're the atheist. What is the logic behind this position?

Through out this thread you've claimed that natural evidence either: a) doesn't count or b) doesn't exist. Do you have the memory of a goldfish or are you being willfully ignorant?
Oh *right*, its my lack of comprehension that just forced you to make an ridiculously unbacked claim. Good one. Way to turn the tables on me, you shouldn't be embarrassed of that response at all. Do you blame all of your mistakes on others or is this a one off? I'm guessing its the first option.

Oh and I like playing games because it gives me entertainment before I take on someone with challenging points that actually takes up more then 1% of my IQ to discuss. You are not such an individual. You're more the court jester that entertains me before I deal with serious matters.
Be proud my little clown, be proud. :-)

(April 17, 2012 at 3:50 pm)genkaus Wrote: Well, then, I guess you should be an atheist once you study up on big-bang cosmology, according to which, time and space exist only within the context of this universe and therefore the term "beginning of the universe" makes no sense.

Right because scientist cannot understand it, therefore it does not exist.

Quote:You said this and later on you said that natural evidence points to god. This is the change in your position I'm talking about.

Yes in that there is a beginning to everything that exist. If in fact there was no God and nothing in the beginning and nature popped into existence. How then do we get all this diversity and complexity? These are the kind of questions scientist rationalize with naturalism to explain away God (but they don't do very good job at it).

Quote:I don't have to ask myself - I already know the answer. The biblical account is a lie.

I know you do.

---

(April 17, 2012 at 4:12 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 4:01 pm)Abishalom Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 3:49 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 3:35 pm)Abishalom Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 2:57 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: So... you don't have any "supernatural evidence"? Is that what you're saying? It seems suspiciously close to that.
Look, its a very simple question. Did I sound like I was claiming anything? The burden of proof is on the person trying to prove something exists and before you say you aren't, you are. You're going on about how natural evidence doesn't cut it for the supernatural, well fine.
Do you have any supernatural evidence or not.

Wipe away the tears, sweat and shame and try again. Honestly, its fine. I'll wait. :-)

Exactly. What is supernatural evidence? The proof for God is in nature. God is not in nature, but the proof of His existence is in His creation. Think of it like a signature. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. I am making no claims. I believe that God exists, and that He created everything. I gave my reason (or proof) for this belief. The only claims being made is by the prosecutors(God does not exist or the evidence concludes nonexistence).

Oh ho ho ho. *Bad* choice of words. You said there was no natural evidence and now you're saying proof of his existence is in nature! Do I sense bullshit? I think I do! I also think you'll find thats a claim in itself without any justification. Can you back that claim up? No? Could you point out the claims I've made in this thread? No!?

When did I ever say there was no natural evidence? Either you lack comprehension or you are being manipulative with my words. I don't think you're dumb, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Quote:I think you'll find thats game, set and match. :-)

Well you got the game part right because you obviously like playing games. But you're the atheist. What is the logic behind this position?

Through out this thread you've claimed that natural evidence either: a) doesn't count or b) doesn't exist. Do you have the memory of a goldfish or are you being willfully ignorant?
Oh *right*, its my lack of comprehension that just forced you to make an ridiculously unbacked claim. Good one. Way to turn the tables on me, you shouldn't be embarrassed of that response at all. Do you blame all of your mistakes on others or is this a one off? I'm guessing its the first option.

Oh and I like playing games because it gives me entertainment before I take on someone with challenging points that actually takes up more then 1% of my IQ to discuss. You are not such an individual. You're more the court jester that entertains me before I deal with serious matters.
Be proud my little clown, be proud. :-)

No I never made such claim. You have EVERY single one of my post quoted. Find the quote where I said natural evidence either doesn't count or doesn't exist? (Hint:there is no such post) Now you are either a liar or you lack comprehension. Now you don't sound like you're dumb, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.