Evidence Against God

[Abishalom]

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.

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.

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?

---

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.