(March 17, 2010 at 1:20 am)Godschild Wrote: No the burden of proof is not on me.Did you make an assumption from which you drew a conclusion? If so: then you have a burden of proof to link that assumption and that conclusion. Example of what i mean:
"Goldfish are blue... therefore my computer is fast." <-- If I make this claim... I must show why goldfish being blue is linked to my computers speed. Further... both the conclusion and the assumption(s) linking to it also hold a burden of proof (Are goldfish really blue? --> Evidence for the claim) (Is my computer really fast? --> Evidence for the claim).
Quote:I know through experiance that the God of the Bible exist.Anecdote. Further... what you know is not necessarily also true. Perhaps you can construct these experiences into memoirs to explain precisely why you think that "the God of the Bible exists"?
Quote:I do not need to prove God to anyone that is a work for God.....? What do you mean by the bolded qualifier? Also... if you would define 'need' as you are using it I might be better able to respond. I find 'need' to be a particularly ambiguous term... almost always reliant on the context to which it is applied.
Quote:You say my logic is a mess?Yes. Your English too. That does not mean we cannot have a discussion however... it means only that a great deal of the conversation will be rebuttal and questioning of what you mean.
Quote:You say that you are not claiming there is no God does this mean you don't know if He exist.I could respond to this in several ways... but ultimately it would be better for all involved if you revised this sentence.
Were you asking a question perhaps? That would certainly fit the context. I think you were trying to say "You say that you are not claiming there is no God. Does this mean you don't know if He exists?"...To which I would answer that I know there is no "God"... but that my knowledge of such does not mean I am correct... and further that I am fully willing to consider "God"'s existence.
Quote:If this is the case then how can you reject the claim there is God.If I did not know wether there was "God" or not... then I would reject the claim that there is "God" until I see reason to believe such to be so.
Quote:I know God exist and I know that Christ is my saviour and I know many other things about God and I can't prove them to you and you can't disprove my claim.Actually... we might be able to disprove your claims... depending on what you claimed. Further... if you had proof that "God" existed... then you could easily prove your claim. It's all fine and dandy that you know these things... but wether you are right or not is another thing entirely (and the thing of which we are discussing).
Quote:You can disagree with my claim,you can disrespect my claim,you can laugh at it,you can trample it,you can do anything you desire with it but just as I can not prove to you that God exist you can not disprove His existance.
Actually... I would be amazed to see somebody trample a claim. I wasn't aware such a thing was even possible
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
