wiegraf:

I do not think that's the only option.

It is: because something cannot come from nothing: as such since things exist, then there always was a something or the other. As such, its either matter is self-existent, or it has a self existent cause. One or the other.

To be more precise, I do not think the idea of something physically existing for all time is a prerequisite.

I said I am not arguing physical or non-physical. Doesn't matter here.

For instance, modern science does not have a full picture, but it does support the idea of something from nothing.

Modern science does not support any such thing my dear. I hope you are not thinking about virtual particles or other such. They do not emerge from nothing. There is no perfect vacuum ever observed by science anywhere.

It supports the idea of potential energy being turning into real energy. Something like that, potential ie, I can also see as existing by default. Any other thing, including time, would not be necessary in this scenario.

It's possible some potential turned into physical imo, but as a totally abstract device it might be virtually impossible to explore it or even make sense of it. Note that without time etc, nothing physical existing before it, there'd be a definite start time, and who knows, it might even have an end time. Then 'elsewhere' potential becomes real, physical energy, etc, etc. It could be even happening right now.

There is no potential energy discussed in science in the absence of the factors in which the potential resides. In other words you only talk about potential energy with reference to things already existing. As such, it does not address the nothingness scenario in the least.

Can you show me where potential energy has been described or discussed in the absence of anything existing?

Logicboy03:



lol.....again with the sophistry and shenanigans.

Question everything. The church was right in questioning the scientists but wrong in dismissing evidence.


Burden of proof lies on the claimant. Atheism makes no claim. It is a simple disbelief in God. We ask the people who claim that there is god to give us evidence

The proof is that ALL gods are man made. . .No god can be shown to exist on its own independent of human writings, cultural and societal acceptance, human inventions or what ever humans chose to say about such a god, which they invented. . .The theist here claim their god speaks the human language, talks to people, is all powerful and can do all things yet the are the ones telling us about his existence based on some indoctrination and condition they have under gone for very many years. . .The fact that they are the ones telling us about their gods existence says it all. . . .

Logicboy03:


Burden of proof is on the claimant. So it doesnt matter if the claim is negative or positive.

Simple and short. Atheism makes no claim. It is a disbelief in God. It is the theists that make the claim- there is a god.

If you look at the thread I did on burden in proof, you will also see that burden of proof is by no means static. The preponderance of the burden is dynamic and may shift based on that which appears more probable prima facie, at any point in time.

mazaje:

The proof is that ALL gods are man made. . .No god can be shown to exist on its own independent human writings, cultural and societal acceptance, human inventions. . .The theist here claim their god speaks the human language, talks to people. is all powerful and can do all things yet the are the ones telling us about his existence based on some indoctrination and condition they have under gone for very many years. . .The fact that they are the ones telling us about their gods existence says it all. . . .

Even Enigma has nailed Anony and Deepsight that dont want to shift the burden of proof to the atheist.


Imagine of Biologists started saying that creationist should prove that evolution is false? People who have evidence present it to be seen and tested. Biologist give the evidence for evolution then and there. The empty barrels that shout "God exists" always scoff and try to shift the burden of proof to the atheist "prove that god doesnt exist"!

Deep Sight:

If you look at the thread I did on burden in proof, you will also see that burden of proof is by no means static. The preponderance of the burden is dynamic and may shift based on that which appears more probable prima facie, at any point in time.

Big words, no substance.


The burden of proof is upon the claimant. Simple and short. Every other thing is superfluous. End of story

Ah, in addition to my last post let me touch on something that some people like to bandy about. Because the person with whom it is most associated is dead I will go soft on him.

Anyway a statement goes something like: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

But the person who made the statement was evidently blind to the simple retort that his own or any such dismissal can be simply dismissed without any evidence or even any attempt at argument.

Logicboy03:



lol.....again with the sophistry and shenanigans.

Question everything. The church was right in questioning the scientists but wrong in dismissing evidence.


Burden of proof lies on the claimant. Atheism makes no claim. It is a simple disbelief in God. We ask the people who claim that there is god to give us evidence

I asked you a simple question as to if they scientists had a burden of proof to discharge, and if so, why?

That's all I asked you, can you answer that?

You can say "Yes" they had a burden of proof, or "no" they did not.

Deep Sight:

I discussed this at length in a thread I opened a while back. Believe me, I have always held that the burden of proof rests with the Theists, until I had a conversation which caused me to think a little deeper on the subject.

Let me ask you a few questions.

1. When, contrary to accepted thought at the time, a Nicholas Copernicus asserted that the earth was in fact not the centre of the solar system, but that the sun was, and that contrary to the thinking of the church, the earth was in motion round the sun, and not vice versa -

a. Was the position of the church at that time a claim or not?

b. Was it not a default position?

c. Was the accepted thought right or was the scientist right.

b. Did the scientist have a burden of proof?

Copernicus was making a claim, he did bear the burden of proof but to the scientific community, not the church. Ie assuming he was challenging established science. Church could do as it pleases, it's not exactly a disciple of the scientific method.

Note, there was no proper scientific community before galileo for the most part though, science and church were well mixed in those days. Not so today, of course.

Deep Sight:
2. When, contrary to accepted thought at the time, Galileo asserted again against the idea that the Earth was static, in favour of the ideas of Copernicus -

a. Was the position of the Church a claim or not?

b. Was Galileo right or was the Church right

c. Did he bear a burden of proof?

In the event that you think either of the excellent gentlemen above had a burden of proof, why is that the case?

Or would you say that that they had no burden of proof?

Please address. And no, do not address it with "#Empty Rhetoric, debunked"

Many thanks.

Same as above.

Enigma: Ah, in addition to my last post let me touch on something that some people like to bandy about. Because the person with whom it is most associated is dead I will go soft on him.

Anyway a statement goes something like: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

But the person who made the statement was evidently blind to the simple retort that his own or any such dismissal can be simply dismissed without any evidence or even any attempt at argument.

How reetarded.

Such a dismissal can only be dismissed in light of new evidence. If a judge throws out your case because of lack of evidence would you dismiss his judgement just like that?
If I say that your claim that your Dog is pink is bogus, how do you dismiss my dismissal? By showing evidence of your dog!

Enigma: Ah, in addition to my last post let me touch on something that some people like to bandy about. Because the person with whom it is most associated is dead I will go soft on him.

Anyway a statement goes something like: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

But the person who made the statement was evidently blind to the simple retort that his own or any such dismissal can be simply dismissed without any evidence or even any attempt at argument.

Oh, and by the way, needing to do no more than dismissing without evidence a dismissal alleged based on lack of evidence of a previous claim ----- is a very god way of "debating" a lot of evangelical atheists and, as must be evident by now, is something that informs my attitude on this forum. Elsewhere and in fora with a better atmosphere . . . . .

Deep Sight:

I asked you a simple question as to if they scientists had a burden of proof to discharge, and if so, why?

That's all I asked you, can you answer that?

You can say "Yes" they had a burden of proof, or "no" they did not.

Of course, they had the burden of proof on them. They made a claim about space or the solar system. They should prove it.

Burden of proof is on the claimant. I dont kn ow why you are trying all these twists and turns. The result is the same; burden of proof is on the claimant.


mtchew

wiegraf:

Copernicus was making a claim, he did bear the burden of proof but to the scientific community, not the church. Ie assuming he was challenging established science. Church could do as it pleases, it's not exactly a disciple of the scientific method.

Note, there was no proper scientific community before galileo for the most part though, science and church were well mixed in those days. Not so today, of course.



Same as above.

My first question was whether the church's position was a claim.

I then asked if it was the default position.

(I am glad you recognized that the knowledge community was "mixed" in the church at the time - if we may use that word. Please note though, this was not just a question of the Church. Common observation gave the common man to think that the sun moved from East to West, no?)

I hope you see the reason for the two questions above. I want to know if and why Copernicus or Galileo would have to adduce proof of their perspectives?

Deep Sight:

Modern science does not support any such thing my dear. I hope you are not thinking about virtual particles or other such. They do not emerge from nothing. There is no perfect vacuum ever observed by science anywhere.

Note I've already stated that we do not have the full picture, but as it stands, they do emerge from nothing. If not, how does matter move as a wave?

Logicboy03:



Even Enigma has nailed Anony and Deepsight that dont want to shift the burden of proof to the atheist.


Imagine of Biologists started saying that creationist should prove that evolution is false? People who have evidence present it to be seen and tested. Biologist give the evidence for evolution then and there. The empty barrels that shout "God exists" always scoff and try to shift the burden of proof to the atheist "prove that god doesnt exist"!

Are all biologists evolutioists?
Is believing in the theory of evolution a prerequisite for being a biologist?

If yes, how did you get to that conclusion?

wiegraf:

Note I've already stated that we do not have the full picture, but as it stands, they do emerge from nothing. If not, how does matter move as a wave?

Virtual particles do not emerge from nothing because the quantum vacuums in which they are observed are not nothing. They contain low gaseous pressure. That is not, and cannot be nothing. Aside from this, no perfect vacuum has ever been observed anywhere. Never ever. Check it out.

chukkynwob:

Are all biologists evolutioists?
Is believing in the theory of evolution a prerequisite for being a biologist?

If yes, how did you get to that conclusion?

"evolutionists" very funny word.


All biologists have to work with theory of evolution whether they like it or not. It is one of the most important theories in biology. Even our existence hinges on natural selection.

chukkynwob:

Are all biologists evolutioists?
Is believing in the theory of evolution a prerequisite for being a biologist?

If yes, how did you get to that conclusion?

Bros, if you examine all the argumens of atheists carefully, even the slightly more worthwhile intellectually arguments, it all boils down to something simple: 'I do not believe that God exists'.

Please note that it is not the same thing as "there is no evidence"; it is more akin to either "I do not believe the evidence" or "I choose to interpret the evidence differently".

Therefore, one should be mindful of how much time and energy one spends arguing with them on substantive issues.

What is the point of arguing extensively with someone who chooses to close ears, eyes and mind?

Logicboy03:



Of course, they had the burden of proof on them. They made a claim about space or the solar system. They should prove it.

Burden of proof is on the claimant. I dont kn ow why you are trying all these twists and turns. The result is the same; burden of proof is on the claimant.


mtchew

Settle down and simply read. You are being simplistic. That is exactly why I laid out the questions so simply for you.

I asked if the Church's position was not a claim? I asked if it was in fact not the default claim?

Did you not read that?

Now mind you, in reality, this is not even about the Church. The common observation of common men was that the would see the sun moving in the sky from East to West, no? So is this thing not the default claim?

Why did that default claim need no proof?

Enigma:

Bros, if you examine all the argumens of atheists carefully, even the slightly more worthwhile intellectually arguments, it all boils down to something simple: 'I do not believe that God exists'.

Please note that it is not the same thing as "there is no evidencet"; it is more akin to either "I do not believe the evidence" or "i choose to interpret the evidence differently".

Therefore, one should be mindful of how much time and energy one spends arguing with them on substantive issues.

What is the point of arguing extensively with someone who chooses to close ears, eyes and mind?

lol.....saying nonsense keeps you happy, I see. Goodbye

Deep Sight:

Settle down and simply read. You are being simplistic. That is exactly why I laid out the questions so simply for you.

I asked if the Church's position was not a claim? I asked if it was in fact not the default claim?

Did you not read that?

Now mind you, in reality, this is not even about the Church. The common observation of common men was that the would see the sun moving in the sky from East to West, no? So is this thing not the default claim?

Why did that default claim need no proof?

What do you mean that the default claim needs no proof?

Your argument makes no sense. They claimed and believed that the sun moved from east to west and their proof was that the sun rises and sets int hose places. They were ignorant. The scientists had to come and prove that it was otherwise with evidence...better evdence.


All these twists and turns make you look dubious. Burden of proof is on the claimant. Simple and short.

Deep Sight:

My first question was whether the church's position was a claim.

I then asked if it was the default position.

(I am glad you recognized that the knowledge community was "mixed" in the church at the time - if we may use that word. Please note though, this was not just a question of the Church. Common observation gave the common man to think that the sun moved from East to West, no?)

I hope you see the reason for the two questions above. I want to know if and why Copernicus or Galileo would have to adduce proof of their perspectives?

The church's position was never proven. It was one built around ignorance.

It may have been a claim, but an invalid one by today's standards. It was default of the church though.

Note importantly, they were providing alternatives, not just showing the default as wrong. They then needed to provide evidence for they're own theories, not just disprove the established claims (if there were valid ones).

WOooooooooooooo 25 pages and we are still moving around in circles. How about we have a major debate about this existence of God thing self, where is Jesoul

All this going back and forth, shifting of goal posts bla bla bla it would be nice to have one thread to debate this issue formally with control measures set.

?
My eyes are sore from reading all these things back and forth. Ngwa what do you guys think?

An Atheist that cannot answer/explain the bellow questions:



If you're old and die today, with all these your believe against God, as an atheist, where do you think you're going if you die? Pls answer.

Please answer the below questions

You can share the questions among you so called atheist one by one

PLEASE NOTE, if you leave any of these question unanswered, then you're a korokoro original COWARD as an atheist.


Who controls homeostasis?

Who controls the functioning of your body cells?

When you don't believe in existence of God almighty,why you the atheist have not yet find the solution or remedy of death?

As an atheist, why Science and Nature cannot explain their own origin?

Who created the thing that created the Big slam !?

Please don't just give me conjecture basic on evolution theory because that's what you so called atheist rely on !

Do you believe free will to be illusory? If so, can the punishment of crimes be ethically justified (and does the word “ethical” have any real meaning)?

Does objective morality exist? If so, what is its source…and how do you define “objective”? If not, do you concede that concepts like “justice”, “fairness”, and “equality” are nothing more than social fads, and that acts of violence and oppression must be regarded merely as differences of opinion?

In what terms do you define the value of human life? Is the life of a human child more or less valuable?

Much attention has been given to alleged cognitive biases and “wishful thinking” contributing to religious belief. Do you believe that similar biases (for example, the desire for moral autonomy) play a role in religious nonbelief? If not, what specifically makes atheism immune to these influences?

Do you believe religion (speaking generally) has had a net positive or a net negative effect on humanity.? how do you explain the prevalence of religion in evolutionary terms?

Is it rational for you to risk your life to save a stranger?

How would you begin to follow Jesus if it became clear to you that Christianity was true?

Mr_Anony:
I stand corrected. However I didn't mean creatio ex nihilo in the sense of an actual realm of nothingness but just to point out that outside the creator, nothing else exists i.e. no transcendent authority to which He is subject.
Continuing; A more accurate description would be creatio ex deo. I reject creatio ex materia because it leads to infinite regress.




Actually I've thought about it and I don't quite agree with you.

If the creator didn't have a choice then He didn't really create rather the universe would be merely an extension of the creator.

Also, it would be impossible for his creation to have the luxury of choices because they too will be extensions of the creator's nature and hence it is either they will have no freewill or their choices would have no consequence i.e. no good no evil just nature.
If this is the case, the creator might as well not exist since the creation is not something He consciously did but something that happened to Him.
Also leading us to further infinite regress because we would have established a creator subject to a more transcendent law to which we will have to ask for it's law giver.

Inasmuch as I hold that logic and morality are self-existent, I hold that they are so because God is self-existent i.e. the nature of God is what defines good. Good is not separate from God and as such God must be unchanging. However this does not mean that God lacks the ability to change only that it would contradict His nature.

That God cannot change is not a statement of ability but a statement of character.



As I said earlier; God is not under any moral obligation towards His creation in the sense that He is not their genie who exists to appease them. When God "acts morally" it is because it is His nature to do so and not because He ought to by reason of some higher moral law.

For instance; God cannot fail when He has promised. This is not because God is bound by some higher moral code which He must adhere to, it is also not the case that God owes any explanation to His creation should He choose not keep it rather it is because of His nature being God that He cannot fail. This is why in the bible, you will come across instances where God swears an oath in His own name based upon His own integrity.

Hebrews 6:13 (NLT) For example, there was God's promise to Abraham. Since there was no one greater to swear by, God took an oath in his own name, saying:

I hope you get my drift now. The point I have been trying to make to those who like to say that God is evil is that a man cannot judge God's actions based on the moral laws that men are subject to in much the same way that you cannot criticize the Government's imprisonment as illegal just because it is illegal for an individual to kidnap.

The fundamental thing you are missing from my post is that I said that these attributes are the core nature of God ITSELF - and not that there is something like a higher code above God which God is subjected to. As such, the problem of the infinite regress does not arise in my post.

Secondly, note that you are speaking of a particular notion of God (Judeo-Christian) which is revelatory through scripture and which specifically discusses the nature of God, the principles of God, even the intentions of God. As such you cannot say that which you say. To use your own example, such scripture would be like a Government that has through its enacted and published laws, explained why there is imprisonment by law and why kidnapping is illegal.

Furthermore, you missed the most salient point about the fact that such a view would render life meaningless. This would mean no one can ever know the intentions or purposes of God (which could be true, but certainly is not holistic Christian moral teaching) and as such, it would be fair to say that anything goes. If I murder someone today, how do I know it is not the will of God? In fact there will then be a good argument that anything that happens is the will of God. And a further deeper argument that everything that can happen must in fact happen somewhere in time. This makes nonsense of morality and moral choices or the need for them. I believe this question arose from the issue of evil befalling children or something like that. If your answer is that which you gave - namely that we cannot know God's "moral" position on the matter - and in fact that God owes us none, then how on earth does naything that happens to anyone matter at all in a moral sense?

Finally, you surely cannot really mean to say that God can change, and that it is a question of character and not ability?

Do you really believe that God possesses the ability to change? This will require a thread of its own, if you believe this.

wiegraf:

The church's position was never proven. It was one built around ignorance.

IF IT WAS NEVER PROVEN, THEN WHY DID IT NEED TO BE DISPROVEN?

Why did the scientists have to adduce proof? Why could they not reject it simply as " never proven?"

It may have been a claim, but an invalid one by today's standards. It was default of the church though.

Thank you. And that, sir, is my point. That any contradiction of a default position must be proven.

Simple.

Deep Sight:

Virtual particles do not emerge from nothing because the quantum vacuums in which they are observed are not nothing. They contain low gaseous pressure. That is not, and cannot be nothing. Aside from this, no perfect vacuum has ever been observed anywhere. Never ever. Check it out.

I know no vacuums have been observed anywhere. But I fail to see how random gases and virtual particles are the same thing.

The way I understand it, so long as a particle exists, there is the potential for it to show up anywhere in the universe. That potential is, more or else, virtual energy. A particle moving anywhere as a wave would need to spread itself and flow. How does that flow work? What determines just how much does this bit move and that other bit move, etc etc? As far as we know, nothing. It's completely unpredictable.

We can try and measure and know at this point the particle has this much energy, it's this long at this moment, etc, but we can only guess what these values would be the next moment, or even concurrent complimentary ones. They fluctuate widely, but overall everything balances out (else this universe would be nonsensical). This unpredictability is seemingly determined by; nothing. It springs out from nowhere. Energy showing up and disappearing all the time. This potential is measurable everywhere and is used by every particle at every moment, more or else.

If I have it right, gas particles, like all other particles, need virtual particles to move around. They are a different thing to virtual particles.

Logicboy03:

Your argument makes no sense. They claimed and believed that the sun moved from east to west and their proof was that the sun rises and sets int hose places. They were ignorant. The scientists had to come and prove that it was otherwise with evidence...better evdence.

Thank you. You have said exactly what I needed you to say. Transposing your exact words into this burden of proof issue on God would read exactly as follows -

"Your argument makes no sense. They claimed and believed that the sun moved from east to west God exists and their proof was that the sun rises and sets int hose places. based on their daily experience, complex functionalities require intelligent cause and design. They were ignorant. The scientists had to come and prove that it was otherwise with evidence...better evdence.

As such, you have just conceded the point.

Have a nice day.

Deep Sight:
The fundamental thing you are missing from my post is that I said that these attributes are the core nature of God ITSELF - and not that there is something like a higher code above God which God is subjected to. As such, the problem of the infinite regress does not arise in my post.

Ok

Secondly, note that you are speaking of a particular notion of God (Judeo-Christian) which is revelatory through scripture and which specifically discusses the nature of God, the principles of God, even the intentions of God. As such you cannot say that which you say. To use your own example, such scripture would be like a Government that has through its enacted and published laws, explained why there is imprisonment by law and why kidnapping is illegal.

I don't quite get you here

Furthermore, you missed the most salient point about the fact that such a view would render life meaningless. This would mean no one can ever know the intentions or purposes of God (which could be true, but certainly is not holistic Christian moral teaching) and as such, it would be fair to say that anything goes. If I murder someone today, how do I know it is not the will of God? In fact there will then be a good argument that anything that happens is the will of God. And a further deeper argument that everything that can happen must in fact happen somewhere in time. This makes nonsense of morality and moral choices or the need for them. I believe this question arose from the issue of evil befalling children or something like that. If your answer is that which you gave - namely that we cannot know God's "moral" position on the matter - and in fact that God owes us none, then how on earth does naything that happens to anyone matter at all in a moral sense?

I think I was very clear that God must be consistent but that consistency is His character and not something He has no choice about. I can't believe you missed that distinction.
Secondly, I did not say that we cannot know God's moral position on the matter. I said that it is wrong to make God subject to the same moral expectations imposed upon His creation.

Finally, you surely cannot really mean to say that God can change, and that it is a question of character and not ability?

I do.

Do you really believe that God possesses the ability to change? This will require a thread of its own, if you believe this.

I do.

Deep Sight:

Thank you. You have said exactly what I needed you to say. Transposing your exact words into this burden of proof issue on God would read exactly as follows -

"Your argument makes no sense. They claimed and believed that the sun moved from east to west God exists and their proof was that the sun rises and sets int hose places. based on their daily experience, complex functionalities require intelligent cause and design. They were ignorant. The scientists had to come and prove that it was otherwise with evidence...better evdence.

As such, you have just conceded the point.

Have a nice day.

PERFECT!

wiegraf:

I know no vacuums have been observed anywhere. But I fail to see how random gases and virtual particles are the same thing.

The way I understand it, so long as a particle exists, there is the potential for it to show up anywhere in the universe. That potential is, more or else, virtual energy. A particle moving anywhere as a wave would need to spread itself and flow. How does that flow work? What determines just how much does this bit move and that other bit move, etc etc? As far as we know, nothing. It's completely unpredictable.

We can try and measure and know at this point the particle has this much energy, it's this long at this moment, etc, but we can only guess what these values would be the next moment, or even concurrent complimentary ones. They fluctuate widely, but overall everything balances out (else this universe would be nonsensical). This unpredictability is seemingly determined by; nothing. It springs out from nowhere. Energy showing up and disappearing all the time. This potential is measurable everywhere and is used by every particle at every moment, more or else.

If I have it right, gas particles, like all other particles, need virtual particles to move around. They are a different thing to virtual particles.

This has no bearing on the point made. Unpredictability is not nothingness.

To say that something is unpredictable does not show that it comes from nothingness. There is no such thing as nothingness observed anywehere: and the referred substitute for nothingness (quantum vacuums) have been shown NOT to be nothing.

Deep Sight:

Thank you. You have said exactly what I needed you to say. Transposing your exact words into this burden of proof issue on God would read exactly as follows -

"Your argument makes no sense. They claimed and believed that the sun moved from east to west God exists and their proof was that the sun rises and sets int hose places. based on their daily experience, complex functionalities require intelligent cause and design. They were ignorant. The scientists had to come and prove that it was otherwise with evidence...better evdence.

As such, you have just conceded the point.

Have a nice day.

Conceded what point? Why are you foolishly dubious?


The scientists had to prove that their claim was true. Burden of proof is on the claimant

I give up! You have no point, just dubious and more dubious argument.


You have tried to remix it to say that the scientist have to go to the church and prove that the church was wrong. No. The scientists only have to prove that their own scientific claims were true.


You and Anony have this sickeness. It is a delusion. This is why you guys never argue straight. Looking for dubious twists and turns just to lie that the brden of proof is not on the claimant.

You twisted words here and there over 4 comments just to reach your conclusion.


Fucktards.

Deep Sight:

Thank you. You have said exactly what I needed you to say. Transposing your exact words into this burden of proof issue on God would read exactly as follows -

"Your argument makes no sense. They claimed and believed that the sun moved from east to west God exists and their proof was that the sun rises and sets int hose places. based on their daily experience, complex functionalities require intelligent cause and design. They were ignorant. The scientists had to come and prove that it was otherwise with evidence...better evdence.

As such, you have just conceded the point.

Have a nice day.

Good morning Deep sight,

Got to say that you are using your head!

Kudos!