Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
YOU'RE the one objecting. Therefore, the "burden" is on YOU.
If I go to court for a crime I'm accused of, it's not up to *me* to prove my innocence, but up to my 'accuser' to prove my guilt.
The "burden" is on the accuser...
No, the burden is on the one making the positive claim. You are claiming there is something called the supernatural, so it is on you to present valid evidence for it.
One does not create a burden of proof merely by disagreeing or objecting -- and objecting is not accusing. Harry is not asserting the supernatural, you are.
They are so invested in their BELIEFS that they need the assurance that their BELIEF about the existence of God is the default. That is the purpose of defining negative BELIEFS as somehow NOT beliefs. Since at its base, God is our Creator, the fact that we ARE created becomes the default and some kind of God is mandatory. The issue then only becomes what kind and what are God's attributes. Everything we discover through science becomes attributes of God. But that is anathema to atheists who want to eliminate the category of God entirely.
All science does is study The Divine, and try to figure God out.
And as you can not show it IS, we have no reason to say it is. And as we do not need a god to explain what we observe, then if you want to assert a god, you need to provide that extra evidence.
You have no essential attribute, you have one cherry picked attribute of a few mythological gods, and you are trying to force our reality into that sub group based on just that one cherry picked attribute. That is like arguing Mr Yap is a Yorkshire terrier cat because he has four feet.
And as your 'essential attribute' excludes most gods, it can not be the sole definition for what a god is.
As we have explained so many times before, and why Pantheism has it's own thread. You can play your word game there, because I doubt it is fooling most people here.
Nobody has to "show" that something that is self-substantiating exists as it does.
That's what God is: Reality (ALL That Is).
Of course All That Is (Reality) exists...and is self-substantiating.
God = All That Is
All That Is objectively exists.
Thus...God Exists.
Why does nobody find it odd that a god who made the vastness of the universe can feel the petty priggish jealousy of an immature little teenager schoolgirl?
For I the Lord your god am a JEALOUS god and I will smite the living daylights out of you if you so much as even glance at another god.
And as you can not show it IS, we have no reason to say it is. And as we do not need a god to explain what we observe, then if you want to assert a god, you need to provide that extra evidence.
It must be a language issue. I don't have to show that a Creator (God) EXISTS. The fact that we exist is evidence of that. The only issue is what our Creator's attributes are. Science only explains HOW what exists function, NOT how or why it EXISTS.
Quote:
You have no essential attribute, you have one cherry-picked attribute of a few mythological gods, and you are trying to force our reality into that sub-group based on just that one cherry-picked attribute. That is like arguing Mr Yap is a Yorkshire terrier cat because he has four feet.
And as your 'essential attribute' excludes most gods, it can not be the sole definition for what a god is.
As we have explained so many times before, and why Pantheism has it's own thread. You can play your word game there because I doubt it is fooling most people here.
The ESSENTIAL attribute of God is that He is our CREATOR, period. That is NOT a word game. You want to eliminate the EXISTENCE of God because of all the messy and annoying attributes in extant religions and myths. That is YOUR problem. The existence issue is a nonstarter because our Creator EXISTS!
Everything science has discovered is our Creators' attributes. You call them natural forces because we only know HOW they function, NOT the nature of their source. We disagree about some that have not yet been discovered by science. Your demand that our Creator must possess other attributes claimed by religions but not yet discovered and proven by science is your PREFERENCE, period. They are not necessary to establish the existence of our Creator except to refute certain RELIGIOUS claims.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 06-03-2022 at 01:19 PM..
It must be a language issue. I don't have to show there is a Creator (God). The fact that we exist is evidence of that. The only issue is what our Creator's attributes are. The ESSENTIAL attribute of God is that He is our CREATOR, period. That is NOT a word game. You want to eliminate the EXISTENCE of God because of all the messy and annoying attributes in extant religions and myths. That is YOUR problem. The existence issue is a nonstarter because our Creator EXISTS!
Everything science has discovered is our Creators' attributes. You call them natural forces because we only know HOW they function, NOT the nature of their source. We disagree about some that have not yet been discovered by science. Your demand that our Creator possess other attributes claimed by religions but not yet discovered and proven by science is your PREFERENCE, period. They are not necessary except to refute certain RELIGIOUS claims.
It is not a language issue. Evidence that a God is that ee exist is your claim or opinion. It is a word game and ifvwe di nit play yours you come yo with all kinds of mental problems we must have ifvwe cannot simpl accept your claim.
That we exists is evidence we exists. Why can you not accept that others do not share your opinions. We all have just the same right to our opinion as do you. You do not need to show us any evidence until you insist we accept your opinion as fact.
It does not matter how much science you claim backs you or what part of religions you add or subtract. All you seem to want is people accept your personal opinion as fact and proven and should not be questioned. Maybe you are the one wif the labguage issue, cannot understand simple English.
You have an interesting opinion upon which you have given serious thought . To me that is as far as it goes. Interesting, diffetent
but makes zero effect upon my life and in many ways leaves more questions than it answers but I have already learnt not to ask .
It is not a language issue. Evidence that a God is that ee exist is your claim or opinion. It is a word game and ifvwe di nit play yours you come yo with all kinds of mental problems we must have ifvwe cannot simpl accept your claim.
That we exists is evidence we exists. Why can you not accept that others do not share your opinions. We all have just the same right to our opinion as do you. You do not need to show us any evidence until you insist we accept your opinion as fact.
It does not matter how much science you claim backs you or what part of religions you add or subtract. All you seem to want is people accept your personal opinion as fact and proven and should not be questioned. Maybe you are the one wif the labguage issue, cannot understand simple English.
You have an interesting opinion upon which you have given serious thought . To me that is as far as it goes. Interesting, diffetent
but makes zero effect upon my life and in many ways leaves more questions than it answers but I have already learnt not to ask .
because maybe the idea of creation is more like the word birth here. an "alive" universe may have reproduced. or maybe pockets of "alive" are making more.
again ... we have to try and see who is who.
deity created us like we make watches
an "alive" universe may have reproducer to form us.
there aint no nothing
I don;t have to say anything but youre wrong.
what one seems to match better? You know (oh wait you don't) offers a mechanism, explanation, and make predictions?
because maybe the idea of creation is more like the word birth here. an "alive" universe may have reproduced. or maybe pockets of "alive" are making more.
again ... we have to try and see who is who.
deity created us like we make watches
an "alive" universe may have reproducer to form us.
there aint no nothing
I don;t have to say anything but youre wrong.
what one seems to match better? You know (oh wait you don't) offers a mechanism, explanation, and make predictions?
No, the burden is on the one making the positive claim. You are claiming there is something called the supernatural, so it is on you to present valid evidence for it.
One does not create a burden of proof merely by disagreeing or objecting -- and objecting is not accusing. Harry is not asserting the supernatural, you are.
Not true, mordant. MOST of our legal system is based on the party making the negative claim. Innocent until proven guilty. Remember? The burden of proof isn't on the one accused; it's on the 'accuser'...
Just to give you a bit of heads up, satan is known as the 'accuser'.
because maybe the idea of creation is more like the word birth here. an "alive" universe may have reproduced. or maybe pockets of "alive" are making more.
again ... we have to try and see who is who.
deity created us like we make watches
an "alive" universe may have reproduced to form us.
there ain't no nothing
I don't have to say anything but you're wrong.
what one seems to match better? You know (oh wait you don't) offers a mechanism, explanation, and make predictions?
lmao bad ... I know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Your "lists"!! I love 'em!
Ditto, but they annoy the hell out of the atheists here!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They are so invested in their BELIEFS that they need the assurance that their BELIEF about the existence of God is the default. That is the purpose of defining negative BELIEFS as somehow NOT beliefs. Since at its base, God is our Creator, the fact that we ARE created becomes the default and some kind of God is mandatory. The issue then only becomes what kind and what are God's attributes. Everything we discover through science becomes attributes of God. But that is anathema to atheists who want to eliminate the category of God entirely.
