Does said theist(s) have a burden of proof for the God they believe in according to their religion?

Author: Mall
Science
hypothesis
experiments

Posts

Total: 51
#31
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
The most simple reason why somebody might not believe in a god is that he or she doesn't see any persuasive reason or evidence to believe. They don't feel the need to believe in a god to explain the world around them. Nor do they believe a god is necessary for human beings to lead good, happy, and meaningful lives.
Why are you wrapping your statements in strawman arguments. You accurately describe the atheistic position as a position where the atheist doesn't see persuasive evidence. That's fine and it reflects my views from when I was an atheist, but lets go to the strawmans.

They don't feel the need to believe in a god to explain the world around them
Argument: Theists believe in God to help them explain the world

There is a lot of reasons to believe but barely anyone is worshipping the God of the Gaps. We are not in 200 BC and wondering who is pulling the sun up every morning

Nor do they believe a god is necessary for human beings to lead good, happy, and meaningful lives.
Argument: God is a crutch to lead a happy, good meaningful life.
hidden argument. It is possible to live that type of life without God

the reality. You can't lead a good life, with or without God. You benefit off of the violence that keeps society safe, you likely eat meat that harms animals, you likely wear clothes and most clothing factories have very horrible working conditions involving almost slavery but certainly child labor. You have a carbon footprint. Your food, gas and living condition is affordable due to exploitation of the less fortunate. If you think you are capable of living a good life, you are wrong. Jesus is there to forgive your evil life not to help you lead a good one.

Life is meaningless for an atheist. It ends there is no afterlife. You die and this means that nothing you do matters. You will just be a grain of sand in history, you and the people you love will be forgotten. SO good luck living a meaningful life as an atheist.

Maybe as an atheist you can achieve happiness, but who cares. It's meaningless and it is at the expense of others. ENjoy your herpes from your atheist orgies, enjoy your popcorn lungs from vaping marijuana and enjoy jacking off to women exploited for their pussy and ass . and enjoy the animals you eat who ssuffered to get on your plate. Enjoy your life of benefitting off of the violence of police officers who keep society safe enjoy the cheap clothing you buy that was made by child slaves. If you can be happy in that type of life, don't pretend it is because you are a good person.
#32
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@baggins
God by definition is not possible to be proven unless he decides to interact with us and come down to Earth but I guess he gave up on that.
No nigga, he did not give up. He came down and interacted with us already.
#33
baggins
baggins's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 92
1
3
9
baggins's avatar
baggins
1
3
9
Lol
Topic's author
#34
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,809
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Stephen
" Of course they do. It is they that make the claim and have been preaching about him, his creations, his existence"

Making a claim and preaching are two different things. A theist can preach about God but necessarily make a matter of fact claim. 
#35
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mall
Making a claim and preaching are two different things.#34
You are talking absolute bollocks if you actually believe there is a difference.

Nope. They claim there is a god. They preach about what they claim.  They preach what god and his son and his son's disciples have to tell us. They also preach from a book that was allegedly "inspired" by their god. I.E. the very word of their god.  And didn't Jesus say  " I was sent to preach the the good news"?   And didn't Jesus commanded his disciples to preach the gospels?



A theist can preach about God but necessarily make a matter of fact claim. 


That makes no sense. Theist always present their god to us as a matter of fact. Because gods existence IS  a matter of fact in their minds.

Unless you know of a Pastor, or a Chaplain that doesn't actually believe what he spews from his high and mighty pulpit at every given chance. 


Why have you posted this in the Science and Nature sub forum?


Topic's author
#36
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,809
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Stephen
A said preacher can preach out of the Bible without claiming God is real. He believes God is real so he's preaching about what he believes.

His job is to preach so that others will believe. Doesn't have to make a claim to a fact one time .

It's about faith, not claiming facts .


14 days later

#37
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@Mall
It seems nonsensical to me. A god is by definition anything or anyone that is venerated whether or not the god exists in a literal sense it is nevertheless a god.
#38
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Belief is basically, acceptance without proof.

Oxford defines proof as evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement and truth as a fact or belief that is accepted as true. The Latin word credit means to believe. From that word credence, credential, credible, credit, credo, credulous, creed. Knowing is only believing. 

#39
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@FLRW
My question to Jim Bakker, Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein is: Do you believe in God?

1. Jim-YES
2.Stephen-NO
3. Albert-NO

Seriously? Was that their answers? 

#40
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,612
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@RaymondSheen

This is satire based on what they have said about God.
#41
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
Like I said then.


Though for sure, one can compose a thesis, that is credible.

But this would not alter the ongoing status of the ongoing hypothesis.
#42
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
What you said was that belief is acceptance without proof. How could proof be belief without proof if belief is proof? 
#43
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
How could proof be belief without proof if belief is proof?
Does the question require punctuation?


However.

If belief is proof, what is the necessity of either proof or belief.


Nice to metaphorically see a new face Raymond.

Which metaphorical corner of the globe do you hail from?
#44
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Does the question require punctuation?
Does it? Grammar isn't my forte. 

 belief is proof, what is the necessity of either proof or belief.
Necessity? Is there? I think people sometimes mistake proof as factual. [ETA: actually, it is, but they mistake factual as certain. It's a bit circular] factual as Especially in atheist vs. theist discussions. They see theism as belief and atheism as fact, for example. 

Nice to metaphorically see a new face Raymond.

Which metaphorical corner of the globe do you hail from?
Thanks. Likewise. Normally I'm all alone working on my site which is very isolated. Sort of insulated. 

I'm American! Obvious, isn't it. English, of course, is Germanic, linguistically and geographically. Americans are sort of fake. And stupid. I believe it was you that was saying somewhere idiots are taught to be idiots. Americans, such as myself, certainly fall under that category. Fortunately for me, I grew up with British comedy. 

I know what a pram is! And wonky. That sort of thing. 

Waldorf Salad

#45
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
Well Raymond.

I suppose that with regard to popular deism/theism, I would be regarded as atheist.

Though with regards to a general view of the Universe and it's existence, I run with the idea of a GOD principle.

Which certainly doesn't infer the existence of a magical bloke as the primary creator.

But Of course, I cannot discount anything.

So I am open minded about the whole issue, and as such cannot commit to the concept of belief as being evidence of anything.

I simply regard the bases of popular deism/theism as naive analogies or naive hypotheses.


The trouble with the magic man hypothesis, is that it is fraught with silliness.

Sort of like a naff fantasy film.
#46
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
To me God principle is a really interesting choice of words in the context of theistic atheism. The English word God was originally used by the pagans, before Christianity applied it to the Biblical gods. It means libation, to pour.  The Biblical Hebrew comes from a root that means simply mighty/strong. God, of the Bible, wasn't a god or anyone's God until he created, for example, spirit (invisible, i.e. breath/wind) beings. There can't be a god until there are people, spirit or physical, to venerate it.

Principle means a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning: a rule or belief governing one's personal behavior: morally correct behavior and attitudes. That is, in effect, basically a god.

I think the bases of popular deism/theism is naïve analogies and hypothesis in the same sense that science or "science" often is. After the fact. The difference being that the theistic were based on some root element, it seems. For example, the cross, giants or flood. Eridu Genesis or Atrahasis (17th century BCE) and The Epic of Gilgamesh (c. 2150-1400 BCE). The Bible is grossly misrepresented by theology. 


#47
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
Hmmmm.

The origin of the word God is the Germanic or Proto-Germanic word Gudan.

Meaning a divine spirit or being.

Not surprising, as English is derived from the Angles who were a Germanic tribe that settled Britain sometime after the Roman conquest.


GOD principle basically, adopts theistic/deistic ideas, to imply an intentional cause and purpose to everything.

Simulation theory is currently gaining  popularity, and is certainly worth considering as a potential GOD principle candidate.


A fun question for you.

Is something that is not yet known, a fact?
#48
RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 327
2
2
6
RaymondSheen's avatar
RaymondSheen
2
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Yeah, though the Proto-Germanic meaning of guda and its etymology is uncertain, it's generally agreed that the late Proto-Indo-European is ambiguous, deriving from a root ǵʰew- "to pour, libate." or "to call, invoke." It's from sacrifice. Like the Wiki article I linked to says. Like Sanskrit. The pre-Christian use. Saying it comes from Gudan, meaning divine being is like saying it's just a translation without considering the root and its meaning. Okay, then, what does divine being mean? Someone or something considered high (the word heaven means simply high, above.) Sacrifices were being made by the pagans to a higher being. Pouring, libation.

The Bible mentions many gods. Moses was God, the judges of Israel, angels, Satan, inanimate objects, idols, Pharaohs, Dagon, Molech, Baal, etc.  The English dictionary definition of the word god includes examples of various gods. Idols, fate, rulers, respected people. Eric Clapton, Kim Jong-un. Consider the pagan gods of fertility. The cross is a phallic symbol from Tammuz (Ezekiel 8) the Sumerian Damuzi. He was Nimrod. Zeus is a good example of the application of God and gods, existing literally or figuratively.

"The ancient Greek word for god is theos, from the Proto-Hellenic reconstruction of *tʰehós; Theos can be a god, God, a ruler, and when in the feminine, a goddess. It's a thematicization of the Proto-Indo-European *dʰéh₁s which comes from a root meaning "to do, or put, to place" A thematicization is where a thematic vowel is inserted on the root or stem of the word to make it undergo a productive vocalic inflection.

A cognate is a word having the same linguistic derivation as another, from the same original word or root. For example, the English is, German ist, Latin est are from the Indo-European esti. Theos is a cognate with the Phrygian δεως (deōs, "to the gods"), Old Armenian դիք (dikʿ, "pagan gods") and Latin fēriae ("festival days"), fānum ("temple") and fēstus ("festive"). Though the Latin deus appears similar it is actually a cognate of Zeus, meaning "sky, heaven, sky god," which was applied to Zeus specifically, to other gods, and to emperors of Rome.

Words translated as god are associated with the use of pagan worship because that is how the words were used prior to Christianity; festivals, temples, pagan gods, sacrifice, libation, pouring, invocation, prayer and sky are meanings associated with worship. God is just a word, not a name. In the Classical Latin the polytheistic Romans didn't use the regularly constructed singular form of deus (*dee) because they addressed their gods individually by name. It was only in the Late Latin after Rome's conversion to monotheistic Christianity where God was used as a name, though it was never meant to be used in that way. The writers of the Bible were neither mono or polytheistic, they were henotheistic. They worshiped one supreme god but acknowledged that lesser gods existed as the examples above show."

#49
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RaymondSheen
Yes, undeniably language and vocabulary developed in accordance with human demography.

I was simply suggesting that in terms of sequentiality, the word GOD was probably derived from the Germanic GUDAN, via the Angles.


Interestingly, the Latin DEUS is also derived from Proto-Indo-European, meaning shining or celestial.

Which suggests that Deism is probably rooted in celestial adulation and wonder.
#50
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,923
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
@RaymondSheen
Zed...Which suggests that Deism is probably rooted in celestial adulation and wonder.

Another viewpoint, as presented by Bucky Fuller, is that of fresh water being the source of life.
So early humans followed from the sea, the river that led to high mountains --Himalayas/Tibet etc--- as the source of life.

Fresh water falls from skys as snow.

Even higher above the mountains is the ' celestial adulation and wonder ', that early sea-peoples and land peoples used to navigate their way in seas or on land.

So we have the one God vs many gods, and,

we have the one creator God of all that exists vs the non-creator God as all that exists, eternally.

Enter 1850 human..." The first explicit statement of the first law of thermodynamics, by Rudolf Clausius in 1850, referred to cyclic thermodynamic processes, and to the existence of a function of state of the system, the internal energy. "

..." Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another. "...

Enter 2005 human....' finite, occupied space Universe cannot be created nor destroyed, only  dynamically transforming/changing, eternally '...
#51
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
Argument: God is a crutch to lead a happy, good meaningful life.
hidden argument. It is possible to live that type of life without God

the reality. You can't lead a good life, with or without God. You benefit off of the violence that keeps society safe, you likely eat meat that harms animals, you likely wear clothes and most clothing factories have very horrible working conditions involving almost slavery but certainly child labor. You have a carbon footprint. Your food, gas and living condition is affordable due to exploitation of the less fortunate. If you think you are capable of living a good life, you are wrong. Jesus is there to forgive your evil life not to help you lead a good one.
well stated WyIted