Atheists cannot prove that a God does not exist, just as theists cannot prove that a God does exist.
The above statement is an unequivocal truism....So who amongst our Dart theists is prepared to agree?
A challenge to theists. Can you be honest.
Posts
Total:
436
-->
@zedvictor4
Atheists cannot prove that a God does not exist, just as theists cannot prove that a God does exist.
Can't prove to another person, but understanding the terms of definitions certainly a person can have proof and evidence that God exists.....for themselves. That's all that matters, then it can be articulated for inquiries to be considered. But yes, it all comes down to interpretations and perception, and choice.
The above statement is an unequivocal truism....So who amongst our Dart theists is prepared to agree?
I think it's a fair statement, as long as you consider what I just wrote above. And considering what I wrote above would be the reason I would assume intelligent people come to a religious discussion/debate forum no?
It's hard to prove a reality that pervades all of creation while at the same time eludes the physical sense perception, it's not the way we are used to proving something like that of say like material phenomenon. That's the biggest factor at play why that reality can't be collectively proven, but the evidence and correlation mixed with commonsense is the elephant in the room, it's so obvious that God exists without being able to prove it to someone that it's not even worth arguing over most of the time unless someone is genuinely serious. If you take into consideration that the universe is developed through processes and processes are only ever associated with intelligence or mind then you're half way there already. If you're willing to accept that intelligent processes occur all by themselves then you might be willing to accept any absurdity, which honestly atheism is IMO in light of the evidence.
-->
@zedvictor4
I agree, keeping in mind a phrase I once heard
For Those Who Believe, No Proof is Necessary. For Those Who Don’t Believe, No Proof is Possible.
In truth, I don't agree with this completely -- I think the problem is deciding what level of proof is agreed upon and what constitutes proof.
-->
@zedvictor4
The above statement is an unequivocal truism
Except it isn't an unequivocal truism--far from it actually. You're merely attempting to argue a symmetry which doesn't apply. The reason atheists cannot prove that God doesn't exist because nonexistence is an epistemological absurdity. In order for one to prove nonexistence, one would require the capacity to observe nonexistence. But if something or someone does not exist, how do you know that they or it does not exist, if they or it in fact does not exist? Some atheists would try to reconcile this dilemma by conflating the descriptions of nonexistence with "imaginary/abstract" rather than absolute nothingness. When that happens, I merely challenge their metrics and standards which fundamentally incorporate the imagination and abstractness they seek to dispel.
Perhaps, it's atheists who should be provoked into honesty. Mainstream atheism has been successful in hijacking intellectual and logical authority, yet persistent logic dispels their primary argument--i.e. God does not exist. And I, a theist, have proven God exists using two logically sound arguments:
1.
All which is perceived must exist.
God is perceived.
Therefore, God exists.
The major premise is irrefutable. The minor premise can be subject to parameters, but those very parameters will subject the metrics of counterarguments.
2.
All material or spiritual beings exist.
God is a spiritual being.
Therefore, God exists.
The major premise is tautological; the minor premise is tautological.
Atheists have yet to demonstrate either the capacity or the inclination to construct a logical proof against God, deciding instead to contradict Bible descriptions, the contradictions of which are undermined by a lack of observational data.
-->
@zedvictor4
<br>Atheists cannot prove that a God does not exist, just as theists cannot prove that a God does exist.
On its face, the statement is equitable. However, the proof of a negative is a flawed logic. On that basis, alone, arguing for the existence of God is advantaged.
Lol, also you ask can we be "honest" as if we come here to be DIShonest. Why do you even think that way? it's not a matter of dishonesty communicating the reality of God, it's a matter of explanation and understanding the nature of God (which I think for atheists is the biggest obstacle). One has to be willing to accept the fact that God exists independent of physical matter, as it seems atheists are controlled by what they can physically and immediately see, hear, smell and touch only. But God is not an object of creation, we all exist within the entirety of God so the rules change here dramatically in relation to Theism and it becomes very challenging to debate with people who are used to a certain method and way of viewing reality.
I also think it would probably be a lot easier to communicate if religion wasn't in the way, and I'm not saying I'm anti-religion per say it's just that it brings so many other variables and opinions into the equation when the very basics are simplistic.
All in all though the recognition of whether God exists comes down to interpretation/perception either way we go. Outside of that surface level evaluation all we are left with is personal experience, and not even all Theists have that observation. To experience things outside the immediate physical sense perception takes getting involved and participation/practice.
As it is I don't have anything to be dishonest about, that's not even an issue. If you want to believe that way it's your choice but its definitely a distorted opinion.
-->
@rosends
<br>For Those Who Believe, No Proof is Necessary. For Those Who Don’t Believe, No Proof is Possible.
Nah, I reckon god himself coming down and having a chat face to face would do the trick for most.
Having UNLIMITED time to find / prove God exists is pretty handy.
If the atheists have the theists sign a contract stating that they have 5000 years from now to prove god exists.
If we can have em sign that.
I can then be a atheist.
But until then .
If one can not prove nor disprove a god existence.
Simply just pick one and do every single thing it asks of for the rest of life.
Worship it.
Never question it.
Make it the soul reason for your existence.
Put it before everyone and everything.
Meet weekly with others that picked the same one you picked.
And together Sing songs of praise to it.
Tell everyone about it.
Ok I'll stop now.
But the numbers don't lie.
With every theist on the site in the correct religious group.
One can only assume that.
Theists ARE A GREAT RELIGIOUS GROUP PICKER
FULL STOP
Good game.
Good game.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Nah, I reckon god himself coming down and having a chat face to face would do the trick for most.
This is part of the problem and I touched on it in my posts above.
"understanding the nature of God (which I think for atheists is the biggest obstacle). One has to be willing to accept the fact that God exists independent of physical matter, as it seems atheists are controlled by what they can physically and immediately see, hear, smell and touch only. But God is not an object of creation, we all exist within the entirety of God so the rules change here dramatically in relation to Theism"
"To experience things outside the immediate physical sense perception takes getting involved and participation/practice."
"It's hard to prove a reality that pervades all of creation while at the same time eludes the physical sense perception, it's not the way we are used to proving something like that of say like material phenomenon. That's the biggest factor at play why that reality can't be collectively proven"
In a nut shell communication with God happens at deeper levels not by God coming down and talking to you through a physical body. And due to this fact you have to make adjustments for such a thing, this involves your participation not demands or expectations.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
No, it wouldn't. First, it is not God's aim that you only get to believe He exists. Of what value is that to God?I reckon god himself coming down and having a chat face to face would do the trick for most.
God wants to save you from death, simply knowing He exists will not do that. And no telling how many atheists I've heard say that even if God cane down for face to face chat they still would not worship Him.
And God DID come down for a chat 2,000 years ago. We killed Him.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Theists only assume. They do not prove.
What you explain is delusion.
Nonetheless, you are honest.
And intelligence is as intelligent does....Adolph Hitler was no doubt intelligent.
I think it fair to suggest that all people of all faiths and persuasions have intellect.
-->
@Athias
You are not being honest.
You are assuming that words alone can prove the existence of a God.
People have been employing this tactic for centuries and it simply doesn't work.
-->
@fauxlaw
Negative - Positive..Wherein lies the distinction.
All there is, is one positive statement.
-->
@rosends
The possibility of an existent God is not proof of an existent God.
I accept the possibility of an existent God.
The opening statement is an unequivocal truism...So can theists be honest and accept it.
-->
@ethang5
If a God came down for a chat, why would it want people to worship?
-->
@zedvictor4
You are assuming that words alone can prove the existence of a God.
I'm not assuming that words alone can prove the existence of a God. I'm inferring that the logical coherence my words inform prove the existence of God. And you are assuming that words--or in this case an argument--do not suffice in constituting proof. Proof is an argument. Proof can also be material evidence, which I'll assume, is the ends you believe Theists have yet to meet. If that is indeed the case, I need only challenge your metric. And your metric, even for material evidence, is no less a composite of "words" than my proof.
People have been employing this tactic for centuries
Which "tactic" is that?
and it simply doesn't work.
"Work" depends on the standard. If you were to demand that I tell you God's chemical composition, mass, volume, etc., I'd readily submit to you that I couldn't. But then, I'd ask you: could you do the same for the number five? Or a triangle? The color red? Or even your own name? If we were to incorporate your description of existence, then your standard of material evidence per said description wouldn't exist. That means no Mathematics, no Science, no Logic, no words. Without the aforementioned, what's left? Irrationality.
You are not being honest.
Where have I been dishonest? My proofs are logically sound. Take the opportunity to challenge where you deem necessary, even the parts you claim haven't worked or don't work. If you're waiting for a theist to "show you" God, then that has less to do with one's capacity to "prove" God's existence and more to do with your selected description of existence.
-->
@ethang5
First, it is not God's aim that you only get to believe He exists. Of what value is that to God?
Here is a pretty easy reading comprehension test:
Re-read my post. Was I saying that god should come down because he wants us to know he exist or was I refuting the claim that it was impossible for anything to convince a person that god exists?
Hint: read the quote box in my post.
-->
@zedvictor4
If a God came down for a chat, why would it want people to worship?
I didn't say God wanted people to worship Him.
Why would God come down for a chat? If a cockroach wanted me to come down and chat, I wouldn't. And the difference between me and a cockroach is dwarfed by the difference between you and God.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Was I saying that god should come down because he wants us to know he exist...
And I asked you, "Of what value to God is your knowing He exists?"
Instead of answering, you dodged the question. Who told you God wants you to know He exists?
You may have been trying to refute some claim, but I didn't see where you did. Claiming an impossibility is a refutation doesn't make logical sense....or was I refuting the claim that it was impossible for anything to convince a person that god exists?
It find it hard to believe that God wants us all meeting up at a clubhouse down the road.
Oh and that he lovessssss it when we sing to him.
I don't know , maybe it's just me.
-->
@ethang5
Okay well you are claiming that in post 8 I say/imply that god wants people to know he exists. Since that is untrue you failed that reading comprehension test. Guess we have nothing else to talk about.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
...you failed that reading comprehension test
Ok reading teacher. Can you please give me the link for the reading comprehension website? I must be here by accident.
But on the subject, God coming down for a chat is not a refutation of the claim that nothing would convince anyone that God exists. It's tautology. You might as well have said, "becoming God would convince someone that God exists". Same stilted illogic.
-->
@zedvictor4
Negative - Positive..Wherein lies the distinction.
As said, the negative distinction is that logic cannot prove a negative.
-->
@rosends
We are the living proof of God's existence since if there was no life there would be no God.In truth, I don't agree with this completely -- I think the problem is deciding what level of proof is agreed upon and what constitutes proof.
-->
@zedvictor4
The opening statement is an unequivocal truism...So can theists be honest and accept it.
Claiming it to be an unequivocal truism doesn't make it an unequivocal truism. It is a nice statement with a basis in truth, but is incomplete.
I would rather word it
"Atheists cannot prove that a God does not exist to any degree that would convince a believer, just as some theists cannot prove that a God does exist in a way which would be considered proof to an atheist, while other theists see God's existence as a function of belief and see no need to attempt a proof"
-->
@Alpheus
We are the living proof of God's existence since if there was no life there would be no God.
Does that mean that there was no God during the days of creation before life was created? Or how about before the days of creation? Was there no God then? Making God's existence contingent on man's existence seems risky. If the earth blows up tomorrow, then does God disappear?
-->
@rosends
What is so abhorrent about the idea that God and the universe have always existed? What is so bloody difficult about conceiving an eternity: no beginning, and no end. And even the possibility that there are infinite universes with infinite Gods?Just because the Kalam cosmology says that only things with beginnings have cause, and that, therefore the universe had a beginning, does that make it the only possible description of the universe? Seems to me, thinking the universe had a finite beginning is a more difficult proof than that it has neither beginning nor end. The former is limited thinking. Sure, you can argue for your limitations, but they're just yours. I don't happen to share them.
-->
@fauxlaw
Maybe you misread what my point was. I am not advocating anything but asking about the claim that "if there was no life there would be no God."
-->
@rosends
That is, typical atheism isn't rooted in logic; it's rooted in dogmatic materialism."Atheists cannot prove that a God does not exist to any degree that would convince a believer, just as some theists cannot prove that a God does exist in a way which would be considered proof to an atheist, while other theists see God's existence as a function of belief and see no need to attempt a proof"