So my friend and I had another religious discussion

[Dral]

I'm pretty sure OP doesn't actually have a crazy religious friend and he's just trolling you all.

Wish I could prove it, but meh, guess I'll just have to have a little faith

[cdubuya]

lots of very religious people believe heavily in education. Im not super religious but I went to catholic school and they did not teach us that the world is 6000 years old and they did not teach us to take everything in the bible literally.

[Jester13]

He made a claim so the burden of proof lays with him , he must provide evidence to back up his claim. I have addressed the teapot argument earlier in this thread, post #88 , here it is again for you, argument from ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof, which is exactly what you and Jester are doing.

Let's try something here...

Would you agree to the proposition that God either exists or does not exist, that both cannot be true, so one of them must be false?

[Gman]

He made a claim so the burden of proof lays with him , he must provide evidence to back up his claim. I have addressed the teapot argument earlier in this thread, post #88 , here it is again for you, argument from ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof, which is exactly what you and Jester are doing.

He can only make the claim that god does not exist because someone (many people in fact) have claimed that god indeed does exist. Those original claimants still have the burden and have yet to meet it. To state he has the burden of proof for stating the truth that god does not exist because the burden of proof was not met on the original claim is completely illogical.

[Tortorella's Rant]

As Hitchens said: that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. If people are going to assert god exists, I will go right back and say he doesn't. Checkmate.

This convo is starting to go in a circle as they usually do around here.

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

As Hitchens said: that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. If people are going to assert god exists, I will go right back and say he doesn't. Checkmate.

This convo is starting to go in a circle as they usually do around here.

Very well said sir.

[Jester13]

He made a claim so the burden of proof lays with him , he must provide evidence to back up his claim. I have addressed the teapot argument earlier in this thread, post #88 , here it is again for you, argument from ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof, which is exactly what you and Jester are doing.

Would you agree to the proposition that God either exists or does not exist, that both cannot be true, so one of them must be false?

[babych]

Would you agree to the proposition that God either exists or does not exist, that both cannot be true, so one of them must be false?

I think that seems about right.

Unfortunately, as has been stated in this thread (and others), one cannot use arguments from one paradigm to prove or disprove the other. If that were the case then this discussion would have been settled a long time ago.

Instead, we see the same back and forth as always.

[Ghostsof1915]

I still find this hilarious.

[Buddhas Hand]

Let's try something here...

Would you agree to the proposition that God either exists or does not exist, that both cannot be true, so one of them must be false?

There is the possibility how ever small that a god does exist , while this possibility cannot be ruled out one cannot state they know with certainty that a does not exist . I will ask you once more , please provide evidence to back up your claim , and please do not bring giants and teapots into the discussion , they have nothing to do with a gods existence or non- existence.

[Buddhas Hand]

He can only make the claim that god does not exist because someone (many people in fact) have claimed that god indeed does exist. Those original claimants still have the burden and have yet to meet it. To state he has the burden of proof for stating the truth that god does not exist because the burden of proof was not met on the original claim is completely illogical.

I am not claiming god exists , I am asking him to back up his claim the God does not exist with some evidence.

[Buddhas Hand]

As Hitchens said: that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. If people are going to assert god exists, I will go right back and say he doesn't. Checkmate.

This convo is starting to go in a circle as they usually do around here.

Hitchens and dawkins are just as blinded by their beliefs as the religious nutbags. Why the circles goes round and round is that Gods existence or non existence cannot be proven one way or another, and if the best minds our species has produced cannot come up with an answer , then I do not think a bunch of hockey fans on the Canucks website are going to offer any new insights into this subject. At least this convo has remained friendly and respectful Torts , unlike so many of these conversations before on this forum.

[Jester13]

There is the possibility how ever small that a god does exist , while this possibility cannot be ruled out one cannot state they know with certainty that a does not exist . I will ask you once more , please provide evidence to back up your claim , and please do not bring giants and teapots into the discussion , they have nothing to do with a gods existence or non- existence.

I'm going to post something that I wrote for you. It is straightforward and easy to understand. If you read it, and think it through then it should make sense to you. If something does not make sense, please feel free to ask for clarification...

Edit: I have a feeling that you will not continue to discuss this after I post it, but my hope is that at least some people will. Also, anyone else who would like to discuss my following claims, please feel free, I welcome all discourse and thought

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: a way too common mistake is to confuse the propositional fact that either God exists or does not exist, with whether or not we can KNOW God exists or does not. They are two different things:

1. The existence of something is a question of ONTOLOGY (the nature of being)

2. The knowledge of something is a question of EPISTEMOLOGY (the study of knowledge).

- Big difference: ‘what there is’ (ontology) with ‘what we know about what there is’ (epistemology)

If we can agree to the proposition that either God exists or does not exists (it has to be one or the other, something either does or does not exist, correct?) then one side must therefore be shown to be illogical*

*We ultimately cannot provide evidence for or against God, but this does not mean we must require it. We can use logic instead to answer our question. For example, I cannot provide evidence that my great great great great grandfather ever existed, but we can logically say that he did because I am here. Or, I cannot provide evidence that Jesus did not walk on water, but we can logically say that he did not.

Now, there are tonnes of logical arguments against the claim for the existence of God:

• The Problem of Evil: problem of evil
  
• The Ultimate 747 Gambit: Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit
  
• The Omnipotence Paradox: omnipotence paradox
  
• The Argument of Inconsistent Revelations: argument from inconsistent revelations
  
• The Argument of Poor Design: argument from poor design
  
• The Argument of Russell’s Teapot: Russell's teapot
  
• The Argument of Natural Selection: natural selection
  

just to name a few.

These (along with many others) all refute fairly basic, yet vital claims made by theists to back up their logic for the existence of God.

If you are to claim that the arguments I just provided (or any others I didn't mention that also refute the existence of God) do not refute their opposing theistic claims, then the burden of proof is on YOU to logically explain why (no tip-toeing allowed, and good luck). If you do not make this claim then we can, thankfully, not waste time and can move on…

So, in order to get closer to solving our problem we should now also consider something called Parsimony (Ocham’s Razor): if you have more than one possible explanation for a phenomenon, you should always choose the simplest one.

In other words, when you are faced with two competing hypothesis, we should always choose the one with the fewest assumptions; why would we—should we, or could we, even—give equal weight of plausibility to the existence and non-existence of God (or anything for the matter), when the non-existence of God so obviously leaves us with the fewest assumptions, and is therefore highly more logical and likely to be true? Remember, it would be completely illogical to claim that they are both equal claims, He either does, or does not exist.

So, if you do not agree with this claim that the reasons for the existence of God have been logically refuted, then you are now making a positive claim and must provide the evidence or logic behind your claim. (Careful on this one, you don’t want to be left with egg on your face)

Therefore, the burden of proof now belongs to the claim that God exists (again, either God does, or does not exist, they both cannot be true).

Now, if you claim that I cannot know that God does not exist because I cannot be 100% certain to know such a thing, then the burden of proof is on me to display how I know, since I made the original claim.

(We are now talking within the realm of epistemology)

I'm glad you asked… I am not claiming that I know with 100% certainty that God does not exist. I have claimed that 100% certainty is unattainable and irrelevant (which is nicely explained in the link/blog I provided, and throughout the internet).

Further, I AM claiming that I do NOT NEED 100% certainty in order to have knowledge, which is also nicely explained in the link/blog I provided and earlier posts in this thread.

Still following me?

Now, if you claim that I DO need 100% certainty in order to say that I know something (which, correct me if I am wrong, you have done), then the burden of proof is now on YOU to explain why this is so.

It would be completely illogical to not ask for 100% certainty in order to know the supernatural Greek God, Zeus, does not exist, but then ask for 100% certainty regarding a ‘regular’ supernatural God. They are, after all, one of the same.




Further, if you also want to claim that logic is not enough to refute the existence of God, that instead you need evidence as proof, then the burden of proof is on you as to why this is so, because remember... I claimed that we can use logic instead of evidence to answer this important question, that we must use logic. (I even provided an example)

Just to add to that last part, as an earlier poster already mentioned (Hitchens’ Razor): “What can be asserted without evidence (God exists) can be dismissed without evidence (God does not exist).” If no evidence is required, logic must suffice.

Therefore, I know God does not exist.

Cheers to anyone who finds this interesting

[Gman]

I am not claiming god exists , I am asking him to back up his claim the God does not exist with some evidence.

To which I am calling bull. Prove to me he exists then you can ask for proof he does not.

[TheMohammadman]

I too am not trying to offend anybody in this post but:

Didn't the Bible say the World was flat?

It describes it as a "circle". But what they mean is round and flat. Like a pancake.

Daniel 4:11 "The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH" (How could one tree be seen by all the Earth if they knew the Earth was round.)

Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them" (Same idea here.)

Isaiah 40:22 ""He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (How could the "heavens" be spread out over the Earth like a tent if they believe it's a sphere? They believe the sky literally came down and touched the edges of the Earth.)

Job 38:44 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?" (If they thought the Earth was a sphere, wouldn't they say "around it"... not "across it"?)

Job 38:13 "That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?" (How can you "take hold of the ends"...of a sphere?)

Job 38:15 "The earth takes shape like clay under a seal." (Clay when stamped under a seal is flattened and round in shape)

They could only believe what they saw. If you didn't know better, and you were standing in the middle of a desert where you could see the horizon all around you, it would appear that you are standing in the middle of a large circle. That's what they thought.

Most of the Christian Europeans believed that the world was flat, while the Arab Muslim's said other wise:

Al- Quran 79:30

“And the earth, moreover, Hath He made egg shaped.”

The Arabic word for egg here is dahaha, which means an ostrich-egg. The shape of an ostrich-egg resembles the geo-spherical shape of the earth. Thus the Qur’aan correctly describes the shape of the earth, though the prevalent notion when the Qur’aan was revealed was that the earth is flat

Not Offending Anyone, just saying.

[Tortorella's Rant]

Hitchens and dawkins are just as blinded by their beliefs as the religious nutbags. Why the circles goes round and round is that Gods existence or non existence cannot be proven one way or another, and if the best minds our species has produced cannot come up with an answer , then I do not think a bunch of hockey fans on the Canucks website are going to offer any new insights into this subject. At least this convo has remained friendly and respectful Torts , unlike so many of these conversations before on this forum.

They are blind? Please.

[Tortorella's Rant]

I too am not trying to offend anybody in this post but:

Didn't the Bible say the World was flat?

Most of the Christian Europeans believed that the world was flat, while the Arab Muslim's said other wise:

Not Offending Anyone, just saying.

The sad thing is people take the small little parts that are actually true and stretch it over the entire book claiming the whole thing is true

[VICanucksfan5551]

I too am not trying to offend anybody in this post but:

Didn't the Bible say the World was flat?

Most of the Christian Europeans believed that the world was flat, while the Arab Muslim's said other wise:

Not Offending Anyone, just saying.

That egg-shaped thing is bull. The Arabic word "daha" means "spread out", not "egg-shaped" as charlatans such as Zakir Naik would have you believe.

Muslim source corroborating that:

http://en.islamtoday.net/node/667

[Papayas]

I too am not trying to offend anybody in this post but:

Didn't the Bible say the World was flat?

Most of the Christian Europeans believed that the world was flat, while the Arab Muslim's said other wise:

Not Offending Anyone, just saying.

didn't Christians burn Bruno because he suggested the earth is round?

[Gman]

didn't Christians burn Bruno because he suggested the earth is round?

?