Did God make Atheists?

[LATruth]

The burden of proof is not on the atheists. It's on your flock Theo. And again, scripture is not proof.

 

[Theocrat]

There is No Neutrality

The burden of proof is not on the atheists. It's on your flock Theo. And again, scripture is not proof.

The burden of proof is on both Christians and "atheists". We are both making positive claims about the truth of whether God exists or not. Christians say God does exist, and "atheists" say God does not exist. Both of those claims can not be true at the same time and in the same way, so it means one of them is false. Therefore, both claims as to the reality of God's existence have to be proven true by some level of evidence and objectivity. Just as Christians have to prove why they believe God exists, so do "atheists" have to prove why they believe God does not exist. It's just that simple.

 

[torchbearer]

agnostics are honest- they simply say they don't know.
Thomas was agnostic until he felt the wounds of Jesus.
I don't think it is wrong to question as Thomas did...

 

[sevin]

Why would someone pretending to be smart make such a stupid generalization?

Now, now. Be nice.

The "realationship" is primarily one of mutual love and trust, and since Spirit has a more complete and realistic perception of both the physical and the Spriritual world, I pray for instructions and understanding a lot.

What I'm saying is that Christians don't literally know there is a god. They just believe it based on their feelings. And from your post, I can see you agree with me.

At best, all you can say is that you don't believe God exists.

This is all semantics. By my definition, someone who doesn't believe God exists is an atheist. I thought everyone used that definition. I guess not.

You're absolutely right. A negative cannot be proven empirically, and that has been one of my points all along. Those who reject God on the basis that He cannot be empirically proven fall into the trap of not being able to prove there is no God empirically, themselves. So, my question to the empiricists is on what basis can they prove the truth of their assertion that there is no God. I have not heard an answer to that yet.

Okay, in order to accommodate you, I won't say, "It is true that there is no god." But I will say, "It is true that there is no proof of god." You take it from there.

 

[Bman]

God is a proven reality in my life because I have a personal relationship with Spirit. Unfortunately that is a personal, metaphyisical proof. It's impossible to give a physical proof for something that is by definition metaphysical.

Why would you even bother to ask?

God Exists = X

X has two possible answers 0 for false, and 1 for true.

Now you need to figure out the equations and variables to prove the statement. No one has. When I say God doesn't exist I say it only to ruffle feathers of those who say God does exist. I cannot prove that equation and neither can they.

 

[Theocrat]

How Do You Know That?

Okay, in order to accommodate you, I won't say, "It is true that there is no god." But I will say, "It is true that there is no proof of god." You take it from there.

Have you examined all the proofs for the existence of God? If so, then you yourself would be God, since you would have absolute knowledge in all things and in all places to know that statement as being absolutely true (however, self-refuting). If not, then you're arguing on the basis of trying to prove a universal negative, which we know is impossible.

 

[sevin]

Have you examined all the proofs for the existence of God? If so, then you yourself would be God, since you would have absolute knowledge in all things and in all places to make that statement absolutely true. If not, then you're arguing on the basis of trying to prove a universal negative, which is where we left off before.

You don't have to know everything in order to not believe something. You just have to decide for now if there is enough proof to justify a belief in god. I don't see enough proof. If in the future I learn otherwise, I will change my mind. That is why, as I said in the other thread, I consider myself agnostic.

 

[Theocrat]

Jumping Around

You don't have to know everything in order to not believe something. You just have to decide for now if there is enough proof to justify a belief in god. I don't see enough proof. If in the future I learn otherwise, I will change my mind. That is why, as I said in the other thread, I consider myself agnostic.

That is not what you said in your previous post. You said "It is true that there is no proof of god." (Emphasis mine) That is an absolute statement, and you would have to know everything in order to believe the truth of that assertion. Somehow you missed that concept. Just because you don't see the proof for God's existence doesn't mean there isn't any. After all, the universe does not revolve around you. There are plenty of people who see abundant proof for the existence of God, and it has unequivocally convinced them that there is a God. It's just that you either don't like their proofs, or you don't agree with them. That would be a personal problem on your part, though.

 

[sevin]

That is not what you said in your previous post. You said "It is true that there is no proof of god." (Emphasis mine)

Okay, you got me. Talking to you is like running through an obstacle course. Maybe I should have said, "It is true that I do not see any proof of god."

There are plenty of people who see abundant proof for the existence of God, and it has unequivocally convinced them that there is a God. It's just that you either don't like their proofs, or you don't agree with them. That would be a personal problem on your part, though.

So are you saying that you have personally seen or experienced things that prove to you that god is real?

 

[Theocrat]

Indeed

Okay, you got me. Talking to you is like running through an obstacle course. Maybe I should have said, "It is true that I do not see any proof of god."

That's much better. I keep you going because I love you.

So are you saying that you have personally seen or experienced things that prove to you that god is real?

Yes, many of those proofs have been very convincing to me, but I try not to use them outside of a worldview in which they don't make sense, which is why I try to argue for God's existence on the impossibility of the contrary when I can.

 

[sevin]

Yes, many of those proofs have been very convincing to me, but I try not to use them outside of a worldview in which they don't make sense, which is why I try to argue for God's existence on the impossibility of the contrary when I can.

Okay, so at least you explain why you insist on arguing on the impossibility of the contrary, as you say. My problem with this is that people from hundreds of religions will say the same thing, that they have had "proofs" in their lives that they find very convincing. But they can't all be right. You have to admit that it is all faith.

 

[LATruth]

You have to admit that it is all faith.

Or ambiguous coincidences that people find meaning in, much like horoscopes.

 

[TortoiseDream]

A quick point: all atheists believe in God. How can you doubt something that does not exist? "Theist" is in the word "atheist", afterall.

 

[LATruth]

A quick point: all atheists believe in God. How can you doubt something that does not exist? "Theist" is in the word "atheist", afterall.

<facepalm>

</facepalm>

 

[Objectivist]

A quick point: all atheists believe in God. How can you doubt something that does not exist? "Theist" is in the word "atheist", afterall.

WHo gave those that don't believe in the invisible man the name "Atheist"??? I can guess it wasn't the non-believers.

 

[TortoiseDream]

WHo gave those that don't believe in the invisible man the name "Atheist"??? I can guess it wasn't the non-believers.

Whether or not the atheist named himself or not does not change the fact that what he doubts must exist in order for him to doubt it.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Whether or not the atheist named himself or not does not change the fact that what he doubts must exist in order for him to doubt it.

That doesn't follow. For example, I doubt that the boogieman exists, but that doesn't mean it exists. Not that I have all the answers to the "God question", but your logic is sloppy.

 

[Objectivist]

Whether or not the atheist named himself or not does not change the fact that what he doubts must exist in order for him to doubt it.

I have no doubts.

And with that I'm outie.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

A quick point: all atheists believe in God. How can you doubt something that does not exist? "Theist" is in the word "atheist", afterall.

yes, but the preposition "a" means "without".

 

[TortoiseDream]

That doesn't follow. For example, I doubt that the boogieman exists, but that doesn't mean it exists. Not that I have all the answers to the "God question", but your logic is sloppy.

The boogieman exists simply because you brought it to our attention; he plays an active (usually small, as we are adults) part in our lives.

What does it mean to exist, anyways? I believe I require you to exist, and you require me to exist - that is, existence is a relationship. Atheists have a relationship to God, whether they like it or not.