• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged A Proof of the Existence of God / Did Someone Create the Universe?

And we're back down the "God exists has to be answered differently from literally any other question" rabbit hole.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Yep, but this rabbit hole is a derail.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. For some reason we're just not allowed to answer the question "Does God Exist" without a 50 part digression about types and levels of opinionation (that's a word I just invented) that we don't have about anything else.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Doesn't matter. For some reason we're just not allowed to answer the question "Does God Exist" without a 50 part digression about types and levels of opinionation (that's a word I just invented) that we don't have about anything else.
Click to expand...

I agree and sypathise, but as long time posters on this site we could try to keep this one on topic and stick to Buddha's rather grandiose claim. It's our fault we let them spark these digressions.
 
Nay_Sayer said:
Only that isn't what's going on at all. I don't believe the claims that one exists, there is a very big difference here.

Your example fails because we can investigate that claim, We can send a deep space probe and find out.

This is not so with god claims, Worse yet the "evidence" brought forth almost always boils down to 'Well you just have to believe'.
Click to expand...
I don't at all think it's unreasonable to doubt that God exists, but one can't pretend that the burden lies with so called positive claims.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Doesn't matter. For some reason we're just not allowed to answer the question "Does God Exist" without a 50 part digression about types and levels of opinionation (that's a word I just invented) that we don't have about anything else.
Click to expand...


Well, the simple short answer is that all known genuine evidence is now very strongly against a God of that sort (a supernatural creator) ...

... and that's really all that anyone needs to say on the matter. In fact, it's probably also all that an educated honest person can say.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
I don't at all think it's unreasonable to doubt that God exists, but one can't pretend that the burden lies with so called positive claims.
Click to expand...


There is a burden of evidence upon the believers. Their beliefs are worthless unless they can show good evidential reason to think that an intelligent creator really does exist ...

... and of course the problem with that is, that everything we have discovered from the last 100-200 years of modern science (and also from studies of numerous religions throughout ancient history), shows that the God beliefs are almost certainly completely untrue.
 
phiwum said:
I don't at all think it's unreasonable to doubt that God exists, but one can't pretend that the burden lies with so called positive claims.
Click to expand...

"Affirmative" claim might be better terminology, as "positive" and "negative" can me mistaken to mean the is-there-or-isn't-there dichotomy.

"There is a God," is an affirmative claim. "There is no God," is also an affirmative claim. As stated, each would have a burden of proof. Informally we say you can't prove a negative because the burden to prove universal absence is usually impractical if not practically impossible to carry. But for that reason, when dealing with existential questions, the most reasonable position seems to be to presume (not affirm) non-existence and require direct proof of existence.

I presume there is no God. And if someone says he can prove to me deductively that there is, I take that as an affirmative claim. If, as usually happens, it gets reversed into my having to prove my presumption, then I walk away.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
I agree and sypathise, but as long time posters on this site we could try to keep this one on topic and stick to Buddha's rather grandiose claim. It's our fault we let them spark these digressions.
Click to expand...
Some are digressions, sure. But OP still fails at the first hurdle — no rational, coherent, meaningful definition of 'god' has been put forth; there is really no justification to show some sort of proof until that has been met.

For an example, the OP's definition and the definition that the Archbishop used three hundred-odd years ago for 'god' are completely different yet Buddha seems to think that he's talking about the same thing. And poster after poster comes in here and wants to pontificate and argue about 'god' all the while studiously ignoring the rather huge elephant in the room.

A few then try to talk about a 'god-concept' as if that somehow dispells the elephant. It's like getting mad that saying 'missanjikblac' isn't a coherent thing to talk about so calling it 'missanjikblac-concept' is suddenly meaningful.
 
The bad thing about all religions is that, instead of being able to confess their allegorical nature, they have to conceal it; accordingly, they parade their doctrines in all seriousness as true "sensu proprio"("in the sense of"), and as absurdities form an essential part of these doctrines we have the great mischief of a continual fraud. Nay, what is worse, the day arrives when they are no longer true sensu proprio, and then there is an end of them; so that, in that respect, it would be better to admit their allegorical nature at once. But the difficulty is to teach the multitude that something can be both true and untrue at the same time. Since all religions are in a greater or less degree of this nature, we must recognise the fact that mankind cannot get on without a certain amount of absurdity, that absurdity is an element in its existence, and illusion indispensable; as indeed other aspects of life testify.

- The Christian System And Other Essays by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) - (as translated by Thomas Bailey Saunders)

Nothing much has changed since Schopehauer wrote this. Claims of the existence of an all-powerful God-creator are an absurdity; continued belief in that existence is wilful ignorance.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
"Affirmative" claim might be better terminology, as "positive" and "negative" can me mistaken to mean the is-there-or-isn't-there dichotomy.

"There is a God," is an affirmative claim. "There is no God," is also an affirmative claim. As stated, each would have a burden of proof. Informally we say you can't prove a negative because the burden to prove universal absence is usually impractical if not practically impossible to carry. But for that reason, when dealing with existential questions, the most reasonable position seems to be to presume (not affirm) non-existence and require direct proof of existence.

I presume there is no God. And if someone says he can prove to me deductively that there is, I take that as an affirmative claim. If, as usually happens, it gets reversed into my having to prove my presumption, then I walk away.
Click to expand...


At risk of repetition - atheists are not claiming "there is no God", or at least they should not be making that claim as educated people. The "claim" is only "there probably is no God ... because the actual evidence is very strongly against it".

If Buddha (or anyone else) tries to argue that God does exists, but does so by personally changing the meaning of the word "God", then there is no credible discussion to be had (because in that case he is inventing his own meanings for the words he uses).
 
The burden of proof is not to distinguish between affirmative and negative statements, but to apply it to statements that claim the existence of something.

What requires a proof is the existential proposition, not any affirmation.
 
smartcooky said:
Well, I am an atheist, and I take this position

1. By default, god does not exist unless there is sufficient evidence for its existence, at which point

2. I will accept that god is a possibility, then there would need to be proof of its existence, at which point

3. I will accept that God exists and is real.

So far, I am firmly at stage 1, and have been for all of my adult life. I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that gods of any kind exist.

Fairy tales are not evidence.

The scribblings of 1st century itinerant goat herders are not evidence.

Weeping Madonna statuettes are not evidence.

Images of Jeebus on slices of toast and in the fur on dogs' arses is not evidence.

The gaps in scientific knowledge is not evidence.
Click to expand...

And even more: an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and good god is incompatible with the real state of the world.

A drunkard god is not. Or an absent-minded god. Or a sleeping god... Etc.
 
The Norseman said:
Some are digressions, sure. But OP still fails at the first hurdle — no rational, coherent, meaningful definition of 'god' has been put forth; there is really no justification to show some sort of proof until that has been met.
Click to expand...

No, the first hurdle is for the OP to actually participate in the discussion in a meaningful way by presenting the proof they claim to have. Side arguments triggered by the OP aren't helping. Once Buddha posts something of substance, ie his proof, there will be something to discuss at the moment he's playing us for fools.
 
David Mo said:
The burden of proof is not to distinguish between affirmative and negative statements, but to apply it to statements that claim the existence of something.
Click to expand...

No, the burden of proof applies to any affirmative statement. A statement affirming the absence or non-existence of something is only one small subset of such statements. That's the difference between concluding or presuming, in the absence of evidence, that there is no God, and affirming that there is no God. By some measures, it's also the difference between agnostics and atheists, but that's also debated. I venture most atheists in this thread fall into the presumptive or conclusory camp. They are open to the idea that there can be a God, but naturally require proof. And in the longstanding absence of any such proof, the non-existence of God is the rational bet.

What requires a proof is the existential proposition, not any affirmation.
Click to expand...

No, the concept of burden of proof applies not just to existential affirmations but to all affirmations, regardless of the practicality of actually carrying it. That is why one must be careful about what one affirms. Presuming absence and requiring existence to be shown is a practical approach, not a logical necessity. What happens all too often is that a claimant who fails to prove existence will then fall back and demand that his critics prove their presumption of non-existence. A more defensible response than, "You can't prove a negative," is to say that the negative -- or non-existence -- has not been affirmed. It stands merely as the null to an affirmation of existence, the presumption that holds only insofar as the claimant cannot falsify it with evidence of existence.
 
IanS said:
Well, the simple short answer is that all known genuine evidence is now very strongly against a God of that sort (a supernatural creator) ...

... and that's really all that anyone needs to say on the matter. In fact, it's probably also all that an educated honest person can say.
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense.

But as noted this is a hijack, one we always allow to take over the God discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom