Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[olavisjo]

.

The core evidence I have for the God not existing is the lack of evidence for it.

That would be a classic example of an argument from ignorance.

[instantc]

I don't understand why you say it is not rational to define the universe as having always been.

An infinite past contradicts itself, thus it cannot exist in the real world.

It seems more rational than the alternative: 'it came from nothing*'

I agree, that's why the third alternative seems the most rational, i.e. it came from an external cause that isn't affected by time.

[Danmark]

I don't understand why you say it is not rational to define the universe as having always been.

An infinite past contradicts itself, thus it cannot exist in the real world.

It seems more rational than the alternative: 'it came from nothing*'

I agree, that's why the third alternative seems the most rational, i.e. it came from an external cause that isn't affected by time.

I would not use the phrase, 'an infinite past,' tho' I can see why you think it is implied by saying something 'always was.' Remember, I do not suggest the universe has always been in the precise form we find it today. Just the opposite. You are making a huge and unnecessary assumption when you claim the universe had an external cause. This merely gets us to an infinite regression of causes. If one can logically posit an 'uncaused cause' why can't I suggest that 'uncaused cause is the universe that has always been [in one form or another]?

I simply find no logical difficulty in a universe [or if you prefer an 'existence'] that has always been. And I see no necessity to label it as something that has 'an infinite past.' The tools of logic are like the tools of mathematics, just tools. They are mere symbols to represent thought.

[Danmark]

.

The core evidence I have for the God not existing is the lack of evidence for it.

That would be a classic example of an argument from ignorance.

Here is where we get to go round and round again on the burden of proof being on he who alleges and the impropriety of suggesting one prove a negative. To me it is a simple matter. The theist bears the burden because he is the one who alleges. It is also one of the reasons I prefer 'non theist' to 'atheist.'

[Goat]

.

The core evidence I have for the God not existing is the lack of evidence for it.

That would be a classic example of an argument from ignorance.

Is it?? No, it's not the argument from ignorance at all. The argument from ignorance says 'Something is true until it is proven false'. This is 'Something is not true until it is shown to be true'. The claim 'there is a God' is a positive claim, and until such time as evidence can be presented that there IS indeed a God, it can be dismissed.

Now, if it was the positive claim 'That xxxx existed' and there is no evidence that xxx doesn't, THAT would be the argument from ignorance.

[zeromeansnothing]

Is an abiogenesis a natural scientific occurrence or is it a supernatural event.
If I state that the occurrence of abiogenesis within the universe is highly likely, is there a requirement for me to produce evidence for this belief, as per the opening post? If I say that God is highly likely to exist, do I need to provide proof.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to olavisjo]

That would be a classic example of an argument from ignorance.

Arguing from ignorance is not knowing the answer to a question, making up an answer to the unknown question, reaching the conclusion that the made up answer MUST INEVITABLY be the only possible right answer, and then proceeding to argue for the unchallengeable and inerrant truth of the made up answer to the unknown question. In truth such an individual has remained in EXACTLY the same state of ignorance as when they began, except now they have precluded all other possibilities. Scientific speculation on the other hand involves examining all of the various possibilities based on the best current information at hand, with the implicit understanding that since not all of the necessary information is as yet available, no final conclusion is yet possible. Speculation is a perfectly useful tool. Individuals who allow their speculation to turn into dogma ARE tools. Therein lies the difference.

[Goat]

Is an abiogenesis a natural scientific occurrence or is it a supernatural event.
If I state that the occurrence of abiogenesis within the universe is highly likely, is there a requirement for me to produce evidence for this belief, as per the opening post? If I say that God is highly likely to exist, do I need to provide proof.

We have evidence of chemistry, organic chemistry that is not life, yet can self replicate, We have an understanding on how protocells might have formed. While not out of the hypothesis state, there is knowledge that can be replicated and examined to show that the process CAN be entirely natural, without any kind of external manipulation except for the way chemicals interact in the environment.

Do you have any kind of similar information for evaluating the existence of God? What can you present as 'public knowledge' that we can examine?

[Clownboat]

What kind of evidence would you accept? [for God's existence]

Empirical, testable evidence, analyzed by trained scientists and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Personal experience isn't enough (I could be hallucinating or mistaken), and neither is preaching / dogma / etc.

Sorry I can't provide you God or a god to analyze or test. I can provide you with an entire list of trained scientists that have analyzed and tested data that makes them come to the conclusion that the earth is young and do believe in a Creator. I gave goat a list in a previous post. Let us put aside my personal relationship with God and pretend like I don't know Him. How do you explain the origin of man? of life? of the universe?

I see two approaches to answering these questions.
Answer number 1 = "I don't know for sure"
Answer number 2 = "I don't know for sure, this bothers me, so I am going to look to a religion to give me an answer". Bam! Done. Phew, that was easy.

Why are you so afraid? My must you have an answer? It seems the lazy way to just use a religious answer (of which there are thousands) to fill this need you seem to have about where man, life and the universe came from.

I would guess that it was people with these same fears that you have that supplied man with religious ideas to explain these unknowns. Meanwhile, some people are content with not knowing the answers. You do not seem to be a part of this group of people.

[Star]

No. I posted a list of some scientists who from their studies of various fields have come to the conclusion the Earth is young if you wish to study these then do so or not I could care less. And as for involving myself in a debate...I was discussing these things with danmark and goat...you posted to me first if I remember correctly so whats up?? You got anything?

I've been debating on message boards for more than a decade. I don't know if you're trolling to get a rise out of us, or you're honestly just a newbie who doesn't know better, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and provide some personal advice...

You're on a message board and aren't entitled to privacy unless you use the Private Message (PM) feature. When you write on message boards, you have an audience. Many people read what you write. Assume everyone is watching.

You plagiarized Examiner, a trashy source of information, and that's why you were reluctant to tell us where you copy and pasted your list from. I wouldn't do that anymore. Post a link.

As the claimant, you bear the burden of citing your sources, or posting a link. You don't have to, of course, but don't expect credibility, especially when you copy and paste the work of others.

Merry Christmas.

Why do you consider cites that post science that supports a young earth 'trashy'? I have no more of a 'burden' than you do. My whole point is that you rely on what I consider to be 'trashy' science to support your beliefs.

Accredited universities and published peer-reviewed research are trashy? You must be kidding.

Examiner is trash because it lets almost anyone write for them, they're allowed to write almost anything they want, and they have almost no quality control. There's no editor to even check for spelling. A guy I knew there, one of their most popular writers, literally made up his own sources. They have some good writers, and I used to write for them, too. I saw stuff there that would make any real journalist cringe, and it did. It's not real journalism.

That's not to say everything there is garbage, but you have no way of knowing what is and what isn't, so it's best to avoid.

You have suggested that accredited universities and peer-reviewed research are trashy while non-accredited tabloid blog gossip site Examiner is not. Do you wish to recant?