Who Has The Burden Of Proof And When?

[DavidLeon]

In this thread I would like to discuss and debate the question of who has the burden of proof and when. Does the theist have a burden of proof? Does the atheist? What is a claim?

[Willum]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #80]

Ah, you see, you simply don’t get it.
“Where does energy come from?“ you ask.

Energy is neither created nor destroyed.
It doesn’t come from anywhere. The only reason you believe it came from somewhere is because of brainwashing about creation you’ve heard since birth.

If you could magically put energy in a box and reverse time, it would stay in the box unchanged for eternity.
More intuitively, if you consider a bit of hydrogen; It is the same as it was since the Big Bang.
It hasn’t changed and will not change unless nuclear forces are exerted on it.

There is no creation, only transformation.
No creation. No creator.

If it further helps, that hydrogen does not even necessarily need to have been formed in the Big Bang, it could have sat there and watched, unchanged in all eternity.

[DavidLeon]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #80]

Ah, you see, you simply don’t get it.
“Where does energy come from?“ you ask.

Now you've really done it. My interest just skyrocketed. Fascinating implications in this response that could explore my bewilderment at the atheist's seemingly incapability to comprehend allegorical, figurative or metaphoric Biblical terminology. It may not be exclusively Biblical! It may even explain why the atheist can't comprehend the simple concept of deity!! I have to explore this!

Energy is neither created nor destroyed.
It doesn’t come from anywhere. The only reason you believe it came from somewhere is because of brainwashing about creation you’ve heard since birth.

If you could magically put energy in a box and reverse time, it would stay in the box unchanged for eternity.
More intuitively, if you consider a bit of hydrogen; It is the same as it was since the Big Bang.
It hasn’t changed and will not change unless nuclear forces are exerted on it.

I asked you what was wrong with the statement from The Department of Environmental Protection and Solar Schools, in which I emboldened create energy. I understand the distinction you are making and I agree, but you understand the terminology?

There is no creation, only transformation.
No creation. No creator.

We will get to that later, first we need to discuss the terminology.

If it further helps, that hydrogen does nt even necessarily need to have been formed in the Big Bang, it could have sat there and watched, unchanged in all eternity.

I understand this. I don't have a problem there. We will get to that later. As soon as you can address the simple terminology issue.

Put very simply and easy for you to answer, do you understand that some use of the term "create energy" doesn't necessarily negate your very reasonable and accurate presentation that you can't create energy. That create energy can, with no problem, mean to produce energy like a power station or generator? You would be capable of allowing for the application to be made in a figurative as well as strictly scientific and literal application?!

[Clownboat]

Run Willium! This will quickly turn in to a claim that words don't mean what they mean.

If the word 'god' that society uses, were to just mean 'something venurated' like DavidLeon tries to argue, the word loses all meaning. This allows him to think and then claim that atheists are unable to understand the word. In reality, he battles with society and the English language.
Examples:

Fascinating implications in this response that could explore my bewilderment at the atheist's seemingly incapability to comprehend allegorical, figurative or metaphoric Biblical terminology.

It may even explain why the atheist can't comprehend the simple concept of deity!!

I fear the same will be done with 'energy' here. You have been warned.

[DavidLeon]

Run Willium! This will quickly turn in to a claim that words don't mean what they mean.

Words have various meanings. Didn't you know?

If the word 'god' that society uses, were to just mean 'something venurated' like DavidLeon tries to argue, the word loses all meaning. This allows him to think and then claim that atheists are unable to understand the word. In reality, he battles with society and the English language.

"Veneration (Latin veneratio, Greek τιμάω, timao), or veneration of saints, is the act of honoring a saint, a person who has been identified as having a high degree of sanctity or holiness." - Wikipedia

Oxford Languages defines veneration as "great respect; reverence."

Are you sure I'm the one whose argument is the invalid one? Looks bad for the atheist inability to understand the word.

I fear the same will be done with 'energy' here. You have been warned.

I would think that you would more likely protest an examination of the word create in this context. Interesting.

"Energy, in physics, the capacity for doing work. It may exist in potential, kinetic, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other various forms. There are, moreover, heat and work—i.e., energy in the process of transfer from one body to another. After it has been transferred, energy is always designated according to its nature. Hence, heat transferred may become thermal energy, while work done may manifest itself in the form of mechanical energy." - Britannica

[Clownboat]

Words have various meanings. Didn't you know?

We all know this. What you did with the word 'god' was to attempt to define it in to being meaningless. You then place the fault on others when they don't accept your reasoning (or lack there of).

I provided examples from this thread itself.

Ready to see another readers?

Are you sure I'm the one whose argument is the invalid one? Looks bad for the atheist inability to understand the word.

I'm not going down this path with you again. I'll continue to use words as societies understand them and my warning was to Willum in the first place.

[DavidLeon]

Words have various meanings. Didn't you know?

We all know this. What you did with the word 'god' was to attempt to define it in to being meaningless.

How exactly does one define a word "in to being meaningless?"

[The Tanager]

Despite protestations to the contrary, religious belief requires the denial of science.

Which specific examples do you have in mind here?

[Athetotheist]

Despite protestations to the contrary, religious belief requires the denial of science.

Which specific examples do you have in mind here?

There are numerous examples of religious claims falling outside accepted----or expected----science, but given the broad range of "religious belief" this would still be a dubious blanket statement. For example: Deists don't typically define Deism as a "religion", but it is a theological position and denies nothing known to science. I believe Buddhism also has a notable tradition of intellectual scrutiny and acceptance of scientific findings.

[Willum]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #83]

It is as I claimed; he simply doesn’t have the basic education to understand.
It is like talking to someone from the 18th century about cars...
Or conservation laws for that matter. Anyone who could conflate creation of energy ex nihlo , vs something coming out of the wall is clearly not capable of understanding why a creator god is a non-entity.
There is obviously nothing I could say to bridge the education gap.
So, I take your advice, I run.

[Willum]

Despite protestations to the contrary, religious belief requires the denial of science.

Which specific examples do you have in mind here?

The Flood, geology, atmospheric science, hydrology.
Creation, conservation laws.
Sin, psychology.
Water to wine, nuclear physics ...

I can generate far more for you to argue with, but first let’s start by you demonstrating god is an exception.