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?

[DavidLeon]

[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.

Which of the links I quoted from were lacking in education that your superior education would frown down upon. Those weren't my words. All I asked you was what was the problem with one quote and if the other was correct. I was accepting your supposition that nothing could be created in a strictly scientific sense but pointing out that creation was often used in another sense.

I always have two simple intentions. First to say what the Bible says and second to try and interpret what the Bible means when it says something.

Genesis 1:1 says God created the heavens and earth. Science estimates these to be various ages. Each having a beginning. The heavens in this case is the physical universe and the earth the planet. Both of those words; heaven and earth, have other meanings in the Bible and common English. The spiritual heavens and soil, for example.

The Bible doesn't say God created matter or energy. Anything I have to offer on that would therefore be speculative.

Isaiah 40:26 says Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.

Jehovah has existed forever. Without beginning or end. Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 40:28; 1 Timothy 1:17

[Willum]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #91]

I can quote Salvador Dahli, it doesn't make me a painter.

[brunumb]

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.

The way I see it, you don't have to deny all science to be a denier of science.

[DavidLeon]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #91]

I can quote Salvador Dahli, it doesn't make me a painter.

If what science says is true, that energy and matter can't be created or destroyed, then that has no effect on the possibility that there was a creator because that creator is matter and energy and has always existed without himself having been created. He only used the matter and energy which he already had. If anything this would be an indication of a creator.

Science has a limited scope. If you have difficulty wrapping your mind around the eternal existence of a creator, which I don't see how you couldn't, then you would have an equally difficult time wrapping your mind around anything that existed eternally. Without beginning or end. Because our scope is limited.

You may easily buy into science telling you that nothing can ever be created or destroyed but you can also use the terminology that Salvador Dahli created some great art. If you are so myopic that you can't understand this then that's your problem, not mine, but don't shove your myopic ignorance in my face by insulting my education which, not only you know nothing about, but also don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to understand could only be another form of indoctrination as the religion you so despise.

[The Tanager]

The way I see it, you don't have to deny all science to be a denier of science.

I'm not questioning that some religious beliefs people have require denying science, but that denying science is required for any religious belief, which your wording implied. I don't think any of my religious beliefs deny scientific knowledge. I have traditional Christian beliefs (although I realize many Christians hold the same beliefs for different reasons or that many would deny scientific knowledge). Do you have examples in mind?

[The Tanager]

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.

Are you saying to start with God's existence? If so, then how does that involve denying science? If not, then how does the Flood deny science?

[Willum]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #96]

We discussed and you denied conservation disproving a creator deity.
Now you do not understand how ANY of the things listed are disproved by the science?
That is unbelievable, no one is that ignorant.

One must assume you are simply being argumentative.
Good day.

[Willum]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #91]

I can quote Salvador Dahli, it doesn't make me a painter.

If what science says is true, that energy and matter can't be created or destroyed, then that has no effect on the possibility that there was a creator because that creator is matter and energy and has always existed without himself having been created. He only used the matter and energy which he already had. If anything this would be an indication of a...

If what you say is true, then a creator is an unnecessary fiction, that adds nothing to reality.
You can look at evolution, cosmology, etc., and back track, then see no need or effect of a deity.

Glad you have finally seen the light.

[DavidLeon]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #91]

I can quote Salvador Dahli, it doesn't make me a painter.

If what science says is true, that energy and matter can't be created or destroyed, then that has no effect on the possibility that there was a creator because that creator is matter and energy and has always existed without himself having been created. He only used the matter and energy which he already had. If anything this would be an indication of a...

If what you say is true, then a creator is an unnecessary fiction, that adds nothing to reality.
You can look at evolution, cosmology, etc., and back track, then see no need or effect of a deity.

Glad you have finally see the light.

How typically xenophobic and childish of you. Let's see if I can play ... your science is my female dog, as the homies say. You don't know what a deity is. What you should say is that the deity of the religion that burned you is unnecessary fiction. But it does something to add to reality or you wouldn't be wasting your time here you would be off doing science things.

Take up thy microscope and walk!

If I were you I would pray to your maker for REAL knowledge about how the world around you works because you and your science, well, can't even imagine what the grand creator God can do!

Let me hear an amen brother!

Yeah!

How's that? Did I impress you with my religion can beat up your religion playground mentality?

[DavidLeon]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #96]

We discussed and you denied conservation disproving a creator deity.
Now you do not understand how ANY of the things listed are disproved by the science?
That is unbelievable, no one is that ignorant.

One must assume you are simply being argumentative.
Good day.

Good day, Tanager! That's what they say just before they start crying like little girls if you don't believe their religion. Have a nice day, believer, I'm going to take my ball and run away home.