Civil and engaging debate on Christianity and religious issues

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Reply to topic
paarsurrey1
First Post
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:04 pm  “God does not exist” can be dismissed without evidence Reply with quote

The assertion “God does not exist” can be dismissed without evidence

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
Christopher Hitchens

Right, please?

Regards
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 21: Mon Jan 08, 2018 4:35 pm
Reply
Re: “God does not exist” can be dismissed without eviden

Like this post
paarsurrey1 wrote:

[Replying to post 18 by Justin108]
Quote:
Justin108
Saying "I do not believe God exists" is very different from saying "God does not exist".


Please express yourself fully.
Regards


As far as I can see he has expressed himself quite adequately. I am the same as Justin in this respect. I as an atheist do not say "God does not exist." I do however say that "I don't believe in God." There is as Justin says a difference here. One is flat out denying the existence of God. The other is simply saying that one does not believe there is a god.

From my point of view, for an atheist to say "There is no god," is the same as a believer saying "There is a god." Both are at the extreme end and both need to be able to support their claims with evidence or reasoning. However when someone says "I don't believe in God." or "I don't believe in any gods", there is nothing for them to prove to anyone. They are just expressing an inability to believe in gods.

It's like if someone says "I don't believe in Santa Claus." nobody is expecting them to prove that they don't believe it. However as soon as someone says "Santa Claus never existed." then there is some onus on them to support that statement.

I would agree that if someone says "God does not exist" we can dismiss that statement if it is not backed up by any evidence. Likewise if someone says "God does exist" that statement can be dismissed too for exactly the same reason, ie, if there is no evidence coming. However most atheists I know do not say "God does not exist", unlike religious folk who insist God DOES exist. Most atheists I know say "I don't believe God exists."

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 22: Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:47 pm
Reply
Re: “God does not exist” can be dismissed without eviden

Like this post
paarsurrey1 wrote:

[Replying to post 18 by Justin108]
Quote:
Justin108
Saying "I do not believe God exists" is very different from saying "God does not exist".


Please express yourself fully.
Regards

If someone says "I do not believe in God", he is merely expressing his opinion. But when someone says "there is no God" then he is making a fact claim, and a fact claim needs evidence.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 23: Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:15 am
Reply
Re: “God does not exist” can be dismissed without eviden

Like this post
McCulloch wrote:

paarsurrey1 wrote:
Allah, "The All-'Evident' " is evident, therefore, He needs no evidence. He exists and has bestowed existence to everything inanimate or animate within the universe/s and beyond. Do you exist even, please?


Decartes showed that I am the only thing that I can be absolutely sure to exist.



So according to Decartes he existed but McCulloch does not exist. Right, please?

or

You exist but Decartes did not existed. Right, please?

Regards

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 24: Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:36 am
Reply
Re: “God does not exist” can be dismissed without eviden

Like this post
OnceConvinced wrote:

paarsurrey1 wrote:

[Replying to post 18 by Justin108]
Quote:
Justin108
Saying "I do not believe God exists" is very different from saying "God does not exist".


Please express yourself fully.
Regards


As far as I can see he has expressed himself quite adequately. I am the same as Justin in this respect. I as an atheist do not say "God does not exist." I do however say that "I don't believe in God." There is as Justin says a difference here. One is flat out denying the existence of God. The other is simply saying that one does not believe there is a god.

From my point of view, for an atheist to say "There is no god," is the same as a believer saying "There is a god." Both are at the extreme end and both need to be able to support their claims with evidence or reasoning. However when someone says "I don't believe in God." or "I don't believe in any gods", there is nothing for them to prove to anyone. They are just expressing an inability to believe in gods.

It's like if someone says "I don't believe in Santa Claus." nobody is expecting them to prove that they don't believe it. However as soon as someone says "Santa Claus never existed." then there is some onus on them to support that statement.

I would agree that if someone says "God does not exist" we can dismiss that statement if it is not backed up by any evidence. Likewise if someone says "God does exist" that statement can be dismissed too for exactly the same reason, ie, if there is no evidence coming. However most atheists I know do not say "God does not exist", unlike religious folk who insist God DOES exist. Most atheists I know say "I don't believe God exists."


Quote:
I would agree that if someone says "God does not exist" we can dismiss that statement if it is not backed up by any evidence.


Thanks for agreeing with me that "God does not exist" can be dismissed without evidence. Right, please?

Regards

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 25: Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:46 pm
Reply
Re: “God does not exist” can be dismissed without eviden

Like this post
paarsurrey1 wrote:



Thanks for agreeing with me that "God does not exist" can be dismissed without evidence. Right, please?

Regards


Yes, just as we can dismiss "God does exist". The burden of proof is on the one making the statement. Has anyone here on this site declared that "God does not exist?"

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 26: Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:24 am
Reply
Re: “God does not exist” can be dismissed without eviden

Like this post
paarsurrey1 wrote:

The assertion “God does not exist” can be dismissed without evidence

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
Christopher Hitchens


"God does not exist" is a denial of a claim. The claimant must provide evidence, not the person who disbelieves any old claim. People claimed the God particle existed. It would have been absurd to expect people to prove it doesn't exist; the onus, rightly, is on the claimant.

You maintain that God is known from his attributes. If you mean the sum total of happiness, of goodness, of sadness is God then fair enough, but this does not bring Allah into existence. It simply points to absolute abstract qualities. It is a great distance from that claim to believing there is a judgmental being, able to assist or punish us. If we claim THAT being exists, we need evidence. There is none. Words from a "holy" book CLAIM but do not PROVE. Your main resource is revelation; but to believe in revelation is just an arbitrary act of faith. There's no reason to suppose revelation is truth. I don't believe it is but I would be intrigued to see proof that it is. I am not required to prove the claim is false: the claimant, as I say, must defend the claim.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 27: Thu May 10, 2018 3:07 pm
Reply

Like this post
I've been reading a very interesting handbook on apologetics by two Boston College professors, and it seems futile to talk of evidence in debating the existence or non-existence of God, who is an immaterial spirit. They attempt to prove God's existence and the deity of Christ through an exhaustive series of rigorous and logical arguments.

They posit that if the non-believer cannot find any logical faults in their arguments, than he/she must accept that God exists, or go on denying the truth. For example, most people of any faith or no faith would agree that Jesus was a good man. But Jesus claimed to be God, so he can't be both a good man and a liar. And what would his motive be for lying? He only faced ridicule, torture and death as a result of this claim.

Now don't go poking holes in this just yet. It's just one paraphrased example. I recommend this book to both believers and non-believers alike. It's a very interesting read, and quite rigorously argued. Much more so than my feeble attempt to convey a bit of it here. The authors are Peter J. Kreeft, and Ronald K. Tacelli. And don't worry about the "Catholic" in the title. It's a Christian Apologetics book. The Catholic stuff is at the end of the book.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 28: Thu May 10, 2018 3:44 pm
Reply

Like this post (1): TSGracchus
starthrower wrote:


And don't worry about the "Catholic" in the title. It's a Christian Apologetics book. The Catholic stuff is at the end of the book.



Unless I am overlooking it, you forgot to give the title of the book.

The example argument you gave sounds like a retread of the "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" argument C. S. Lewis made popular. The problem with this argument is that there are more options than what the argument presents. One very obvious additional option would be that Jesus didn't do or say the things the Gospels report.

This reveals the problem many apologetics works share. They base arguments on assumptions they never address.

Apologetics are created for and directed at believers. They simply try to convince believers that what they already believe makes sense. That's not terribly hard to accomplish when your target audience agrees with your argument before they even read it.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 29: Thu May 10, 2018 4:24 pm
Reply

Like this post
Yes, I've thought about the possibility that Jesus never said some of the things attributed to him. The name of the book is Handbook Of Catholic Apologetics. After reading a number of the arguments, I'd say their focus is to persuade non-believers. I read some of this book in conjunction with Walter Kaufmann's Faith Of A Heretic.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 30: Fri May 11, 2018 3:50 am
Reply

Like this post
starthrower wrote:


They attempt to prove God's existence and the deity of Christ through an exhaustive series of rigorous and logical arguments.


Many have already done so. As boy whom the Jesuits moulded I imbibed all the theology around the Great Invisible. The word "prove" is a tricky customer, offering more than it possesses.

starthrower wrote:


They posit that if the non-believer cannot find any logical faults in their arguments, than he/she must accept that God exists, or go on denying the truth.



If they do indeed make this claim there is a mild arrogance in it. However commendable the mental acumen of believer or non-believer, the truth of a proof in no way depends on the success or failure of their cerebral journeys. Our scientists stun themselves against all kinds of puzzles of a much lower order.

starthrower wrote:


For example, most people of any faith or no faith would agree that Jesus was a good man. But Jesus claimed to be God, so he can't be both a good man and a liar.



Good men make mistakes as we can see in the many different religions today. Even saints err. To err is not to lie; to err is human, of course, and in saying that he did not know the hour or the day he indicated his fallible humanity. Matthew 24: 36

"But of that day and hour knows no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." KJV

starthrower wrote:


And what would his motive be for lying? He only faced ridicule, torture and death as a result of this claim.


As I said, he need not have been a liar - in all probability he wasn't. But it is possible that he was part of some design of the Essenes to change people's perception, for whatever reason. We don't know and he may have been successful in that mission.

Professors of -ologies eat breakfast and fall victim to the common cold. It is unwise to grant them celestial status until they demonstrate their wngs. Words are not wings.

My best wishes.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version