(A) God and/or/in Science

[knapplc]

The Christian God tells Christians to convince the world, though. Matthew 18: 19-20.

 

Christians are the most vocal objectors to gay rights, on the authority of the Bible, the divinely-inspired word of God. They lead the legal battle to strip homosexuals of their rights. If they're going to affect the lives of others via legislation, based on a book based on a God, they do have an obligation to provide proof of that God's existence.

 

Churches enjoy tax-exempt status. If we're granting tax exemption to this group based on their religion, based on this God, I do believe they should provide some kind of proof.

[The Dude]

If JJ was trying to convince the world to believe in his God then he would need to provide proof. He is not doing that nor am I.

I don't think that would be the only instance of evidence being helpful, or necessary. In philosophical discourse or scientific discussion (like in this thread), where the default position is there is no god (or Sasquatch, or ghosts, or unicorns, or supernatural stuff in general), then evidence would be very helpful.

[JJ Husker]

A believer cannot provide proof of God and a non-believer cannot provide disproof. It is not incumbent of me to provide proof simply because I claim the belief. If you want to call me crazy or delusional, fine that is your prerogative but ultimately it doesn't matter to me whether or not you share that belief. But, when a scientist or a person who puts all their eggs in the science basket, claims there is no God, then they are responsible for providing the proof if they want me to accept their assertion.

 

Scientists are required to provide proof but you are not. Those two statements cannot be justified.

 

 

 

Let's try this - I believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true God. JJ, you must prove me wrong. Go.

 

Those two statements can be justified. The difference is I am simply telling you what I believe. Whether you do or not is out of my control. I am not stating it as a fact. If you believe the flying spaghetti monster is the one true god, more power to you. I don't have to prove you wrong.

 

But, when a scientist or someone else comes out and claims point blank "God does not exist" or "there is no God" then they need to provide proof of that. If they don't then their phrasing should be I don't believe such and such.

[Junior]

But, when a scientist or someone else comes out and claims point blank "God does not exist" or "there is no God" then they need to provide proof of that. If they don't then their phrasing should be I don't believe such and such.

 

Simply cannot be done. You can't prove that something doesn't exist, only that it does. You can look and say "no god under this rock", but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist at all... just that he isn't under that rock. He could still be out there. But you can prove that something does exist. "Look, here's god under this rock!" That's the way evidence works.

[knapplc]

A believer cannot provide proof of God and a non-believer cannot provide disproof. It is not incumbent of me to provide proof simply because I claim the belief. If you want to call me crazy or delusional, fine that is your prerogative but ultimately it doesn't matter to me whether or not you share that belief. But, when a scientist or a person who puts all their eggs in the science basket, claims there is no God, then they are responsible for providing the proof if they want me to accept their assertion.

 

Scientists are required to provide proof but you are not. Those two statements cannot be justified.

 

 

 

Let's try this - I believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true God. JJ, you must prove me wrong. Go.

 

Those two statements can be justified. The difference is I am simply telling you what I believe. Whether you do or not is out of my control. I am not stating it as a fact. If you believe the flying spaghetti monster is the one true god, more power to you. I don't have to prove you wrong.

 

But, when a scientist or someone else comes out and claims point blank "God does not exist" or "there is no God" then they need to provide proof of that. If they don't then their phrasing should be I don't believe such and such.

Please prove to me the FSM doesn't exist.

[BigRedBuster]

A believer cannot provide proof of God and a non-believer cannot provide disproof. It is not incumbent of me to provide proof simply because I claim the belief. If you want to call me crazy or delusional, fine that is your prerogative but ultimately it doesn't matter to me whether or not you share that belief. But, when a scientist or a person who puts all their eggs in the science basket, claims there is no God, then they are responsible for providing the proof if they want me to accept their assertion.

 

Scientists are required to provide proof but you are not. Those two statements cannot be justified.

 

 

 

Let's try this - I believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true God. JJ, you must prove me wrong. Go.

 

Those two statements can be justified. The difference is I am simply telling you what I believe. Whether you do or not is out of my control. I am not stating it as a fact. If you believe the flying spaghetti monster is the one true god, more power to you. I don't have to prove you wrong.

 

But, when a scientist or someone else comes out and claims point blank "God does not exist" or "there is no God" then they need to provide proof of that. If they don't then their phrasing should be I don't believe such and such.

Please prove to me the FSM doesn't exist.

 

 

Who is saying it doesn't exist?

[Landlord]

Simply cannot be done. You can't prove that something doesn't exist, only that it does. You can look and say "no god under this rock", but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist at all... just that he isn't under that rock. He could still be out there. But you can prove that something does exist. "Look, here's god under this rock!" That's the way evidence works.

 

 

Sure, but if you can't prove something doesn't exist, then you can't have the audacity to say it doesn't exist, which plenty of aggressively atheistic scientists do.

 

I think JJ is just saying it goes both ways but the denying side doesn't seem to take grief for it.

[The Dude]

But, when a scientist or someone else comes out and claims point blank "God does not exist" or "there is no God" then they need to provide proof of that.

Well, not really. It's simply the default position until evidence of a god's existence can be provided.

 

You don't need proof to take the default position.

[BigRedBuster]

I think I'm going to be done with this conversation. It has been a very good conversation that has stayed civil which is rare on this topic. JJ and I have answered questions and simply told you what we believe. Both of us have said that we can't control what you believe and we don't have a problem with what you believe and we aren't here to try to convince you otherwise. We aren't pushing our religion on anyone.

 

I sense that this has taken it's course and I don't want it to get to a point where it doesn't remain civil for what ever reason.

 

Thanks for the discussion and have a great evening. There is a great evening of Husker Basketball. Go Big Red!!!!!!

[knapplc]

Please prove to me the FSM doesn't exist.

 

 

Who is saying it doesn't exist?

 

Every Christian who worships the "one true God."

[Junior]

Simply cannot be done. You can't prove that something doesn't exist, only that it does. You can look and say "no god under this rock", but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist at all... just that he isn't under that rock. He could still be out there. But you can prove that something does exist. "Look, here's god under this rock!" That's the way evidence works.

 

 

Sure, but if you can't prove something doesn't exist, then you can't have the audacity to say it doesn't exist, which plenty of aggressively atheistic scientists do.

 

I think JJ is just saying it goes both ways but the denying side doesn't seem to take grief for it.

 

 

Do you say "unicorns don't exist" or do you say "there is no evidence that unicorns exist"?

[JJ Husker]

 

Simply cannot be done. You can't prove that something doesn't exist, only that it does. You can look and say "no god under this rock", but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist at all... just that he isn't under that rock. He could still be out there. But you can prove that something does exist. "Look, here's god under this rock!" That's the way evidence works.

 

I agree. So the logical thing in my mind would be for people not to run around claiming things they can't prove are true. I'm not doing that. I am simply telling people what I believe to be true. BIG difference. And, you know as well as anybody that the nature of an all powerful supernatural God cannot be proven with the type of evidence being asked for. Why ask for something that cannot be provided? Once again, the critical difference is in the claim being made or if it is just a statement of belief. I have no problem with people who say they don't believe God exists. I won't ask them for proof.

 

Please prove to me the FSM doesn't exist.

 

No. I don't need or want to. I haven't claimed the FSM doesn't exist. I don't think it exists and I don't believe it exists but I am in no position to claim it doesn't exist.

 

But, when a scientist or someone else comes out and claims point blank "God does not exist" or "there is no God" then they need to provide proof of that.

Well, not really. It's simply the default position until evidence of a god's existence can be provided.

 

You don't need proof to take the default position.

That may very well be your default position. It isn't mine.

 

BTW, who gets to determine that must be the correct default position? You? Scientists? People who won't think outside the realm of science? Bobby down the street?

[Landlord]

Simply cannot be done. You can't prove that something doesn't exist, only that it does. You can look and say "no god under this rock", but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist at all... just that he isn't under that rock. He could still be out there. But you can prove that something does exist. "Look, here's god under this rock!" That's the way evidence works.

 

 

Sure, but if you can't prove something doesn't exist, then you can't have the audacity to say it doesn't exist, which plenty of aggressively atheistic scientists do.

 

I think JJ is just saying it goes both ways but the denying side doesn't seem to take grief for it.

 

 

Do you say "unicorns don't exist" or do you say "there is no evidence that unicorns exist"?

 

 

If the majority of people genuinely believed unicorns existed and I was having a serious conversation about it, I would say that there is no evidence that unicorns exist.

[The Dude]

 

Simply cannot be done. You can't prove that something doesn't exist, only that it does. You can look and say "no god under this rock", but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist at all... just that he isn't under that rock. He could still be out there. But you can prove that something does exist. "Look, here's god under this rock!" That's the way evidence works.

 

I agree. So the logical thing in my mind would be for people not to run around claiming things they can't prove are true. I'm not doing that. I am simply telling people what I believe to be true. BIG difference. And, you know as well as anybody that the nature of an all powerful supernatural God cannot be proven with the type of evidence being asked for. Why ask for something that cannot be provided? Once again, the critical difference is in the claim being made or if it is just a statement of belief. I have no problem with people who say they don't believe God exists. I won't ask them for proof.

 

Please prove to me the FSM doesn't exist.

 

No. I don't need or want to. I haven't claimed the FSM doesn't exist. I don't think it exists and I don't believe it exists but I am in no position to claim it doesn't exist.

 

But, when a scientist or someone else comes out and claims point blank "God does not exist" or "there is no God" then they need to provide proof of that.

Well, not really. It's simply the default position until evidence of a god's existence can be provided.

 

You don't need proof to take the default position.

That may very well be your default position. It isn't mine.

 

BTW, who gets to determine that must be the correct default position? You? Scientists? People who won't think outside the realm of science? Bobby down the street?

It's the default position for every single human who was ever born, ever. . . before they were indoctrinated into or invented religion.

 

It's not just my default position, it's the default position. Logic decides. It goes back to Russell's teapot.

[Junior]

 

Simply cannot be done. You can't prove that something doesn't exist, only that it does. You can look and say "no god under this rock", but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist at all... just that he isn't under that rock. He could still be out there. But you can prove that something does exist. "Look, here's god under this rock!" That's the way evidence works.

 

I agree. So the logical thing in my mind would be for people not to run around claiming things they can't prove are true. I'm not doing that. I am simply telling people what I believe to be true. BIG difference. And, you know as well as anybody that the nature of an all powerful supernatural God cannot be proven with the type of evidence being asked for. Why ask for something that cannot be provided? Once again, the critical difference is in the claim being made or if it is just a statement of belief. I have no problem with people who say they don't believe God exists. I won't ask them for proof.

 

 

Because if you cannot provide evidence for something, that's an indication that it doesn't exist (especially after a few thousand years of looking). If I say Bo Pelini kicks puppies, who's job is it to provide evidence? Mine or Bo Pelini's? If I cannot produce evidence that he does kick puppies, at some point don't you start to think that I'm full of crap?