Originally posted by dadudemon
He was referring to the regs, man. Not the average Catholic. The regs!
Internet warriors have trouble man, they never went to real war so they have to fight with words on the internet. And when they have been ignored the capitalize everything as shown from you quoting the child.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree: I think the evidence I see is evidence, not implications, because of the way I am using the word "evidence."You look at the same set of evidence I do and it reaffirms your own idea or proposition as true and valid. For me, it is the opposite.
But I'm not the one making the proposition. A lack of belief is a default position, not a claim. So...What evidence exists that points to the existence of God?
Originally posted by Digi
A lack of belief is a default position, not a claim.
This is not true. This is a philosophical tenet introduced by modern atheists specifically to argue about religion. The default position would be a lack of knowledge, indifference, ignorance, etc.
Originally posted by Digi
So...What evidence exists that points to the existence of God?
Literally everything. 😐
Have you met my friend?
Originally posted by dadudemon
This is not true. This is a philosophical tenet introduced by modern atheists specifically to argue about religion. The default position would be a lack of knowledge, indifference, ignorance, etc.Literally everything. 😐
Have you met my friend?
I disagree. Think of default as what you're born as. You're born lacking belief in pretty much anything...that's a "default" state by any definition of the word. You might be able to call it ignorance, but it's a semantic difference only. The belief state is the same. Do you have a belief about the gnome living under my fingernail? No, of course not. You've never thought about it until now. Lack of a belief. Default state.
And even if it isn't a default state (it is), it doesn't change burden of proof.
"Literally everything" isn't something I can work with. Nor is it a rational argument. It's an appeal to emotion and/or ignorance. i.e. "Look around you! How could God NOT exist?" Do we really need to get into how the universe can plausibly exist via causal, non-divine mechanisms? You're a smart guy; you know the arguments.
So. Back to square one. You're still the claimant, so the burden rests with you. Otherwise you're saying your belief is evidence, which is what "literally everything" sounds like to me.
Originally posted by dadudemon
...Literally everything. 😐...
That is a problem. Everything leads to every possible conclusion.
You say it points to God, and I could say it points to unicorns dancing in the spring time. Both cannot be proved. You believe or you don't.
BTW unicorns dancing in the spring time is just one possibility for illustration purposes only. I really don't believe in unicorns dancing in the spring time. 😉
Originally posted by Digi
I disagree. Think of default as what you're born as. You're born lacking belief in pretty much anything...that's a "default" state by any definition of the word. You might be able to call it ignorance, but it's a semantic difference only.
It sounds like you agree, 100%, actually.
But I would note that it is definitely not a semantic difference; that is one of the best and often used examples of "ignorance": newborns.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is a problem. Everything leads to every possible conclusion.You say it points to God, and I could say it points to unicorns dancing in the spring time. Both cannot be proved. You believe or you don't.
BTW unicorns dancing in the spring time is just one possibility for illustration purposes only. I really don't believe in unicorns dancing in the spring time. 😉
I believe in those unicorns, man.
And they are pissing all over the butterflies in the spring time. And their shit is actually brownies. Magic brownies laced with assid (because it's pooooop, get it? GET IT?)
Originally posted by dadudemon
I believe in those unicorns, man.And they are pissing all over the butterflies in the spring time. And their shit is actually brownies. Magic brownies laced with assid (because it's pooooop, get it? GET IT?)
I got it! And so did you. The idea that we have to prove everything we believe is silly. However, going around and declaring things that are meant to be based on faith as fact is equally silly.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It sounds like you agree, 100%, actually.But I would note that it is definitely not a semantic difference; that is one of the best and often used examples of "ignorance": newborns.
Like I said, the belief state is the same. But if you're done with your pyrrhic victory here:
Originally posted by Digi
Back to square one. You're still the claimant, so the burden rests with you. Evidence?
Originally posted by Digi
But if you're done with your pyrrhic victory here:
Since you've stated my exact position as your own, there was no need for me to continue the discussion; there is no victory and there is no concession: we agree.
And I answered the question you quoted, already:
Originally posted by dadudemon
Literally everything. 😐
Originally posted by dadudemon
...And I answered the question you quoted, already:
Do you really think everything is a good answer? Saying everything point to God is not falsifiable. You have now left the world of science and have entered the world of belief. You are free to believe what you want, but you just can't say that anyone else is wrong.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you really think everything is a good answer? Saying everything point to God is not falsifiable. You have now left the world of science and have entered the world of belief. You are free to believe what you want, but you just can't say that anyone else is wrong.
Good point. You can't test or falsify this claim.
Originally posted by dadudemonThis is actually a more succinct version of what JIA would say whenever we challenged the existence of God. We'd ask for proof of Him, he would point to the Bible as proof. We'd ask how the Bible proves God, he'd say because it's God's word. We'd ask how he knew it was God's word, he'd say because it's in the Bible. a=a because a=a. He exists because existence exists, therefore He exists.
Literally everything. 😐
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
This is actually a more succinct version of what JIA would say whenever we challenged the existence of God. We'd ask for proof of Him, he would point to the Bible as proof. We'd ask how the Bible proves God, he'd say because it's God's word. We'd ask how he knew it was God's word, he'd say because it's in the Bible. a=a because a=a. He exists because existence exists, therefore He exists.
Circular logic at work. However, it is not JIA's fault, he learned this for other people, who learned it from others. This is ultimately a way to control people. In other words, they live in a cage with no lock on the door, and they are told that if they leave the cage, they will go to hell for eternity. They then are fed more information using circular logic, and even told that logic itself if evil.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm...it's not convincing me.
Nor is any of the "evidence" that should convince me a Creator does not exist.
It would appear we are at an impasse.
Edit - My favorite is when the atheists say, "Derp, testable qualities, derp, proof that version of God doesn't exist." As thought that was an original though that had not long since been addressed.