Guess who has the burden of proof!

[Hollie]

The existence of God is the Theory

There is no proof of that Theory

The existence of the universe in and of itself is the evidence for God's existence, and logic proves that God necessarily exists.

.

The existence of the universe in and of itself is the evidence for God's existence, and logic proves that God necessarily exists.

.
is the water bottle created by the universe, therefore whatever created the water bottle is god ...

Humans invented the bottle; however, GOD created the water and all the elements that went into the fabrication of the bottle.

100% certainty with 0% facts.

 

[rightwinger]

The existence of God is the Theory

There is no proof of that Theory

The existence of the universe in and of itself is the evidence for God's existence, and logic proves that God necessarily exists.

Another theory without a shred of proof

 

[Turtlesoup]

The fact of life is proof of a Creator. Scientifically, there is absolutely no proof of spontaneous generation. One must come to terms with either one or the other possibility. There is certainly much more evidence for GOD than for spontaneous generation.

Life is nothing more than a combination of basic elements, energy, and endless time. All of these are ever present--------so life could therefore only exist and evolve over time.

 

[rightwinger]

You claim God created everything then the burden of proof is on you

I do not believe your claim and I have no burden other than I don’t believe your theory

 

[Ringtone]

The fact of life is proof of a Creator. Scientifically, there is absolutely no proof of spontaneous generation. One must come to terms with either one or the other possibility. There is certainly much more evidence for GOD than for spontaneous generation.

i don’t see any case to be made for biological life requiring a supernatural creator. There is vastly more evidence for biological life resulting from the process of natural phenomenon than from your gods / competing gods using supernaturalism as the process. For the argument proposing supernaturalism, you will, of course, default to the supernatural creator(s) that commonly associated with western culture. The argument for supernaturalism is similarly made for competing gods associated with differentl cultures / geographic regions. What do you propose makes your gods more likely as the supernatural agents vs. competing gods?

You keep slapping down the word supernatural as if it is your only pacifier. In your own words, why do YOU think God must be supernatural? Evidence exists systemically in nature for the engineering of all biological matter. We humans ourselves have based much of our science, machinery and computing systems in particular, on the form and function and design of living terrestrial creatures. A key problem with atheist/anti-God intelligentsia is their sudden and repeated malfunction when pressed to explain exactly what the word, definition and concept of supernatural means and/or entails. Further, and it is all the spare time I've got left to spend on this thread, it has been my experience that most all atheists are religiously driven to disprove . . . religion. Most atheists are more driven by the concept of God to disprove him than even the most devout Christian. As an atheist or whatever you consider yourself you very likely spend more time considering God than the average faithful. That in and of itself is incredibly telling. I am a Christian, however, I will never be the atheist's pacifier. You must find your own path to God. So stop obsessing over Him and get busy.

Given that in reality the typical new atheist knows little to nothing about the pertinent physics, cosmology, biology, metaphysics . . . their default position is mindless ad hominem and slogan speak.

 

[Hollie]

The fact of life is proof of a Creator. Scientifically, there is absolutely no proof of spontaneous generation. One must come to terms with either one or the other possibility. There is certainly much more evidence for GOD than for spontaneous generation.

i don’t see any case to be made for biological life requiring a supernatural creator. There is vastly more evidence for biological life resulting from the process of natural phenomenon than from your gods / competing gods using supernaturalism as the process. For the argument proposing supernaturalism, you will, of course, default to the supernatural creator(s) that commonly associated with western culture. The argument for supernaturalism is similarly made for competing gods associated with differentl cultures / geographic regions. What do you propose makes your gods more likely as the supernatural agents vs. competing gods?

You keep slapping down the word supernatural as if it is your only pacifier. In your own words, why do YOU think God must be supernatural? Evidence exists systemically in nature for the engineering of all biological matter. We humans ourselves have based much of our science, machinery and computing systems in particular, on the form and function and design of living terrestrial creatures. A key problem with atheist/anti-God intelligentsia is their sudden and repeated malfunction when pressed to explain exactly what the word, definition and concept of supernatural means and/or entails. Further, and it is all the spare time I've got left to spend on this thread, it has been my experience that most all atheists are religiously driven to disprove . . . religion. Most atheists are more driven by the concept of God to disprove him than even the most devout Christian. As an atheist or whatever you consider yourself you very likely spend more time considering God than the average faithful. That in and of itself is incredibly telling. I am a Christian, however, I will never be the atheist's pacifier. You must find your own path to God. So stop obsessing over Him and get busy.

Given that in reality the typical new atheist knows little to nothing about the pertinent physics, cosmology, biology, metaphysics . . . their default position is mindless ad hominem and slogan speak.

Given that the hyper-religious attempt to cover their lack of education and training in the sciences with bluster and juvenile tirades, their usual tactics are to sidestep and evade.

 

[Ringtone]

It's one thing to argue for the existence of a First Cause. Quite another thing to prove that it was your version of this First Cause that was responsible for everything.

Yes, of course it is. Per the first principles of metaphysics, logic and physics, we know that the physical world began to exist. Only utter nincompoops allege to argue from the imperatives of logic and simultaneously deny the ontological imperative of sufficient cause or reason. The divinity of classical theism is the only empirically and rationally justifiable candidate. There's only a very small handful of religious traditions that are classically theistic. Of the few, there's only one that thoroughly accounts for the facts of reality.

In the meantime, naturalism/materialism is inherently contradictory, self-negating.

 

[Ringtone]

The fact of life is proof of a Creator. Scientifically, there is absolutely no proof of spontaneous generation. One must come to terms with either one or the other possibility. There is certainly much more evidence for GOD than for spontaneous generation.

i don’t see any case to be made for biological life requiring a supernatural creator. There is vastly more evidence for biological life resulting from the process of natural phenomenon than from your gods / competing gods using supernaturalism as the process. For the argument proposing supernaturalism, you will, of course, default to the supernatural creator(s) that commonly associated with western culture. The argument for supernaturalism is similarly made for competing gods associated with differentl cultures / geographic regions. What do you propose makes your gods more likely as the supernatural agents vs. competing gods?

You keep slapping down the word supernatural as if it is your only pacifier. In your own words, why do YOU think God must be supernatural? Evidence exists systemically in nature for the engineering of all biological matter. We humans ourselves have based much of our science, machinery and computing systems in particular, on the form and function and design of living terrestrial creatures. A key problem with atheist/anti-God intelligentsia is their sudden and repeated malfunction when pressed to explain exactly what the word, definition and concept of supernatural means and/or entails. Further, and it is all the spare time I've got left to spend on this thread, it has been my experience that most all atheists are religiously driven to disprove . . . religion. Most atheists are more driven by the concept of God to disprove him than even the most devout Christian. As an atheist or whatever you consider yourself you very likely spend more time considering God than the average faithful. That in and of itself is incredibly telling. I am a Christian, however, I will never be the atheist's pacifier. You must find your own path to God. So stop obsessing over Him and get busy.

Given that in reality the typical new atheist knows little to nothing about the pertinent physics, cosmology, biology, metaphysics . . . their default position is mindless ad hominem and slogan speak.

Given that the hyper-religious attempt to cover their lack of education and training in the sciences with bluster and juvenile tirades, their usual tactics are to sidestep and evade.

Ad hominem

 

[Orangecat]

There was an explosion?

That's the theory. Maybe the explosion was God and both sides are right.

 

[james bond]

The existence of God is the Theory

There is no proof of that Theory

Same with evolution, but who's counting.

The non-believers get their proof of God and what he said AFTER you die.

 

[ding]

The fact of life is proof of a Creator. Scientifically, there is absolutely no proof of spontaneous generation. One must come to terms with either one or the other possibility. There is certainly much more evidence for GOD than for spontaneous generation.

From nothing comes everything.

God is no thing.

 

[Ringtone]

You claim God created everything then the burden of proof is on you

I do not believe your claim and I have no burden other than I don’t believe your theory

No. Actually, as we have seen time and time again from your posts on any given topic, it's the ramifications of the first principles of metaphysics and logic that you don't believe in . . . or pretend not to believe in, except, when, by necessity, you unwittingly—or is it ironically?—do believe in them every time you open your yap to assert anything at all.

It is readily self-evident that God must be; otherwise, it cannot be said that anything is true, which, of course, is inherently contradictory, self-negating. There's no burden of proof on the classical theist as such, precisely because the ramifications of the first principles of metaphysics and logic are known by all. Your argument is with them, not me.

The real issue is not whether or not God exists. The real issue, as Bezukhov points out, is which of the traditions of classical theism, if any, are true.

The pertinent ramifications of the first principles of metaphysics and logic you pretend not to believe in:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe (physical world) began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

Because I know that you're a mindless, slogan-spouting fool who doesn't think things through for himself, I'll help you understand why the conclusion entails the necessity of God's existence:

The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the material realm of being per the underlying imperatives of the first and second premise:​

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.​

​

3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​

3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​

3.3. The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​

3.4. But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​

3.5. An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​

3.6. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​

3.7. Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​

3.8. Hence, time began to exist.​

3.9. A material existent is a temporal existent.​

3.10. Hence, materiality began to exist.​

3.11. The universe is a material existent.​

3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.​

3.13. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​

3.14. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​

3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​

3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​

3.17. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​

Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.

 

[ding]

You claim God created everything then the burden of proof is on you

I do not believe your claim and I have no burden other than I don’t believe your theory

So your answer to the universe popping into existence predisposed to creating intelligence is what?

 

[rightwinger]

You claim God created everything then the burden of proof is on you

I do not believe your claim and I have no burden other than I don’t believe your theory

No. Actually, as we have seen time and time again from your posts on any given topic, it's the ramifications of the first principles of metaphysics and logic that you don't believe in . . . or pretend not to believe in, except, when, by necessity, you unwittingly—or is it ironically?—do believe in them every time you open your yap to assert anything at all.

It is readily self-evident that God must be; otherwise, it cannot be said that anything is true, which, of course, is inherently contradictory, self-negating. There's no burden of proof on the classical theist as such, precisely because the ramifications of the first principles of metaphysics and logic are known by all. Your argument is with them, not me.

The real issue is not whether or not God exists. The real issue, as Bezukhov points out, is which of the traditions of classical theism, if any, are true.

The pertinent ramifications of the first principles of metaphysics and logic you pretend not to believe in:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe (physical world) began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

Because I know that you're a mindless, slogan-spouting fool who doesn't think things through for himself, I'll help you understand why the conclusion entails the necessity of God's existence:

The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the material realm of being per the underlying imperatives of the first and second premise:​

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.​

​

3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​

3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​

3.3. The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​

3.4. But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​

3.5. An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​

3.6. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​

3.7. Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​

3.8. Hence, time began to exist.​

3.9. A material existent is a temporal existent.​

3.10. Hence, materiality began to exist.​

3.11. The universe is a material existent.​

3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.​

3.13. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​

3.14. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​

3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​

3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​

3.17. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​

Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.

tl;dr

You have a theory of an all powerful God who made everything
I don’t believe it
Your inability to convince me made me an Atheist

 

[rightwinger]

You claim God created everything then the burden of proof is on you

I do not believe your claim and I have no burden other than I don’t believe your theory

So your answer to the universe popping into existence predisposed to creating intelligence is what?

My answer is simple
Shit happens and we are the result

 

[Ringtone]

The fact of life is proof of a Creator. Scientifically, there is absolutely no proof of spontaneous generation. One must come to terms with either one or the other possibility. There is certainly much more evidence for GOD than for spontaneous generation.

i don’t see any case to be made for biological life requiring a supernatural creator. There is vastly more evidence for biological life resulting from the process of natural phenomenon than from your gods / competing gods using supernaturalism as the process. For the argument proposing supernaturalism, you will, of course, default to the supernatural creator(s) that commonly associated with western culture. The argument for supernaturalism is similarly made for competing gods associated with differentl cultures / geographic regions. What do you propose makes your gods more likely as the supernatural agents vs. competing gods?

More ad hominem. . . .

A real argument: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism, By Michael Rawlings (a.k.a., Ringtone)

 

[Donald H]

The only thing leftists, indeed, statist bootlicks, will ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads. —Ringtone

What a great way to kick off a topic for the religion section!

 

[Ringtone]

You claim God created everything then the burden of proof is on you

I do not believe your claim and I have no burden other than I don’t believe your theory

No. Actually, as we have seen time and time again from your posts on any given topic, it's the ramifications of the first principles of metaphysics and logic that you don't believe in . . . or pretend not to believe in, except, when, by necessity, you unwittingly—or is it ironically?—do believe in them every time you open your yap to assert anything at all.

It is readily self-evident that God must be; otherwise, it cannot be said that anything is true, which, of course, is inherently contradictory, self-negating. There's no burden of proof on the classical theist as such, precisely because the ramifications of the first principles of metaphysics and logic are known by all. Your argument is with them, not me.

The real issue is not whether or not God exists. The real issue, as Bezukhov points out, is which of the traditions of classical theism, if any, are true.

The pertinent ramifications of the first principles of metaphysics and logic you pretend not to believe in:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe (physical world) began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

Because I know that you're a mindless, slogan-spouting fool who doesn't think things through for himself, I'll help you understand why the conclusion entails the necessity of God's existence:

The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the material realm of being per the underlying imperatives of the first and second premise:​

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.​

​

3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​

3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​

3.3. The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​

3.4. But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​

3.5. An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​

3.6. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​

3.7. Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​

3.8. Hence, time began to exist.​

3.9. A material existent is a temporal existent.​

3.10. Hence, materiality began to exist.​

3.11. The universe is a material existent.​

3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.​

3.13. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​

3.14. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​

3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​

3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​

3.17. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​

Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.

tl;dr

You have a theory of an all powerful God who made everything
I don’t believe it
Your inability to convince me made me an Atheist

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . .

 

[Hollie]

The fact of life is proof of a Creator. Scientifically, there is absolutely no proof of spontaneous generation. One must come to terms with either one or the other possibility. There is certainly much more evidence for GOD than for spontaneous generation.

i don’t see any case to be made for biological life requiring a supernatural creator. There is vastly more evidence for biological life resulting from the process of natural phenomenon than from your gods / competing gods using supernaturalism as the process. For the argument proposing supernaturalism, you will, of course, default to the supernatural creator(s) that commonly associated with western culture. The argument for supernaturalism is similarly made for competing gods associated with differentl cultures / geographic regions. What do you propose makes your gods more likely as the supernatural agents vs. competing gods?

More ad hominem. . . .

A real argument: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism, By Michael Rawlings (a.k.a., Ringtone)

That’s not an argument. It’s a collection of fallacies, appeals to ignorance and appeals to supernaturalism.

 

[rightwinger]

You claim God created everything then the burden of proof is on you

I do not believe your claim and I have no burden other than I don’t believe your theory

No. Actually, as we have seen time and time again from your posts on any given topic, it's the ramifications of the first principles of metaphysics and logic that you don't believe in . . . or pretend not to believe in, except, when, by necessity, you unwittingly—or is it ironically?—do believe in them every time you open your yap to assert anything at all.

It is readily self-evident that God must be; otherwise, it cannot be said that anything is true, which, of course, is inherently contradictory, self-negating. There's no burden of proof on the classical theist as such, precisely because the ramifications of the first principles of metaphysics and logic are known by all. Your argument is with them, not me.

The real issue is not whether or not God exists. The real issue, as Bezukhov points out, is which of the traditions of classical theism, if any, are true.

The pertinent ramifications of the first principles of metaphysics and logic you pretend not to believe in:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe (physical world) began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

Because I know that you're a mindless, slogan-spouting fool who doesn't think things through for himself, I'll help you understand why the conclusion entails the necessity of God's existence:

The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the material realm of being per the underlying imperatives of the first and second premise:​

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.​

​

3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​

3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​

3.3. The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​

3.4. But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​

3.5. An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​

3.6. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​

3.7. Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​

3.8. Hence, time began to exist.​

3.9. A material existent is a temporal existent.​

3.10. Hence, materiality began to exist.​

3.11. The universe is a material existent.​

3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.​

3.13. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​

3.14. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​

3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​

3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​

3.17. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​

Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.

tl;dr

You have a theory of an all powerful God who made everything
I don’t believe it
Your inability to convince me made me an Atheist

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . .

damn....You failed again

Your inability to convince me makes me an atheist