Teacher Demands Her Students Deny the Existence of God

[bodecea]

Cannot disprove a negative, the onus is on the ones that claims a positive statement about a god. That's like me saying prove that invisible blue monkeys don't fly out of the exhaust of a car

That's why in religion its called faith and not fact

If you are an atheist you should be able to prove that there is no God.

Some people believe there is no God. It is an act of faith. You could call it faith-based pessimism.

Don't atheists make the positive statement: Belief in God is ill-considered. Don't they have to prove it?

Prove what? That there isn't something?


Argument from ignorance
Arguments similar to, "Belief in proposition X is justified because you can't prove it's not true," are based on the premise that belief in something is justified until sufficient evidence refutes its existence (i.e. argument from ignorance). In this case, the theist is asserting that belief in God is justified even without evidence. While this view may seem reasonable to those who already accept the existence of God, this approach to belief merely represents a form of compartmentalization. If we were to broadly accept the general premise (i.e., "belief is warranted because you can't prove a negative"), we would be unable to develop any useful picture of reality because every claim would be necessarily accepted as true until it was disproved. This is a burden that is impossible to meet when dealing with supernatural claims. The theist is compartmentalizing his or her supernatural beliefs and applying standards different from those applied to other beliefs. To put it more bluntly, a rational person does not seriously claim that leprechauns or unicorns must be assumed to exist because we have not disproved their existence.

Tellingly, apologists typically apply this premise only to questions pertaining to their particular religion — and not to questions pertaining to other religions. The Christian who argues, "You can't prove God doesn't exist," would almost certainly reject such an argument from a Hindu who says, "You can't prove Vishnu doesn't exist!" This compartmentalization, in which one's cherished beliefs are subjected to a special set of standards, is a form of special pleading.

Atheism can be defined as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." Following this definition you would have to prove there is no God to be an atheist.

Never said this: Belief in proposition X is justified because you can't prove it's not true.

Religions have different ideas about God, though they agree sometimes as well. This doesn't mean there isn't a God behind the speculation.

But it does mean that God cannot be proven to exist

Why? People have different ideas about dinosaurs, planets, etc. yet we can prove they exist.

Exactly.....as you just pointed out....it's the proving they exist. Not the proving they don't exist.

 

[Thunderbird]

Guno, and the rest of the anti-Godists, (1) fall flat on their face because they have not the logic to disprove the existence of God, and (2) reveal their faith belief system of no belief in God.

I can't prove that little blue teapots don't dance on the moon, and lucky for me I don't have to. If you say they do, proving so is now on you, otherwise it's just an irrational belief in something not known, by any human, to exist. That is what God is, unknown.

Actually you could prove that. But I understand your point: you are agnostic with regard to blue teapots. Would you say a declaration that there is no God is also irrational?

 

[Thunderbird]

So you are expecting people to prove a negative.

Only if someone asserts they are an atheist, given the definition atheism = the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

You know that's silly, right? You can't prove there aren't invisible monsters under your bed, but I'm sure you don't believe in them.

You can't prove something doesn't exist, especially the supernatural.

Okay, so if we follow the definition I provided you are an agnostic regarding the supernatural.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Guno, and the rest of the anti-Godists, (1) fall flat on their face because they have not the logic to disprove the existence of God, and (2) reveal their faith belief system of no belief in God.

I can't prove that little blue teapots don't dance on the moon, and lucky for me I don't have to. If you say they do, proving so is now on you, otherwise it's just an irrational belief in something not known, by any human, to exist. That is what God is, unknown.

Actually you could prove that. But I understand your point: you are agnostic with regard to blue teapots. Would you say a declaration that there is no God is also irrational?

Because it's taking a firm position on an unknown. It's irrational. Both Atheists and Theists are wrong, dead wrong. God is unknown, probably unknowable. That is the only rational position.

 

[Pogo]

This site claims: "You can’t prove it either way." Of course many people, including some renowned philosophers, have said otherwise.

Bullshit.

Is this the reaction of a rational thinker? lol You really should work on your thinking skills.

Um.... you're the one who just claimed to speak for "renowned philosophers" claiming to be able to prove the unprovable --- with no link whatsoever, Sparky.

So -- bullshit.

Read my sigline.

Obviously I did not claim to speak for renowned philosophers. I guess you should work on your reading comprehension as well. Maybe you should stop posting on public forums until you are less ignorant?

What does the phrase "have said otherwise" --- referring directly to "you can't prove it either way" ---- mean then?

Does it mean that Transylvanian unicorns like licorice in their sauerkraut?

There ain't a damn thing amiss with my reading comprehension, Bubbles.

 

[Thunderbird]

Some arguments for the existence Of God:

Teleological arguments

• What is the "fine-tuning" of the universe, and how does it serve as a "pointer to God"?
  
• Why is the universe so beautiful? If you don't believe in Design you think the universe is a random mess, and how can a random mess be beautiful?
  
• Why can the physical world be described by elegant equations? Here's John Polkinghorne: "We are so familiar with the fact that we can understand the world that most of the time we take it for granted. It is what makes science possible. Yet it could have been otherwise. The universe might have been a disorderly chaos rather than an orderly cosmos."

Cosmological argument

Dr. John Lennox

Other

Why should we discard the testimony of billions who pray and think they have encountered God?

 

[Thunderbird]

This site claims: "You can’t prove it either way." Of course many people, including some renowned philosophers, have said otherwise.

Bullshit.

Is this the reaction of a rational thinker? lol You really should work on your thinking skills.

Um.... you're the one who just claimed to speak for "renowned philosophers" claiming to be able to prove the unprovable --- with no link whatsoever, Sparky.

So -- bullshit.

Read my sigline.

Obviously I did not claim to speak for renowned philosophers. I guess you should work on your reading comprehension as well. Maybe you should stop posting on public forums until you are less ignorant?

What does the phrase "have said otherwise" --- referring directly to "you can't prove it either way" ---- mean then?

Does it mean that Transylvanian unicorns like licorice in their sauerkraut?

There ain't a damn thing amiss with my reading comprehension, Bubbles.

Stating someone's position is not speaking for them. That's like saying someone who points out Obama is a Democrat is speaking for Obama.

 

[Thunderbird]

Guno, and the rest of the anti-Godists, (1) fall flat on their face because they have not the logic to disprove the existence of God, and (2) reveal their faith belief system of no belief in God.

I can't prove that little blue teapots don't dance on the moon, and lucky for me I don't have to. If you say they do, proving so is now on you, otherwise it's just an irrational belief in something not known, by any human, to exist. That is what God is, unknown.

Actually you could prove that. But I understand your point: you are agnostic with regard to blue teapots. Would you say a declaration that there is no God is also irrational?

Because it's taking a firm position on an unknown. It's irrational. Both Atheists and Theists are wrong, dead wrong. God is unknown, probably unknowable. That is the only rational position.

So you have a rational proof that God is unknowable?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Some arguments for the existence Of God:

Teleological arguments

• What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”?
  
• Why is the universe so beautiful? If you don't believe in Design you think the universe is a random mess, and how can a random mess be beautiful?
  
• Why can the physical world be described by elegant equations? Here's John Polkinghorne: “We are so familiar with the fact that we can understand the world that most of the time we take it for granted. It is what makes science possible. Yet it could have been otherwise. The universe might have been a disorderly chaos rather than an orderly cosmos."

Cosmological argument

[ame="[MEDIA=youtube]WQXmLI6VAwc[/MEDIA]"]Dr. John Lennox[/ame]

Other

Why should we discard the testimony of billions who pray and think they have encountered God?

Those are a snap to destroy, as are all arguments trying to prove the existence of God.

Tell us, is this beautiful?

If not then I guess you weren't born on Mars. The earth was not tuned for you, you were tuned for the earth. People see creation here but not on Mars. That's just a rock while they want this:

To a Martian that would like like a great place to get dead in all that cold water, not the creation of God.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Guno, and the rest of the anti-Godists, (1) fall flat on their face because they have not the logic to disprove the existence of God, and (2) reveal their faith belief system of no belief in God.

I can't prove that little blue teapots don't dance on the moon, and lucky for me I don't have to. If you say they do, proving so is now on you, otherwise it's just an irrational belief in something not known, by any human, to exist. That is what God is, unknown.

Actually you could prove that. But I understand your point: you are agnostic with regard to blue teapots. Would you say a declaration that there is no God is also irrational?

Because it's taking a firm position on an unknown. It's irrational. Both Atheists and Theists are wrong, dead wrong. God is unknown, probably unknowable. That is the only rational position.

So you have a rational proof that God is unknowable?

That's why I said, ah, probably. Got it now?

 

[ogibillm]

So you are expecting people to prove a negative.

Only if someone asserts they are an atheist, given the definition atheism = the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

You know that's silly, right? You can't prove there aren't invisible monsters under your bed, but I'm sure you don't believe in them.

You can't prove something doesn't exist, especially the supernatural.

Okay, so if we follow the definition I provided you are an agnostic regarding the supernatural.

What i am is irrelevant. Theists have faith in a god that cannot be proven. Atheists do not believe in the existence of god because it cannot be proven. Which means the statement "there is a god" is a common assertion, but not a fact.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Don't forget the other major problem here, you meet the aliens and they also believe in God but look nothing like a human, they look like a big toaster over. So, which one of you is made in the Image of God because theirs is said to be a Big Glorious Toaster Oven, with a halo....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fallacy of false standard: "Apologists have the burden of proof for the existence of god since they are making a knowledge claim." What a stupid comment, Guno, by you. We simply say we believe it. Who cares if you don't?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Fallacy of false standard: "Apologists have the burden of proof for the existence of god since they are making a knowledge claim." What a stupid comment, Guno, by you. We simply say we believe it. Who cares if you don't?

The believers, in a big ******* way...

 

[JimBowie1958]

Atheism can be defined as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." Following this definition you would have to prove there is no God to be an atheist, unless you were relying on faith.

Never said this: Belief in proposition X is justified because you can't prove it's not true.

Religions have different ideas about God, though they agree sometimes as well. This doesn't mean there isn't a God behind the speculation.

There are 'soft' atheists who say they do not believe due to the lack of evidence, and yet it is well known that the absence of proof is not itself proof of absence. This is the logical flaw of overstating your case due to lack of evidence one way or the other.

On the other hand one is not justified in saying that they believe BECAUSE there is no evidence to the contrary. That is just choosing to believe a pleasant story that one can neither support or defend. This is called 'fideism' and is considered a heresy in the Catholic church.

The Strong atheist argument is that they have positive proof that there is no God, but they are kind of rare these days.

The fact is that atheism is a fringe kookburger group that accepts the absurd claim because of social constructs mostly and the vast majority have not studied the subject, but merely google quotes or simple responses that are just amazingly ignorant of the subject matter, like comparing the Creator to Zeus or asking 'what came before the 'outside the flow of time' Eternal Being.

That is like trying to talk about football with a person that insists that there are always 3 quarters and never more. How do you proceed with such an ignorant and mentally flawed person?

 

[Pogo]

Bullshit.

Is this the reaction of a rational thinker? lol You really should work on your thinking skills.

Um.... you're the one who just claimed to speak for "renowned philosophers" claiming to be able to prove the unprovable --- with no link whatsoever, Sparky.

So -- bullshit.

Read my sigline.

Obviously I did not claim to speak for renowned philosophers. I guess you should work on your reading comprehension as well. Maybe you should stop posting on public forums until you are less ignorant?

What does the phrase "have said otherwise" --- referring directly to "you can't prove it either way" ---- mean then?

Does it mean that Transylvanian unicorns like licorice in their sauerkraut?

There ain't a damn thing amiss with my reading comprehension, Bubbles.

Stating someone's position is not speaking for them. That's like saying someone who points out Obama is a Democrat is speaking for Obama.

Look. It ain't rocket surgery here. Someone back there said, or quoted the school exercise, noting "you can't prove it either way".

[Step one]

I'm going r e a l s l o w so you can follow..

THEN... in response, YOU posted that "renowned philosophers" -- who were never named, quoted or linked in any way ---- "have said otherwise". Those are your words, verbatim.

[Step two]

Let's review just that much.....

One assertion --- "you can't prove it either way" --- was challenged as unknown nameless "renowned philosophers" --- "have said otherwise"....

Still with me? Am I going too fast?

----That response MEANS that YOU are claiming that some nameless formless disembodied spirits --- claim that "you CAN prove it either way".

That IS what "have said otherwise" MEANS.

Then I said, to all the above, "Bullshit".

And that is as far as it went. Because there's nowhere to go from there.
Which is where you went.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Non-believer has every right to not believe.

They simply can't prove their position.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Non-believer has every right to not believe.

They simply can't prove their position.

Neither can the believers.

There is only one rational position, God is unknown.

 

[Thunderbird]

Tell us, is this beautiful?

Bleak environments can be very beautiful!

The earth was not tuned for you, you were tuned for the earth.

Quote from the website I linked to earlier: But with regard to the development of life on Earth, it is sometimes claimed that natural selection would find a way for life to develop no matter what the circumstances. In this way, nature is sometimes said to tune itself. However, the fine-tuning of carbon is even responsible for nature’s ability to tune itself to any degree. As professor Alister McGrath has pointed out: "[The entire biological] evolutionary process depends upon the unusual chemistry of carbon, which allows it to bond to itself, as well as other elements, creating highly complex molecules that are stable over prevailing terrestrial temperatures, and are capable of conveying genetic information (especially DNA). […] Whereas it might be argued that nature creates its own fine-tuning, this can only be done if the primordial constituents of the universe are such that an evolutionary process can be initiated. The unique chemistry of carbon is the ultimate foundation of the capacity of nature to tune itself."

Your counterarguments were a snap to destroy. lol

 

[Thunderbird]

Guno, and the rest of the anti-Godists, (1) fall flat on their face because they have not the logic to disprove the existence of God, and (2) reveal their faith belief system of no belief in God.

I can't prove that little blue teapots don't dance on the moon, and lucky for me I don't have to. If you say they do, proving so is now on you, otherwise it's just an irrational belief in something not known, by any human, to exist. That is what God is, unknown.

Actually you could prove that. But I understand your point: you are agnostic with regard to blue teapots. Would you say a declaration that there is no God is also irrational?

Because it's taking a firm position on an unknown. It's irrational. Both Atheists and Theists are wrong, dead wrong. God is unknown, probably unknowable. That is the only rational position.

So you have a rational proof that God is unknowable?

That's why I said, ah, probably. Got it now?

Okay so what is your rational proof that God is unknown.