What I love about the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob

[Kalam]

I see your point, but he is debating the existence of time forever. The only thing we can observe and make a "provable" statement of is that time has existed for all of recorded history. Beyond that it is mere speculation. So therefore, the burden of proof lies on BOTH.

I'm not really sure about your discussion as it pertains to time, but I'll point out that spacetime came into existence ~13.7 billion years ago when the universe began expanding. The existence of time cannot be said to stretch infinitely into the past.

As for the existence of a god vs. the nonexistence of a god, the burden of proof again lies on BOTH. Even if you knew HALF of everything in this world (which you would be lying if you said you did) there is still HALF of everything that you don't know. Therefore a god could still exist in that other half.

It is rational to assume that something doesn't exist until its existence is confirmed with tangible evidence or demonstrated logically. The existence of the anthropomorphic Christian God has not been demonstrated logically and, in my opinion, can't be.

 

[Anguille]

And what is happening today...our own government is negotiating with our children to have them bowing down to Allah in public school so we can "understand the common ground"

Care to try to back up that ridiculous claim with some facts?

Yoo hoo!! Oh JennyPoo!

 

[THE LIGHT]

He's technically correct. If you're debating the existence of something, the burden of proof lies with the discussant who has an affirmative argument.

If I showed you an apple and you said it wasn't there, the burden of proof is with me?

Tangible and incontrovertible evidence directly in front of me would prove your point. That is not an accurate analogy because the existence of the apple is incontrovertible and can easily be confirmed. What I explained in my previous post was basic logic, not something I simply made up.

Right, I don't have any problem with that. I don't expect you or anyone else to believe there is a god (although I would suppose you believe there is a god, namely Allah seeing your avatar). But just because they BELIEVE there is no god doesn't mean that there isn't. They still have to prove it just like I do.

A better example is if I stuck a cup on the table. One person said that there was nothing under it and another person said there was something under it. Who's burden of proof is it?

 

[THE LIGHT]

And what is happening today...our own government is negotiating with our children to have them bowing down to Allah in public school so we can "understand the common ground"

Care to try to back up that ridiculous claim with some facts?

Yoo hoo!! Oh JennyPoo!

I think she has more facts than you want to know on that one.

 

[JenT]

He's technically correct. If you're debating the existence of something, the burden of proof lies with the discussant who has an affirmative argument.

If I showed you an apple and you said it wasn't there, the burden of proof is with me?

Tangible and incontrovertible evidence directly in front of me would prove your point. That is not an accurate analogy because the existence of the apple is incontrovertible and can easily be confirmed. What I explained in my previous post was basic logic, not something I simply made up.

Then the incontrovertible evidence is us. In Christ, we are the body. I guess the only one that knows for sure is the being in the body, that we are indwelled with the Holy Spirit in communion with Him.

That's why we testify. But the only way anyone can know for sure for themselves is to invite Him in themselves.

 

[JenT]

And what is happening today...our own government is negotiating with our children to have them bowing down to Allah in public school so we can "understand the common ground"

Care to try to back up that ridiculous claim with some facts?

Yoo hoo!! Oh JennyPoo!

sorry, did I miss this earlier? What do you want for proof?

 

[Kalam]

If I showed you an apple and you said it wasn't there, the burden of proof is with me?

Tangible and incontrovertible evidence directly in front of me would prove your point. That is not an accurate analogy because the existence of the apple is incontrovertible and can easily be confirmed. What I explained in my previous post was basic logic, not something I simply made up.

Then the incontrovertible evidence is us. In Christ, we are the body. I guess the only one that knows for sure is the being in the body, that we are indwelled with the Holy Spirit in communion with Him.

That's why we testify. But the only way anyone can know for sure for themselves is to invite Him in themselves.

That evidence is by no means incontrovertible. If, like an apple, you could pull your God out of your pocket and show him to me, it would be different.

 

[Kalam]

Right, I don't have any problem with that. I don't expect you or anyone else to believe there is a god (although I would suppose you believe there is a god, namely Allah seeing your avatar).

Yes, but mine does not actively interfere in our universe and does not exist as a physical entity.

But just because they BELIEVE there is no god doesn't mean that there isn't. They still have to prove it just like I do.

If they believe that your God does not exist they are merely taking the rational position (that is, unless someone demonstrates your God's existence.) If they claim to know for sure that your God doesn't exist, their position becomes irrational.

A better example is if I stuck a cup on the table. One person said that there was nothing under it and another person said there was something under it. Who's burden of proof is it?

The burden of proof lies with the second person unless evidence of something under the cup is immediately obvious.

 

[Anguille]

Care to try to back up that ridiculous claim with some facts?

Yoo hoo!! Oh JennyPoo!

sorry, did I miss this earlier? What do you want for proof?

Proof that, as you claim, "our own government is negotiating with our children to have them bowing down to Allah in public school so we can "understand the common ground" "

Prayer is prohibited in public schools in the US.

 

[Anguille]

Care to try to back up that ridiculous claim with some facts?

Yoo hoo!! Oh JennyPoo!

I think she has more facts than you want to know on that one.

Well then where are they? And why do you call yourself The Light? Sounds rather pompous if you ask me.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Yoo hoo!! Oh JennyPoo!

I think she has more facts than you want to know on that one.

And why do you call yourself The Light? Sounds rather pompous if you ask me.

Sorry, I don't mean to come across as pompous and for the record, I myself am nothing but a sinner saved by grace however Jesus said, " ye are the light of the world..." (Matthew 5:14) so that is where it come from.

Thanks for asking

 

[THE LIGHT]

Right, I don't have any problem with that. I don't expect you or anyone else to believe there is a god (although I would suppose you believe there is a god, namely Allah seeing your avatar).

Yes, but mine does not actively interfere in our universe and does not exist as a physical entity.

But just because they BELIEVE there is no god doesn't mean that there isn't. They still have to prove it just like I do.

If they believe that your God does not exist they are merely taking the rational position (that is, unless someone demonstrates your God's existence.) If they claim to know for sure that your God doesn't exist, their position becomes irrational.

A better example is if I stuck a cup on the table. One person said that there was nothing under it and another person said there was something under it. Who's burden of proof is it?

The burden of proof lies with the second person unless evidence of something under the cup is immediately obvious.

how is something not under the cup immediately obvious?

 

[Kalam]

A better example is if I stuck a cup on the table. One person said that there was nothing under it and another person said there was something under it. Who's burden of proof is it?

The burden of proof lies with the second person unless evidence of something under the cup is immediately obvious.[/quote]

how is something not under the cup immediately obvious?[/QUOTE]
It can be assumed that nothing is under the cup unless evidence of it exists. Otherwise, you're assuming that something exists for no real reason.

 

[THE LIGHT]

A better example is if I stuck a cup on the table. One person said that there was nothing under it and another person said there was something under it. Who's burden of proof is it?

The burden of proof lies with the second person unless evidence of something under the cup is immediately obvious.

how is something not under the cup immediately obvious?[/quote]

It can be assumed that nothing is under the cup unless evidence of it exists. Otherwise, you're assuming that something exists for no real reason.

yes, but you aare assuming that nothing exists for no real reason.

The only definative conclusion we can come to is that "we don't know." That is the default.

 

[Kalam]

yes, but you aare assuming that nothing exists for no real reason.

The absence of any evidence would be reason enough.

The only definative conclusion we can come to is that "we don't know." That is the default.

There's certainly that, but if a guess is to be taken one way or the other, it's more rational to assume that something doesn't exist if there is no evidence of its existence.

I agree that it is wholly irrational to claim that you know for sure that something either is or isn't under the cup.

 

[JBeukema]

As for the existence of a god vs. the nonexistence of a god, the burden of proof again lies on BOTH.

As kalam has already explained this to you, you cannot claim mere ignorance and gross stupidity. It is now clear that you are liar, pure and simple

The thing here is your looking for a Biblical Sky God. Your not looking for the creator of life.

Something you have to understand here which I see that many people over look that the concept of God is an explaination why you are here. If you can not accept the explaination then why do you exist? Things are always made with a purpose.

You have not demonstrated that anything was 'made' or that 'things are always made with a purpose'

If I showed you an apple and you said it wasn't there, the burden of proof is with me?

Yes. If you insist there is an apple, you must produce evidence of the apple; that your are too stupid to comprehend such simple matters explains why you are a 'christian'

 

[JBeukema]

Then the incontrovertible evidence is us..

All you evidence is that theists are generally stupid and uneducated

 

[JBeukema]

TL doesn't seem able to comprehend that gnosticism and theism address two different questions. In fact, he doesn't seem to comprehend much at all.

 

[Uknow_me72]

Your thinking to much instead of knowing.

JB we all know the rules of the occult and the spiritual religions.

One of the things that all of them leave out is what we can not tell you.

Is it because it is not there or because you the own person has understand to experiance it?

Your asking for an indiscrible this is why you will never get an answer unless you go for yourself.

 

[AllieBaba]

Then the incontrovertible evidence is us..

All you evidence is that theists are generally stupid and uneducated

Spare me, hick.

NOVA | scienceNOW | Profile: Brothers Chudnovsky | PBS

They believe pi is the key to understanding the mind of God. Which is one of the reasons they deciphered it to 2 billion places.