Does God exist? (10 Viewers)

[Cookie182]

Is he the chosen one who offers truth and salvation?@?@@!!

Aye

 

[sam04u]

if god dosent exist then how cum were all here?
fuckin no brainer

 

[Cookie182]

if god dosent exist then how cum were all here?
fuckin no brainer

That's the beginning of the answer.

 

[Lukybear]

Didnt this thread have 1000 pages?? What had happened?

 

[Silver Persian]

Didnt this thread have 1000 pages?? What had happened?

A few accounts have been deleted over the past week or so - so some posts that were previously part of the thread have disappeared.

Edit: I am really astounded that the split of atheists/theists is trending towards a 50/50 split. I thought the atheists would have had it by a mile.

 

[B_B_J]

believing in god doesn't equate to believing in religion.

 

[BradCube]

Theists, look up Christopher Hitchens and get over it already.

To be quite honest, I find Hitchens and pretty much all of the "new atheists" (dawkins, harris etc) to be quite lacking in their arguments. These people seem more angry with religion than angry with actual philosophical reasons for the belief in God.

 

[BradCube]

Edit: I am really astounded that the split of atheists/theists is trending towards a 50/50 split. I thought the atheists would have had it by a mile.

I love it, since it means that both parties have an equal share in the burden of proof.

 

[veloc1ty]

I love it, since it means that both parties have an equal share in the burden of proof.

How so?

 

[BradCube]

How so?

Generally speaking, the burden of proof lies with the one claiming something contrary to fact or a commonly assumed belief. In the case of our atheism vs theism poll, neither party can claim that their view is the default position since opinions on the issue are evenly split.

So with this, both the theist and the atheist are asserting a positive claim to knowledge by saying that "God does exist" or "God does not exist". Since neither of these claims are a default assumption (since votes are split 50/50) both shoulder the burden of proof equally in showing why their view is correct.

A good situation to be in when promoting lively discussion

 

[veloc1ty]

Generally speaking, the burden of proof lies with the one claiming something contrary to fact or a commonly assumed belief. In the case of our atheism vs theism poll, neither party can claim that their view is the default position since opinions on the issue are evenly split.

So with this, both the theist and the atheist are asserting a positive claim to knowledge by saying that "God does exist" or "God does not exist". Since neither of these claims are a default assumption (since votes are split 50/50) both shoulder the burden of proof equally in showing why their view is correct.

A good situation to be in when promoting lively discussion

I don't think the burden of proof can be determined by popular opinion. The theistic party is claiming a belief additional to those held of the atheistic party, and as such requires support.

Nonetheless, at this stage of the debate and with so many participants, it's not particularly important. We can just play tennis with the balls already in the air.

 

[BradCube]

I don't think the burden of proof can be determined by popular opinion. The theistic party is claiming a belief additional to those held of the atheistic party, and as such requires support.

Just as the atheistic party is claiming a belief additional to those held by the theistic party - namely that God does not exist. I regard both as positive claims to knowledge even if one view deals with the non-existence of something vs the actual existence of something.

 

[veloc1ty]

Just as the atheistic party is claiming a belief additional to those held by the theistic party - namely that God does not exist. I regard both as positive claims to knowledge even if one view deals with the non-existence of something vs the actual existence of something.

Personally, as an atheist, I do not make the claim that god cannot exist. I merely say that the theistic claim of god's existence is false. I am not making a positive claim of knowledge. The onus lies on the theistic party to support their claim.

 

[SAVAK]

The burden of proof is on the theists.

 

[Silver Persian]

Just as the atheistic party is claiming a belief additional to those held by the theistic party - namely that God does not exist. I regard both as positive claims to knowledge even if one view deals with the non-existence of something vs the actual existence of something.

I'm interested as to how you would go about positively proving the non-existence of something?

 

[Tully B.]

god does exist. i am he, he i am. i am alpha, and omega. I was, i am, and i will be. Zion shall be ur final sanctuary - the new jerusalem. Then shall i punish those who are gay

You're a dushe.

 

[BradCube]

Personally, as an atheist, I do not make the claim that god cannot exist. I merely say that the theistic claim of god's existence is false. I am not making a positive claim of knowledge. The onus lies on the theistic party to support their claim.

Aye, but note that even this is a claim to knowledge. I don't see how simply disagreeing with someone when they are arguing in the affirmative relieves you of the burden of proof.

To illustrate, imagine that we are instead discussing existence of the world. Who should shoulder the burden of proof in this case? Should our default position be in the negative? Am I able to fairly retort, that as an anti-world believer, I regard the world believers claim as false and so it's up to them to prove that the world exists?

 

[Cookie182]

To be quite honest, I find Hitchens and pretty much all of the "new atheists" (dawkins, harris etc) to be quite lacking in their arguments. These people seem more angry with religion than angry with actual philosophical reasons for the belief in God.

That's a fair comment.

I think to add weight to what your saying, most of them openly admit that they don't have a problem with somebody holding a private philosophical position that there maybe a "God". The issues arise when people start blindly following doctrine written by men, which not only asserts the divinity of a supposedly historical man, but attempts to write 'moral laws' in the name of this God's thoughts: which is simply an impossibility and a control mechanism of the weak.

I would agree that most of their writing simply rehashes older philosophical reasoning against the notion of believing in God itself. They are much more against the idea of organised religion- the indoctrination of a child, the spread of ideology with no evidence and its consequences in science education. I would agree that they seem to argue more on the sociology of religion as opposed to the philosophy of religion (none of them are philosophers).

Nevertheless, I share their concerns in regard to 'religion'- on the purely philosophical question of whether God exists, I am actually not that interested, as I will never know.

 

[katie tully]

omg brad cube is back ~

 

[veloc1ty]

Aye, but note that even this is a claim to knowledge. I don't see how simply disagreeing with someone when they are arguing in the affirmative relieves you of the burden of proof.

To illustrate, imagine that we are instead discussing existence of the world. Who should shoulder the burden of proof in this case? Should our default position be in the negative? Am I able to fairly retort, that as an anti-world believer, I regard the world believers claim as false and so it's up to them to prove that the world exists?

The default position is indeed with the side who has a lack of belief, and their support for that position is the absence of evidence to the contrary. The theistic side must support their positive claim by providing justification for their belief.

Trying to pin the atheistic side with a "positive claim of knowledge" is not only deceptive but purposely ignores the fundamental principle of inquiry. In your example, yes, you can claim the world-believer's claim as false, but they would be able to provide strong evidence that the world as we usually consider it does in fact exist, so it's not a problem. If the burden of proof was on the non-believer's side, we would be obliged to believe in all manner of unfalsifiable propositions like leprechauns and fairies.