Atheism

[JustJ]

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1582382' date='Jun 24 2008, 10:57 PM']No, Christians have no burden of proof.[/quote]
Incorrect. Just because you can't prove your god doesn't mean that you shouldn't have to, unless you're willing to accept things on faith without evidence.
[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1582382' date='Jun 24 2008, 10:57 PM']By definition, our God is unprovable. To demand proof in your narrow scientific view is unreasonable, to put it mildly. The "burden of proof" will always lie in those that put forth theories in the realm of science. To attempt to encapsulate God in the realm of science is an illogical trap that will never bear fruit. But we can poke holes in athiest's theories all we want and show that they're no better at disproving God than we are proving Him. [/quote]
Oh, so you can't prove your god exists. [i]Why should I believe?[/i]

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1582386' date='Jun 24 2008, 09:59 PM']Incorrect. Just because you can't prove your god doesn't mean that you shouldn't have to, unless you're willing to accept things on faith without evidence.

Oh, so you can't prove your god exists. [i]Why should I believe?[/i][/quote]

We can't scientifically subject God to tests, because he transcends science. My point is that we cannot scientifically prove His existence, and unless you are willing to open your mind to the possibility that some things operate outside the realms of science and on a spiritual realm, then how could we convince you using your specific set of terminologies, when our God exists outside of those scientific terminologies? It's illogical to ask that. We see two worlds and how they interact; you only see one world. We speak in two different languages.

[Alycin]

The burden of proof is on the person stating that something[i] is[/i]. Shifting the burden of proof would be saying that the person that isn't making the claim, should disprove the person making a claim.

ETA:

This is a better explanation:

"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

"OK, so if you don't think the grey aliens have gained control of the US government, can you prove it?""

Edited June 25, 2008 by Alycin

[Alycin]

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1582395' date='Jun 24 2008, 11:07 PM']We can't scientifically subject God to tests, because he transcends science. My point is that we cannot scientifically prove His existence, and unless you are willing to open your mind to the possibility that some things operate outside the realms of science and on a spiritual realm, then how could we convince you using your specific set of terminologies, when our God exists outside of those scientific terminologies? It's illogical to ask that. We see two worlds and how they interact; you only see one world. We speak in two different languages.[/quote]




You explained it in such a simple and concise way. It would have taken me days to try to explain that.

[lilac_angel]

Despite that, you can still build up "evidence" for God's existence, as long as you seek it. Stick around Catholics long enough, read literature written by people of faith and how they've experienced reality, [u]live[/u] the faith long enough, and you'll build up a body of evidence to support belief in God - not just scientific (and by scientific evidence I'm talking more along the lines of things that DEFY science, i.e. miracles) but spiritual and [i]life[/i] evidence - that will blow any athiest's supposed evidence for the nonexistance of God out of the water. It's not an instantaneous thing for a lot of people, unless they're one of the luckier ones. If there was a magic method of discovering God and believing in Him, we wouldn't need a lot of the Bible, which encourages our faith despite not always being able to sense God. A lot of us just have to struggle into it. Many figure out that living the Gospel [i]first[/i] -- completely and not giving up even if hardship hits -- is the only way to realize just how complete, perfect and true it is.

Edited June 25, 2008 by lilac_angel

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1582403' date='Jun 24 2008, 10:14 PM']

You explained it in such a simple and concise way. It would have taken me days to try to explain that.[/quote]

Wow, really? Thanks so much!! Your encouragement means a lot to me.

[JustJ]

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1582395' date='Jun 24 2008, 11:07 PM']We can't scientifically subject God to tests, because he transcends science.[/quote]
The point I'm trying to make is that your god does not transcend science. Your god does not exist. There is a difference.
[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1582395' date='Jun 24 2008, 11:07 PM']My point is that we cannot scientifically prove His existence, and unless you are willing to open your mind to the possibility that some things operate outside the realms of science and on a spiritual realm, then how could we convince you using your specific set of terminologies, when our God exists outside of those scientific terminologies? It's illogical to ask that. We see two worlds and how they interact; you only see one world. We speak in two different languages.[/quote]
Glad to hear it. They work on two entirely different worlds.

As long as he stays on his world, I won't have to come back here.

No, but seriously, if you could give me any proof of this other world, I might then have some reason to believe. Until then, it doesn't exist as far as I can possibly know.
[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1582406' date='Jun 24 2008, 11:16 PM']Despite that, you can still build up "evidence" for God's existence, as long as you seek it. Stick around Catholics long enough, read literature written by people of faith and how they've experienced reality, [u]live[/u] the faith long enough, and you'll build up a body of evidence to support belief in God - not just scientific (and by scientific evidence I'm talking more along the lines of things that DEFY science, i.e. miracles) but spiritual evidence - that will blow any athiest's supposed evidence for the nonexistance of God out of the water. It's not an instantaneous thing for a lot of people, unless they're one of the luckier ones. If there was a magic method of discovering God and believing in Him, we wouldn't need a lot of the Bible, which encourages our faith despite not always being able to sense God. A lot of us just have to struggle into it. Many figure out that living the Gospel [i]first[/i] -- completely and not giving up even if hardship hits -- is the only way to realize just how complete, perfect and true it is.[/quote]
haha, wow.

You do realize that if you live firmly believing that you are invincible, and nothing actually hurts you, and you won't really die, you will begin to see evidence of this! Ignore the fact that it can be interpreted another way, and DEFINITELY ignore all evidence that suggests that you are not immortal!

Best part: You'll never be proven wrong. As long as you've got your faith, you can rest assured that you will survive. You're just really tired for some reason. Time for a nap.

(This is what you call delusion, btw.)

[Alycin]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1582416' date='Jun 24 2008, 11:24 PM'](This is what you call delusion, btw.)[/quote]



That is not a fair statement. You have said before that you believe that people of faith are that way because of personal experience and not because of SCIENTIFIC evidence. It is personal evidence. It's not fair to call that delusion.

Edited June 25, 2008 by Alycin

[JustJ]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1582426' date='Jun 24 2008, 11:30 PM']

That is not a fair statement. You have said before that you believe that people of faith are that way because of personal experience and not because of SCIENTIFIC evidence. It is personal evidence. It's not fair to call that delusion. [/quote]
They are delusional because of personal experience that they cannot prove. Your point?

[JustJ]

de·lu·sion (dĭ-lū'zhən)
n.

1.
1. The act or process of deluding.
2. The state of being deluded.
2. A false belief or opinion: [i]labored under the delusion that success was at hand.[/i]
3. Psychiatry. [b]A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence,[/b] especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

[b]bolding mine[/b]

[lilac_angel]

Show me this invalidating evidence that supposedly disproves God beyond any doubt, and you'll convince me I'm delusional. Have you ever addressed the Eucharistic miracles or Miracle of the Sun, btw? That, along with the millions of other miracles God has granted, is the type of proof you'd accept, it seems, but only if it fell into your lap. Choose to ignore it all if you shall, as amazing as it is, and how often things like that have happened over the course of history and still do. There's not a lot of delusion involved in DNA mutating. I've lived with faith in only [u]myself[/u] in the past; didn't work out. And believe me, I *really* believed in myself. Completely backfired after a while. Then I lived the Gospel despite it going completely against my nature, and guess what, it's proving itself to be true DESPITE myself. No, this doesn't fall along the lines of delusion. I'm skeptical and pessimistic by nature myself, and that would make me less susceptible to the deluision that what I'm doing is a good thing. I'd need a lot of proof to believe it. And I did get proof that was more than good enough, thus far. So I'll continue to believe and progress in learning, since I have experienced no reason or reasoning so far not to believe. Occam's spiritual razor.

Edited June 25, 2008 by lilac_angel

[JustJ]

I didn't address either satisfactorily because I have no good answers for them at this time aside from what I've already said.

And if you limit your god to a world outside of science and natural law, then I am afraid that I will not agree with your god hypothesis without some other kind of proof that this is even possible.

[Alycin]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1582436' date='Jun 24 2008, 11:36 PM']de·lu·sion (dĭ-lū'zhən)
n.

1.
1. The act or process of deluding.
2. The state of being deluded.
2. A false belief or opinion: [i]labored under the delusion that success was at hand.[/i]
3. Psychiatry. [b]A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence,[/b] especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

[b]bolding mine[/b][/quote]

Science does not disprove God, you have said so yourself. So there is no invalidating evidence, and only validating evidence, even if it is only personal.

[Nihil Obstat]

What it often comes down to is theists accepting evidence and atheists denying it. In the case of most of our validated miracles, we have scientific evidence to support that our claims have some merit (like real blood and flesh taking the physical place of the bread and wine) and you have flimsy, if any reason to refute this. (Spontaneous rearrangement of atomic structure, maybe? Other than that you just can't explain how that would happen.)
The sun dancing in the sky... 70000 people saw this. 70000 eyewitnesses would swear before whatever you like that the water in the ground was dried by the sun, am I correct? Not to mention this happened exactly when it was predicted it would. You explain it as a massive optical illusion.
Look at this purely objectively. While seems more legitimate?

[JustJ]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1582462' date='Jun 24 2008, 11:50 PM']Science does not disprove God, you have said so yourself. So there is no invalidating evidence, and only validating evidence, even if it is only personal.[/quote]
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

God has no scientific proof, as you will admit.

Since I am not ready to accept spiritual arguments on faith, you need to show me some sort of proof that something like that can even work. Really.

Is it so much to ask that I be shown reason to believe? God's miracles that don't come with a proof of ownership will be overlooked; that is to say, if it doesn't actually suggest god, and more specifically, god as catholicism paints him, why should I believe in your specific god?