- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
3
Posted on 2/11/14 at 7:25 am to MagicCityBlazer
quote:No. The burden at this stage is simply to question. Neither side is remotely close to proof. Infinite existence is illogical, whether it be animate or inanimate. The question is as to beginnings.
The burden of proof is to proove God does exist, not that you can't disprove him
Posted on 2/11/14 at 7:49 am to weagle99
quote:
Beheading non-believers (Islam) is just a little bit worse than interpreting the bible literally (Christianity).
Don't be naive. Plenty of Christians have used the Bible to justify all sorts of acts against humanity.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 7:50 am to stat19
quote:
Does that mean he proved there is no God?
If you watch the debate, you'll see how he did prove that the accounts of the book of Genesis aren't feasible, lack evidence, and in some cases are scientifically impossible.
So, no, he didn't "prove there is no God" (how would someone do that anyway?) but he did prove that one cannot claim that Genesis is a scientific account of our origins, as Ken Ham does.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 7:51 am to DCRebel
quote:
Plenty of Christians have used the Bible to justify all sorts of acts against humanity.
not that many in modern times, especially with the influence of western culture
radical islam rejects western culture
Posted on 2/11/14 at 7:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
not that many in modern times, especially with the influence of western culture
radical islam rejects western culture
I agree, but then again you can place more credit on things like industrialization and democratization for our peaceful societies.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 7:54 am to DCRebel
quote:Ah yes, on comes the relativism. Christians did bad things in the 14th century. Muslims do bad things now. So it's all the same. Yea!
Beheading non-believers (Islam) is just a little bit worse than interpreting the bible literally (Christianity).
Don't be naive. Plenty of Christians . . .
Posted on 2/11/14 at 7:55 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Infinite existence is illogical
is this the sticking point? If a being is greater than everything else known, there would have to be an unexplained characteristic would it not? Otherwise, that being would simply be like all others.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 7:56 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
No. The burden at this stage is simply to question.
Someone is making a claim through the bible, they should proove the claim or not be upset I don't buy into it.
Equivocating into various positions is not really important, claim must have more proof than "its in the book".
Posted on 2/11/14 at 7:58 am to DCRebel
quote:
but then again you can place more credit on things like industrialization and democratization for our peaceful societies.
western culture is built around individual freedom, especially trade and political participation
this leads to things like industrialization and advancement on quality of life
you don't get the advancement without the freedom. radical islam rejects both
Posted on 2/11/14 at 7:58 am to KeyserSoze999
quote:Hence the response to "burden of proof" being shouldered only by one side, and not the other.
there would have to be an unexplained characteristic would it not
Posted on 2/11/14 at 8:04 am to MagicCityBlazer
quote:Your extrapolation of Ham to religion in general, or Christians specifically, is no more valid than mine of Al Gore to science. Both are idiots. There is nothing "Biblical" about Young Earth Creationism, nor much of what Ham espouses.
Equivocating into various positions is not really important, claim must have more proof than "its in the book".
Your assertion regarding an asymmetric "burden of proof" is bs.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 8:08 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Your assertion regarding an asymmetric "burden of proof" is bs.
I'm not sure I understand your intention,
are you saying that the people and book making a God claim don't have the burden of proof?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 8:15 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Ah yes, on comes the relativism. Christians did bad things in the 14th century. Muslims do bad things now. So it's all the same. Yea!
Wait, you're accusing me of relativism? Or are you pointing out that your stance is relativist? Because basically you're saying "well, Christianity is, relatively speaking, better than Islam."
And the point still remains that religion and religious fervor in the hands of poor, unequal, and uneducated societies is a dangerous thing. Thankfully we are lucky enough to live in an industrialized, democratized society, which has largely disincentivized such violence.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 8:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
western culture is built around individual freedom, especially trade and political participation
this leads to things like industrialization and advancement on quality of life
you don't get the advancement without the freedom. radical islam rejects both
I agree.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 8:21 am to MagicCityBlazer
quote:
The burden of proof is to proove God does exist, not that you can't disprove him.
If God wanted me to believe why doesn't he just tell me?
I don't think the burden of proof is on either side.
it comes down to a question.
Why does the universe have existence rather than no existence?
to explain this further everything has a principle of sufficient reason. There is a reason why the thing has existence rather than has no existence. The question comes down to, what is the sufficient reason of the universe's existence? The reason is either found in itself or in another.
Note: saying the burden of proof is on the other is pretty much saying I'm not going to argue this I'm going to give you an impossible task to make sure I win the argument.
to add
Thesis (which includes any person who believes in any deity even if he believes that deity has no impact on our universe)
They must argue that the universe's sufficient reason is found outside of itself and even if it is something finite the ultimate sufficient reason for all existence is an eternal being that has the sufficient reason in itself.
Atheists must prove that the sufficient reason of the universe has it's own sufficient reason or the ultimate sufficient reason isn't some eternal being or somehow prove how the universe or the cosmos as a whole can exist without an eternal being or deity.
This post was edited on 2/11/14 at 8:25 am
Posted on 2/11/14 at 8:24 am to MagicCityBlazer
quote:You are either asserting something about existence or you aren't. In terms of origins, if one asserts scientific certainty, there is burden of proof. Otherwise the scientific task is to hypothesize and question. Faith has no burden. Science does.
I'm not sure I understand your intention,
are you saying that the people and book making a God claim don't have the burden of proof?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 8:27 am to catholictigerfan
quote:
I don't think the burden of proof is on either side.
I do, if only because my beliefs about the universe are perfectly functional without a deity or all-powerful being.
quote:
I'm going to give you an impossible task to make sure I win the argument.
It's not an argument. It's just a discussion.
If a scientist were to tell me that he 'knew' that aspirin raises your IQ I would ask for proof. I just have that same standard for everything, including religious claims.
I have friends that 'know' things about the bible's meaning, we're good friends, and I'm not trying to proselytize to anyone.
edit:
quote:
Faith has no burden. Science does.
Which is precisely why I trust science. Have a great day everyone, I'm out of this thread
This post was edited on 2/11/14 at 8:28 am
Posted on 2/11/14 at 8:27 am to catholictigerfan
quote:
Why does the universe have existence rather than no existence?
there doesn't have to be a genesis
this convention is part of our collective social consciousness, however, since so much of our history deals with stories that have a genesis. our worldview of history is built on this convention
once you release yourself, mentally, of this convention, that question becomes irrelevant
and just because of chance collisions of protons, neutrons, and electrons occurring over millions of years led to our creation doesn't mean that our lives are worthless. and if you want to know why, look to the very religious texts that have been adopted
over time, we have learned as a species that certain behaviors disrupt society and lead to societal inefficiencies. outlawing inefficient behaviors is good for society. in the past, in order to push this theory, sovereigns incorporated the concepts into state-based religion
as we develop as a species, our understanding of this concept has developed as well, which is why religions changed
once the enlightenment of freedom (especially of trade and political participation) was reached, the societal use of religion has decreased a great deal (for obvious reasons). we still need to improve ourselves to improve societal efficiencies, so we still have room to grow. religion isn't needed in order to realize this anymore. and this shows why we don't need religion for some sort of existence-justification or purpose
Posted on 2/11/14 at 8:27 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
In terms of origins, if one asserts scientific certainty, there is burden of proof. Otherwise the scientific task is to hypothesize and question
let me ask you a question goes to the others on the thread as well.
when it comes to origins we are ultimately asking what is the origin of matter?
now can science which studies matter know the origin of matter?
Page 5 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News