We can't prove if God exists or not, but what we can prove...

[dontconfuseme]

Quote by: Jack Using Biblical tales, themselves unsubstantiated, to attempt to substantiate theology is indeed unacceptable evidence of god"s existence. The evidence must first be substantiated, shown to be valid and testable, before it can be introduced as support for the claims of god's existence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If gods exist in reality and affect reality, there ought to be evidence that can be skeptically examined and remain valid. Nor do we need to except when proposing naturalism as an alternative to theism. Simply asking theists for evidence that supports their contentions does not obligate me to provide evidence that supports my skepticism. In other words, we're discussing what I don't see any reason to accept, not what I do have reason to accept.

You may either use the same standards you require of theists or not. You haven't substantiated an a priori commitment to Naturalism at all. If you require it of me, then YOUR presuppositions must also be substantiated.

Carl Sagan rightly gathered that "[e]xtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." However, my point in all this has been that you and Sagan and atheists in general assume (unargued, thus far) that Naturalism is "ordinary," while all other presuppositions (in this case, Christian theism) are "extraordinary."

Asking for evidence for my presuppositions when you have not (and, I contend cannot) provided any for yours is one of the gross double standards of our day. If we're to simply rely on your critique, it's all conjecture. Using the same standards, all I should say is "we're discussing what I don't see any reason to accept, not what I do have reason to accept," and we just take our respective balls (accidentally typed that, but I'm leaving it) and go home.

I'm done with pretended neutrality. The only acceptable and fair debate between theists and atheists is one in which the atheist admits reliance on presupposition, the theist does the same, then debate from there, instead of the rules being skewed at the outset. I'm assume my worldview of Christian theism, you're assuming yours of Naturalism. There is no neutrality. Neutral=starting from nothing=starting with no God=starting with your worldview. If I accept this (as Christian evidentialists seem to want to do), I've lost the debate.

I feel I've left something out. Anyway, I honestly look forward to your (or whosever) response.

[Captain Cardio]

You may either use the same standards you require of theists or not. You haven't substantiated an a priori commitment to Naturalism at all. If you require it of me, then YOUR presuppositions must also be substantiated.

Are you suggesting it is not possible for a human to come at an issue objectively?

It seems like your suggesting that atheists begin their argument with a pre-existing bias.

How could you ever show that Christians don't start their argument with a pre-existing bias?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: dontconfuseme Carl Sagan rightly gathered that "[e]xtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." However, my point in all this has been that you and Sagan and atheists in general assume (unargued, thus far) that Naturalism is "ordinary," while all other presuppositions (in this case, Christian theism) are "extraordinary."

Naturalism is 'ordinary' in the sense that it obeys the known laws of nature and physics, and is thus amenable to controlled, repeatable experiment and observation.

Quote by: dontconfuseme I'm done with pretended neutrality. The only acceptable and fair debate between theists and atheists is one in which the atheist admits reliance on presupposition, the theist does the same, then debate from there, instead of the rules being skewed at the outset.

It's not about any "Rules" being skewed... what 'Rules'?... it's about the nature of what's being argued. On the one hand you have, "It's correct because the Bible tells me so". Blind faith in an archaic ideology. On the other hand you have the accumulated scientific knowledge of humankind and reasoned logic.

Granted, the latter has a clear advantage but it's not because of any "Rules of Debate". That's just whining. It's the very nature of two systems of belief that are now so contradictory they can no longer be compared, but one of which is testable.

And if most humans weren't hardwired by evolution for religious belief, religious belief would be swept aside by common sense in a heartbeat. But we humans ARE wired for religious belief, so you continue to have faith in the existence of something that, under any other circumstance, would be viewed as completely irrational.


.

[Tycoon]

You may either use the same standards you require of theists or not. You haven't substantiated an a priori commitment to Naturalism at all. If you require it of me, then YOUR presuppositions must also be substantiated.

What are you suggesting? We believe in the absence of a God. We do not need to prove the absence of something, you need to prove your assumption that something is out there based on absolutely no evidence at all.

Carl Sagan rightly gathered that "[e]xtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." However, my point in all this has been that you and Sagan and atheists in general assume (unargued, thus far) that Naturalism is "ordinary," while all other presuppositions (in this case, Christian theism) are "extraordinary."

Christianity and theism are "extraordinary". Their teachings defy everything that we know about this universe and how it works.

Asking for evidence for my presuppositions when you have not (and, I contend cannot) provided any for yours is one of the gross double standards of our day. If we're to simply rely on your critique, it's all conjecture. Using the same standards, all I should say is "we're discussing what I don't see any reason to accept, not what I do have reason to accept," and we just take our respective balls (accidentally typed that, but I'm leaving it) and go home.

It's called reasonable doubt. Besides, you're the one who believes in something that has no evidence. And the fact that we cannot prove God doesn't eixst, is not evidence. Your adapt your teachings for the very purpose of giving no evidence against God's existence.

[Kuldeep]

We can't prove if God exists or not, but what we can prove....

NOTHING in absolute terms.

Though, we can objectively prove one thing based on pre-supposition of the second and second based on third....so on so forth, I mean to say we can prove many many... natural physical phenominas based on some or the other supposition.

[smartcode]

Quote by: sdbest It's impossible to "prove" within the rigors of formal logic the existence or non-existence of God or gods. However, what can be proved, I submit, is whether or not God (or gods) intervene in human affairs, as those who pray must believe. The intervention of God would be detectable if events and phenomena deviated from chance. A deviation from chance is what would be expected if a self-aware, supernatural being was intervening in human affairs, particularly in response to prayer. Do we have evidence of events deviating from chance such that the intervention of supernatural intelligence might be the explanation? For the evidence to be significant, of course, it would have to be unambiguous. For example, a new leg growing on an amputee as consequence of prayer would be startling. The gravitational constant changing in order to prevent a plane crash would call for some explanation. For a God who created a Universe such interventions would be trivial.

Too many examples are happening in our life show that God intervenes.

Who created the embroy inside the mother womb and gave him the eyes, nose, mouth , hands, legs, brain, fingers, lever, stomach, skin, ears, hearing, sight, beautiful view and everything.

Who gave you the ability to move your hands and write on the keyboard that god doesn't exist??

I Love God too much because he is very merciful to feed you and give you everything although you are not believer.

God created in Makka, Saudi Arabia (which is a very rude desert) a water spring called Zamzam has a very amazing features. It is there for more than 4000 years without rain or any source. The spring has supplied pilgrims millions of tons of water, it never lacks of water. Isn't that a proof.

[Jack]

Who created the embroy inside the mother womb and gave him the eyes, nose, mouth , hands, legs, brain, fingers, lever, stomach, skin, ears, hearing, sight, beautiful view and everything. Who gave you the ability to move your hands and write on the keyboard that god doesn't exist??

Why presuppose a "who"? No god is necessary to explain human development or natural processes.

I Love God too much because he is very merciful to feed you and give you everything although you are not believer.

No god has "given" me "everything". What I own I earned through my own labor. Why would a compassionate god allow Bill Gates to have so much wealth while there are people starving?

Isn't that a proof.

Only if you can rule out any natural explanation.

[Hurt]

Quote by: smartcode Too many examples are happening in our life show that God intervenes. Who created the embroy inside the mother womb and gave him the eyes, nose, mouth , hands, legs, brain, fingers, lever, stomach, skin, ears, hearing, sight, beautiful view and everything. Who gave you the ability to move your hands and write on the keyboard that god doesn't exist?? I Love God too much because he is very merciful to feed you and give you everything although you are not believer. God created in Makka, Saudi Arabia (which is a very rude desert) a water spring called Zamzam has a very amazing features. It is there for more than 4000 years without rain or any source. The spring has supplied pilgrims millions of tons of water, it never lacks of water. Isn't that a proof.

I'm confused. How can there be a spring without something to regenerate it? Nothing? Nothing at all?

[smartcode]

Quote by: Hurt I'm confused. How can there be a spring without something to regenerate it? Nothing? Nothing at all?

God has sent the angel to dig in the ground and open it. Then made this place a worshipping place for pilgrims. The only power who supplies this water is God.

[smartcode]

Another God intervention story :
A young man had coagulum in his brain stopped him from walking. The doctors said to him that a part of his brain died and no way to become alive again so he will never walk!. They showed him a CRT image it was very clear.
The man went home and started to pray to Allah day and night. After three monthes he recovered and could walk to let his doctor be shocked after seeing the last CRT image

This example is very frequent. Many patients who got unrecoverable cancer asked Allah (God) to recover them then after drinking the holy water Zamzam which I mentioned earlier here, they recovered completely.

Allah said in the Quraan that whenever you are in a very bad situation that nobody can help you then asked HIM to help you, you will find HIM answering you, whoever you are. (even if you are atheist). Try this and tell me.

[Jack]

Every religion has undocumented anecdotal stories that supposedly validate it. The gullible believe, the skeptical ask for evidence, proof, substantiation. A miracle has to be unable to be explained in any other, natural, way.

[Tycoon]

Who created the embroy inside the mother womb and gave him the eyes, nose, mouth , hands, legs, brain, fingers, lever, stomach, skin, ears, hearing, sight, beautiful view and everything.

That is the result of clever evolution.

Who gave you the ability to move your hands and write on the keyboard that god doesn't exist??

There is no reason to make the assumption that that was granted to us by another being. It is merely the result of the one universal law : cause and effect.

I Love God too much because he is very merciful to feed you and give you everything although you are not believer.

I do not see God's effect on it at all. My parents buy me my food, with money they earn working hard at their jobs. That food comes from the earth, through completely scientific means.

God created in Makka, Saudi Arabia (which is a very rude desert) a water spring called Zamzam has a very amazing features. It is there for more than 4000 years without rain or any source. The spring has supplied pilgrims millions of tons of water, it never lacks of water. Isn't that a proof.

I'm sure if something as miraculous as what you have just described exists I would have heard of it before. Provide any kind of link so that I can disprove it.

God has sent the angel to dig in the ground and open it. Then made this place a worshipping place for pilgrims. The only power who supplies this water is God.

You have not even given us any reason to believe this well you talk about exists, and even if it does, a perfectly natural explanation could be found defeating all reason to expect God's involvement.

This example is very frequent. Many patients who got unrecoverable cancer asked Allah (God) to recover them then after drinking the holy water Zamzam which I mentioned earlier here, they recovered completely.

All these miracles are attributed to God, but all of the suffering in the world is ignored? If God is the defender of widows and orphans, then He is the one who made them widows and orphans in the first place. Besides, all these miracles could be explained through science!

[christianmathew]

Of course everyone on this debate site will immediately disagree with me, but I'll post anyways.

There have been cases of people coming back to life, of cripples being healed and then jumping up and walking, of blind people suddenly seeing, and more. Of course people either say these things didn't happen or that "there is a scientific way to explain it, we just don't know it yet." I ask you, where is Jesus' body? He rose from the dead in a miraculous phenonema, and that should be proof enough of God's existance.

[Hurt]

Quote by: christianmathew Of course everyone on this debate site will immediately disagree with me, but I'll post anyways. There have been cases of people coming back to life, of cripples being healed and then jumping up and walking, of blind people suddenly seeing, and more. Of course people either say these things didn't happen or that "there is a scientific way to explain it, we just don't know it yet." I ask you, where is Jesus' body? He rose from the dead in a miraculous phenonema, and that should be proof enough of God's existance.

That's not exactly a solid fact though.. so you can't pull it as evidence. Now had someone seen Jesus and had undeniable proof of his coming back to life, then there would be no problem. And with the cases of people coming back to life, cripples being healed, and blind people suddenly seeing.. I'm extremely curious as to why not all such people just get themselves healed if the solution is as simple as that?

[Jack]

He rose from the dead in a miraculous phenonema, and that should be proof enough of God's existance.

Indeed it could be, were there any verifiable evidence that this actually occurred. Since the Bible is the sole source of that story and there's no corroborating documentation, I'm not ready to set aside my skepticism just yet.

[rez]

Quote by: christianmathew There have been cases of people coming back to life, of cripples being healed and then jumping up and walking, of blind people suddenly seeing, and more.

Just not enough cases were people actually care at all. Just enough cares where it keeps the people asking for proper documentation to think its bullshit and enough for the apathetic to not even know to even care about it.

And by the way, this goes with saying that your claims are even true. Again, if the magical thinkers want to use their magic as proof then they better document it well enough. It is sort of like your 5th grade teacher that you can't write sloppy essays for your reading assignment, you gotta actually look like you put effort and hardwork into it.

Of course people either say these things didn't happen or that "there is a scientific way to explain it, we just don't know it yet."

Geee. Who in their right mind would ask someone to deliever the goods they speak of? It is called Selling the Bill of goods. Go look it up. It is exactly how you carry yourself.

I ask you, where is Jesus' body? He rose from the dead in a miraculous phenonema, and that should be proof enough of God's existance.

Sorry bud, but they didn't have DNA and finger print tests 2,000 years ago. Jesus's genotype is not documented in an ancient database somewhere. I am sorry that you did not make that kind of connection in your head. Do you think there is some other way to figure out which corpse is a Jesus Christ and which corpse is not a Jesus Christ?

[christianmathew]

That's not exactly a solid fact though.. so you can't pull it as evidence. Now had someone seen Jesus and had undeniable proof of his coming back to life, then there would be no problem. And with the cases of people coming back to life, cripples being healed, and blind people suddenly seeing.. I'm extremely curious as to why not all such people just get themselves healed if the solution is as simple as that?

People did see Jesus when he came back to life, though there is no way to prove it, is there? As to why cripples don't want to be healed the christian way, let's just say some people's faith isn't strong enough.

[christianmathew]

Indeed it could be, were there any verifiable evidence that this actually occurred. Since the Bible is the sole source of that story and there's no corroborating documentation, I'm not ready to set aside my skepticism just yet.

Are you saying you don't believe that Jesus ever existed or that he rose from the dead?

[christianmathew]

Sorry bud, but they didn't have DNA and finger print tests 2,000 years ago. Jesus's genotype is not documented in an ancient database somewhere. I am sorry that you did not make that kind of connection in your head. Do you think there is some other way to figure out which corpse is a Jesus Christ and which corpse is not a Jesus Christ?

True, we can't really ever prove which one is his body, but don't you think all of his followers would know which one is his? Or how about all those meticulous romans who actually killed him? Or even all those Jews that hated him, don't you think they'd remember where his body was buried since they so strongly disliked him?

[Jack]

Quote by: christianmathew Are you saying you don't believe that Jesus ever existed or that he rose from the dead?

Either, both.