Anselm's Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.

It also lies with the one who claims there is 'not' one.

 

Not if there is no proof that there "is" one.

You don't have to prove a claim of non-existence when refuting an unsubstantiated claim of existence.

that's how it works.

 

Not so.
Both claimants need to prove their claims.
The only one who does not have to prove a claim is the one who takes a completely neutral position, no one here in this thread has taken that position. In order to remain completely neutral both sides must be expressed as unprovable. Nice try though.

Further more, when someone claims there is no evidence for instance you need to explain why the evidence presented is not evidence, not simply stand on your soapbox spouting unsupported opinions as the nazi did, which is where the prove it came from in the first place.

 

I'm not sure where this is going. They might, they might not.

 

well the same can be said for God no? Me either... Everything you know believe and sense is in your brain.

 

Your beliefs and arguably your senses are in the brain. The things you believe stuff about might not be.

I can believe that I have an apple. There maybe atoms which together I might consider to be an apple. The apple itself is on the table, but the idea that it is one coherent object and that that object is an apple is inside our heads. But that is only an idea. An idea which is very important for us when we describe things, but only an idea.

 

Please provide evidence that proves yeti's do not exist.

 

It's a manifestation of the entitlement culture among the religious. Special pleading the case for gods where, if I was to assert the existence of Pink Unicorns how is it incumbent upon you to disprove the absurd notion if you say that it is absurd to say that they exist. Gods get a free pass every time in the indoctrinated mind.

 

So here's the deal on philosophy, and all supernatural assertions:

Strictly speaking, the "There's no way to know with 100% certainty whether there is or isn't something supernatural, so I withhold judgment" agnostic stance is philosophically correct. Nobody can prove that there is anything supernatural, and of course negatives can't be proven so nobody can prove beyond any doubt that there isn't.

Practically speaking, the "There's no evidence of anything supernatural, so my judgment is that there is not" atheist stance is entirely reasonable, especially when it comes to specific religions. We don't walk around entertaining far-fetched what-ifs based on nothing but assertion. If I say "I know captain Kirk, who has traveled back in time to steal two whales from an aquarium," most people would feel perfectly confident in dismissing my claim, and with good reason. Sure, it is philosophically conceivable that some utopian 23rd century Federation develops time-travel tech and wouldn't that be better than any other possible future therefore it must be true. But common sense puts the onus of evidence on me, the one making the claim; and if I can't provide it, you are free to dismiss it.

Thus, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Also note how the agnostic and the atheist stances are 100% compatible -- any reasonable person can agree both that 100% certainy is impossible, and thus until positive evidence is presented the common sense assumption is the negative.

Also also note that what religionists often think of as evidence -- personal experiences, popularity of their faith, scripture, etc. -- do not meet the standards of skeptics nor of the scientific method.

Also also also note that if some extraordinary claim does some day turn out to be true thanks to positive evidence, that claim is brought into the realm of the natural. If I introduce you to Kirk and Spock and they prove me right about my extraordinary claims, it's not because there's anything supernatural going on -- it's because the future Federation figured out how to use the laws of physics to create time-travel tech, and saw fit to allow its story to be told in our time as a 'science fiction' franchise.

 

'Possibly', however you are now required to prove what is available is not evidence.

Religionist? Religion is unavoidable unless you are in a coma or dead.

Nice buzz prase btw:

Sounds really cool and is entirely meaningless.

 

yeh and it still leaves you helpless since you cannot prove God does not exist, the best you can honestly claim is you dont know, but you are making a negative claim, that God does not exist, your religion is atheist proving that you believe God does not exist as that is what atheists believe. Saying you lack belief is intellectual dishonesty

 

I dont recall anyone here claiming they did or did not till your above post, no one has a reason to prove anything, I dont know if they exist or not.

 

If not in the brain then where? Its a constructive belief actually.

 

If the apple is on the table, then it is on the table. It is only our brains which identify it as an apple, but the thing which is identified as an apple exists on the table.

 

You keep telling me I'm intellectually dishonest but, it sounds very much like you don't like 'lacking belief' because you know that it is a rock solid position and you want to adjust my position so that you can have an argument, not going to happen and it makes you look bad that you are trying to do this as part of your apologetic. It is not my job to prove that gods do not exist just as it is not my job to show that pink unicorns, leprechauns, faeries or any other notion you decide to pull out of your backside on an acid trip do not exist. My position is simply one of universal rejection of absurd assertions made without evidence. Take note that I did not conceive any of these notions that I reject, I had no reason to reject them until they were asserted without evidence and, if I was to similarly assert absurd notions without evidence then I would expect them to be rejected

Now, you can keep poking at my position all you like but basically, it boils down to, if you don't know it if you can't show it and the real intellectual dishonesty here is that you cannot acknowledge that position and you are trying anything you can to try to shift the burden.

I will add that it is my experience that many atheists do themselves no favours by universally using the short hand 'I do not believe' or 'does not exist' and, if you engage in a conversation with them rather than playing games you will discover that the lack of evidence makes them unconvinced and that is the actual basis of their position but, that is not what you want to hear is it so go back to your intellectually dishonest apologetic and run with that.

 

A reasonable position. I agree. A rational, thoughtful person should have evidence for the beliefs & foundations of their lives. This is no place for whimsy & guesswork.

I agree again. But i do not see that attitude universally among atheists. Many are militant, dogmatic, & very aggressive in promoting their beliefs, as if they were 'settled science!' There SHOULD be circumspection & some doubt, with any beliefs.. not just the theists. Why should atheists be cocksure & confident, while more thoughtful people entertain doubt?

Of course not. But neither should the skeptics dismiss them outright as 'delusions!' or such. There is not enough information to conclude anything empirical. I would also point out, that the lack of any experience of the supernatural is also 'not evidence'. A person cannot rationally conclude an atheistic belief because of one's own limited experience.

Exactly. 'Natural' is only that which we understand, & have defined processes to explain. Those that do not, we either define as 'unknown', or 'supernatural'. The theist considers the possibility of a supernatural explanation, while the atheist does not. Objectively, there is a 'natural' explanation for everything, even if it includes a 'higher power', or other 'supernatural' factors. But to communicate with the common vernacular, 'natural', and 'supernatural', gets the idea across.

Good discussion. Thanks for the reasoned reply.

 

LOL no, it's not. You're conceding defeat with this silly nonsense.

 

to the contrary, I pointed out that the only way to have no chips on the table is to have no chips on the table. The only position that affords that is agnostic since an agnostic is purely a middle ground with the claim they neither affirm nor deny, atheists deny, theists affirm, they both have chips on the table they both have to prove their position. the agnostic has no position. 101 logic and reason. btw its not my problem if atheists choose a negative to believe in and consequently cant prove their position.

 

I am agnostic, but the atheist is basing their 'faith' on the lack of evidence, which is more logical than to believe there is a God when there is no evidence pointing that way.

 

If you are an agnostic then you have no chip on the table, no dog in the fight, nothing to prove, however atheists deceive themselves when they claim lack of evidence which is complete bs, since in order to claim lack of evidence they would have to prove that every piece of evidence produced by the theist is false. They have not done this, they use this as a buzz phrase, and it is meaningless.

Then even if they did, their logic still fails reason, because using their precise measuring stick lack of evidence is not proof of nonexistence any more than it proves existence, so to take a position of atheist is to take a position of faith no different than theists all while claiming lack of belief which is patently false, since an atheist 'believes' God does not exist. Not only is this intellectually dishonest but it fails 101 logic and reason. Bottom line these people are all tangled up in the philosophical undies.

 

OK, if a man came up to you and said, " I think you stole money from me yesterday !"

Your reply, if you didn't, would be 'No I didn't prove it."

Now, he can't respond with "No, you prove you didn't steal it !"
No court will let him get away with that.

 

Thats not a useable example, because its not applicable to what I said.

 

How so ?

 

because that is easy to prove, you need to pick something that neither side can prove to the others satisfaction, like God, burden of proof switches back and forth oft times several times in a real case in court as claims and counter claims are made. Atheist is a counterclaim to theist. Both are a claim, each would need to be proven to each others satisfaction before one can claim a fact. An atheist accepting nonexistence for any reason accepts it on 'faith' alone, since they cant prove it to be a fact.

 

That only works if you're allowing the conclusion of "God exists" to be on the same plane as "there is no existence for God."

No person in their right mind needs to prove God doesn't exist. It's a default position because of having no evidence to claim there is one.