tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post5615245790016187608..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: I Can Prove a Negative Easily. But Who Has the Burden of Proof About God?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68993049566250714502009-12-28T05:37:48.853-05:002009-12-28T05:37:48.853-05:00@ ZDENNY
you say:
"You say that the right evi...@ ZDENNY<br />you say:<br />"You say that the right evidence could convince you; however, you then exclude all explanations that goes beyond your senses."<br />I say:<br />The only way to come to an explanation beyond our senses (i'm assuming here we all have the same senses: eyes, ears, ...) is to make stuff up. I'm suggesting you have no justification (beyond your personal emotional bias) to believe more in your specific God than in Dawkins' teapot. Simply because you state that the explanation for one of those to be the better idea falls outside what can be detected by your own senses.<br /><br />You acuse John of closemindedness when it is you that are closeminded, a concept explained clearly in this presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXIpaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07746437308008078881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71373733380281465592009-12-27T21:23:31.885-05:002009-12-27T21:23:31.885-05:00The burden of proof is on the person making a trut...The burden of proof is on the person making a truth claim.Laughing Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00577758021496425133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78815050941676671132009-12-27T20:00:15.402-05:002009-12-27T20:00:15.402-05:00DoubleA, I love your reasoning. Where can I get so...DoubleA, I love your reasoning. Where can I get some? Macy's?Pierohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17052662579477030895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77887548895631795052009-12-27T18:07:30.917-05:002009-12-27T18:07:30.917-05:00Zdenny said it quite well. Especially: "The f...Zdenny said it quite well. Especially: "The fact is you know they are deceptive and misleading". That is the truth. And when the deception is revealed through truth, more atheists jump out of the blogosphere to attack character. Neat-O!Double Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01155106167479411948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46009386126740724522009-12-27T17:54:15.119-05:002009-12-27T17:54:15.119-05:00Zdenny:
"Since you only accept a material exp...Zdenny:<br />"Since you only accept a material explanation of reality, you won't accept any evidence other than a material one.<br /><br />The evidence for the Creator as well as the resurrection is overwhelming; however, you won't accept it because it does not result in a materialistic worldview."<br /><br />As John has already pointed out, all evidence is material evidence; non-material evidence is not evidence, much less an overwhelming one. I think you are aware of this, because you could not bring yourself to claim that John pigheadedly rejects overwhelming material evidence: instead, you shifted your focus to claim that accepting the resurrection would lead him to a non-materialistic worldview, which is a far weaker claim.Pierohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17052662579477030895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54665974950492061312009-12-27T11:22:34.444-05:002009-12-27T11:22:34.444-05:00"Burden of proof" is like "tie goes..."Burden of proof" is like "tie goes to the runner." It is useful in a court of law to resolve cases where the evidence is too close to call or lacking on both sides. It is a necessary tie-breaker because there are only two possible outcomes. I am not sure what relevance it has in a discussion where there are three possible outcomes, <i>i.e.,</i> true, false, and insufficient data to reach a conclusion.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17964508760613329272009-12-27T10:41:55.918-05:002009-12-27T10:41:55.918-05:00Go, John! Nice post.
Enough people are kicking ar...Go, John! Nice post.<br /><br />Enough people are kicking around Zdenny. <br /><br />But can I add that his string theory comparison is wrong. String theory will get tossed as a theory if solid evidence is not available. It's still so new. <br /><br />But the believers have been chatting this god thing for centuries, millenia and ain't come up with anything.christophermenckenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15845553142519322041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35577121296149783042009-12-27T09:35:12.696-05:002009-12-27T09:35:12.696-05:00Z
Do you have a medical doctor or do you put your...Z<br /><br />Do you have a medical doctor or do you put your faith into practice when your children are sick and trust in the invisible forces of prayer and elder anointment with oil as prescribed in James? Is anointment the first line of medical therapy in your household and if not, why not? When do you move to material based later lines of therapy? Thanks.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88148588787162071122009-12-27T09:33:04.373-05:002009-12-27T09:33:04.373-05:00And every believer knows that they are the one tha...And every believer knows that they are the one that truly understands.busterggihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02146221182670363053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87429175222394620922009-12-27T09:32:44.388-05:002009-12-27T09:32:44.388-05:00Zdenny said "You argument may be an optical i...Zdenny said "You argument may be an optical illusion since you only accept a material explanation of reality, you won't accept any evidence other than a material one."<br /><br />What kind of evidence do you propose to offer that is not material evidence? How can anyone accept non-material evidence when you cannot distinguish such evidence from mere wishful thinking or an intense feeling? Given the fact that every single religious believer claims to have the same non-material evidence to support beliefs that you disagree with how do you propose to distinguish between non-material evidence for claims that are mutually contradictory--Other than shutting your eyes and hears and repeatedly yelling, "I know what I know what I know."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14896745644776244832009-12-27T09:16:10.093-05:002009-12-27T09:16:10.093-05:00@ZDENNY, that was a rambling mess.
All religion i...@ZDENNY, that was a rambling mess.<br /><br />All religion is an illusion.<br /><br />There are 6,000,000 people on this planet and they all have different religious beliefs. You will be hard pressed to find any 2 people that believe exactly the same thing about every issue.<br /><br />All 6,000,000 of those people can't be correct or factual in their beliefs, so they must ALL be wrong, except for maybe one guy somewhere...Matt Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06754914464475823786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40860651105719344462009-12-27T08:33:55.660-05:002009-12-27T08:33:55.660-05:00You argument may be an optical illusion since you ...You argument may be an optical illusion since you won't accept any evidence that is not material in nature.<br /><br />Since you only accept a material explanation of reality, you won't accept any evidence other than a material one.<br /><br />The evidence for the Creator as well as the resurrection is overwhelming; however, you won't accept it because it does not result in a materialistic worldview.<br /><br />As a result, you argument is an optical illusion. You say that the right evidence could convince you; however, you then exclude all explanations that goes beyond your senses.<br /><br />You are also being inconsistent. The fact is that everyone believes in an invisible reality that grounds our visible reality. This is the current debate in science.<br /><br />String theory is a great example of an invisible reality that cannot be verified or falsified. If you don't believe in string theory, there are other non-visible realities that are up for grabs. <br /><br />The fact is that everyone believes in an invisible reality because it does exist. It provides the only rational explanation for the existence of what we do see. <br /><br />Christians argue that this invisible reality is ultimately mind; however, atheist argue that this invisible reality is just too small to be seen being ultimately material.<br /><br />The evidence is overwhelming for an invisible reality; however, you will only accept a material explanation even though you in principle accept an invisible reality which grounds our existence.<br /><br />An invisible reality that cannot be falsified or verified at this point provides the only rational explanation for our existence.<br /><br />As a result, everyone accepts an invisible reality that we have no direct evidence of since it existence goes beyond our senses. <br /><br />The fact that Christians can know this reality and an atheist can't is what bothers you. Christians who know the love of God stand on faith; however, you don't know the love of God even though you have the same faith that this invisible reality exists.<br /><br />I just wish you were honest with people; however, your arguments are very deceptive and misleading. The fact is you know that they are deceptive and misleading.D.L. Folkenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14088685389758373359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5844968385455781982009-12-27T05:17:51.529-05:002009-12-27T05:17:51.529-05:00"You cant't prove a negative" is its..."You cant't prove a negative" is itself a negative. If it were proven true, it wouldn't be true.<br /><br />Brain melt.gamedirthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01567226370953185320noreply@blogger.com