And I quote?

Question

Quote of the week:

My presumption of atheism is closely analogous to the presumption of innocence in the English law;

[...]

...the onus of proof...is up to the theist: first, to introduce and defend his proposed concept of God; and, second, to provide sufficient reason for believing that this concept of his does in fact have an application.

Antony Flew, God, Freedom, and Immortality.

Answer 1

You are correct, the burden of proof is on the head of the person making the positive assertion. You cannot prove a negative assertion, the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim. If I said that the third planet in the Alpha Proxima star system was covered with a three foot layer of French brie and told you to prove it wasn't, you wouldn't be able to even though the assertion is ridiculous, like gods.

Answer 2

This is a question?

"The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own."

Really? ID is tested every day in genetics labs across the country. Intelligent intervention makes changes in DNA daily. OTOH, random changes are usually just thrown out, after being checked by an intelligence for any valuable attributes.

ID can propose theories as well. If there is an intelligent Designer, where is he? Any intelligence capable of interacting with DNA must have a means of manipulating it. As any such intelligence is non-coporeal, it must rely on laws of statistics and chaos, making highly unlikely scenarios take place either simultaneously or sequentially. As these laws are embedded in the fabric of our universe, this Being must have access to the subspace matrix in which our universe is embedded. If this is true, then the subspace, or 'aether' should be alive, aware, and capable of interaction with humans.

Interestingly, this is indeed suggested by psychics with no interest in I.D. Also, Inventors of such devices as the 'Joe Cell' have noticed that whatever powers this device seems to operate or not depending on the attitude of the machine's operator. Further experiments should clarify this apparent relationship.

Hey, it's a start.

Answer 3

Why should the burden of proof fall on me, the believer?Nobody is forcing anyone to believe.We bring the message that Jesus died for your sins.He bought your soul with His blood and still you have a choice.Believe or don`t.The onus is now on you to save yourself by accepting that Jesus is the Son of God and that He loves you and want you to be His child.I can show you the universe and all the knowledge it contains and still you have a choice .Believe or don`t. Those people that has heard the message about Jesus and still does not believe has my deepest sympathy.Hell is hot and eternity is a very long time.

Answer 4

You are absolutely correct. The burden of proof is upon the theist, who makes a claim without empirical evidence and is surprised when not everyone else completely agrees with him.

Answer 5

i agree. the proof of God is unquestionable in my own life. And I have sufficient reason to believe He does in fact have an application.

Answer 6

There is order in this universe. For example, a beam of light passed through a prism, evidences the colors of the visible spectrum. Order is evidence of intelligence. So if intelligence is evidenced in the universe (note, this intelligence is distinct from human intelligence), then perhaps it follows that there is a source of this intelligence.

If we presume that, in fostering life (however it is that life came to be; either through a natural process, some sort of intervention, or a combination of both) this universal intelligence is ultimately benevolent; then, if people are interested in 'goodness', that is to say, the happiness and well-being of all people, it is naturally in their interest, to harmonize, as best as they can, with this universal intelligence.

It has been observed, through the agency of quantum mechanics, that the universe is of a holographic nature. That is to say, that the smallest part, in some way, carries the pattern of the greater whole. If we agree that human beings demonstrate intelligence, which here means, that they demonstrate the capacity for volition, and the ability to understand and comprehend, and that human beings and their capacity to understand comprise some part of the whole of the universe, then is it unreasonable to suggest that a similar capacity may exist on a grander scale?

And, if this is the case, then is it unreasonable to suggest that this intelligence may operate and orchestrate in way that is greater than our capacity, as limited temporal entities, to understand?

The argument for the benevolence of this intelligence may perhaps be bolstered by the capacity of human beings to create and perceive things of beauty, and a compassionate concern for the well being of one another. One may argue that human beings demonstrate also the opposite tendencies, those of destruction, ugliness, and callous indifference. I put forth that all of these 'negative' tendencies are the result of some degree of ignorance, or some sort of abnormality eventuating at some point from incomplete understanding, unfounded presumptions, and irrational emotional response as a result of unresolved pain.

One can easily observe that suffering has results which are both beneficent and constructive, if it is approached with the appropriate attitude and understanding, which may or may not include a trust in the benevolence of some Greater Intelligence.

It is also natural for human beings to project their fear onto whatever they do not understand. So atrocities resulting from fear, are then naturally the result of misunderstanding, to some degree or level. This also explains the need to personify some sort of opposing force, to explain the troubles, sorrows, difficulties and pains that human beings fail to understand.

The production for a moral code, in order to reduce the occurrence of things which are believed to cause suffering and misery, are also easily understood as a natural course.

Most people, even aside from social conditioning, experience the pangs of 'conscience' as a result of willfully causing pain or suffering to another being. This is the result of empathy. Who, when they are truly honest about their own inner feelings and resultant psychological disposition, can find happiness in the sufferings of others? Any reasonable person would agree that such an attitude is madness.

Much more could be said on the topic.

Finally, i would like to say that any true "theist", aside from philosophers, which is to say, any true knower of God, is not particularly interested in discussion or the philosophical proving of Gods existence. If they do venture to discuss such, it is for the sake of those who are truly interested, and not for the sake of those who seek intellectual stimulation or argument. Knowledge of god is enough, for those who have it, and guide their lives and thinking by it.

Also, concepts of God, or a divinity, are just that, concepts and ideas. Although they may serve to guide the mind of those who seek a knowledge of something that cannot necessarily be rationally defined in ones mind, they are yet prone to the limitations and fallibility of the mind of man. A definition is by necessity a limitation, and who in their right mind would acknowledge a limitation upon something which is limitless?

So application of a concept of God only has usefulness in the determination and real knowing of what it is the concept is symbolic of and seeks to express, if only in part. If people are guided to an interest in the real and fundamental well being of their fellows, then such a concept has served its usefulness. If such concepts serve as justification to divide and oppress, to scorn and belittle then such concepts are in fact an evil, and cannot possibly serve to reflect the reality of what they are supposed to represent.

Answer 7

...and this is supposed to impress anyone? a quotation from a man who has re-thought his position on God repeatedly, who has been an active leader in the WGI, an ultra-conservative group best know for their support of apartheid and a desire to kick non-whites out of europe?

Answer 8

Do you have a question? Atheist preachers are just as annoying as theist preachers.

Answer 9

Yeah!

Answer 10

Where is your proof He isn't the creator?