Christians (or other thiests): Answer these 2 questions about your arguments...?

Question

1) Why is it that you often cite that we don't have proof that there isn't a god? although the premise is true in a way, it is ultimately retarded. I can't prove there is a little 1 inch invisible midget that can't be detected by any technology in your stomach. It doesn't mean it is true at all. And also, since you say there is a god, the burden of proof is on you.

2) When asked to prove your religion true, why do you always try to debunk Evolution? That has nothing to do with it. Even if you debunk evolution, there is the possibility that there is another theory (without a god) that proves everything better. Before and during Darwin, there were other theories that were debunked such as spontanious generation, but we found another secular way to explain it.

I see that many of you believe the burden of proof could go onto either camp. Such claim is absolutely false. Take for example the case of the undetectable midget in your stomach. Would there be any reason for you or me to believe that's true? Absolutely not. If you are trying to convince me there is a midget, you have to prove is there, ortherwise there is no other reason to believe it. There are countless of things that we can't prove, but that doesn't make them true. Religion works the same way. You say there is a God and I say there is no proof for it, so until it is proven, there is no reason to believe it.

Richard Dawkins explained this better: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6555019053061871961

Proof can be god tapping my sholder and showing me he is god. Why not? In the bible, he would come to humans and speak with them, but nowadays he seems too busy for us. If god could be provable, there are countless ways.

Equivocation can never be used to justify something:

Cosmological Argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

Basically it says that everything that has a beginning must have a creator, and since the universe has begun, it must have been created by god. Aside from the obvious fact that god must have been creator if that is the case, it forgets to see that the big bang is not necessarily a creation, but rather could be a point in cosmic history were the universe became what it has today. The universe, in some different way, could have always existed.

Teleogical Argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

Works the same way, but it says that it is due to its complexity and randomness that a creator must have created it. Think of it, a chance of winning the lottery is smaller than being hit by lighting strike 4 times. Because it is random, it doesn't rule out the possibility it happened.

The Ontological Argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

This is harder to summarize, but basically it says if we can imagine it, it must exist. Leaving aside the premises we must believe without questioning, there are numerous analogies such as Gaunilo's Island that have been disproven. If you want to say that the argument only works for god, you'll be taking a stretch and keeping it from being falsifiable, thus rejected in logic.

The soup in biology is true to not be provable beyond doubt, but the difference it has is that it is based on all other body of evidence (natural selection, etc.); whereas using god would be the least likely hypothesis, for god in itself has no proof at all to be based on.

Answer 1

1. Christians often fall back to this argument when they are out of amunition when arguing with someone who is of superior intelect to them. I admit I have at times fallen to this trap.

2. Because they think that this is a pillar of faith. Unfortunately it is in no way a pillar of faith. But then I am pretty liberal in my thinking about creation. IE.. WHy not evolution?

Answer 2

1.) Christians don't have to prove anything. We have a Bible that says there is a God. The Bible has withstood more serious textual criticism than the next 100 most important documents all put together. If you have to wait on absolute proof-it will be too late for you. There is no burden on me except to spread the Word, and that I do. I am supposed to leave you alone if you do not want to hear it. I will leave you alone.

2.) There have only been two theories about how we got here, creation or evolution-no more. Spontaneous generation is an early part of evolution that has been disproved.

Face the truth. You don't know how all this came about, you just "think" you are on the right side of this argument. Maybe you should stop reading all those old ideas about evolution, and take a real serious look at the "evolution model" and the "creation model". "Modeling", that's where all the evidence is being applied today. The same evidence is applied to both models. The results have been "inspiring" to say the least. Check out modeling.

Answer 3

To answer the first question, Christians and theists do cite proof that there is a God. The proof that Christians use isn't deductive proof, but inductive and abductive proof. Deductive proof is proof is proof where the premises grantee the conclusions. If I say All dogs are mammals, and then say Fido is a dog, therefore a mammal, I will be correct every time. Inductive proof on the other hand is when the premises do not guarantee the conclusion. It then comes down to a debate over which arguments are the best arguments. One such argument is the ontological argument for the existence of God.

The ontological argument is "a priori" in that it starts with me. It follows as such: God is the greatest conceivable thing. This is a definition of God. If I can conceive something in my mind, then something in reality that has to be greater or equal to that which can be conceived in my mind. If God exists only in my mind then he cannot exist in reality. Suppose God exists in my mind and not in reality. If God does not exist in reality, then something exists in nature that is not God that is the greatest thing conceivable. This is not possible, because God is the greatest conceivable thing by definition, so God must exist. The ontological argument only works only for infinite superlatives. The ontological argument is falsifiable if one can think of something that is greater than God. Because it is deductive, and not inductive, the premises always guarantee the conclusion, so it is always true.

Several fields of study use inductive proof. Physics, Chemistry and Biology all use inductive proof. They set up repeatable experiments that allow observations over and over again. When an experiment has been repeated enough times, then it is accepted as true. The limits of inductive proof is that is cannot say anything about the past or the future, but describes things as they are. Inductive proof in science is used to discover natural processes, such as speciation, gravity, and the nature of light. One such argument that Christians use that is inductive is the teleological argument for the existence of God.

The teleological argument is somewhat easier to understand than the ontological argument. It says that there is purpose and order in the universe, and that order and purpose require an ordered, which is God. The teleological argument doesn’t guarantee that God designed that what is in nature. But if there is an extremely small chance one explanation works and a larger chance that another explanation works, then it only seems fair ad reasonable that explanation that the larger chance explains things. This is Baye’s theorm. However, this doesn’t guarantee the results.

After inductive proof is implemented, then some people take it a step further. This is called abductive proof. Abductive proof like inductive proof does not guarantee the results. Abductive proof is different though in that it constructs a theory that best fits the evidence, and bases on reason alone, not in empirical evidence like induction. This is less limited in that one can talk about the past and future based on abductive reasoning. One such argument is the cosmological argument for the existence of God.

The cosmological argument is the argument that everything in the universe needs an origin-- an unmoved mover, who is God. One could premise that the universe has always existed, but if this is neither falsifiable nor provable, and has to be rejected by logic. God on the other hand can be proven to not exist based on the other arguments given. Additionally, if the universe doesn’t have an origin, then it would have dissipated to nothing but heat an eternity ago. This is the second law of thermodynamics. It is true that equivocation can’t be used to prove anything, but if I can qualify and describe something to remove ambiguity without committing the fallacy. By implication, I am saying that the universe needs a causer. The unmoved mover only has one possible meaning, and that God.

Based on the three types of proof listed above, we can talk about Evolution. Evolution has two parts: the inductive part and the abductive part. The inductive part of evolution says that in nature a population of a species can become a new species given the right circumstances. This has been observed numerous times in nature, and is generally accepted as true, and I personally don't have a problem with this. The abductive part of evolution says that all life evolved from a single celled organism that originated in a warm pond of primordial soup. This theory cannot be validated or invalidated with empirical proof. Biologists have yet to make single celled organism in a laboratory from nothing but organic molecules. If I can show arguments for the existence of God, and show that nature has design through inductive proof, then the hypothesis that there is a designer is just as valid as a hypothesis abducted from natural selection. This is exactly what Michael Behe and William Dembski are working on. Dembski's work is particularly interesting because he uses statistical analysis. If one could show that God is more probable than random chance, then by Baye's theorem, one would have to accept God as a possible cause, and even the most likely cause for life on earth.

It personally irks me to see Christians group all that is evolution into a single group and discard it. That commits the fallacy of the false dilemma. Such a statement would be, "You are either with me, or you are against me." This is simply not true. Switzerland for example was neither with the Allies or the Third Reich in World War II, but rather a neutral party.

Answer 4

The concept of a ‘burden of proof‘ is important in debates - whoever has a burden of proof is obligated to "prove" their claims in some fashion. If someone doesn't have a burden of proof, then their job is much easier: all that is required is to either accept the claims or point out where they are inadequately supported. In debates between atheists and theists, who has the burden of proof?

Regardless of exactly how the response is structured, what is important to remember here is that some response is expected. The “burden of proof” is not something static which one party must always carry; rather, it is something which legitimately shifts during the course of a debate as arguments and counter-arguments are made. You are, of course, under no obligation to accept any particular claim as true, but if you insist that a claim isn’t reasonable or credible, you should be willing to explain how and why.

Atheists flatly and erroneously assume they do not have any burden of proof whatsoever.

Evolution is a science, not a religion. Mainstream Christianity is not threatened by science. The science of evolution can prove certain SCIENTIFIC facts, not disprove religious ones.

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.... We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be." (-Pope John Paul II)

Answer 5

Obviously, nobody can produce physical proof for you of a spiritual being. We know this, and any Christian with any sense knows better than to try.
What that has to do with midgets, or leprachauns, or unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters (although I am fond of the FSM) is beyond me. I can't figure out for the life of me why it never fails...someone always wants me to prove that these things exist as well...go figure.
I also haven't figured out why "the burden of proof" is on the person who says there is a God. If you say there isn't a God, shouldn't you, also, be required to have some sort of proof to back your statement up?

As far as Christians trying to debunk evolution (why do you guys spell it with a capital "E"?? Maybe the stories that you really do worship it are true!!) I'm sure I don't know why some Christians do that. But I do know that science is not a static thing, any more than religion is. It changes and grows, or it ought to. We know things today we did not know yesterday...only a couple of days ago, science announced that Pluto is not a planet. Oh, well... Who knows what discoveries might be made tomorrow? Next year? I would be leery of attaching myself too closely to some scientific theory that is true today, but might just as easily be proven false tomorrow.
Who knows? Even gravity could fall flat on you...and leave you hanging in thin air....

Answer 6

ok here's the answer for no.1 one you don't have any proof GOD isn't real. I cite this to make a point if scientist can't prove he's not real then why do people still think he's not.And there are so many this that prove him to be real
question no.2 this is why I debunk Evolution now some people believe in evolution nothin wrong with that it's their choice but seeing as me just saying Evolution is false won't get through to you, then do this take a monkey and watch him over the course of many years then come back to me and tell me if he/she turned into a human

Answer 7

Umm, let me try to read through your questions. First off, they're not absolute. In other words, you cannot apply them across the board.
Secondly, I for one believe in the Theory of Evolution over creationism and there are many Christians who stand with me.

And the burden of proof that God exist is on us? No, no, I don't have to prove that. If someone wishes to believe, that's fine. If not, that's fine also. I don't *need* to prove his existence to anyone.

On the second part, mostly the fundies believe in creationism along with other religious, far right souls.

Answer 8

The reason we don't have proof that you would find acceptable is that each person must come to belief in his own way. What proved God to me will mean nothing to you; indeed, it would sound like so much brain-washed mumbo-jumbo. What Christians don't understand is why Atheists demand proof! Why do you?

2. Don't generalize. Not all of us debunk evolution. I happen to be one of a growing number of Christians who feel very comfortable in believing that God set evolution in motion. Intelligent design, to give it a secular term. And do not fall into the trap of making only Darwin the evolutionist. The most radical ideas came well before his time. Indeed, one fascinating fellow proposed that evolution happened for MORAL reasons, to propel mankind ever nearer to perfection.

Answer 9

We don't have to prove anything. There is so many things that testify creation/God. But we don't have to prove it to you. There is just no need.

Look if I live my whole life like there is a God and I die and find out I was wrong; then I haven't lost anything, I've lived a good life. But if I die and find out there is a God, then I get to live an Eternity with Him in paradise. Where will you be going when you find out that God exists and you blasphemed Him your whole life? Bon Voyage!

I just wanted to add something: A Roman emperor Diocletian A.D. 245-313 decreed in 303 that every Bible should be destroyed. Thinking he succeeded he raised a column with the inscription Extincto nomene Christianorum (the name of Christian is extinguished). Yet Constantine succeeded him and in 312 hung a cross. 1400 years later, Voltaire 1694-1778 boasted One hundred years from my day there will not be a Bible in the earth except one that is looked upon by an antiquarian curiosity seeker. Twenty years after his death, the Geneva Bible Society purchased his house for printing the Bible. It later became the headquarters for the British and Foreign Bible Society. The Bible says the word of our God will stand forever Is. 40:8. Few other books claim to be the word of God. The Koran and Book of Morman are filled with anachronisms and historical inaccuracies. No other book has lasted as long as the Bible. If some have died for it, surely we should be willing to live for it.

Answer 10

What is with this proof idea and God? No one can prove the existence of God one way or the other. I believe there is a God, I can't prove it. I do believe there is a good deal of real evidence to prove evolution. I have no problem believing in God and recognizing that evolution has been proven. Belief in God is not logical, it just isn't. That OK with me. Don't lump all of us believers in the holier than thou category. I respect your philosophy. Can you respect mine too? You won't agree, I know, but I don't think that God minds if you question His existence. Believing is not a prerequisite to crossing over after death.

Answer 11

I am Athiest but had to put in my two cents. You won't get a straight answer to your questions because they know that you are right. The only thing these people have that could validate an argument would be faith, which is believing and since everyone is free to believe what they want that shoots their argument in the foot if you ask me. I have had heated discussions about this with those who believe in god and they never give me an answer that I could accept.

They just don't want you messing with what they have been taught since they started going to sunday school when they were kids. But then again they can go around complaining about things to the government and get them changed anytime they want (Gay Marriage Ban in particular). I hope you don't mind me butting in on this since I am Atheist, just came across it and found it to be interesting.