>Do you believe all claims have a burden of proof?Yes.>Would you agree that the claim "by belief is rational" is a claim?Yes>Do you claim that your belief there is not sufficient evidence to prove the existence of a God is a rational?...why is it that in the history of human thought no other human being (to my knowledge) ever brought this up??
retard
>>17429924>"The Burden of Proof is on Theists"Nigga, repent to tunanta danone, yogurth god, or he will cream pie you
>>17429928oh OH is that the sound of a counter argument??OH lTS NOT?????OOHHHHHHHHHH MANNNNNAnd l thought it was the sound of a counter argument.Gues its fucking not though!Gues the fucking retard who just typed this out just admitted his abject intellectual inferiority to me.ohh wow holly shitfuckin lel
>>17429938Unfathomably based response
Yes, I get your point. But atheism is merely not believing in God(s). Not "claiming that there is no sufficient evidence of a God".
>>17429924>is god real/ muh burden of proofLiterally doesn't matter.
>>17431222why my post was adressed to atheists not atheism.You cannot believe in God for whatever reason or no reason and you have no burden of proof.But the moment you CLAlM your belief is RATlONAL you adopt one.
>>17431431Substantiating that would be the same as substantial disbelief in any other thing without evidence. Am I obligated to provide some kind of rationale for why I do not believe in goblins in the walls?
>>17431433>Substantiating that would be the same as substantial disbelief in any other thing without evidenceTrue; assuming there is no evidence for a God.>Am I obligated to provide some kind of rationale for why I do not believe in goblins in the walls?Not discretly but in a broad catagorical sense yes absolutely you need a rational explanation for why you dont believe there are goblins in the walls.The answer to be clear can absolutely be:>"l've seen no good evidence for Goblins in the walls"but then we need a working definition of what constitutes "Good evidence" which you base your belies on in all cases again if (and ONLY if) you claim your beliefs to be rational.Did you accept the exisestence of the world around you on the basis of your own cesnory data since you were an infant???Then guess what!You cannot coherently reject your own censory as sufficient evidence for the existence of a God otherwise you would have to reject the existence of reality itself on the same grounds.lf you haven't had any experience with a deity this isn't an issue for you.But if you HAVE (or could and there after still fail to believe) this point absolutely demolishes the rational coherence of the position of the Matt Dillahunty teir hacks.Dont know if thats where you land though so apologies if it seemed l was putting words in your mouth.
>>17431462There has never been a proven consciousness without a physical body. Therefore it is running ahead of the facts to assume some cosmic consciousness is ruling the universe. I think it's man's way of anthropomorphizing everything.>invent cogs>wait what if everything is cogs>invent computer>bruh everything's a simulation>be a human with consciousness and intelligence>bruh everything must have consciousness and intelligence behind it
>>17431494l dont blame anyone for not assuming man.l dont blame anyone for not believing in the absence of evidence.lts only the people who cant define what "good evidence" would constitute that are obvious hacks.Only the people who cant concieve what would convince them of the existence of a God because they are holding that proposition to a higher standard of evidence then they hold any other despite no non-arbitrary epistimilogical line being able to be drawn.
>>17431505Hardly anyone can objectively claim "good evidence". Even the courts use vague terms like "beyond a reasonable doubt". What is reasonable in that case? Grey area. not to mention evidence being a material thing in the natural world, while the god hypothesis is a supernatural explanation. How would supernatural evidence even work? It doesn't have to abide by anything we can figure out using human reason
>>17431512>Hardly anyone can objectively claim "good evidence". Even the courts use vague terms like "beyond a reasonable doubt"Doesn't hhave to be universal dude.Just has to be coherent and non-contradictory assuming you want your standard to adhere to the 3 formal laws of logic.Again if you DONT claim your standard is ratinal it doesn't have to be coherent or non-contradictory; BUT if you do then there is a burden of proof to show your standard does not conflict with those laws.>What is reasonable in that case? Grey area. not to mention evidence being a material thing in the natural world, while the god hypothesis is a supernatural explanation. How would supernatural evidence even work?Well l would just say if a God exists then it isn't super natural at all; its just an aspect of the natural world not yet fully understood.The second law of thermodyanmics breaks down both at the cosmic scale and subatomic scale; we dont call that "supernatural" just because it violates our current flawed understanding of the natural world.We accept it as a reality of the natural world and if a God exists and evidence of him manifests we should accept him on the basis (again; ONLY. lF. WE. WANT. TO. BE. RATlONAL.)
>>17429924Bump for interest
>>17431522The supernatural evidence, though?
>>17431543The evidence for the "supernatural" you mean?
>>17431522Look, when God uses his superpower to do whatever he wantsit's not like there's a mechanism theretheists do not have a model of how this miracle stuff is supposed to work Jesus walks on water, despite his buoyancy being such that he should displace water and sink up to his neck no one is suggesting an explanation for why that isn't happening, theists are merely introducing a word 'miracle' If calling that supernatural offends you, and you think there's an explanation there, I'dd like to hear it honestly I don't understand how anyone takes it seriously, when there's nothing on the table in terms of theory or models you suggesting that a model *could* exist, I'm not gonna take you seriously until you show itI think this is all nonsense
The burden of proof mostly depends on the form of the resolution, but also on the general prevailing assumption or attitude of the audience. In a debate with the resolution “The God of the Bible exists”, if held at a seminary, the negative position would bear the burden of proof. If held in a liberal arts college, then the positive would.
>>17429924>Would you agree that the claim "by belief is rational" is a claim?What are you when trying to say? Is English your second language or something?
>>17431522but god created the natural world according to theists, that means he himself is not a part of that.
>>17429924Cope, also pure mental gymnastics
>>17431680>Epicurus kek, Christ refuted him.
>>17431681That jew didn't refute shit. You can kek your way to church or whatever Fagavangelist you worship.
>>17431625>>>0arguments.jpegDecades of atheist philosophy and in all comes down to this?No argumentsNo rebuttal No counterJust impotent seething and screeching >”muh MENTAL GYMNASTICS”Over a discussion about the finer points of epistemology in the natural world.What are you a fucking retard?What are you a fucking nigger??When an arguments gets to complicated do you just throw up your hands like an actual 2nd grade reader and say it’s to much for you???What’s next bitch?Was this post>”to long to read”As well?Lmfao
>>17429924>Do you believe all claims have a burden of proof?No. But it does exist for the claims theists make.
>>17432425I'm not convinced of your bullshit. Stop making excuses for seething about that and justify your claims instead of desperately and repeatedly trying to pass the buck.
Many (most, not all) theist claims also involve an at least implicit assumption of some particular theology.Gödels proof comes perhaps closest to a pure theist / atheist argument without getting into religious territory.
>>17432425I like how you ignore the genuine points people bring in to ebin le twitter dunk on the 1 guy talking shit
>Make claim>Further claim that anyone who disputes your claim is actually the one making the claim>Further claim that you never MADE a claimI can see how, if you believe in God but you have sincerely no idea how or why you came into this belief, you might be under the illusion that it's as self-evident and obvious as the sun rising in the morning. And if someone comes along and says no it doesn't rise in the morning, then yeah, it'd be galling if they insisted that you prove it does (which could take hours). But you CAN. And you can also easily explain why you shouldn't HAVE to indulge such a wild claim: you and he and everyone else see it themselves every damn day.But none of that is true for the belief in God. Insisting on the existence of something is a claim, and that's that. Being at an utter loss to defend it by any rational means doesn't unburden your position, it just makes it visibly weak.
>>17431681where did Jesus mention Epicurus in the Bible?
>>17432753People who act like actual brain dead retards who can’t tie their own shoes deserve to be called retardsPeople who do not should
>>17432784> if someone comes along and says no it doesn't rise in the morning, then yeah, it'd be galling if they insisted that you prove it does (which could take hours). But you CAN. Only if there consistently willing to defer to the laws of logic.If there not you can’t prove anything.And that’s what this argument is about.Demanding atheist accept God on the same footing as any other claim OR ADMIT they aren’t fucking rational and do not give a fuck about logic.That’s fine if they want to admit that But unless they are there is no coherent way for them to do the >”muh extraordinary claims”Song and dance
>>17432482What is the framework by which you determine if claims are justified?
I just believe whatever the fuck I want, if it says I get to live forever
>>17433276It's just very revealing you are here not to discuss but to shitfling.
