Evolution or Creationism

[Bottle]

Abductive reasoning is the basis of ALL logic and research. Example: In math, we must ASSUME that 1+1=2. Without 1+1=2, none of math would work the way it does now. If 1+1=3, then all of our math as we currently know it is incorrect.

Premise 1:
You, as an atheist, have absolutely no empirical proof that God does not exist.
AND
We, as Christians, have absolutely no empirical proof that God DOES exist.

Premise 2:
Without empirical proof of something, we have only a hypothesis which is untestable. This is also called a guess or assumption.

Conclusion:
Both atheism and Christianity are based on assumptions.


You cannot have it both ways. Either you can prove that God does not exist AND we can prove that He does; or else you cannot prove God does not exist and we cannot prove He does. Which way do you want it?

Firstly that's a false dichotomy, atheist and christian aren't the only choices...
Secondly, I as an atheist make no claim that your god does not exist, just that I lack belief in him.
Thirdly, even if a god does exist that does not mean that creationism is correct.

Edit: Also The Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection being correct does not and is not supposed to disprove the existence of any god.

Indeed.

[Jedi8246]

I like this. At least you are being fair about it. Unlike other atheists.

How are we not being fair?

You absolutely insist there is no God and make arguments that there can't be just because God has not come down and told us of his presence.

Most people have no physical proof 1,000,000,000 dollars exist but know it is real.

That guy at least says that God could be real, but he just doesn't believe.

[Sociobiology]

Abductive reasoning is the basis of ALL logic and research. Example: In math, we must ASSUME that 1+1=2. Without 1+1=2, none of math would work the way it does now. If 1+1=3, then all of our math as we currently know it is incorrect.

Premise 1:
You, as an atheist, have absolutely no empirical proof that God does not exist.
AND
We, as Christians, have absolutely no empirical proof that God DOES exist.

Premise 2:
Without empirical proof of something, we have only a hypothesis which is untestable. This is also called a guess or assumption.

Conclusion:
Both atheism and Christianity are based on assumptions.


You cannot have it both ways. Either you can prove that God does not exist AND we can prove that He does; or else you cannot prove God does not exist and we cannot prove He does. Which way do you want it?

^ this ^

lack of empirical evidence requires the null be the working assumption. the null in science is always the simplest construct necessary to explain all known observations. Adding anything to this null requires evidence. This is called the burden of proof.
example in mathematics the sum of two positive numbers is assumed to be positive until proven otherwise, it is possible this could be incorrect however this is extremely unlikely given known data, just as the supernatural is extremely unlikely given known data.

[Bottle]

How are we not being fair?

You absolutely insist there is no God and make arguments that there can't be just because God has not come down and told us of his presence.

Most people have no physical proof 1,000,000,000 dollars exist but know it is real.

That guy at least says that God could be real, but he just doesn't believe.

I'm quite willing to state that the God of Christian Creationists is not real, and cannot be real, based on all existing scientific data. But that's because they have set up a stupid God-image that is easily disproven.

"God" is such a vague term that it is nearly meaningless. Why would I care about "disproving" a meaningless term?

[Farnhamia]

How are we not being fair?

You absolutely insist there is no God and make arguments that there can't be just because God has not come down and told us of his presence.

Most people have no physical proof 1,000,000,000 dollars exist but know it is real.

That guy at least says that God could be real, but he just doesn't believe.

I don't recall anyone making that argument against God. I myself go on the "pics or it never happened" principle. In other words, I default to "God does not exist" unless evidence is provided that he does. If the data changes, I will change my mind. Until then, well, sorry, but no.

[Bottle]

You absolutely insist there is no God and make arguments that there can't be just because God has not come down and told us of his presence.

Most people have no physical proof 1,000,000,000 dollars exist but know it is real.

That guy at least says that God could be real, but he just doesn't believe.

I don't recall anyone making that argument against God. I myself go on the "pics or it never happened" principle. In other words, I default to "God does not exist" unless evidence is provided that he does. If the data changes, I will change my mind. Until then, well, sorry, but no.

I treat God the same way I treat most philosophical concepts; I don't care until/unless given reason to care.

If somebody believes in something called "God" and claims it is important for me to believe as well, then I invite them to explain to me why I should give a shit. So far, no theist has ever provided me with a reason beyond "you should care about my God because I care about my God."

[Anarchaon]

I believe in evolution, I just believe something had to start it. There are structures in single celled organisms that are far too complex to have come about by random chance, and the same goes for the first DNA.

[Jedi8246]

^ this ^

lack of empirical evidence requires the null be the working assumption. the null in science is always the simplest construct necessary to explain all known observations. Adding anything to this null requires evidence. This is called the burden of proof.
example in mathematics the sum of two positive numbers is assumed to be positive until proven otherwise, it is possible this could be incorrect however this is extremely unlikely given known data, just as the supernatural is extremely unlikely given known data.

You kinda just messed up your own argument. It is the burden of proof to disprove God's existence. Unless evidence that is irrefutable that shows up disproving God, then I shall believe. It is an assumption.

[Ceannairceach]

How are we not being fair?

You absolutely insist there is no God and make arguments that there can't be just because God has not come down and told us of his presence.

Most people have no physical proof 1,000,000,000 dollars exist but know it is real.

That guy at least says that God could be real, but he just doesn't believe.

1) Just as you insist there must be a god due to some contrived reason such as "the Bible told me so!" There is no difference. And I only mentioned god once in the past few pages, in a bit of an angry snip.
2) I can show you a billion dollars, if you want. Will you accept the national reserve?
3) He said he's willing to believe, not that he does believe. Until he says "There is a god" I'm not going to make any assumption.

[Ceannairceach]

lack of empirical evidence requires the null be the working assumption. the null in science is always the simplest construct necessary to explain all known observations. Adding anything to this null requires evidence. This is called the burden of proof.
example in mathematics the sum of two positive numbers is assumed to be positive until proven otherwise, it is possible this could be incorrect however this is extremely unlikely given known data, just as the supernatural is extremely unlikely given known data.

You kinda just messed up your own argument. It is the burden of proof to disprove God's existence. Unless evidence that is irrefutable that shows up disproving God, then I shall believe. It is an assumption.

Wrong. I think it was a religious person who first declared "There is God". The atheist only demands evidence. Why the burden was shifted I do not know, because it doesn't exactly seem right.

[Jedi8246]

You absolutely insist there is no God and make arguments that there can't be just because God has not come down and told us of his presence.

Most people have no physical proof 1,000,000,000 dollars exist but know it is real.

That guy at least says that God could be real, but he just doesn't believe.

1) Just as you insist there must be a god due to some contrived reason such as "the Bible told me so!" There is no difference. And I only mentioned god once in the past few pages, in a bit of an angry snip.
2) I can show you a billion dollars, if you want. Will you accept the national reserve?
3) He said he's willing to believe, not that he does believe. Until he says "There is a god" I'm not going to make any assumption.

That is why he is being fair. And most people can't hold 1,000,000,000 in there hands, but it is still a concept to them. We have no real proof that thousands of galaxies exist, we certainly can't see them. But we still accept it as true.

[Dyakovo]

lack of empirical evidence requires the null be the working assumption. the null in science is always the simplest construct necessary to explain all known observations. Adding anything to this null requires evidence. This is called the burden of proof.
example in mathematics the sum of two positive numbers is assumed to be positive until proven otherwise, it is possible this could be incorrect however this is extremely unlikely given known data, just as the supernatural is extremely unlikely given known data.

You kinda just messed up your own argument. It is the burden of proof to disprove God's existence. Unless evidence that is irrefutable that shows up disproving God, then I shall believe. It is an assumption.

Wrong. The burden of proof is on the ones making a positive claim, i.e. theists.

[Jedi8246]

You kinda just messed up your own argument. It is the burden of proof to disprove God's existence. Unless evidence that is irrefutable that shows up disproving God, then I shall believe. It is an assumption.

Wrong. I think it was a religious person who first declared "There is God". The atheist only demands evidence. Why the burden was shifted I do not know, because it doesn't exactly seem right.

Well it was actually God that declared "There is God" but of course you don't believe in it. And the reasons above sum up my thoughts.

People were following Gods long before there were Atheists. Why should the religious now have to have proof of their God for the minority that are atheists?

[Ceannairceach]

1) Just as you insist there must be a god due to some contrived reason such as "the Bible told me so!" There is no difference. And I only mentioned god once in the past few pages, in a bit of an angry snip.
2) I can show you a billion dollars, if you want. Will you accept the national reserve?
3) He said he's willing to believe, not that he does believe. Until he says "There is a god" I'm not going to make any assumption.

That is why he is being fair. And most people can't hold 1,000,000,000 in there hands, but it is still a concept to them. We have no real proof that thousands of galaxies exist, we certainly can't see them. But we still accept it as true.

Actually, people can see and touch a billion dollars. And yes, we do have proof of thousands or more galaxies. Just read any highschool earth science text book.

[Farnhamia]

1) Just as you insist there must be a god due to some contrived reason such as "the Bible told me so!" There is no difference. And I only mentioned god once in the past few pages, in a bit of an angry snip.
2) I can show you a billion dollars, if you want. Will you accept the national reserve?
3) He said he's willing to believe, not that he does believe. Until he says "There is a god" I'm not going to make any assumption.

That is why he is being fair. And most people can't hold 1,000,000,000 in there hands, but it is still a concept to them. We have no real proof that thousands of galaxies exist, we certainly can't see them. But we still accept it as true.

Like I said, pics or it never happened ...

[Bottle]

lack of empirical evidence requires the null be the working assumption. the null in science is always the simplest construct necessary to explain all known observations. Adding anything to this null requires evidence. This is called the burden of proof.
example in mathematics the sum of two positive numbers is assumed to be positive until proven otherwise, it is possible this could be incorrect however this is extremely unlikely given known data, just as the supernatural is extremely unlikely given known data.

You kinda just messed up your own argument. It is the burden of proof to disprove God's existence. Unless evidence that is irrefutable that shows up disproving God, then I shall believe. It is an assumption.

Um, no? The burden of proof is not on those who disbelieve in God, any more than its on those who disbelieve in Quizblorg. If you assert something exists, then you need to support that assertion if you want anybody to care.

[Sociobiology]

I don't recall anyone making that argument against God. I myself go on the "pics or it never happened" principle. In other words, I default to "God does not exist" unless evidence is provided that he does. If the data changes, I will change my mind. Until then, well, sorry, but no.

I treat God the same way I treat most philosophical concepts; I don't care until/unless given reason to care.

If somebody believes in something called "God" and claims it is important for me to believe as well, then I invite them to explain to me why I should give a shit. So far, no theist has ever provided me with a reason beyond "you should care about my God because I care about my God."

This

[Ceannairceach]

Wrong. I think it was a religious person who first declared "There is God". The atheist only demands evidence. Why the burden was shifted I do not know, because it doesn't exactly seem right.

Well it was actually God that declared "There is God" but of course you don't believe in it. And the reasons above sum up my thoughts.

People were following Gods long before there were Atheists. Why should the religious now have to have proof of their God for the minority that are atheists?

Tyranny by majority, then? Charming. So if the majority of people, and this was claimed positive first, were atheists, you would be content with them saying the exact same thing?

[Bottle]

Well it was actually God that declared "There is God" but of course you don't believe in it. And the reasons above sum up my thoughts.

People were following Gods long before there were Atheists. Why should the religious now have to have proof of their God for the minority that are atheists?

Tyranny by majority, then? Charming.

No no, let him argue that. The numbers of atheists are steadily increasing, while the number of theists is dropping like a rock. If he wants to argue that the minority should have to shut the fuck up, that works in our favor.

[Jedi8246]

That is why he is being fair. And most people can't hold 1,000,000,000 in there hands, but it is still a concept to them. We have no real proof that thousands of galaxies exist, we certainly can't see them. But we still accept it as true.

Like I said, pics or it never happened ...

How do I know that isn't just a a fake picture? Where is your proof?

[Farnhamia]

Wrong. I think it was a religious person who first declared "There is God". The atheist only demands evidence. Why the burden was shifted I do not know, because it doesn't exactly seem right.

Well it was actually God that declared "There is God" but of course you don't believe in it. And the reasons above sum up my thoughts.

People were following Gods long before there were Atheists. Why should the religious now have to have proof of their God for the minority that are atheists?

So, "God" said he exists therefore it must be true and "We don't have to show you any proof if we don't want to." Well reasoned.

[Dyakovo]

Wrong. I think it was a religious person who first declared "There is God". The atheist only demands evidence. Why the burden was shifted I do not know, because it doesn't exactly seem right.

Well it was actually God that declared "There is God" but of course you don't believe in it. And the reasons above sum up my thoughts.

Prove that "God" declared that he existed.

People were following Gods long before there were Atheists. Why should the religious now have to have proof of their God for the minority that are atheists?

Prove that the first human believed in a god.

[Sociobiology]

You kinda just messed up your own argument. It is the burden of proof to disprove God's existence. Unless evidence that is irrefutable that shows up disproving God, then I shall believe. It is an assumption.

Um, no? The burden of proof is not on those who disbelieve in God, any more than its on those who disbelieve in Quizblorg. If you assert something exists, then you need to support that assertion if you want anybody to care.

exactly a god would be an addition to the model of the universe thus must be justified.

[Farnhamia]

Like I said, pics or it never happened ...

How do I know that isn't just a a fake picture? Where is your proof?

Yeah, they're all fakes. My proof is the science of astronomy. What have you got?

[Jedi8246]

Well it was actually God that declared "There is God" but of course you don't believe in it. And the reasons above sum up my thoughts.

People were following Gods long before there were Atheists. Why should the religious now have to have proof of their God for the minority that are atheists?

Tyranny by majority, then? Charming. So if the majority of people, and this was claimed positive first, were atheists, you would be content with them saying the exact same thing?

Yep. After all Majority Rule, Minority Rights. You have the right to have differing beliefs, but can't expect to make religious people prove something long held to be existent. You have to proof the minority belief.