Fort Hood Shooting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

Scientifically, the burden of proof is upon those making claims. If the Universe can theoretically exist without a god just as well as with, then one must find proof for the presence, not the absence.

---

The burden of proof is on anyone making a scientific claim. The only intellectually honest scientific position to take is "I don't know for sure".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

The burden of proof is on anyone making a scientific claim. The only intellectually honest scientific position to take is "I don't know for sure".

---

The claim doesn't necessarily have to be scientific.

Christians usually fail to realize that the burden of proof lies with them.

I gotta say, "you're not wrong," because someone won't go out and prove me right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

I gotta say, "you're not wrong," because someone won't go out and prove me right?

---

If you're asserting that there is no God, you can't prove that any more than someone who asserts that their is a God can prove it. Science disproves most religious gospel, but it also points towards an architect of creation in many ways. Ben Franklin dealt with this by classifying all of existence as part of the godhead, separate from any religion, and trying to make peace with it.

I don't assert that there is no God as much as I deny that there IS as a god. I think there's a big difference there.

ITT: Semantics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tracer

I don't assert that there is no God as much as I deny that there IS as a god. I think there's a big difference there.

---

A big difference between asserting that there is no God and denying that there is one? Explain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

If you're asserting that there is no God, you can't prove that any more than someone who asserts that their is a God can prove it. Science disproves most religious gospel, but it also points towards an architect of creation in many ways. Ben Franklin dealt with this by classifying all of existence as part of the godhead, separate from any religion, and trying to make peace with it.

---

If you can't prove that god exists then it isn't true. Saying that there is no god isn't an assertion it's the understood norm. Take the Spaghetti Monster for example. I can claim the Spaghetti Monster exists but when push comes to shove I'm gonna need to be the one to show the proof.

The fact that millions of people are deluded by the same lie isn't proof, nor does it set the norm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anal Kaboom

Christians usually fail to realize that the burden of proof lies with them.

---

not really. "the burden of proof" is a man made concept for coming to logical conclusions. Christians don't believe they need logic to come to conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anal Kaboom

If you can't prove that god exists then it isn't true. Saying that there is no god isn't an assertion it's the understood norm. Take the Spaghetti Monster for example. I can claim the Spaghetti Monster exists but when push comes to shove I'm gonna need to be the one to show the proof.

The fact that millions of people are deluded by the same lie isn't proof, nor does it set the norm.

---

You could argue pretty fairly that the burden of proof is on theists to establish a God, but that's not the same thing as saying "It doesn't exist until we prove it does." There are many things conjectured to be real and later proven by scientists. It doesn't mean they somehow "became" true; they always were.

I mean really the reason you can't disprove that God exists is because the definition of God is so liquid that it's like trying to nail spit to the wall. You can disprove specific gods, but not that there's nothing in the world named "God."