"If God exists, why doesn't He prove it?"

[Ringel05]

didn't think I was justifying..still don't!
but then again, isn't faith in god
perceptual preconditioning?

For me it wasn't. I came to the awakening and many awakenings that He exists and didn't want to follow what everyone else was doing to follow Him. How that changed..

sorry chuck but you and just about everyone else is preconditioned to believe in god. my guess is you were never really a non believer..

You'd be amazed how many of us were none believers completely rejecting the upbringing we felt we were "subjected" to. I for one have no intention of trying to convert anyone, I couldn't anyway. Unfortunately there are those on both sides who proselytize for generally selfish reasons, not all but a few.

 

[daws101]

hard as it may seem for you to believe the Simpsons has lots of philosophy in it.

True ... But the inside of a Dove milk chocolate wrapper has more reasonable and factually supported philosophy than the Simpsons.

.

that's an opinion....

 

[Ringel05]

didn't think I was justifying..still don't!
but then again, isn't faith in god
perceptual preconditioning?

To a certain degree it is. Is faith in no God Perceptual preconditioning? In almost every case it is, it's almost always a rejection of previous teachings or an absence of theological teachings. Belief systems are simply that, belief systems, God cannot be proven just as no God cannot be proven. Studies show us that both serve to fill a need, one (faith in God) to help us explain the unexplainable and for some to fill a void. The other (no faith in God) to give credence to some's desire to be master of their own destiny most often a rejection of past teachings.
In a small percentage both are used to justify deviant/antisocial behavior.

imo faith in no god is a misnomer ..
faith and no faith are diametrically opposed.
they both can't be faith or they cancel each other out.

If one "believes" there is no God that's called faith. It's a belief (faith) system.

 

[Vox]

We are also to invite others to come to God and learn from Him for themselves. It's amazing how few people will actually follow that invitation but instead will claim there is no God and no one can know there is one despite without an ounce of effort to find out if that's true.

Honestly, I think it is a wrong approach. I know we are supposed to but I don't think you invite the whimsy spoiled brat to the common table to share the meal if she is resisting - you just ignore her.

Same here. Some boneheads need to be left alone so they can learn themselves.

 

[Destroyer2]

Why is the burden of proof on the atheist?

The null hypothesis is that God does not exist (it requires the least assumptions, so according to Occam's Razor, without evidence to the contrary we should assume this to be true). Therefore, God must be proved before we can say that he actually exists.

So, theists, if God doesn't "feel like" proving himself to me, do it for him.

 

[BlackSand]

hard as it may seem for you to believe the Simpsons has lots of philosophy in it.

True ... But the inside of a Dove milk chocolate wrapper has more reasonable and factually supported philosophy than the Simpsons.

.

that's an opinion....

On what do you base that opinion?

.

 

[Destroyer2]

To a certain degree it is. Is faith in no God Perceptual preconditioning? In almost every case it is, it's almost always a rejection of previous teachings or an absence of theological teachings. Belief systems are simply that, belief systems, God cannot be proven just as no God cannot be proven. Studies show us that both serve to fill a need, one (faith in God) to help us explain the unexplainable and for some to fill a void. The other (no faith in God) to give credence to some's desire to be master of their own destiny most often a rejection of past teachings.
In a small percentage both are used to justify deviant/antisocial behavior.

imo faith in no god is a misnomer ..
faith and no faith are diametrically opposed.
they both can't be faith or they cancel each other out.

If one "believes" there is no God that's called faith. It's a belief (faith) system.

belief does not have to be based on faith...

 

[Destroyer2]

We are also to invite others to come to God and learn from Him for themselves. It's amazing how few people will actually follow that invitation but instead will claim there is no God and no one can know there is one despite without an ounce of effort to find out if that's true.

Honestly, I think it is a wrong approach. I know we are supposed to but I don't think you invite the whimsy spoiled brat to the common table to share the meal if she is resisting - you just ignore her.

Same here. Some boneheads need to be left alone so they can learn themselves.

Yeah, those boneheads.

Wanting evidence for those extraordinary claims. How ridiculous!

 

[Ringel05]

Why is the burden of proof on the atheist?

The null hypothesis is that God does not exist (it requires the least assumptions, so according to Occam's Razor, without evidence to the contrary we should assume this to be true). Therefore, God must be proved before we can say that he actually exists.

So, theists, if God doesn't "feel like" proving himself to me, do it for him.

Why is the burden of proof on anyone?

 

[Vox]

We are also to invite others to come to God and learn from Him for themselves. It's amazing how few people will actually follow that invitation but instead will claim there is no God and no one can know there is one despite without an ounce of effort to find out if that's true.

Honestly, I think it is a wrong approach. I know we are supposed to but I don't think you invite the whimsy spoiled brat to the common table to share the meal if she is resisting - you just ignore her.

Same here. Some boneheads need to be left alone so they can learn themselves.

Yeah, those boneheads.

Wanting evidence for those extraordinary claims. How ridiculous!

what makes you think you deserve any evidence be offered?

 

[daws101]

For me it wasn't. I came to the awakening and many awakenings that He exists and didn't want to follow what everyone else was doing to follow Him. How that changed..

sorry chuck but you and just about everyone else is preconditioned to believe in god. my guess is you were never really a non believer..

You'd be amazed how many of us were none believers completely rejecting the upbringing we felt we were "subjected" to. I for one have no intention of trying to convert anyone, I couldn't anyway. Unfortunately there are those on both sides who proselytize for generally selfish reasons, not all but a few.

no surprise there ....
for me there was no rejection as much as a zero effect.
the hard part was trying to explain that to my parents/ friends.
talk about the shit hitting the fan!

 

[Destroyer2]

Why is the burden of proof on the atheist?

The null hypothesis is that God does not exist (it requires the least assumptions, so according to Occam's Razor, without evidence to the contrary we should assume this to be true). Therefore, God must be proved before we can say that he actually exists.

So, theists, if God doesn't "feel like" proving himself to me, do it for him.

Why is the burden of proof on anyone?

I literally just explained why. Read the paragraph again.

 

[Ringel05]

imo faith in no god is a misnomer ..
faith and no faith are diametrically opposed.
they both can't be faith or they cancel each other out.

If one "believes" there is no God that's called faith. It's a belief (faith) system.

belief does not have to be based on faith...

What? Belief in any unprovable is always faith, that's a social scientific classification.

 

[Destroyer2]

Honestly, I think it is a wrong approach. I know we are supposed to but I don't think you invite the whimsy spoiled brat to the common table to share the meal if she is resisting - you just ignore her.

Same here. Some boneheads need to be left alone so they can learn themselves.

Yeah, those boneheads.

Wanting evidence for those extraordinary claims. How ridiculous!

what makes you think you deserve any evidence be offered?

^Why atheists don't take you seriously

 

[daws101]

To a certain degree it is. Is faith in no God Perceptual preconditioning? In almost every case it is, it's almost always a rejection of previous teachings or an absence of theological teachings. Belief systems are simply that, belief systems, God cannot be proven just as no God cannot be proven. Studies show us that both serve to fill a need, one (faith in God) to help us explain the unexplainable and for some to fill a void. The other (no faith in God) to give credence to some's desire to be master of their own destiny most often a rejection of past teachings.
In a small percentage both are used to justify deviant/antisocial behavior.

imo faith in no god is a misnomer ..
faith and no faith are diametrically opposed.
they both can't be faith or they cancel each other out.

If one "believes" there is no God that's called faith. It's a belief (faith) system.

ok what if one does not believe..

 

[Destroyer2]

If one "believes" there is no God that's called faith. It's a belief (faith) system.

belief does not have to be based on faith...

What? Belief in any unprovable is always faith, that's a social scientific classification.

Is lack of belief in fairies "faith"?

Because this is exactly the same situation.

 

[daws101]

True ... But the inside of a Dove milk chocolate wrapper has more reasonable and factually supported philosophy than the Simpsons.

.

that's an opinion....

On what do you base that opinion?

.

it's your opinion, I was just stating fact, no opinion offered..

 

[daws101]

Honestly, I think it is a wrong approach. I know we are supposed to but I don't think you invite the whimsy spoiled brat to the common table to share the meal if she is resisting - you just ignore her.

Same here. Some boneheads need to be left alone so they can learn themselves.

Yeah, those boneheads.

Wanting evidence for those extraordinary claims. How ridiculous!

what makes you think you deserve any evidence be offered?

what make you think he does not?
religious rationalization in 5....4...3..2.1

 

[Ringel05]

Why is the burden of proof on the atheist?

The null hypothesis is that God does not exist (it requires the least assumptions, so according to Occam's Razor, without evidence to the contrary we should assume this to be true). Therefore, God must be proved before we can say that he actually exists.

So, theists, if God doesn't "feel like" proving himself to me, do it for him.

Why is the burden of proof on anyone?

I literally just explained why. Read the paragraph again.

I read it the first time. Obviously you missed my point.

 

[Ringel05]

belief does not have to be based on faith...

What? Belief in any unprovable is always faith, that's a social scientific classification.

Is lack of belief in fairies "faith"?

Because this is exactly the same situation.

According to to the universally accepted definition of faith, yes.