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

[Destroyer2]

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.

The burden of proof is on someone because null hypothesis says God does not exist.

Now, if God does exist, there should be evidence for that, no?

So why isn't there any?

(If I'm not getting your point you might have to restate it because I'm not sure I'm hitting it)

 

[Destroyer2]

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.

This is where we must disagree.

We can call such an argument absurd since it has no basis in reality. That's why it is not faith.

Same with God.

 

[BlackSand]

that's an opinion....

On what do you base that opinion?

.

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

It is your opinion that it was simply an opinion on my part ... You don't have the leisure of assuming your opinions are valid enough to go unchallenged.

Example ... the wrapper I just opened reads "Smile".
Now I am sure that you could Google countless studies on the benefits and power of a smile.
Furthermore ... There was some milk chocolate in there which certainly made me smile as well as the sentiment of the simple statement.

That is what you call an open and shut case in a single word ... No opinion involved.

.

 

[Ringel05]

I literally just explained why. Read the paragraph again.

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

The burden of proof is on someone because null hypothesis says God does not exist.

Now, if God does exist, there should be evidence for that, no?

So why isn't there any?

(If I'm not getting your point you might have to restate it because I'm not sure I'm hitting it)

Perspective. Apply perspective and re-write your null hypothesis to read, "because God exists".
I have no need or desire to prove either as the entire question is a personal one for me as it's a truly personal one for everyone else.

 

[Ringel05]

Is lack of belief in fairies "faith"?

Because this is exactly the same situation.

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

This is where we must disagree.

We can call such an argument absurd since it has no basis in reality. That's why it is not faith.

Same with God.

The basis is in the definition of faith so disagree as much as you want, it doesn't change the definition. Try applying it dispassionately.

 

[Vox]

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

I could not care less about the atheists and what they think

what makes you think I take any of the boneheads seriously?

 

[Destroyer2]

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

The burden of proof is on someone because null hypothesis says God does not exist.

Now, if God does exist, there should be evidence for that, no?

So why isn't there any?

(If I'm not getting your point you might have to restate it because I'm not sure I'm hitting it)

Perspective. Apply perspective and re-write your null hypothesis to read, "because God exists".
I have no need or desire to prove either as the entire question is a personal one for me as it's a truly personal one for everyone else.

It's not perspective. According to Occam's Razor, the existence of God requires too many assumptions to be a null hypothesis.

You can't change the definition of null hypothesis just because you want to believe in God.

 

[Vox]

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

my desire

 

[Destroyer2]

what makes you think you deserve any evidence be offered?

^Why atheists don't take you seriously

I could not care less about the atheists and what they think

what makes you think I take any of the boneheads seriously?

I recall you saying global warming and evolution need to be proved, but not God.

I'm pretty sure you're the bonehead here.

 

[Vox]

^Why atheists don't take you seriously

I could not care less about the atheists and what they think

what makes you think I take any of the boneheads seriously?

I recall you saying global warming and evolution need to be proved, but not God.

I'm pretty sure you're the bonehead here.

I recall you are lying as boneheads always do when they lose the argument

 

[Destroyer2]

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

This is where we must disagree.

We can call such an argument absurd since it has no basis in reality. That's why it is not faith.

Same with God.

The basis is in the definition of faith so disagree as much as you want, it doesn't change the definition. Try applying it dispassionately.

The basis is not in the definition of faith, it is in the observations of a reality which do not suggest the existence of fairies or a God.

 

[Destroyer2]

I could not care less about the atheists and what they think

what makes you think I take any of the boneheads seriously?

I recall you saying global warming and evolution need to be proved, but not God.

I'm pretty sure you're the bonehead here.

I recall you are lying.

I could be remembering someone else.

But I think it was you.

Either way, you've been successfully duped by your Christian overlords.

 

[Vox]

I recall you saying global warming and evolution need to be proved, but not God.

I'm pretty sure you're the bonehead here.

I recall you are lying.

I could be remembering someone else.

But I think it was you.

Either way, you've been successfully duped by your Christian overlords.

*yawn*

anything else except the standard lies?

next.

 

[Ringel05]

The burden of proof is on someone because null hypothesis says God does not exist.

Now, if God does exist, there should be evidence for that, no?

So why isn't there any?

(If I'm not getting your point you might have to restate it because I'm not sure I'm hitting it)

Perspective. Apply perspective and re-write your null hypothesis to read, "because God exists".
I have no need or desire to prove either as the entire question is a personal one for me as it's a truly personal one for everyone else.

It's not perspective. According to Occam's Razor, the existence of God requires too many assumptions to be a null hypothesis.

You can't change the definition of null hypothesis just because you want to believe in God.

Not changing the definition, simply re applying it based on scientifically observable human behavior. Nothing says Occam's Razor cannot be reapplied to fit the alternate question.

 

[Ringel05]

This is where we must disagree.

We can call such an argument absurd since it has no basis in reality. That's why it is not faith.

Same with God.

The basis is in the definition of faith so disagree as much as you want, it doesn't change the definition. Try applying it dispassionately.

The basis is not in the definition of faith, it is in the observations of a reality which do not suggest the existence of fairies or a God.

Then you have no idea what the definition of faith is, or you don't want to.

 

[Destroyer2]

Perspective. Apply perspective and re-write your null hypothesis to read, "because God exists".
I have no need or desire to prove either as the entire question is a personal one for me as it's a truly personal one for everyone else.

It's not perspective. According to Occam's Razor, the existence of God requires too many assumptions to be a null hypothesis.

You can't change the definition of null hypothesis just because you want to believe in God.

Not changing the definition, simply re applying it based on scientifically observable human behavior. Nothing says Occam's Razor cannot be reapplied to fit the alternate question.

Well, think for a minute.

Omnipotence opens up a whole slew of issues, the problem of evil being one of them, why God doesn't have a cause when everything else does, etc.

It takes a metric fuckton of unproved assumptions for that God to exist, so no, it can't be the null hypothesis.

 

[Ringel05]

It's not perspective. According to Occam's Razor, the existence of God requires too many assumptions to be a null hypothesis.

You can't change the definition of null hypothesis just because you want to believe in God.

Not changing the definition, simply re applying it based on scientifically observable human behavior. Nothing says Occam's Razor cannot be reapplied to fit the alternate question.

Well, think for a minute.

Omnipotence opens up a whole slew of issues, the problem of evil being one of them, why God doesn't have a cause when everything else does, etc.

It takes a metric fuckton of unproved assumptions for that God to exist, so no, it can't be the null hypothesis.

Again, unlike you I have no need or desire to prove or disprove God. I'm simply questioning why some feel it's necessary.

 

[Destroyer2]

Not changing the definition, simply re applying it based on scientifically observable human behavior. Nothing says Occam's Razor cannot be reapplied to fit the alternate question.

Well, think for a minute.

Omnipotence opens up a whole slew of issues, the problem of evil being one of them, why God doesn't have a cause when everything else does, etc.

It takes a metric fuckton of unproved assumptions for that God to exist, so no, it can't be the null hypothesis.

Again, unlike you I have no need or desire to prove or disprove God. I'm simply questioning why some feel it's necessary.

Because believing in God has been the social norm for 2000-ish years for no good reason, plus the negativity associated with religious fundamentalism, as well as the general pursuit of knowledge.

 

[Ringel05]

Well, think for a minute.

Omnipotence opens up a whole slew of issues, the problem of evil being one of them, why God doesn't have a cause when everything else does, etc.

It takes a metric fuckton of unproved assumptions for that God to exist, so no, it can't be the null hypothesis.

Again, unlike you I have no need or desire to prove or disprove God. I'm simply questioning why some feel it's necessary.

Because believing in God has been the social norm for 2000-ish years for no good reason, plus the negativity associated with religious fundamentalism, as well as the general pursuit of knowledge.

That's a rationalization based on stereotypes, not a necessity.

 

[Destroyer2]

Again, unlike you I have no need or desire to prove or disprove God. I'm simply questioning why some feel it's necessary.

Because believing in God has been the social norm for 2000-ish years for no good reason, plus the negativity associated with religious fundamentalism, as well as the general pursuit of knowledge.

That's a rationalization based on stereotypes, not a necessity.

the last one is the only real reason; the rest are really excuses to question his existence

(don't tell the others I said that, it's an atheist secret!!!)