My final point

[Chromatophore]

If that is so then why make the thread in the first place?

Because he wanted to.

Or because he wanted to convince you that you shouldn't try to convince him that God doesn't exist.

[Jenkar]

If that is so then why make the thread in the first place?

Because he wanted to.

Or because he wanted to convince you that you shouldn't try to convince him that God doesn't exist.

Or both

[Bloodshadow]

Or because he wanted to convince you that you shouldn't try to convince him that God doesn't exist.

Well, I'm not likely to do that in the first place. So I guess I have nothing else to say here.

[BluePriest]

If that is so then why make the thread in the first place?

Because he wanted to.

Or because he wanted to convince you that you shouldn't try to convince him that God doesn't exist.

It was created for the "evangelical atheist" types. If you arent one, then this topic will have nothing to do with you because I am not trying to convert you, but am instead saying that I dont have to prove anything to them, they have to prove something to me. Of course to many this will seem irrelevant, although people who claim religious people in general to be idiots/mislead or otherwise will still have the burden of proof as well.

[Selvaria]

If that is so then why make the thread in the first place?

Because he wanted to.

Or because he wanted to convince you that you shouldn't try to convince him that God doesn't exist.

It was created for the "evangelical atheist" types. If you arent one, then this topic will have nothing to do with you because I am not trying to convert you, but am instead saying that I dont have to prove anything to them, they have to prove something to me. Of course to many this will seem irrelevant, although people who claim religious people in general to be idiots/mislead or otherwise will still have the burden of proof as well.

Lolwut? So you're saying the atheists are trying to convert people to atheism? Oh, wow.

Since its impossible to scientifically prove either God exist or not, what proof are you specifically looking for?

[BluePriest]

Lolwut? So you're saying the atheists are trying to convert people to atheism? Oh, wow.

Since its impossible to scientifically prove either God exist or not, what proof are you specifically looking for?

You havent heard of evangelical atheists? Well the idea may seem silly to you, however, it is not hard to find. There are entire websites dedicated to disproving God exists. Those are evangelical sites. Then I have met people that try to say God doesnt exist and give reasons, those people are evangelical. And I am not looking for anything. All I am doing is saying that I don't have to do anything but defend. I also wanted a chance to put up my thoughts on burden of proof.

[Daytripper]

That's a very odd form of reasoning. On the personal level there is something to it yeah. I don't think anyone will convince you something does not exist, while you think it exists. No one is expecting that. There is a strange duality in the post. On the one hand you are issueing a challenge, on the other hand you're saying you're not trying to convert anyone. Considering reciprocity it would make no sense anyone tried to deconvert you then.

Evangelical atheists are few. Most are content to say they do not believe, and really they couldn't care less about your beliefs as long as they're not too intrusive. The Christian/atheism controvery is mostly found in the US. You don't see these crazy scenarios here. Both parties give each other some leeway and usually things are quite laid back. If you don't want religion, of course don't go to a place that is especially Christian. There are enough other places. Frustrations come from people who are atheists and have no place to go because the US government unofficially sees Christianity as default.

The whole idea of disproving a God seems silly to me. You can always use some definition or description that defies falsifiability. That is not terribly productive. You can talk about certain Gods that are particularely unlikely, but that's as far as it goes. Logical arguments always set out to prove a concept so vague you barely see a God back in it, let alone the Christian God. General debate will not help a particular branch of religion usually. You would need to talk about the Bible, Jesus, creation and interpret the stories. Of course usually Christians insist there is a specific Christian God, but they're often reluctant to tackle specific problems. Instead then they usually choose some generic definition of a God.

[EvaRia]

I basically agree.

I mean, if you want to prove anything, you can't let the other side prove it for you, right?

[Scaredgirl]

And if you cannot prove that I cannot fly, does that mean you cannot question my ability to fly? Of course not because that would be silly.

I don't get why it would be silly. For all i know, you could have found a loophole in physic or whatever that allows you to fly.
Till you can prove something is wrong, it's right, AND that includes opposites.

Think about that comment a bit.

People who have a logical and scientific view of the world, do not think that everything that hasn't been specifically disproved, must be true. It's ridiculous logic that is an insult to all scientists that have ever lived. Using that logic, anyone could pull any kind of claims out of a hat and demand others to disprove them. It would be like kindergarten or something.

Lets take my flying example. You have no way of disproving my ability to fly. Does that mean that I can fly?

I'm hoping that your post was a joke, but in case it was not, then you, just like the original poster, do not understand the concept of burden of proof and why it is important in any kind of real discussion.

I have a question for the original poster. You said your "evidence" of the existence of God is "personal experiences with him". I don't know what these experiences are, but how do you know that they are "act of God" and not something else? Here's how I see the choices:


You had a weird experience. It happened because..

A) of pure chance. If I barely avoid getting hit by a bus, that doesn't automatically mean that I am protected by higher powers. I just got lucky.
B) of delusion caused by stress, medical condition or simply seeing something because you wanted to see it.
C) God did it.

If we think about it logically, aren't the first two a bit more probable? My original question was, how do you know what happened to you is option C and not options A or B?

There's a guy living in an institution who says he's Napoleon. Which one is more probable:

A) He is Napoleon
B) He is crazy

Both you and that Napoleon guy have the burden of proof because you claim something extraordinary that is not possible based on how we understand the physical world. Until you provide some kind of solid evidence other than "because I said so", discussing about them is pretty pointless. It's the equivalent of me posting a new topic about how I saw a magical unicorn in the woods and asking everyone to convince me I didn't.

[BluePriest]

I have a question for the original poster. You said your "evidence" of the existence of God is "personal experiences with him". I don't know what these experiences are, but how do you know that they are "act of God" and not something else? Here's how I see the choices:


You had a weird experience. It happened because..

A) of pure chance. If I barely avoid getting hit by a bus, that doesn't automatically mean that I am protected by higher powers. I just got lucky.
B) of delusion caused by stress, medical condition or simply seeing something because you wanted to see it.
C) God did it.

If we think about it logically, aren't the first two a bit more probable? My original question was, how do you know what happened to you is option C and not options A or B?

There's a guy living in an institution who says he's Napoleon. Which one is more probable:

A) He is Napoleon
B) He is crazy

Both you and that Napoleon guy have the burden of proof because you claim something extraordinary that is not possible based on how we understand the physical world. Until you provide some kind of solid evidence other than "because I said so", discussing about them is pretty pointless. It's the equivalent of me posting a new topic about how I saw a magical unicorn in the woods and asking everyone to convince me I didn't.

You misunderstand SG. I have the burden of proof if I am asserting my beliefs. I am however, not asserting my beliefs. All I have said is that I believe in God so that people know where I stand. Not to try to make them believe what I say is true.

That's a very odd form of reasoning. On the personal level there is something to it yeah. I don't think anyone will convince you something does not exist, while you think it exists. No one is expecting that. There is a strange duality in the post. On the one hand you are issueing a challenge, on the other hand you're saying you're not trying to convert anyone. Considering reciprocity it would make no sense anyone tried to deconvert you then.

I agree. It is very odd reasoning. It is in a way a challenge, however, it is more of just saying that if you have a problem with what you I believe, I dont have to prove anything to you.

Evangelical atheists are few. Most are content to say they do not believe, and really they couldn't care less about your beliefs as long as they're not too intrusive. The Christian/atheism controvery is mostly found in the US. You don't see these crazy scenarios here. Both parties give each other some leeway and usually things are quite laid back. If you don't want religion, of course don't go to a place that is especially Christian. There are enough other places. Frustrations come from people who are atheists and have no place to go because the US government unofficially sees Christianity as default.

Yes, evangelical atheists may be few, and although they are the main group that I have mentioned in this topic, people, regardless of views that claim any group to be ignorat, mislead or stupid for believeing what they believe, whether it is a atheist that thinks a christian or the opposite, if you want to assert that someone is ignorant, then you have to give a reason, and if that reason is God, then you have to say why that is an ignorant view.

[Scaredgirl]

You misunderstand SG. I have the burden of proof if I am asserting my beliefs. I am however, not asserting my beliefs. All I have said is that I believe in God so that people know where I stand. Not to try to make them believe what I say is true.

Here's what you say in the first post:

I am stating that God exists. My evidence is personal experiences with him. I have my evidence that shows ME he is real.

If you post a claims like that on a public forum, you should be able to back it up because others will question that extraordinary claim. You are incorrectly using the word "evidence" which implies something was either proved or disproved. Your own personal experiences with God prove nothing else but the fact that you think you experienced something with God. Now why you think that can be explained in many non-supernatural ways (see my earlier post), all of which are much more likely than some divine intervention.

To me this topic sounds a bit like: "I have no actual evidence that God exists but he does because I say so and I don't care what anyone else says". I guess you are entitled to that opinion but it's kind of weird to post something like that on a public forum. You clearly are not interested in having a debate about it and only want to say that you will believe what you believe no matter what happens or what kind of actual evidence is shown. Even the title suggests that this is your "final word" on the existence of God. The picture below fits pretty well here:



And you didn't answer my question.

Have you considered the possibility that your experiences with God are not real? As a rational human being, you should be open to the possibility that these experiences are nothing more than chance or some kind of a delusion. I mean not everyone who says they are Napoleon, is Napoleon. Not everyone who has been abducted by Aliens, has been abducted by Aliens. It is possible that some of them are actually correct, but most of them probably suffer from some kind of psychological problems.

So you have to ask yourself one question: "Am I the one who is right, or am I the delusional one?". The difficulty of course is that people who experience delusions, think those experiences are real. And if you feel something really happened, it's very difficult for me to convince you that it didn't.

If I had a supernatural experience where aliens abducted me and took me to their home planet, I would try to find a rational explanation for it. Was I dreaming? Did someone drug me? Am I sick? Am I suffering from delusions? etc. No matter how real the experience was to me, it is very likely that there is a simple rational explanation behind it.

The problem is that many religious people refuse to try to find these rational explanations and instead go directly to the supernatural. They do that because it strengthens their belief and makes them feel special because God interacts with them directly. When a religious person survives cancer, it's always God who saved them, not the skilled doctors.

[TimerClock14]

The way I see it, everyone has the right to their own opinion. I personally don't believe god exists because I've never had a personal experience, like you apparently have had, with god. My only beef is when people try and impose their beliefs on others. The world would be a better place if people respected others' beliefs and knew when to say something, and when to shut up. (that's not directed at you, BP)

I cannot disprove to you that god exists because of 2 reasons:
1) You state that you have had personal experiences with god, therefore you have formed a 'personal postulate' that god exists. I cannot contradict that, as it is your opinion and I have no right to say "You're wrong" without backing it up with evidence.
2) I have no evidence.