Posted: Nov 03, 2016 7:18 pm
I've posted this a couple of times before...
Reply to a theist who asserts that a god exists or gods exist:
What you must do now is to prove (or show evidence of) the existence of an interface between a non-physical God and a physical universe (or even a physical human being will do). You must then describe the precise nature of the interface: how it is implemented, what 'connections' are used and the translation 'mechanism' across the interface. Bearing in mind, of course, that one side of the interface must be entirely non-physical such that no physical measuring device can detect its presence and that the other side must exist solely in the physical universe.
We’re still waiting…
(When I've directed this request to some of the theists who visit from time to time, all I get is waffle and 'suddenly' going off at a tangent on to some other subject - usually involving some, er, 'sciency theories' that, er, 'prove' their point of view).
Reply to an atheist who asserts that a god does not or gods do not exist:
(To paraphrase the above)
What you must do now is to prove (or show evidence of) the non-existence of an interface between a non-existent non-physical God and a physical universe (or even a physical human being will do). You must then describe the precise nature of the non- existent interface: how it is implemented, what 'connections' are used and the translation 'mechanism' across the non-existent interface. Bearing in mind, of course, that one side of the non-existent interface must be entirely non-physical such that no physical measuring device can detect its presence and that the other side must not exist in the physical universe. All of which, of course, is nonsensical.
For an atheist a simple expression of ‘non-belief’ is sufficient. (As Cali so eloquently pointed out above).
To make the assertion that a god does not exist is unnecessary and pointless.
It is the sole responsibility of the theist to provide material evidence of the existence of a ‘god’. The atheist does not need to take any active part in this process but to just metaphorically ‘sit back’ and watch the theists tie themselves in knots.
The onus is upon the theist to provide evidence of the existence of the god or gods in which they have a belief. This evidence must be peer reviewed and acceptable to believer and non-believer alike. If this evidence is accepted then non-belief and belief with respect to the existence of a supreme deity or deities will be made redundant since they will replaced by knowledge.
It is common among theist believers to assume that their belief system imparts ‘knowledge’ to the individual that they then claim is ‘evidence’ that their deity (or deities) exist. They then try to back-up this claim by presenting additional ‘evidence’ – usually in the form of ‘sacred’ or ancient writings – that ‘prove’ that their belief-driven claim is true (usually at the expense of other beliefs). This is delusional.
Oh, and welcome to RatSkep, Eli. Have fun.
Reply to a theist who asserts that a god exists or gods exist:
What you must do now is to prove (or show evidence of) the existence of an interface between a non-physical God and a physical universe (or even a physical human being will do). You must then describe the precise nature of the interface: how it is implemented, what 'connections' are used and the translation 'mechanism' across the interface. Bearing in mind, of course, that one side of the interface must be entirely non-physical such that no physical measuring device can detect its presence and that the other side must exist solely in the physical universe.
We’re still waiting…
(When I've directed this request to some of the theists who visit from time to time, all I get is waffle and 'suddenly' going off at a tangent on to some other subject - usually involving some, er, 'sciency theories' that, er, 'prove' their point of view).
Reply to an atheist who asserts that a god does not or gods do not exist:
(To paraphrase the above)
What you must do now is to prove (or show evidence of) the non-existence of an interface between a non-existent non-physical God and a physical universe (or even a physical human being will do). You must then describe the precise nature of the non- existent interface: how it is implemented, what 'connections' are used and the translation 'mechanism' across the non-existent interface. Bearing in mind, of course, that one side of the non-existent interface must be entirely non-physical such that no physical measuring device can detect its presence and that the other side must not exist in the physical universe. All of which, of course, is nonsensical.
For an atheist a simple expression of ‘non-belief’ is sufficient. (As Cali so eloquently pointed out above).
To make the assertion that a god does not exist is unnecessary and pointless.
It is the sole responsibility of the theist to provide material evidence of the existence of a ‘god’. The atheist does not need to take any active part in this process but to just metaphorically ‘sit back’ and watch the theists tie themselves in knots.
The onus is upon the theist to provide evidence of the existence of the god or gods in which they have a belief. This evidence must be peer reviewed and acceptable to believer and non-believer alike. If this evidence is accepted then non-belief and belief with respect to the existence of a supreme deity or deities will be made redundant since they will replaced by knowledge.
It is common among theist believers to assume that their belief system imparts ‘knowledge’ to the individual that they then claim is ‘evidence’ that their deity (or deities) exist. They then try to back-up this claim by presenting additional ‘evidence’ – usually in the form of ‘sacred’ or ancient writings – that ‘prove’ that their belief-driven claim is true (usually at the expense of other beliefs). This is delusional.
Oh, and welcome to RatSkep, Eli. Have fun.