[PDN]

This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.

Too many threads are spoilt and dragged off topic when a non-Christian poster demands, "What evidence do you have for God?" While some may enjoy such discussion, it is frequently off-topic and derails discussion of other subjects (the very discussion that is the reason for this Forum's existence).

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to derail other discussions by demanding evidence for God's existence will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

[Killer Pigeon]

Well, this seems like a very original idea, I must say OP.

As for the existence of God, you have to define first what you mean by "God". As this is Christianity Forum I'm going to assume you mean the One Abrahamic God. This is the God who's personified in the Bible. It shouldn't be extremely hard to debate the reality of this particular personification - I think that modern science can tackle this one pretty easily.

However, the God who's personified in the Bible also is said to fills the role of Supreme Being and initiators of Space, time and energy. It is in his apparent role as creator of the universe where both sides of the debate could falter.

It is not beyond the realm of modern science to disprove the interference of this Supreme Being in Earthly affairs or indeed in the overall evolution of what we perceive as reality since "Initiation". It is much more difficult to disprove the existence of an "Initiator"* - if indeed this Initiator is conscious or an actual entity. I believe that there exists a philosophical paradox which renders the case where this "Initiator" exists and the case where the "Initiator" doesn't exists to be both logically flawed.

Such and argument could and will last forever, so I'd expect this to be a very long thread

*By "Initiator" I mean Supreme Being

[JohnMarston]

Question: Who does the burden of proof lie with, those who deny or those who accept the existence of God?

[jhegarty]

Originally Posted by JohnMarston

Question: Who does the burden of proof lie with, those who deny or those who accept the existence of God?

It either side gave in on that , then they lose by default.

An Atheist can never prove God doesn't exist, and a Theist can never prove he does.

[gvn]

Originally Posted by JohnMarston

Question: Who does the burden of proof lie with, those who deny or those who accept the existence of God?

The burden of proof lies with those who put forward the notion of the existence of a god. I can't see how it can be logically argued that the burden of proof lies with those who don't put forward that notion. If that case is argued it opens up a very large can of worms.

P.S. An atheist doesn't deny the existence of God. He lacks belief in a god. There's a world of difference between both of those sentences.

[Morbert]

Originally Posted by -JammyDodger-

The burden of proof lies with those who put forward the notion of the existence of a god. I can't see how it can be logically argued that the burden of proof lies with those who don't put forward that notion. If that case is argued it opens up a very large can of worms.

P.S. An atheist doesn't deny the existence of God. He lacks belief in a god. There's a world of difference between both of those sentences.

Atheism is a little stronger than that. Agnostic atheists like myself, for example, believe there is no God, but accept that our belief might not be true.

[Killer Pigeon]

Originally Posted by jhegarty

It either side gave in on that , then they lose by default.

An Atheist can never prove God doesn't exist, and a Theist can never prove he does.

Again it depends what you mean by "God". If it's a "God" that has interfered in the evolution of the Universe from it's beginnings which included the creation of Earth and life and also communication with humans at various points throughout history - then I think we can disprove that. If you are talking about just a God that didn't interfere with the universe after it created it, then it should be a little harder to disprove using scientific knowledge.

[Fanny Cradock]

Originally Posted by JohnMarston

Question: Who does the burden of proof lie with, those who deny or those who accept the existence of God?

Good question. Both - neither. Christians are called to give an account of why they believe. While that implies dialogue, I don't think that it means we have to "prove" anything.

[Fanny Cradock]

Originally Posted by Killer Pigeon

Again it depends what you mean by "God". If it's a "God" that has interfered in the evolution of the Universe from it's beginnings which included the creation of Earth and life and also communication with humans at various points throughout history - then I think we can disprove that. If you are talking about just a God that didn't interfere with the universe after it created it, then it should be a little harder to disprove using scientific knowledge.

Given that we are debating this in the Christianity forum - as opposed to the deism forum - I suggest we stick to an orthodox understanding of God, which is to say that God, as revealed in the Bible, is an uncreated being that created the universe, sustains it and interacts with it.

Now if you want to disprove that claim then go ahead.

[gvn]

Originally Posted by Morbert

Atheism is a little stronger than that. Agnostic atheists like myself, for example, believe there is no God, but accept that our belief might not be true.

Well, there are huge and varying degrees of atheism. Weak/strong, positive/negative and implicit/explicit (even agnostic/gnostic, I guess). It's a little bit too complicated and convoluted for my liking. I'd like to think that the basic, ground level of atheism is the lack of belief in a god. If a person wants to express more about that assertion then they can use the above scales (weak/strong, etc.). But yeah, I accept your point.

[Penn]

The burden of proof has to lie with those making the claim. Otherwise, anybody could claim anything. I could claim to have the world's largest collection of air guitars, but it's up to me to prove its bigger than everyone elses.

Religion is like selling an invisible product. The salesman has to prove why you should buy it.

[philologos]

I think we need to come up with new terms for this discussion or at least to recognise limitations. We should rule out proof because proof lies solely in the realm of mathematics. The question lies more in terms of probability. What is more probable than the other? Is it more probable that there is a God who has created the world or that the universe came into being of its own accord?

The question seems to lie in these three positions:

1. Theism - It is more likely that there is a God than not. (Christianity and other forms of traditional theism would also argue that certain forms of theism are more probable than others).

2. Agnosticism - God may exist or God may not exist.

3. Atheism - It is less likely that God exists than not exists.

Some atheists would accuse me of leaving out the possibility that an atheist can be to some degree agnostic, or that a theist can be to some degree agnostic, but actually this solution allows for that agnosticism because it is placed in probability. If you think that God's existence is as likely as a fairy at the back of your garden there may be a minuscule degree of agnosticism but it is still fair to say that one still regards the existence of God as being less likely.

We need to focus on the likelihood of God's existence rather than expecting absolute proof. This also means that the reasons will be pointed at showing how the existence of God is more evident than not, or that the non-existence of God is evident. This will mean that both atheists and theists according to the above definition deviate from the full agnostic position that we can't know which of course has no burden of proof but I don't feel that atheists can also claim this as their position does deviate from de-facto agnosticism even if they claim to be agnostic atheists.

[Quo Vadis]

There is no irrefutable proof that God does / does not exist.

There cannot be, because if there was it would remove all free will, and we would be nothing but automatons serving God.

Like any loving parent would, God wants us to love him voluntarily, hence our free will to choose to believe or not.

This short life is a test for the next life which is eternal. We cannot have heaven on earth, that would serve no purpose.

At the time of your Judgement you will have no excuses, everything you did and choose in life will be reviewed in front of you.

Hell is self chosen eternal darkness and permanent separation from God and his infinite love for all eternity. The gates of hell are bolted from the inside by the arrogance of ego.

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by philologos

I think we need to come up with new terms for this discussion or at least to recognise limitations. We should rule out proof because proof lies solely in the realm of mathematics. The question lies more in terms of probability. What is more probable than the other? Is it more probable that there is a God who has created the world or that the universe came into being of its own accord?

The question seems to lie in these three positions:

1. Theism - It is more likely that there is a God than not. (Christianity and other forms of traditional theism would also argue that certain forms of theism are more probable than others).

2. Agnosticism - God may exist or God may not exist.

3. Atheism - It is less likely that God exists than not exists.

Some atheists would accuse me of leaving out the possibility that an atheist can be to some degree agnostic, or that a theist can be to some degree agnostic, but actually this solution allows for that agnosticism because it is placed in probability. If you think that God's existence is as likely as a fairy at the back of your garden there may be a minuscule degree of agnosticism but it is still fair to say that one still regards the existence of God as being less likely.

We need to focus on the likelihood of God's existence rather than expecting absolute proof. This also means that the reasons will be pointed at showing how the existence of God is more evident than not, or that the non-existence of God is evident. This will mean that both atheists and theists according to the above definition deviate from the full agnostic position that we can't know which of course has no burden of proof but I don't feel that atheists can also claim this as their position does deviate from de-facto agnosticism even if they claim to be agnostic atheists.

It should also be remembered that atheism is a rejection of the claims of theists, not a proclamation about a general unknown entity that may or may not be divine (a general notion of a creator).

Someone saying (not saying you said this) that you cannot demonstrate God doesn't exist and thus atheism is as faith based as theism is missing the point.

You cannot demonstrate a god doesn't exist. You can though demonstrate that humans invent deities and that this is a more likely explanation for why humans believe this stuff than the actual deity existing.

After all it should always be remembered that the only evidence ever presented for the existence of any deity is the testimony of humans who claim to have interacted with said deity.

If you reject these claims as unreliable or false you are de-facto an atheist, without ever having to make any claim positive or negative about the existence of a creator deity.

[gvn]

Originally Posted by Quo Vadis

Like any loving parent would, God wants us to love him voluntarily, hence our free will to choose to believe or not.

I'm sorry, but I've always absolutely hated that analogy. It's grotesque.

Firstly, what do you say to a person who either doesn't or can't love God voluntarily, such as an atheist?

Secondly, and most importantly, if a child doesn't love their parent, that parent wouldn't sentence their child to an eternity of torture for their child's choice. You could call such a parent many, many things, but loving is not one of them.

The type of free will you speak about is analogous to pointing a gun at somebody's head and giving them the choice to do one of two things; if they chose the right choice you let them live, but if they chose the wrong one you shoot them. That's not free will.