THE BURDEN OF PROOF

[australopithecus]

Perhaps Joseph, you should stick to trying to convince us that Norse/Greek/Roman et al gods didn't exist or create the universe just because to say they don't without trying to evoke physics or cosmology, something you're clearly not versed in. FYI, a lot of us here are versed in the subject.

 

[IBSpify]

The foremost thing to bare in mind is that no mythical gods claim to have created the universe.

This is simply not true.

For example Take Mbombo, who vomited forth the sun, the moon and the stars, thus creating the universe out of nothing.

Unless you know about every mythilogical being to have ever existed, please don't make a blanket claim like "No mythical gods claim to have created the universe."

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Joseph,

Do you deny the existence of my divine Creator Entity?

This is a simple Yes or No question.

 

[Frenger]

Oh, you're back.

It's not what I consider. Don't make this about me. I am explaining to you why Mythological gods could not have possibly created the universe. The foremost thing to bare in mind is that no mythical gods claim to have created the universe.

I feel were concentrating in Zeus too much. If you need gods who created the Universe (according to myth) then you only need to look at the gods of Ancient Egypt, Atum or Khepri for example.

Your religion is not the only one who claims the author created the Universe. As says Wiki.

Creation ex nihilo (Latin "out of nothing"), also known as "creation de novo", is a common type of mythical creation. Ex nihilo creation is found in creation stories from ancient Egypt, the Rig Veda, the Bible and the Quran, and many animistic cultures in Africa, Asia, Oceania and North America.[23] The Debate between sheep and grain is an example of an even earlier form of ex nihilo creation myth from ancient Sumer.[24] In most of these stories the world is brought into being by the speech, dream, breath, or pure thought of a creator but creation ex nihilo may also take place through a creator's bodily secretions. The literal translation of the phrase ex nihilo is "from nothing" but in many creation myths the line is blurred whether the creative act would be better classified as a creation ex nihilo or creation from chaos

So, how can you prove that this Universe is not the dream of the Sumerian god?

Perhaps if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his but when he landed? If Zeus was unaware that He created the universe then he would lack the capacity to have created it in the first place.

I hear you eat about 8 spiders per year while you're asleep. I'm not aware of it, but I have the capacity to do it. Mistakes happen, Universes are created. We could be in the faeces which came from a superior being. Just because our universe looks beautiful on the inside, it doesn't mean it's not shit on the outside.

You are demonstrating yourself to be very recklessly irrational.

It's difficult to debate someone who shows no understanding of anything at all. It's like arguing with yoghurt, in the end, we're both going to look bad.

At least your honest about your poor philosophy and give an admittance of your apathy.

I don't claim to be a great philosopher or a great anything. I am humble and know I have infinite amounts to learn and understand. I don't make claims about the Universe which I can in no way back up. You could take something from this.

I am starting to think that you are pulling my leg.

Or that you don't know anything about anything.

Much of the measurements made that strive to determine the shape of the Universe point to one picture, we are living in a flat universe. This was first declared by a group of scientists working on the Boomerang project and later on confirmed with sharp accuracy by the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe).

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/37029/flat-universe/#ixzz2IJpAWVsN

Annd finally from the same sauce.

The Big Bang theory has spewed forth theories that strive to predict the way the Universe will end. Among them are the Big Crunch, Big Bounce, Big Freeze, and Big Rip. All four of them are dependent on a handful of factors, and one of them is the Universe's shape.
That the Universe is flat gives us an idea as to how it may meet its ultimate end. The most plausible scenario is a continuous expansion, albeit with an equally continuous decreasing rate. Thus, this shape supports scenarios such as the Big Freeze, and contradicts extreme ones like the Big Rip and exactly opposite ones like the Big Crunch or the Big Bounce.

But anyway,. lets see your data from a big crunch.

What do you mean if? Have you ever heard of this thing called science?

Not only heard of it, but I can read it to.

How are you getting on with reading?

It's not my opinion! Take it up with Albert Einstein as well as the entire scientific community.

I called Albert but he was busy. Do you mind if we just go with the data instead for now?

What natural cause could have possibly caused everything to come from nothing?

Who said it was nothing?

From nothing, nothing comes. The cause of the universe could not have occurred naturally because there was nothing natural existed. There is nothing natural about everything coming from nothing!

Two things here.

One, you don't know what nothing is, you can't give me an example of nothing to test. How do we know nothing can't create something? It doesn't even really look like "nothing" (whatever that is) is possible.

Two, same rules apply for your god. If the Universe can't come from nothing, than neither can your god. You don't answer the "nothing" question by moving it a step back to something even more inexplicable. The Universe in it's early life, was simple, a god, is monstrously complex, you only make the problem worse. Why can't people ever see this?

Your question is not surprising given your previous statements. It's not logical that something contradicts itself. You have demonstrated yourself to be illogical and irrational.

Oh my word. That you miss the point entirely is not surprising. What I was pointing out to anyone with at least some capacity for thought, was that you were working in absolutes. Absolutes can quite easily contradict each other. And at that point, one of them has to give.

So, your god is either All powerful and not eternal, or he is eternal and not all powerful. He cannot be both.

So, the definition you use for god, is flawed. Rubbish. Useless. Dull and impossible.

If you say I'm illogical for pointing out contradictions in your definitions then I will claim my self all powerful. I can do anything I want, so long as it doesn't contradict my other properties. But that doesn't mean I can't do anything at all, it doesn't mean I am not all powerful like your god, it just means you are illogical.

 

[Prolescum]

Taking a quick step backward if you peeps don't mind...

Let me start by saying that scientifically disproving all non theistic gods is rather easily.

Your grammar aside, theism refers specifically to the belief in gods, therefore, no gods fit into any non-theistic pigeon-hole you've conveniently made up.
The spurious distinction of "mythological gods" and "theistic gods" is hereby dismissed.

Ruling out all mythological gods cuts the number of gods down dramatically as there are a lot of them.

Then we can also rule out your mythological god. You seem to be conveniently unaware of your own god's status as unproven entity. Might want to attend to that.

It would be nice if, just for once, theists with a point to prove would actually begin honestly with a null hypothesis instead of "I believe in this god, how can I convince the atheists of its provenance?"

Particularly because they are limited in power.

Their HP, MP, and experience points are irrelevant unless your definition of a god precludes all attributes (and combination of attributes) except the ones you claim for your own god (all powerful, all knowing blah blah). Which, of course, tells us that you begin with the statement: my particular god is the real one, all you other Slim Shadys are just imitating.

If you cannot show that your own particular brand of theism stands apart from your dodgy "mythological gods" conceit, what reasons are there to take your claims seriously at all?

The goddess of fertility. Or Zeus the God of Gods and the God of the sky ect. None have been claimed to have created the universe.

Your understanding of Greek mythology seems incredibly cursory; Zeus has a father. Might want to look him up.

Actually, while you're on Wikipedia, I suggest you also look up Mithras, Horus, and Anu (for starters). If you notice anything familiar, let us know.

----------------------------------------------------

Because it seems prudent at this point in our discussion, I will be clear: I am saying that all gods posited so far by man (yours included) are mere reflections of man's innate need to understand the world around them; it's a by-product of sentience, and by the power of Occam, I win.

----------------------------------------------------

Now to address the pantheist Gods like the one's that the Hindus and Buddhist believe in.

Lol, go on.

Now this one requires a little more thought.
What you need to realize is what the pantheist belief in god entails. God is in nature. This particular god is believed to have existed as the universe.

Wrong. God is nature, the universe, not in.

The definite article.

Almost certainly in the present tense too (according to them, of course).

Also note that if pantheist god was locked into the universe then he is limited to it and therefore finite.

Ignored. See above.

Also as another added note: pantheist believe the universe is eternal. But we've been shown through the laws of thermodynamics that the universe is temporary. The universe did indeed have a beginning and it will have an end.

Only Sith speak in absolutes. Funny how theists argue that science is ever changing and usually overturned in time, but 100% accurate when it suits their argument.

But to get to the point of your contention, the above does not preclude the god-as-universe hypothesis. So that's another failure of yours to note. Why must gods be eternal? Besides the fact that your favourite one supposedly is, of course.

Now we are left with the only logical possibility of a THEIST god being the cause of the universe.

Wrong. You haven't shown that your own god isn't in the mythological set yet.

This narrows the possibilities down to three. Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

Hahahahaha!

Ah.

Oh dear.
So as if by magic, you've narrowed it down to Presbyterians, Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, Baptists, Calvanists, Suffis, Shia, Sunni, Wahabbi, Haymanot, Karaite and thousands of others. Well done!

Determining which of these three is correct requires an in depth look at the difference between the three. But I shall stop here as I would like to see you try to use the way I successfully disproved all gods except three theistic beliefs to disprove OUR God.

Seeing as how you've utterly failed to show, prove, disprove or dismiss anything whatsoever, the onus is still on your risibly narrow shoulders.

The word you're looking for is monotheist by the way, not theist.

Also, don't forget Aten.

Yes, yours and mine!

T'aint mine, nuncle.

Because whether you believe God exists or not you will still bow one day before Him and confess that He is God.

So what you're saying here is that you're not here to discuss the issue (i.e., willing to admit the possibility that you may be incorrect and conduct yourself accordingly), you're here to convert. Well that's new.

If that's the case, you can try, then you can leave. I like a bit of slapstick.

By all means hit me with your best shot!

There is no need to pick up any ordinance to blow holes in what you comically refer to as an argument. The application of reason, logic, and an honest pursuit toward understanding the universe is all that's needed.

These seem to be things you are entirely uninterested in.

Use the methods I used to disprove all the gods that have been posited by mythology and pantheism and disprove OURS!

Already have. If you require a summary, here you go:

Your god is mythical, and by your "reasoning" can be dismissed utterly.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Zeus' father created the Universe.

You understanding of theology is just as bad as your understanding of math and science.

 

[Frenger]

So Joseph,

You have been shown by me to be wrong on your ideas of a finite Universe (which means you haven't been able to disprove the gods of pantheists, which you also misunderstood) and on what atheism really means. You have been shown by Prole that your definitions of theistic and non-theistic gods are complete bollocks and you have also been told many times that there are other gods that claim to have created the Universe, which seems to be the only reason you have to support your god over others.

It is also important to note that you haven't given one actual reason as to why the burden of proof shouldn't stay firmly on your side of the net, which was the point of this thread.

Anyway, just to get back to that, I thought you might enjoy this video which I think more than adequately answers any doubts you may have on the matter.



Enjoy.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Zeus' father created the Universe.

You understanding of theology is just as bad as your understanding of math and science.

Sorry, )o(Hytegia)o(, but actually, that isn't the case.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Your understanding of Greek mythology seems incredibly cursory; Zeus has a father. Might want to look him up.

since Zues had a father I guess he can be ruled out as a plausible cause for the existence of our universe.

What I find strange is that you think made up stories by anceint greeks about constellations is a practical belief system. It dos not address the issue of sin. It also offers no salvation from sin. It seems to be unreasonable to assume that these myths have any dominence over the true living God.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

So Joseph,

You have been shown by me to be wrong on your ideas of a finite Universe (which means you haven't been able to disprove the gods of pantheists, which you also misunderstood) and on what atheism really means. You have been shown by Prole that your definitions of theistic and non-theistic gods are complete bollocks and you have also been told many times that there are other gods that claim to have created the Universe, which seems to be the only reason you have to support your god over others.

It is also important to note that you haven't given one actual reason as to why the burden of proof shouldn't stay firmly on your side of the net, which was the point of this thread.

Anyway, just to get back to that, I thought you might enjoy this video which I think more than adequately answers any doubts you may have on the matter.



Enjoy.

You have been shown by me to be wrong on your ideas of a finite Universe

Wait? what now? The universe is infinte? when or where did you show me this? I don't see how you can go against all the evidence we have for a beginning of time and space and claim an infinite universe. I don't consider you to be reasonable for that matter.

 

[Laurens]

Your understanding of Greek mythology seems incredibly cursory; Zeus has a father. Might want to look him up.

since Zues had a father I guess he can be ruled out as a plausible cause for the existence of our universe.

What I find strange is that you think made up stories by anceint greeks about constellations is a practical belief system. It dos not address the issue of sin. It also offers no salvation from sin. It seems to be unreasonable to assume that these myths have any dominence over the true living God.

So your basis for accepting or rejecting gods is due to their offer of salvation from sin?

And Zeus having a father makes a lot more sense than God having a son whose father is God who is also himself...

 

[australopithecus]

What I find strange is that you think made up stories by anceint greeks about constellations is a practical belief system. It dos not address the issue of sin. It also offers no salvation from sin. It seems to be unreasonable to assume that these myths have any dominence over the true living God.

The importance you place on the concept of sin is not a problem for those who adhere to Pagan polytheism. You've decided the concept of sin is important, that is your problem. I could easily dismiss your religion as it does not address the issue of frost giants, I don't recall in the NT where Jesus address the threat from Jà¶tunheimr.

 

[Prolescum]

What I find strange is that you think made up stories by anceint greeks about constellations is a practical belief system. It dos not address the issue of sin. It also offers no salvation from sin. It seems to be unreasonable to assume that these myths have any dominence over the true living God.

The importance you place on the concept of sin is not a problem for those who adhere to Pagan polytheism. You've decided the concept of sin is important, that is your problem. I could easily dismiss your religion as it does not address the issue of frost giants, I don't recall in the NT where Jesus address the threat from Jà¶tunheimr.

I so wub you.


So Joseph, are you able to refute my contention that your god, like Zeus, is mythical? Bullet points are fine.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Jesus promised the end of sin and the salvation of mankind.

Odin and Thor promised the end of Ice Giants.

I don't see many Ice Giants these days, Joseph. Care to explain?

 

[DutchLiam84]

Your understanding of Greek mythology seems incredibly cursory; Zeus has a father. Might want to look him up.

since Zues had a father I guess he can be ruled out as a plausible cause for the existence of our universe.

What I find strange is that you think made up stories by anceint greeks about constellations is a practical belief system. It dos not address the issue of sin. It also offers no salvation from sin. It seems to be unreasonable to assume that these myths have any dominence over the true living God.

With the probability of getting a warning or worse but uhhh....are you retarded? Who taught you how to think, a cactus?

InB4 your obvious remarks: Yes, that was an insult, and no I won't address what you say because others can do it better.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

It dos not address the issue of sin. It also offers no salvation from sin. It seems to be unreasonable to assume that these myths have any dominence over the true living God.

Does a man, who will grow up and die without knowing about Jesus Christ, condemned to eternity in hell, Joseph?
He dies in sin.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Joseph, you're either a really good troll, or a really ignorant man (to say the least without getting warned). Perhaps both. Probably.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Joseph, you're either a really good troll, or a really ignorant man (to say the least without getting warned). Perhaps both. Probably.

I have witnesses this term used a few times now: "troll" -- what does it mean? I have not lived under a bridge for a very long time now. I am wondering how you knew.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

It dos not address the issue of sin. It also offers no salvation from sin. It seems to be unreasonable to assume that these myths have any dominence over the true living God.

Does a man, who will grow up and die without knowing about Jesus Christ, condemned to eternity in hell, Joseph?
He dies in sin.

That is a good question. The best answer I can give is...since God is fair and just He will undoubted pardon those who have not recieved the gospel message. However it should be noted that even without hearing the gospel one can still come to the realization that God exists and even develope a relationship with him as long as one seeks Him. Seek and ye shall find. Knock and the dorr will be opened to you. I doubt given the outreach the gospel message has that not many will go without hearing. There are tribal missionaries that have translated the bible into many tribal languages. They spend nearly a life time learning a tribal language and then writing out the language and then interpriting the gospel message into that language.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

That is a good question. The best answer I can give is...since God is fair and just He will undoubted pardon those who have not recieved the gospel message. However it should be noted that even without hearing the gospel one can still come to the realization that God exists and even develope a relationship with him as long as one seeks Him. Seek and ye shall find. Knock and the dorr will be opened to you. I doubt given the outreach the gospel message has that not many will go without hearing. There are tribal missionaries that have translated the bible into many tribal languages. They spend nearly a life time learning a tribal language and then writing out the language and then interpriting the gospel message into that language.

So.

If you hadn't told a moral pagan about God and Jesus for them to outright deny you in favor of what they had going, then their odds would be greater to go to heaven whilst being the same, moral individual?