The silence of God

[leroy]

:lol: why does Leroy thinks he never has the burden of proof when he makes an assertion?
So you refuse to support your assertion Leroy, that's noted. Which means your objection is bullshit.

.]

because this is suppose to be an atheist argument, atheist are the ones who claim that if God exist he would make his existence more obvious.



this is something that atheists have to prove.


having the power to do something does not necessarily implies that you would do it ............If doing something is counterproductive for whatever your goal might be, then no one is expecting you to do that thing.

 

[leroy]

[ For the record, anyone investigating any claim is supposed to go into it with as little bias as possible. One is supposed to let the evidence guide one to the truth.

yes that is my point, if you look at the evidence without bias the existence of God would be evident.


only if you have a strong bias towards naturalism, and presuppose that everything has a naturalistic explanation regardless of the evidence you would find the evidence for God unconvincing.



the existence of God is evident for the vast mayority of people, only the insignificant minority of atheist would disagree

 

[MarsCydonia]

because this is suppose to be an atheist argument, atheist are the ones who claim that if God exist he would make his existence more obvious.

this is something that atheists have to prove.

having the power to do something does not necessarily implies that you would do it ............If doing something is counterproductive for whatever your goal might be, then no one is expecting you to do that thing.

See, this is another demonstration that you have no clue how the burden of proof works...

But to your last moronic point Leroy, go read the argument over. Try to think about for 2 seconds because this is specifically discussed in it and re-discussed in my follow-up comments... Not having read it must be why you're ignoring it, not because you're running away...

You impress Leroy...

 

[leroy]

because this is suppose to be an atheist argument, atheist are the ones who claim that if God exist he would make his existence more obvious.

this is something that atheists have to prove.

having the power to do something does not necessarily implies that you would do it ............If doing something is counterproductive for whatever your goal might be, then no one is expecting you to do that thing.

But to your last moronic point Leroy, go read the argument over. Try to think about for 2 seconds because this is specifically discussed in it and re-discussed in my follow-up comments... Not having read it must be why you're ignoring it, not because you're running away...

You impress Leroy...

I am not running away, your previous points ether have been answered or are not relevant.

See, this is another demonstration that you have no clue how the burden of proof works...

granted, I have no idea how burden prove works in atheist minds.


but for the rest of the population, the burden proof is on the one who is making the claim. Given that atheist claim that if God exist he would make his existence more obvious, atheist are the ones who have to prove it.


All I have to do is to show that this is not necessarily the case, and I already did that.

 

[MarsCydonia]

I am not running away, your previous points ether have been answered or are not relevant.

So you think that a premise of the argument is irrelevant to it?
:lol:
It's hilarious how the mind of a theist works.

granted, I have no idea how burden prove works in atheist minds.

but for the rest of the population, the burden proof is on the one who is making the claim.

This, "I think there is sufficient evidence for anyone who looks at it with an open mind an open hart.", is a claim. Atheists and the rest of the population would place the burden on you, the person who made this claim, to support this assertion.

So basically, you have no idea how the burden of proof works, period. Or you just forget how it works when its inconvenient (which is a lot of time, isn't Leroy it? )

Given that atheist claim that if God exist he would make his existence more obvious, atheist are the ones who have to prove it.

Done but apparently irrelevant because you have not "run away from it" despite not having responded to it :lol:

You were presented with the argument in its proper form and you have not shown a single premise to be wrong.

 

[leroy]

So you think that a premise of the argument is irrelevant to it?
:lol:
It's hilarious how the mind of a theist works.

nope, comments related to the premises have been answered.


I have no idea what specific premise are you talking about, but if I didn't answer directly to you, that is because someone else made a similar comment and I answered to him

Done but apparently irrelevant because you have not "run away from it" despite not having responded to it :lol:

You were presented with the argument in its proper form and you have not shown a single premise to be wrong.

yes and I said that I don't grant one of your premises (premise 1 I think) and I explained why.

I don't grant that God wants as many believers as possible, I said that God (presumible) wants as many followers as possible.


given that more evidence would not necessary create more followers, the silence of God argument fails

This, "I think there is sufficient evidence for anyone who looks at it with an open mind an open hart.", is a claim. Atheists and the rest of the population would place the burden on you, the person who made this claim, to support this assertion.

the assertion is just my personal opinion and a side note, it is not part of the objection to the argument. this is why your comments are not very relevant.

sure I have good reasons to believe that the assertion is true, but that would be a completely different topic.


the relevant point is that there are no good reasons to think that more evidence would result in more followers.............agree?


if you disagree then you would have to prove it, you would have to prove that more evidence would result in more followers .................agree?

 

[MarsCydonia]

the assertion is just my personal opinion and a side note, it is not part of the objection to the argument. this is why your comments are not very relevant.

sure I have good reasons to believe that the assertion is true, but that would be a completely different topic.

This is the reason you asserted that more evidence wouldn't create more followers. You refuse to meet your burden of proof, noted.

the relevant point is that there are no good reasons to think that more evidence would result in more followers.............agree?

if you disagree then you would have to prove it, you would have to prove that more evidence would result in more followers .................agree?

Disagree and proved.

The only reason you have so far for rejecting this is the claim for which you refuse to meet a burden of proof. You refuse to show how the support for the premise is incorrect.

 

[leroy]

This is the reason you asserted that more evidence wouldn't create more followers. You refuse to meet your burden of proof, noted.

sure I cant prove it, but I don't have to, all I have to do is show that there is a possible scenario where more evidence would not result in more followers.

the atheist who affirms that if God he would make his existence more obvious is the one who has to prove it,

the relevant point is that there are no good reasons to think that more evidence would result in more followers.............agree?

if you disagree then you would have to prove it, you would have to prove that more evidence would result in more followers .................agree?

Disagree and proved.

The only reason you have so far for rejecting this is the claim for which you refuse to meet a burden of proof. You refuse to show how the support for the premise is incorrect.

I don't have to prove that the premise is incorrect, the one who is making the argument is the one who needs to prove that the premises are correct.


what you have to do is prove that the premise is correct,


are you ever going to prove it ?

 

[MarsCydonia]

sure I cant prove it, but I don't have to, all I have to do is show that there is a possible scenario where more evidence would not result in more followers.

the atheist who affirms that if God he would make his existence more obvious is the one who has to prove it,

Well, using Leroy's burden of proof, he'd just have to show that the scenario where evidence would result in more followers is possible, right? :lol:

That's already been done.

I don't have to prove that the premise is incorrect, all I have to do is prove that the premise could be incorrect.

what you have to do is prove that the premise is correct,

are you ever going to prove it ?

The premise has been supported. The only objection you have issued so far is that god establishing his evidence wouldn't lead to more followers. An ibjection that you admitted to be unable to prove.

So it's noted that you have no supported objection to the premise.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Having just caught up with two pages of back-and-forth discussion, there are too many things on which to comment, so I'll just pick this one...

Leroy, you disagreed with Grumpy Santa's premise 1 - that God wants people to know he exists - by saying that God wants people to have a loving relationship with him.

Firstly, in order to have a loving relationship with him ... people have to know God exists.

Agreed?

Secondly, by claiming that God can't do anything to convince (some) atheists that he exists ... you've set up the classic paradox - the unstoppable force meets the immovable object, as in can God create a object he can't move?

In this case, you're implying that a supposedly omnipotent God has created souls to whom he can't prove his existence.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

Well, using Leroy's burden of proof, he'd just have to show that the scenario where evidence would result in more followers is possible, right? :lol:

That's already been done.

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:



NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO the one who is making the claim has to prove that his premises are correct, or at least that his premises are more probably true than wrong.

The premise has been supported

no it has not been supported,

. The only objection you have issued so far is that god establishing his evidence wouldn't lead to more followers. An ibjection that you admitted to be unable to prove.

because as long as my objection is " probably true" the objection would be valid.


what you have to do is ether prove that my objeción is wrong, namely that more evidence would lead to more followers or at least prove that my objection is unlikely to be true.


if you do the first you would provide devastating evidence against the exístanse of God, If you do the second you would provide good evidence against the existence of God.

 

[MarsCydonia]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO the one who is making the claim has to prove that his premises are correct, or at least that his premises are more probably true than wrong.

Sorry, I am not actually familiar withLeroy's burden of proof :lol:

But if you want "more probably true than wrong" that's also been shown because the premise has been supported as true (my standard) without any sound objection on your part.

no it has not been supported,

Yes it has and you have yet to show any sound objection on your part.

because as long as my objection is " probably true" the objection would be valid.

what you have to do is ether prove that my objeción is wrong, namely that more evidence would lead to more followers or at least prove that my objection is unlikely to be true.

if you do the first you would provide devastating evidence against the exístanse of God, If you do the second you would provide good evidence against the existence of God.

You have admitted that you can't prove your claim so I understand why you'd prefer to "show its probably true" but you haven't done that either.

I have supported the premises. What you have to do is provide good objections to them. You have yet to show any sound objection on your part.
What exactly are you waiting for?

 

[leroy]

Firstly, in order to have a loving relationship with him ... people have to know God exists.

Agreed?

yes. agreed

but more believers does not necessarily lead to more followers. agree?

Secondly, by claiming that God can't do anything to convince (some) atheists that he exists ... you've set up the classic paradox - the unstoppable force meets the movable object, as in can God create a object he can't move?

In this case, you're implying that a supposedly omnipotent God has created souls to whom he can't prove his existence.

Kindest regards,

James

I don't see any paradox, God by definition cant force you to love him..............

 

[MarsCydonia]

yes. agreed

but more believers does not necessarily lead to more followers. agree?

What? I don't even... :lol: Really Leroy? Think about for 1 second, just 1...

God by definition cant force you to love him..............

Two issues:
1. You're confusing what god "doesn't want to do" with "can't do". Is god omnipotent or is he not? (+ we have a story in the bible where god doesn't mind brainwashing someone).

2. For the umpteenth time, you're confusing "believing in the existence of god" with "loving/following him"

 

[leroy]

But if you want "more probably true than wrong" that's also been shown because the premise has been supported as true (my standard) without any sound objection on your part.

no the premise has not been supported

and yes I did provided valid objections

1 most atheist wont believe in God anyway

2 even if they do believe the would not follow him

3 when God makes his existence evident this often casus hate and rejection (according to the bible)

You have admitted that you can't prove your claim

granted, and I don't have to, all I have to do is show that there is at least a probable scenario where more evidence would be counterproductive

I have supported the premises. What you have to do is provide good objections to them. You have yet to show any sound objection on your part.

YOU haven't support your premises and I already provide good reasons to think that the premise is probably wrong

What exactly are you waiting for?

for an argument that proves that more evidence would result in more followers.

 

[MarsCydonia]

and yes I did provided valid objections

1 most atheist wont believe in God anyway
2 even if they do believe the would not follow him
3 when God makes his existence evident this often casus hate and rejection (according to the bible)

:lol: You think these count as sound objections?
1. Most atheists won't be convinced of god's existence anyway when they're convinced of god's existence? That's a blatant contradiction, its completely nonsensical (but Leroy-typical)
2. An empty assertion is not a valid objection and we're not talking about only atheists in this argument.
3. Does it only cause that? No it causes followers too so an invalid objection. To either love or reject god, you first need to believe he exists. You've agreed so you shot your own objection down.

granted, and I don't have to, all I have to do is show that there is at least a probable scenario where more evidence would be counterproductive

Any plan on doing that? What are you waiting for?

YOU haven't support your premises and I already provide good reasons to think that the premise is probably wrong

The support is there. Do you need me to copy the argument again?

And where are these "good reasons" of yours? I hope you were not talking about the 1. 2. 3. above...

for an argument that proves that more evidence would result in more followers.

More precisely, the point was and is "god's establishing his existence is needed for people to choose wether or not to follow him", you've both agreed and disagreed :lol: hint Leroy: I doubt you'll find anyone, else except maybe the other slavery apologist, to say this contradiction is a valid objection.

 

[leroy]

What? I don't even... :lol: Really Leroy? Think about for 1 second, just 1...

is this an other example where you pretend but never prove that there is something wrong with my statement?

1. You're confusing what god "doesn't want to do" with "can't do". Is god omnipotent or is he not? (+ we have a story in the bible where god doesn't mind brainwashing someone).

In this case God cant do it, (I would argue)

To be omnipotent doesn't mean that you can do literally everything, if you what to play semantic games and argue that omnipotent means that you can do everything, then God would not be omnipotent.

2. For the umpteenth time, you're confusing "believing in the existence of god" with "loving/following him"[/b

I even explained the difference between c "believing in the existence of god" with "loving/following him. The whole bases of my argument is that there is a difference between believing and following God,,,,,,,,


can you show a single example where I confused believing in the existence of god" with "loving/following him?

 

[leroy]

[More precisely, the point was and is "god's establishing his existence is needed for people to choose wether or not to follow him", you've both agreed and disagreed :lol: hint Leroy: I doubt you'll find anyone, else except maybe the other slavery apologist, to say this contradiction is a valid objection.

I accept the bet,


By making his existence more obvious it could be that more people believe in God, but less people follow God. this is at least theoretically possible



who believes that there is something contradictory about that?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I note that I made a mistake - I wrote "movable" instead of "immovable".

I've corrected the error, and apologize for any confusion caused.

Firstly, in order to have a loving relationship with him ... people have to know God exists.

Agreed?

yes. agreed

but more believers does not necessarily lead to more followers. agree?

I said "know", not believe - there is a difference.

If one literally knows a deity exists, then there is no reason for atheists to deny its existence.

Further, literally knowing that a deity exists would automatically result in belief in that deity.

It's the lack of knowing that results in the lack of belief.

Secondly, by claiming that God can't do anything to convince (some) atheists that he exists ... you've set up the classic paradox - the unstoppable force meets the movable object, as in can God create a object he can't move?

In this case, you're implying that a supposedly omnipotent God has created souls to whom he can't prove his existence.

Kindest regards,

James

I don't see any paradox, God by definition cant force you to love him..............

Again, it's not about love, it's about knowing that a deity exists.

If God can't prove his existence to the souls he's created, this sets up the afore-mentioned paradox.

If you claim that God isn't omnipotent, as you have now claimed, you still have a problem.

Either your claim that God can't prove his existence is false or God can't create souls to whom he can't prove his existence.

Either way, God must be able to prove his existence ,,, IF he exists.

The fact that he can't provide proof of his existence indicates that he doesn't exist.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

I said "know", not believe - there is a difference.

yes, and my point is that you can know God, but not follow / love him


it could be that by making his existence more evident, more people would know God but less people would love him


unless you show that this scenario is impossible (or improbable at least) the argument on the silence of God fails

If one literally knows a deity exists, then there is no reason for atheists to deny its existence.

but that doesn't mean that you would love him.

Either way, God must be able to prove his existence ,,, IF he exists.

The fact that he can't provide proof of his existence indicates that he doesn't exist.

Kindest regards,

James

again only an insignificant minority of individuales think that the existence of God is not evident.



yes God could have make his existence more obvious

yes by making his existence more obvious more people would know god. (even though most atheist wont accept his existence regardless of the evidence)

Not granted> if God makes his existence more obvious there would be more people that love/follow God