Is it a cogent refutation of theism to argue that the burden of proof lies on theists to prove that God exists, so that immediately puts them on the back foot, because atheists have nothing to prove?
I used to make this point when arguing against theism but then I stopped but something about it didn't seem right about it, but I could never work out what.
No because atheism is a truth claim that no God exists
But atheism is more parsimonious. Theists have to justify why a less parsimonious theory is more plausible.
It's not, but if you think so that would be the result of an argument not a starting assumption. Since atheism is a proposition it shares burden of proof. Agnosticism is the state of not knowing.
Atheism is not parsimonious, as it presumes a priori that there is no causative impetus behind the creation of the universe, which is irreconciliable with the Big Bang Theory that atheists purport to claim is true. The parsimonious answer to the question of "what created the universe" is "something", not "nothing". The theist may engage in anthropomorphization of the cause of the universe, but the atheist denies that there is any cause outright, which is utter balderdash.
>it presumes a priori that there is no causative impetus behind the creation of the universe
The universe is uncreated. It always existed, and there was no time when it didn’t exist. Time did not even pass at the singularity. That is the consensus among physicists that none of the Christians here seem to know. It’s all over the internet, it’s on every show of interview about it with scientists, it’s modern physics.
One of you even posts an image out of context from a Stephen hawking interview where he explains this and still does not get it.
It is utterly baffling.
>The universe is uncreated. It always existed, and there was no time when it didn’t exist.
That's obviously untrue by an scientific metric. The majority of the scientific community disagrees with you.
How many times do you need to get your shit kicked in?
Come on, post the mined Hawkins quote, to then argue that creation ex nihilo is impossible except when your god is the one doing it.
It is literally the answer in physics. Time did not pass at the singularity, there is no reason to believe the universe ever didn’t exist, and everything points to that.
I remember being a kid and learning that the Big Bang was the expansion of matter from a point, not the creation of it and I sincerely wonder how you never learned this.
If the universe always existed, then there's no such thing as time to begin with. I also don't care about what you did as a child, you're a man now, get over it.
If the universe always existed, then there's no such thing as time to begin with
How does that follow?
Because something that exists eternally cannot also be time-bound. If I told you that I will give you 1,000,000 dollars, in Ꝏ years, would you ever get it?
>Because something that exists eternally cannot also be time-bound
Elaborate
I did, but I can try illustrating it another way. If the universe always existed, then there would be no such thing as tomorrow. Any unit must be measurable, by definition. If the universe is eternal, then it's time cannot be measured, therefore, time is not a unit. It would not exist. But then, how can there be a tomorrow? That would imply the passage of time, which is incompatible with the idea that the universe existed forever.
Time did not pass before the Big Bang to the best of our knowledge time began 14.7 billion years ago and was not passing before then.
I would bet everything in the world that you’re not going to get this and you will keep making stupid arguments against claims no one is making
What are you arguing with me about? We both agree that time exists. What are you here to do?
The root of this conversation was that you were saying we believe matter was created into existence. We are not saying that, time was not passing before the Big Bang, and for all of time, matter has existed. It never didn’t exist.
You are completely off the rails.
You can measure anything as long as you have any arbitrary thing for measuring. For example, this is an infinite line and I arbitrarily marked two black lines, then copied and pasted it thrice.
The line clearly ends, I can literally see its end point. LOL
Are you serious. Do you not know what a line is.
>If the universe is eternal, then it's time cannot be measured
Why not? An observer can't measure infinities, but there's no reason why we wouldn't be able to measure finite magnitudes of time even if time was infinite in the past. If you had an infinitely long rope, for example, you could still cut it up into sections.
Something that is infinite cannot be divided into measurable quantities, otherwise it wouldn't be infinite.
>If you had an infinitely long rope, for example, you could still cut it up into sections.
Then it wouldn't be an infinitely long rope. If you can make it end, it's not infinite. In other words, if you can make one end out of it, that means there must be another end.
See
Time did not pass at the singularity. Also the point was that this is something you are far too old to not have learned yet.
There’s no possible way you didn’t understand that, and you’re transparently lashing out due to frustration at me blasting holes in your Iron Age understanding of reality
There is no scientific consensus on whether the universe began to exist.
What is there a scientific consensus on?
You misunderstand how the burden of proof is utilized. The burden of proof only applies to people who are making claims. Me being a Christian is not me making a claim; I just am Christian. You being an atheist is not a claim; you just are atheist. Thereby, neither you or I have any burden of proof because being something is not a claim.
Your presupposition relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of the burden of proof. In any formal setting, you would be picked apart immediately as vultures to a carcass.
You're correct in saying that atheists have nothing to prove, up until the point where they CLAIM that no gods exist.
Atheism is not a claim (that), it's a belief (that). That's not the same thing.
Russel’s teapot and even the Flying Spaghetti Monster are thought experiments showing that the person claiming something exists needs to prove it, but people who just don’t believe the claim are justified.
Without that rule you have to disprove any claims anyone makes of anything existing before you are allowed to not believe it.
You're correct. The same way, if someone claims that something does not exist, they need to prove it, but people who just don't believe that the claim (that something does not exist) have no burden to prove anything.
No because that means if I believe in fairies and you say fairies don’t exist, you have to prove it while I get to pretend I’m the reasonable one.
I think you probably know this and are just trying to trick dumber people with bullshit arguments into believing in your religion
Because you quickly get into the whole debate over epistemic 'sets' and how knowledge/claims themselves can be derived in the first place. And that's unresolved. Beginner atheists usually presume that 'observed reality' represents the applicable set to which 'God' or 'no God' applies.
But of course, it's not nearly that simple, since 'observed reality' is just a subset of other larger sets. Saying that the physical laws of observed reality constitute the entire meta-set of 'everything' is not a very defensible claim.
Atheism is the conclusion that no god exists due having 0 (zero) proper evidence, basis or justification suggesting otherwise. Atheism as premise is at the same level as presupposing god exists, meaning it is indeed moronic.
Theists are the ones arguing you will go to hell, angels exists, miracles can be done, the supernatural can be proven, etc. They're the ones that need to prove that they're not bullshitting, not you.
>Theists are the ones arguing you will go to hell, angels exists, miracles can be done, the supernatural can be proven, etc.
I thought to be a theist you just have to believe in the existence of a god. I didn't realise it meant you had to believe in all those other things too.
Theists at least posit the exist of a Creator god who intervenes in the universe, but not necessarily anything more than that.
>Atheism is the conclusion that no god exists due having 0 (zero) proper evidence
No it's not. Atheism is the belief that no gods exist. It has nothing to do with evidence, in fact, evidence itself is antithetical to atheism as a model.
You have been BTFO with your own line of reasoning, catgay.
We both agree it's unreasonable to believe in things without evidence. You have no evidence for your claims, therefore it is unreasonable to believe in them. gg.
I don't even remember this exchange happening, anon. Was this even me, or some other guy and I just happen to live rent free in your head? I don't even think I type like that. A disbeliever of gods? You think I would talk like that? That's...stupid. I wouldn't have said that. Because when I talk to people, I speak efficiently. Disbeliever of gods is just an atheist. What kind of nonsense is this?
Acting disingenuous won't work, as that is your natural state, so drop the act and go be a moron on Oyish or something.
God loves you and desires for you to saved so that you may avoid eternal condemnation, and I desire the same thing. God bless you and have a nice day. Or night.
Truly indistinguishable from a troll.
Jesus I thought we were over this and that new atheism already got its synthesis to naturalism.
Arguing about the true metaphysical existence of a concept from a simplificatory heuristic is stupid.
You can no more prove God exists than you can gravity exist. Both are ultimately lies that do not fully describe reality but parts of useful models of reality.
Believing God exists or gravity exists is useful. Nothing more. And if you want indisputable metaphysical truths nobody has that. Arguing about it is pointless, nobody's got the goods.
If prodded enough an atheist will usually end up admitting to deism/pantheism (well there _could_ be a god out there but I don't see any evidence that it interacts with the universe so it may as well not exist)
Do it catgay. Post the out of context Hawkins quote about the origin of the universe. Or the out of context Krauss quote about creation out of nothing. You *know* that you can't argue without those.
the burden of proof, much like other rules of rhetoric and debate, acts as a gatekeeper of information exchange. its much better to throw all of that away in favor of a pluralistic epistemology, which allows for a wider contigency of knowledge attainment.