- Grand Pooh-bah
- Posts: 2046
- Joined: Jun 14th, 2016, 12:56 pm
Ka-El wrote:Well, I would claim our species is not capable of understanding what God is. We cannot even agree on a definition (see posts by fluffy). In fact, it is those people who presume to understand God and “His message” for everyone else that I take issue with. I know for a fact that I will not, in this lifetime anyway, understand what God is, but I don’t just dismiss the infinite possibilities – some as proposed by fluffy. Hmmm. Maybe I’m the agnostic (except I do have absolute faith that there is something, some unifying, universal phenomena that is, and likely will always be, beyond our understanding).
Well, the definition of a god has shifted and will continue to do so. Today it might be some universal energy that connects us, whereas there was a day when the (now outdated) god was thought to be a male figure acting like a puppet master. In 100 years, what will people think god is? Maybe it will shift so far as to be something that can be proved or disproved. Maybe the whole faith part of it will drop off and it will be more about facts. To this, I say that there may come a day when this sort of god could be understood and defined. And if it does become something less about an intelligent diety or puppet master, I suspect some atheists may lend a little more attention to the concept.
youjustcomplain wrote:I also do believe there is no god. I just simply don't believe.
Ka-El wrote:Wondering if you might clarify what you mean by this?
Sorry, I read that again and wondered what I was trying to say. whooops.
What it was supposed to say is:
I also don't believe there is no god. I just simply don't believe.
So it's not a matter of me believing there is no god. That requires belief. I only mean that I don't believe. Both would make me an atheist, but my lack of belief could be interpretted as being agnostic, as you've done. I just don't feel agnostic on the issue of a god.
- Board Meister
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Oct 29th, 2017, 6:39 pm
Ka-El wrote:capleton wrote: It is pretty basic logic that one does not have to prove a negative, I can't prove that Tinkerbell does not exist either but then again there is no reason to believe that she does because there lacks evidence. If you make a claim like "Jesus is god" and that a god exists, it is up to that person who claiming it to prove that claim, so far Christians fail in this regard.
You missed the point. Nobody needs to prove anything to anybody. Belief in God or belief in nothing or belief of anything in between is often a deeply personal choice. God's existence cannot be proven nor disproven by logic or science. People come to believe for many different reasons. I just wonder what it is that motivates people who are driven to "prove" them wrong.
No if you make a claim like a god exists or Jesus is god then the philosophical burden of proof is on the one who made that claim. So yes Christians have the burden of proof and saying "prove god does not exist" that many Christians say is a logical fallacy because atheists do not have to prove a negative.