Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (22 Viewers)

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Nah. Brahma is the one true god. We should all worship him.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Linebreak]

Who is this one true god?

The eternal uncreated being that created the entire universe from the big bang to this very moment.

 

[X Æ A-12]

The eternal uncreated being that created the entire universe from the big bang to this very moment.

 

[ALC]

 

[Linebreak]

C o m i c a l !

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

The eternal uncreated being that created the entire universe from the big bang to this very moment.

What's his name?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Answer me! What's his name? If you believe in a ONE true god, them what's his name?

 

[Bianconero_Aus]

His name is Spencer.

 

[Bianconero_Aus]

Our very own existence is evidence of God's existence.

How?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

His name is Spencer.

I've never heard of a god named Spencer.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Just realized that when it comes to believing in god, people are happy with faith; but when it comes to not believing in a god, they need evidence.

Double standards?

 

[blondu]

Just realized that when it comes to believing in god, people are happy with faith; but when it comes to not believing in a god, they need evidence.

Double standards?

i don't need evidence as an atheist just as a believer doesn't need to be proven

 

[YasoR17]

Just realized that when it comes to believing in god, people are happy with faith; but when it comes to not believing in a god, they need evidence.

Double standards?

No? Those who do not believe in God are the ones who normally look for proof of his existence from the believers.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

No, what I meant is that when you tell a believer that there is no god, they ask for evidence, while at the same time, they'll believe in god simply based on faith.

 

[Seven]

No, what I meant is that when you tell a believer that there is no god, they ask for evidence, while at the same time, they'll believe in god simply based on faith.

They do, but the problem is, it's the same bloody thing. The question you have to ask yourself is where the burden of proof lies. In court, the general rule in most civil law countries (and I imagine common law countries too) is that he who claims something, must prove it. Here the original claim is that there is a God, thus the believers would have to prove it. Furthermore believers are generally talking about one specific God, while non-believers don't believe in God as a concept. This means that the believer only has to prove one thing, while the non-believer would have to prove loads. For this reason also, it makes much more sense that the believer has to provide the proof.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

They do, but the problem is, it's the same bloody thing. The question you have to ask yourself is where the burden of proof lies. In court, the general rule in most civil law countries (and I imagine common law countries too) is that he who claims something, must prove it. Here the original claim is that there is a God, thus the believers would have to prove it. Furthermore believers are generally talking about one specific God, while non-believers don't believe in God as a concept. This means that the believer only has to prove one thing, while the non-believer would have to prove loads. For this reason also, it makes much more sense that the believer has to provide the proof.

Exactly. My point is that they'll never ask/look for evidence when it comes to believing in a god. They'll fall back on faith in that case, yet expect evidence from us to prove that he doesn't exist. Thus the double standard.

 

[Seven]

Exactly. My point is that they'll never ask/look for evidence when it comes to believing in a god. They'll fall back on faith in that case, yet expect evidence from us to prove that he doesn't exist. Thus the double standard.

It is a double standard when they consider your argument false if you can't provide evidence, however one must also face reality: both are faiths. I cannot possibly prove that God does not exist. Especially because God would be something or someone we don't understand. I don't like to assume things however and I live my life through experience and some degree of rationality. Spirituality as such does exist, but in my humble opinion it is such a vague and broad concept that it cannot possibly be linked to a God. This is not to say that I have never had a particularly strong experience standing on a great mountain, a wonderful beach or fucking my girlfriend hard from behind. I just don't link it to a God, because there are literally thousands of other possibilities why these experiences exist, the theory of evolution being one of them.

Which brings me to the point that the theory of evolution is rather strong. I have not seen evidence which refutes it. Epigenetics are a strong concept, but they only add to the theory of evolution. This theory collides with the muslim and christian God, therefore I already think it is proven that they cannot exist.

 

[Martin]

but in my humble opinion

Dude, what happened to you?

 

[Naggar]

Which brings me to the point that the theory of evolution is rather strong. I have not seen evidence which refutes it. Epigenetics are a strong concept, but they only add to the theory of evolution. This theory collides with the muslim and christian God, therefore I already think it is proven that they cannot exist.

Not true.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Apparently this 12-year old autistic kid with an IQ of 170 (higher than Einstein's) is developing an 'expanded version of the theory of relativity' and is set to debunk the big bang theory

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/9099b...nstein-develops-his-own-theory-of-relativity/