@hevy99 Actually, that would be the exact opposite, meaning all religions fit the definition of mental illness so well that if anything should be treated like alcoholism, it is all religions, especially christianity.
The burden of proof lies on the one making the positive assertion. My argument is that atheism is a positive assertion. It is a position that atheists hold to and defend. This defense means they have a position, a belief, an opinion. The evidence that shows they hold to a This defense means they have a position, a belief, an opinion. The evidence that shows they hold to a position is found in the fact that they defend it by attacking theistic arguments, attempting to refute
articles regarding atheism, etc. Since the atheist is making a defense, he's defending a position. Can it be said that he is making a positive assertion? If not, why is he acting as though he is? That is the issue raised here.
Atheism is illogical and 100% intellectually indefensible, based on nothing but simple abstract possibility.
statements. They form the basis of rational discourse. They are transcendent. They are not dependent on the material world. They are conceptual by nature. Thoughts reflect the mind A person's thoughts are the product of that person's mind. A mind that is irrational, will produce irrational thoughts. A mind that is rational, will produce rational thoughts. It seems fair to say that an absolutely perfect mind would produce perfect thoughts. Since the Logical Absolute
are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God since a physical brain is not transcendent by nature because it is limited to physical space, and God is, by definition, transcendent in nature.
ZJ is right to say that the definition of God does not allow for a scientific, logical debate based on arguments and reasoning. But neither is it supposed to be, and arguably, anyone who tries to prove or disprove God with the scientific method only shows his or her own misconception of what faith and religious is about.
if you are logical there must be a higher power of some sort and i mean what made us. the big bang? well, what made that? its questions like these that can drive people mad. but, your point of view which should be brought into prospective is what made god and what made them ETC. it is incomprehensible and no one will ever no..... theory states.
I can prove there is a God: God, as Jung & Joseph Campbell said, is a metaphor for the super-ego. NO ONE has EVER said God has to be a supernatural entity but fundies, who atheists are supposed to disagree with. Now, either the super-ego does not exist, or God, in the conceptualization of a metaphor (a Jungian archetype) for the super-ego does exist, or my mind, the only thing I can be sure exist, doesn't.
-Atheist arguments destroyed in less than 500 characters
@mysticresistence According to this comment, it would seem that you base your belief in "god" on Freud's model of the human psyche (id/ego/superego). However, the "super-ego" only exists on paper, created by a man. It cannot be proven that this is how the mind really works (Freud's hypotheses lack empirical evidence). So there is no proof for your concept of god either. Try again.
is it just random that my moms sister got healed from cancer? and also a couple of friends of mine ? and allot of other people ? not only cancer, some of them was blind, and some was deaf.
@aanensenen So are you saying one day your deaf friend woke up one day and could hear ... your blind friend could see? No! I assume some medical procedure happened and god didn't do that .... god didn't research medical practices or create a doctor who did.
People researched and tested constantly to be able to do the things they do now, god didn't "zap" know how into people, the same way he didn't zap sight or hearing into people ....
That is incorrect. I can prove that the sky is NOT purple. I can prove that there is NOT a quarter in my hand. You can prove that you do NOT have African-American skin. It is NOT impossible to prove a negative.
@xBlake4 "It's impossible to prove a negative that is supernatural."
Not impossible. Perhaps for the moment it may be. But then again, since we're extremely confined by time, the third dimension, etc, etc, perhaps for us, it would be.
"Proving something requires tangible evidence."
And by whose standard is it tangible evidence? To one person a piece of evidence is tangible, but to another, it wouldn't be.
Im an Atheist but I disagree with some of what you say. I agree that it is unreasonable to assume that God does exist given that there is no evidence for his existence. But I don't think that the absenceof evidence is evidence for absence. In other words, for the ad to make sense, the Atheists would have to prove that It is more probable that God does not exist, which is pretty easy :P But saying that there is no evidence for God DOES NOT prove that there is a 50% less chance that he exists.
Yea, but would you bite your tongue if he ended up being everything hes cracked up to be. All powerful, all knowing. would you just accept it, or would you continue to question it for eternity, assuming all of the above about god existing is correct?
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
The issue isn't whether there is no god, but whether the British humanist association could honestly believe that there was probably no god. If the advertisers hold evidence that they could reasonably believe indicates that there probably is no god they're fine. It's pretty clear they do hold evidence that do reasonably hold such evidence, that's why they're atheists.
The issue isn't whether there is no god, but whether the British humanist association could honestly believe that there was probably no god. If the advertisers hold evidence that they could reasonably believe indicates that there probably is no god they're fine. It's pretty clear they do hold evidence that do reasonably hold such evidence, that's why they're atheists.
The issue isn't whether there is no god, but whether the British humanist association could honestly believe that there was probably no god. If the advertisers hold evidence that they could reasonably believe indicates that there probably is no god they're fine. It's pretty clear they do hold evidence that do reasonably hold such evidence, that's why they're atheists.
You CAN prove a negative. You can show the idea of something to involve a contradiction. For instance, a square circle. Square circles don't exist (a negative claim). And it is absolutely certain they do not exist - I can 'prove' they don't exist just by showing that the idea of squareness and the idea of roundness are incompatible.
See? You CAN prove a negative.
Fact remains that one can 'prove' very little and for the most part all one can do is show an idea to be unreasonable.
@Clear404 You can't have proven that negative without asserting another positive claim. How would you do that with the supernatural? Yes we can prove there was no global flood, the age of the earth, people aren't made from clay, you can't walk on water, you can't change water to wine and so on... but that proof doesn't prove a lack of existence all together. You can't prove a negative when that negative is described as undetectable. There's no natural explanation for the supernatural.
@amanda2324 I never mentioned religion, did I? Did you? I'm pretty sure we were both talking about whether or not you can prove a negative. You're giving up on your erroneous claim entirely, and instead choosing to label me "arrogant religion-basher" without anyone even mentioning religion or acting arrogant. What does that say about you?
@mercury1321 You can prove a negative. You can show a proposition to be incoherent or contradictory. Here's a negative: square circles don't exist. It is also definitely, 100% true isn't it?
Anyway, 'proof' is a ridiculous requirement anyway. There's virtually nothing you can be absolutely certain of. So to say that you can't 'prove' a negative in the 100% certain sense, is to say very little indeed. The more ordinary sense of 'prove' = show to be eminently reasonable.
@Clear404 I totally agree proof is a ridiculous requirement. I also agree absolute certainty is impossible. The example you gave can be proven a negative because the definition of circles and the word square used as an adjective are well defined and contradictory (two positive assertions). You still can't prove a negative claim about the supernatural, as the description supernatural makes the claim unfalsifiable.
@mercury1321 So you concede that you can prove a negative? I don't exist. I can prove that's false. My thoughts don't exist. I can prove that's false. Square circles don't exist. I can prove that's false. And so on. One can prove a negative.
That's the problem with thinking in slogans - the slogans are nearly always false.
Look, when it comes to God's existence, there are no shortcuts. No slogans that'll help you escape the burden of having to argue the case for, or against.
@Clear404 You can "prove a negative" by asserting a positive that can be verified, yes. You can't prove a negative by itself. You've just given more examples (and repeated the same) of things that can only be proven by having evidence for a contradictory claim. I can't prove anything supernatural exists because the nature of the supernatural makes contradictory evidence impossible. The claim is unfalsifiable. You can't prove it wrong because it isn't based in reality.
@mercury1321 Look, it is no harder to prove a negative than a positive. Prove to me that there are busses. Showing me a bus won't 'prove' there are busses, for it might be a clever hallucination. And so on. So this is really quite pointless. The cliam that you 'can't prove a negative' is false, and pointless.
No-one expects atheism to be 'proved'. And no one expects theism to be 'proved'.
@Clear404 We agree on most of this. It's no harder to prove a negative than a positive, as long as you consider proving a contradictory positive to be "proving a negative." You still can't prove an unfalsifiable claim to be false.
"No-one expects atheism to be 'proved'." That's a bold claim. Do you speak for everyone? I've heard many people say things like, "you can't prove he doesn't exist," or "it takes just as much faith to be an atheist." I would become a theist if it were proven.
@mercury1321 well, nobody can suspend their beliefs until such time as they are 'proved'. For that would mean believing virtually nothing (beyond that one exists and is thinking). To live any kind of life, to make any kind of decisions, involves having assent to some beliefs. The best we can do is make sure that our most important beliefs are reasonable. Now, is atheism reasonable? I don't think so. I think the case for theism is better than the case against.
@Clear404 So existence and thinking are the only things that have been proven? I agree that we should make sure our beliefs reasonable. If not proof, we could at least go by evidence, right? Things that are at least supported by reality or the observable universe? How is this not reasonable? How is choosing to only believe in things that aren't at least supported by reality and detectable in the natural world unreasonable? There's a case for theism? A single shred of credible evidence?
@mercury1321 Our own existence and the existence of our mental contents (thoughts, emotions, sense data) are the only things whose existence is beyond doubt. One cannot 'prove' with 100% certainty that anything else exists, one can only show certain views to be more reasonable than others.
Sense data are the sights, sensations, sounds, smells, tastes. The existence of this sense data is not in dispute. But what is it 'evidence' for?
@Clear404 Are you trying to convince me the world doesn't exist? Maybe suggesting we add the phrase "as we know it" to the end of every description? It sounds like you're articulating the idea that we can't be absolutely certain of everything: an idea I have never contested. You seem to think this means everything we (humans) call evidence is not evidence of anything at all, therefor the claims with the least amount of evidence are more reasonable that others? So, truth holds no value?
@mercury1321 I don't know how you're getting those things from what I said. We both agree that we cannot be absolutely certain of virtually anything. That's not controversial - that's obvious. The best we can do for the most part is simply show some views to be far more reasonable than others. We can do that. I'm not advocating scepticism.
Am I saying the world does not exist? No. But it is important to recognise just what exactly the world around you is made of, uncomfy tho it may b.
@mercury1321 Cont'd...and, though it may be disturbing to have to accept this, the world around you, the world you live in, is made of sense data, just as your dreams are (indeed, that's how dreams are possible).
That does NOT mean I'm saying everything is a dream. I'm not. I'm just saying first recognise, that if one is really concerned with following evidence, note that the world around you is made of sense data. Note that material substances have to be INFERRED. They r not experienced.
@mercury1321 Cont'd...and, though it may be disturbing to have to accept this, the world around you, the world you live in, is made of sense data, just as your dreams are (indeed, that's how dreams are possible).
That does NOT mean I'm saying everything is a dream. I'm not. I'm just saying first recognise, that if one is really concerned with following evidence, note that the world around you is made of sense data. Note that material substances have to be INFERRED. They r not experienced.
@mercury1321 Cont'd...my view is this: if you can get from sense-data to materialism, then atheism is clearly more reasonable than theism. However, if you cannot get to materialism, then theism is clearly more reasonable than atheism. I think materialism is false. It was roundly refuted in the 18th century. But it was an inconvenient truth and so it was ignored. That happens quite a lot.
@Clear404 Ok, so what you're saying is atheism is less reasonable than theism if you completely redefine atheism and equate it to materialism, and act as though believing in unsupported theism is somehow less presumptuous. This is what I meant by "claims with the least amount of evidence are more reasonable that others." It seems like truth value would be a better for basing our beliefs. Theism doesn't hold any truth value as it's unsupported. Atheism is simply non-theism."
@Clear404 Showing you a clever hallucination is presenting false evidence. Not all things are proven by sight, you know. Also, to simply prove a bus exists suggest we already have a standard by which to determine what a bus is. If I fail to define what it is I'm showing you, or I show you something different than what I'm claiming to show you (like a hallucination) I'm not proving squat, am I? If I tried to convince you of undetectable monsters, could you prove they don't exist?
Actually... cupcake orbiting Andromeda Galaxy is far more plausible than god. Scientists have discovered something that is called "dark mater", it's orbiting galaxies and no one knows what it is ;)
You are ignorant, arrogant and closed hearted due to your apparent intelligence.
There is PLENTY of proof, scientific and otherwise that God exists.
You also assume that the entire universe works on the basis of science only, and that there is zero spirituality around us. I'm not a Christian, but you are definitely arrogant, and for no good reason.
@hassmann2000 Just because there are some unexplained things in science doesn't mean we won't figure them out in the future and you're right it is a possibility, but not how mortals define god I believe a god could exist, but not any written god. I mean just think about it a long time ago we thought the earth was flat, we thought the galaxy revolved around Earth look at how much we learn everyday think about what we'll learn tomorrow
Ironically, the adverisement next to your video is Christian: "Christliche Politik für ein christliches Deutschland" and it is absolutely pissing me off right now.
Moreover if you believe you can't prove a negative, aren't you thereby admitting that all of the traditional arguments against God's existence (like the problem of evil, incoherence of the concept of God etc) all fail?
This video fails, as even atheist philosopher Jeff Lowder (founder of infidels (dot) org) argues that you can prove a negative, including the case of God. In his article "Is a Sound Argument for the Nonexistence of a God Even Possible? (1998)", how would you respond to that article ZJemptv? You say, "you can not prove a negative" but can you prove that claim? if yes, aren't you admitting it is possible to prove a negative? if not, isn't it possible then that that statement is false?
@thesebunslookgood Oh shit. I think thesebunslookgood's point is valid. This might just collapse the Atheist point of view entirely. I think we're fucked now. I'm gonna have to convene the council of Super Heathen Devil Atheists to try to rebuke this well thought out claim. We're fucked for sure.
And so the torch is passed unto the younger generations of Rational Thinkers and Skeptics. It feels so very good to see young men and ladies on here voicing their rational view in a learned manner like this young man. Keep up the good fight and never let 'em get you down no matter how hateful and bigoted their words may be. God bless Atheism and Peace Be Unto Richard Dawkins.
proof = existence, and lack of proof does not equal lack of existence, however lack of existence = lack of proof.
so it is impossible to proof the general non-existence of something, unless that object is only non-existent in a particular scenario in which the objects absence proves the non-existence of that object in that scenario.
for example if I sit down and there's no chair the chair i thought i was going to sit on does not exists, but it does not mean chairs dn't exist.
Philosophy 101. You can prove a negative! It is a fact and provable. That said in general language the burden of proof still remains with the claimant. So rightly you can say "God does not exist" and you can prove it. Let the proponent of religion prove "God" exists. They cannot. Steven D Hales has articles on this very subject and I will post you my video of one such essay. So yes the 'god botherer" has the right to ask you to prove the negative. Although That still does not prove him right
@trueChaos23 I can prove i have no money in my pocket by looking into it. You can prove negatives. However you can't prove God, because of its definition, You also can't disprove him and whether its logical to believe in a being both provable and undisprovable you got to decide by your own.
@trueChaos Cuz it is possible to prove a negative. See atheist philosopher Jeff Lowder's article "Is a Sound Argument for the Nonexistence of a God Even Possible? (1998)" . Thus the atheist has to give some arguments if he wants to defends his position, he can't simply say, "the evidence for God's existence is not sufficient, therefore he does not exist". The question then becomes, is the evidence for theism/atheism better then for the other? I think the evidence for theism is better.
@GGDFan777 Well actually that was always the central question, so it actually has become before you said it become the question. Anyways. No there probably isn't a god, and that is the best way to put it as far as we know. It would be just a ridiculous to refute thor as jehova as intergaltic cupcakes( ie this video). Regardless, the burden of proof is still on those trying to make a claim, compared to those who say, 'that claim has no proof' (this is where you present proof). I.D. is wrong
@Thephyguy But do you or do you not agree that an atheist also has a burden of proof if he maintains 'that there is no God'? And do you agree that it is impossible to prove a negative? if so, do you admit that all the traditional arguments against the existence of God fail and how would you then respond to the article I cited? and if not, do you agree with me that the maker of this video is at least mistaken with respect to that specific claim?
@GGDFan777 No not really,we can not push people who do not believe the same things as others to always prove how they are capable of not believing.It's unethical slightly even. Saying there is no god isn't going to be as adversely affecting as saying there is no mermaid, no allah(it really depends on when and where, who. Yes, some negatives can be proven, given a real context, like -there is no writing on that paper-Your god believe it or not, is a christian leftover, no matter its newagedness
@Thephyguy You say that "Yes, some negatives can be proven" so you admit that ZJemptv is wrong when he says/writes: "it's impossible to prove a negative." ?
@GGDFan777 Well taken in that far of a context yes. But I'm sure he'd agree with me in my special case context. And that's a good thing, being able to be wrong is something that is inherently anathema to religion. That's why religious people are lesser people. It's really simple.
@Thephyguy Fair enough, thanks for at least agreeing on that specific point then :) However, if I understand you correctly though, you are saying that a proper context for God's existence/non-existence is not there, so that in the specific case of God, it would still be impossible to prove he does not exist? Just want to make sure I understand you correctly
@GGDFan777 Yeah pretty much, the idea of an intelligent designer is moot, and most of the time people are trying to argue for some really lame stone age god with a bunch of schizophrenic sadomasochistic tendencies which doesn't lend any credence to their arguments. But even within the context that serious people can think of a designer, people with a eye towards objectivity aren't really that good I think, and it still fails. If universe is paper, I see no god on it.
Another important aspect would be that God is defined as something both unprovable and undisprovable. Their definition is already so flawed, nobody could ever prove or disprove it. Is it logical to believe in such concept? Hardly.
@PimpingRice if you pay more attention to how someone looks like rather than what that person is saying that's fucking lame; if a serial killer who thinks he's surrounded by teletubbies dresses in pink argues that if you drop a stone it will fall to the ground dues to the mass of The earth is bigger and gravity will pull that rock towards the ground, is he wrong? does the rock start to fall upwards from now on? according to you, yes... congratulations for being willfully mentally deaf.
We see no tangible evidence or philosophical need for a God. Therefore , if you claim that one exists , produce your evidence , so that we may assess it against our observations. Ah , but this is a matter of "faith". IE believing what the Vicar tells you ,even though it is based on the Bible , which can be shown to wrong about many of its claims.
They said 'there is probably no God...' while the Christian one said 'There defientely is a God' We never gave a 100% negative but you gave a 100% positive so you sir are a hypocrite and I bid thee farewell.
if god doesn't exist then how did the bible come about? did some guy with a mental incapability wake up one morning and decide to trick everyone into think there is in fact a person in the sky looking down upon us?i don't think so because if this is true why are there so many other believes that also have a god or multiple gods involved?
@lindzyrb because people are more inclined to believe in a god than to believe in nothing. if someone writes a nice story that gives hope to people, then there will be believers. and it so happens that christianity is one of those that have more followers. the more believers there are, the more people will be converted. all this was proven.
@lindzyrb There have always been things that people can´t explain. Because of their desire to find answers to questions like: How was the world made?, Why can´t we live in a perfect world? or What happens after death?, people have tried to do so by inventing myths and Gods.
Believing in God can also be a lot easier than not doing so: You know that you are loved, have guidelines to your life that help you to stay on the right track and know you´ll be rewarded for all good things you do.
@lindzyrb There is actually a very good (and tetsable) evolutionary explanation of religious belief. Essentially it goes like this: any society that is bound together by a shared faith including shared ritual and standardized belief is more likely to act as a coherent and effective 'survival machine'. Therefore such societies are more likely to survive and hence more likey to remain in existence than other societies.
In other words, god evolved in the minds of humans. Wonderfully ironic
@lindzyrb If God does exist, and you claim the number of believers as evidence of that, how do you explain atheists? If God is spreading his perfect word through the hearts of mankind, why isn't everyone a believer?
The burden of proof certainly falls on those who make positive assertions, but announcing that there is no God is a positive assertion by which the asserting individual claims the nonexistence of God as positively being the case. There are instances in which one may be able to prove a negative, but this involves the perceptive capabilities of the observer in relation to the object which is being observed and the container in which the object is being observed.
@PhillipNicewaner Yeah, ZJ is wrong about this. The Christian God is a disprovable hypothesis because Jehovah has been said to interact with the natural world on several occassions. If we can prove He didn't actually interact with the world, the literal God of the Bible has been proven incorrect. For instance, there is no evidence of a Global Flood, and the logistics of Noah's Ark are impossible. Therefore, the literal God of the Bible is somewhat a lie, because Noah's Ark never happened.
@Llawliet246: "If we can prove He didn't actually interact..."
How would you prove it? To know that He has not interacted with the world, you would have to first know what qualities are associated with God, which is impossible because His sovereignty would afford Him the capability of interacting on the most fundamental levels of existence. As for your example, no [current] evidence does not equal no evidence in existence and, consequently does not disprove the event in question.
@PhillipNicewaner We already know what qualities are supposed to be associated with the Christian God; he is supposed to be loving, kind, just, and he's constantly proved himself to be abhorrent - the constant genocides of the Old Testament, the death penalty for trifling "crimes", homophobia, misogyny, etc... and we also know the things he was supposed to have done according to the Bible. So many things that he said he did are impossible, improbably, or completely unsubstantiated.
@PhillipNicewaner We already know what qualities are supposed to be associated with the Christian God; he is supposed to be loving, kind, just, and he's constantly proved himself to be abhorrent - the constant genocides of the Old Testament, the death penalty for trifling "crimes", homophobia, misogyny, etc... and we also know the things he was supposed to have done according to the Bible. So many things that he said he did are impossible, improbable, or completely unsubstantiated.
@Llawliet246: Your supposed "genocides" is really nothing less than justice. You used the word "trifling" to describe the crimes that were committed, but ignore the significance of even the smallest crime. Consider Isaiah, who, in what is now chapter six, saw the LORD seated high and exalted, after which he cried out, "Woe to me! I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.” TBC
@Llawliet246: When Isaiah beheld the LORD, he cried out because God's holiness is so significant that even unclean lips are enough to draw out a devastating shame in him. This is a common event in the Scripture, even when men lay their eyes on God's messengers. The mistake you are making is ignoring the significance of the crimes in light of God's holiness. As for "impossible," God's sovereignty eliminates the impossible. Your argument is weak. TBC.
@Llawliet246: Lastly, of His qualities, you are right that we know traits, but the error is in believing that you can understand how God is said to act or interact with creation - these qualities are unknown and incomprehensible. Consider Sodom and Gomorrah: they were destroyed, but who is to say that God did not or could not use natural resources to achieve His end?
And finally, your claim about God being "outside the entire system of reasoning, evidence, or proof" is mistaken. Reasoning, evidence, and proof do not operate outside of a context of revelation and authority. This is seen even within science; empirically equivalent theoretical models cannot be falsified by appeals to evidence, because the models themselves determine what is evidence. Unless some source of information is available, there is no possible way by evidence alone to adjudicate models.
Furthermore, philosophical encyclopedias routinely define atheism in the strong sense of positively asserting the non-existence of God; that bears the burden of proof. Even if you define it weakly, the notion of justification emerges, which requires evidence. Lastly, you erroneously describe God as being "external to the natural world." The Bible clearly says that it is in God that we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:26); He is inclusive of all of reality, including space-time reality.
@Hydragurum jesus said no one can come to Me unless the Father draws them.unless God has somehow revealed to you,that HE is drawing the person making this video to christ, you should not waste time attempting to persuade him or is it her?
To the person in the video, you're contradicting yourself repeatedly. First you claim "the burden of proof lies with a person making a positive claim" and then make the statement "there is no evidence that [God] does exists." The latter claim is a positive claim and likewise bears the burden of proof. If I ask you "how do you know there is no evidence" by your reasoning, you can't demand I present you with evidence to falsify the claim; all I'd be doing is asking you to back up your own claim.
Prove to me there is no God and I will prove to you that God is. God does not have to prove himself to any one - I'd rather live knowing that God is real then live like He isn't and die and find out He was.
@MissPat2011 I can reasonably discount your god the same way you have discounted thousands of other gods of other religions. You say that you would rather live like there is a god than like there isn't and come to discover there is. By that same reasoning you would have to follow the teachings of the god of the bible, the torah, and the quran, etc. What makes you so sure that the god you choose to believe is the most likely to exist? What evidence do you have to show this? Rewatch the video.
**ipad fail** believe on a book full of fantastic tales and morals, then how can the narrowly religious use the bible as some kind of proof? Was the bible written by god? And if so do you have a autographed copy i could borrow?
Wait....I thought it was possible to prove SOME negatives. 4 +4 =/= 9. You see? Simple statement. Prove that Lady GaGa is NOT at my house. Well, I'd have to invite alot of scientists over so they can investigate it, and then the majority, or all, can conclude that she is NOT at m y house after thourough examination. :D
@compsciguy Nope.. There is no reason for anyone to believe that Lady Gaga is in your house until you prove that she is there. Until you furnish such proof, I will believe that she is not there.
Ugh...evidence for God...The BIBLE. Now...you can start wth the Bible and try to disprove the stories presented in them. It's worth a shot. And God was not purposely "invented" to such an extent to bring up the "prove a negative" situation. Back when the Bible was written, noone knew about evolution, abiogenesis, nor big bang theory. So, their intentions were to spread the word from which had been handed down to them via oral tradition. They were not sam artists on purpose. They truly believed.
@compsciguy How do you know that the Bible is the word of God? Again, I don't have to disprove the stories in the Bible for me to not believe in them. Until you prove that the Bible is the word of God, I won't believe.
@compsciguy Saying the bible is evidence of god is essentially the same as saying "God is true because the bible says so, the bible is true because God says so". It's circular reasoning, and flawed logic.
@Kalashnikov5741 Well, to be fair, "Evolution is true; now I'll go and look for two comparable fossils/ gene strains to show this" is cyclic logic as well.
Let me also put it this way, ZJemptv. If there is no evidence for or against something, to draw ANY conclusions about it is very unscientific as there is absolutely no evidence to draw conclusions upon. Unlike your claim of the impossibility to prove a negative, this is this basis of the scientific method. I am interested to see if you would actually reply to any of my challenges.
@ColibriAnna08 He probably won't reply because you're just repeating common arguments that have been answered thousdands of times before. Atheists don't claim God doesn't exist (or at least by definition). They simply disbelieve in your assertion of a God, not to say there is no God.. If not giving proof of nonexistence was a logical loophole for your belief, then some one basing their worldview on faries is also valid; however, I hope we can agree that would be ridiculous.
(cont.) Your claim that it is impossible to prove a negative is not science. It's a flat out excuse atheists have come up with. Really, you are a kid posting vids on Youtube. You are not the keyholder to the universe's secrets.
Atheists think the burden of proof is on the believer for making the claim, but "there is no god" is also a claim and all claims must be verified. If you say that there is no possibility that a deist or theism exists anywhere or in any form as if you are the authority on the universe while you ridicule anyone who says otherwise, you'd better have evidence to support it and justify this kind of behavior.
No evidence for + no evidence against = WE DON'T KNOW!!
@KypHeM That, dear, is your opinion. Please state where in the scientific method it states that? The fact is, you can prove a negative. Because your mind is unable to realize how doesn't mean it isn't so.
Actually Atheism begins with the lie that God does not exist, and the totally irresponsible individuals who embrace Atheism in rebellion against the God they say does not exist; begin manufacturing more hiding places such as they have no burden of proof but God disagrees and He not Atheists, makes the rules in his Universe. Since they do not choose to RETAIN GOD IN THEIR KNOWLEDGE, God turns them over to a reprobate mind. Romans 1:28
love your mastery of logic! I remember when this ad campaign was going around and also came to North America. In each city the reaction of religious types was similar. They felt threatened by the campaign and used various arguments to try and stop it. I think the one you mentioned used in Britain was hilarious because it is not meant to be used in such a way to stifle editorial opinion. It is there as a safe guard to protect consumers of products and services from being scammed by false claims
Ok so what if I say: ""There is no atheism"? Does the same logic still apply? Show me proof that everything is natural then. I think atheists define God by drawing the line between naturalism and supernaturalism. Real people experienced God scientifically by touching Jesus' wounds after he was dead and risen. Is it not possible that everything is a miracle and that you or any atheists have the occasion to scientifically measure God? Do you have any proof as to why anything exists at all?
@RonPaul2008DotComYal Atheist is just a label for people who do not believe in what religious people call God. Atheists do not define God, religious people do that.
People who claim there is something outside of the natural world, such as a spiritual world, have the burden of proof. To atheists there is only this world because there is no reason to believe there is something more.
No one has evidence of WHY anything exists at all, otherwise there wouldn't be so many different ideas.
@RonPaul2008DotComYal Your example is flawed. Atheists don't say "there is no theism". Theism and atheism are two positions in the question if there is such a thing as gods or a god. What atheists say is that they dont belive that a god exist. How do you know that what happened in the bible is real? What does it have with everything being a miracle? And if everything is a miracle, then that word is pretty useless. Except from fundamental laws of physics, we dont know. Do you? What created god?
@RonPaul2008DotComYal Do you have any proof about people touching Jesus' wounds aside from an old scroll of parchment written by bronze age fishermen?
Notice they didn't say "There IS no god", they quite wisely said "There is PROBABLY no god".
What Christians are saying, when they proclaim belief in god, is that there probably is a god, and their 'probably' is no more certain than the 'probably' of atheists.
Someone claimed a pink Unicorn do not exist, However, someone cannot provide evidence that a pink Unicorn do not exist. Thus, its as good as saying making a claims but cannot prove their claims are correct.... Atheist make claims and yet failed miserably to prove their claims are correct.... horrible people... =(
@hevy99 Actually, that would be the exact opposite, meaning all religions fit the definition of mental illness so well that if anything should be treated like alcoholism, it is all religions, especially christianity.
KittenKoder 1 day ago
Thumbs down if you think the person is biased and a man
MrHaloman99 4 days ago
omg bro u need to talk to my mom ive been trying to prove this to her most of my life
Capricehamer 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
1.
The burden of proof lies on the one making the positive assertion. My argument is that atheism is a positive assertion. It is a position that atheists hold to and defend. This defense means they have a position, a belief, an opinion. The evidence that shows they hold to a This defense means they have a position, a belief, an opinion. The evidence that shows they hold to a position is found in the fact that they defend it by attacking theistic arguments, attempting to refute
miket1m 1 month ago
2.
articles regarding atheism, etc. Since the atheist is making a defense, he's defending a position. Can it be said that he is making a positive assertion? If not, why is he acting as though he is? That is the issue raised here.
Atheism is illogical and 100% intellectually indefensible, based on nothing but simple abstract possibility.
There is evidence for God. The Laws of Logic.
The Law of Identity
The Law of non Contradiction
The Law of Excluded Middle
These laws are absolute truth
miket1m 1 month ago
3.
statements. They form the basis of rational discourse. They are transcendent. They are not dependent on the material world. They are conceptual by nature. Thoughts reflect the mind A person's thoughts are the product of that person's mind. A mind that is irrational, will produce irrational thoughts. A mind that is rational, will produce rational thoughts. It seems fair to say that an absolutely perfect mind would produce perfect thoughts. Since the Logical Absolute
miket1m 1 month ago
4.
are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God since a physical brain is not transcendent by nature because it is limited to physical space, and God is, by definition, transcendent in nature.
miket1m 1 month ago
ZJ is right to say that the definition of God does not allow for a scientific, logical debate based on arguments and reasoning. But neither is it supposed to be, and arguably, anyone who tries to prove or disprove God with the scientific method only shows his or her own misconception of what faith and religious is about.
CarlMinez 1 month ago
Comment removed
ChangeOfSocks 2 months ago
Comment removed
ChangeOfSocks 2 months ago
Every third youtube vid on the topic is this debate. sigh.
Trubripes 2 months ago
if you are logical there must be a higher power of some sort and i mean what made us. the big bang? well, what made that? its questions like these that can drive people mad. but, your point of view which should be brought into prospective is what made god and what made them ETC. it is incomprehensible and no one will ever no..... theory states.
TheJrosly 2 months ago
I can prove there is a God: God, as Jung & Joseph Campbell said, is a metaphor for the super-ego. NO ONE has EVER said God has to be a supernatural entity but fundies, who atheists are supposed to disagree with. Now, either the super-ego does not exist, or God, in the conceptualization of a metaphor (a Jungian archetype) for the super-ego does exist, or my mind, the only thing I can be sure exist, doesn't.
-Atheist arguments destroyed in less than 500 characters
mysticresistence 2 months ago
@mysticresistence According to this comment, it would seem that you base your belief in "god" on Freud's model of the human psyche (id/ego/superego). However, the "super-ego" only exists on paper, created by a man. It cannot be proven that this is how the mind really works (Freud's hypotheses lack empirical evidence). So there is no proof for your concept of god either. Try again.
ShenanigansCheck 2 months ago
Its like waking up from a dream, only then you'll be 100% sure you are awake. That is how i see it anyways.
Samurai047 2 months ago
is it just random that my moms sister got healed from cancer? and also a couple of friends of mine ? and allot of other people ? not only cancer, some of them was blind, and some was deaf.
aanensenen 2 months ago
@aanensenen So are you saying one day your deaf friend woke up one day and could hear ... your blind friend could see? No! I assume some medical procedure happened and god didn't do that .... god didn't research medical practices or create a doctor who did.
People researched and tested constantly to be able to do the things they do now, god didn't "zap" know how into people, the same way he didn't zap sight or hearing into people ....
theomega616 2 months ago
"because it's impossible to prove a negative."
That is incorrect. I can prove that the sky is NOT purple. I can prove that there is NOT a quarter in my hand. You can prove that you do NOT have African-American skin. It is NOT impossible to prove a negative.
amanda2324 3 months ago
@amanda2324 It's impossible to prove a negative that is supernatural. Proving something requires tangible evidence.
xBlake4 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xBlake4 "It's impossible to prove a negative that is supernatural."
Not impossible. Perhaps for the moment it may be. But then again, since we're extremely confined by time, the third dimension, etc, etc, perhaps for us, it would be.
"Proving something requires tangible evidence."
And by whose standard is it tangible evidence? To one person a piece of evidence is tangible, but to another, it wouldn't be.
amanda2324 2 months ago
@amanda2324 Prove any of those negatives without asserting a different positive. I'll wait.
mercury1321 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dude, how can anyone take you seriously when you don't even know the difference between male and female?..
knowwaie 3 months ago
i love u
katlova16 3 months ago
Do you talk like this in real life?
sunbearer 4 months ago
What about if I'm just happy?
JJF10101957 4 months ago
KILL IT WITH FIRE
OrganicKing 4 months ago
Im an Atheist but I disagree with some of what you say. I agree that it is unreasonable to assume that God does exist given that there is no evidence for his existence. But I don't think that the absenceof evidence is evidence for absence. In other words, for the ad to make sense, the Atheists would have to prove that It is more probable that God does not exist, which is pretty easy :P But saying that there is no evidence for God DOES NOT prove that there is a 50% less chance that he exists.
mrabdrum 4 months ago
Yea, but would you bite your tongue if he ended up being everything hes cracked up to be. All powerful, all knowing. would you just accept it, or would you continue to question it for eternity, assuming all of the above about god existing is correct?
jpest17 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Transexual women have pee stains on the front of their panties because... Well... They have Dicks.
PeaceLoveMichy 5 months ago
Also, note the "probably".
KendrixTermina 5 months ago
/watch?v=02ZD5XaHZWQ
theUKatheist 5 months ago
/watch?v=02ZD5XaHZWQ
theUKatheist 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The issue isn't whether there is no god, but whether the British humanist association could honestly believe that there was probably no god. If the advertisers hold evidence that they could reasonably believe indicates that there probably is no god they're fine. It's pretty clear they do hold evidence that do reasonably hold such evidence, that's why they're atheists.
newperve 5 months ago
The issue isn't whether there is no god, but whether the British humanist association could honestly believe that there was probably no god. If the advertisers hold evidence that they could reasonably believe indicates that there probably is no god they're fine. It's pretty clear they do hold evidence that do reasonably hold such evidence, that's why they're atheists.
newperve 5 months ago
The issue isn't whether there is no god, but whether the British humanist association could honestly believe that there was probably no god. If the advertisers hold evidence that they could reasonably believe indicates that there probably is no god they're fine. It's pretty clear they do hold evidence that do reasonably hold such evidence, that's why they're atheists.
newperve 5 months ago
Oh man, I'm hungry now.
Ryanlollies1 5 months ago
You CAN prove a negative. You can show the idea of something to involve a contradiction. For instance, a square circle. Square circles don't exist (a negative claim). And it is absolutely certain they do not exist - I can 'prove' they don't exist just by showing that the idea of squareness and the idea of roundness are incompatible.
See? You CAN prove a negative.
Fact remains that one can 'prove' very little and for the most part all one can do is show an idea to be unreasonable.
Clear404 5 months ago
@Clear404 You can't have proven that negative without asserting another positive claim. How would you do that with the supernatural? Yes we can prove there was no global flood, the age of the earth, people aren't made from clay, you can't walk on water, you can't change water to wine and so on... but that proof doesn't prove a lack of existence all together. You can't prove a negative when that negative is described as undetectable. There's no natural explanation for the supernatural.
mercury1321 2 months ago
@mercury1321 I have no idea what you're talking about. You sound like the typical arrogant religion-basher, so I'll just let you be, though.
amanda2324 2 months ago
@amanda2324 I never mentioned religion, did I? Did you? I'm pretty sure we were both talking about whether or not you can prove a negative. You're giving up on your erroneous claim entirely, and instead choosing to label me "arrogant religion-basher" without anyone even mentioning religion or acting arrogant. What does that say about you?
mercury1321 2 months ago
@mercury1321 You can prove a negative. You can show a proposition to be incoherent or contradictory. Here's a negative: square circles don't exist. It is also definitely, 100% true isn't it?
Anyway, 'proof' is a ridiculous requirement anyway. There's virtually nothing you can be absolutely certain of. So to say that you can't 'prove' a negative in the 100% certain sense, is to say very little indeed. The more ordinary sense of 'prove' = show to be eminently reasonable.
Clear404 2 months ago
@Clear404 I totally agree proof is a ridiculous requirement. I also agree absolute certainty is impossible. The example you gave can be proven a negative because the definition of circles and the word square used as an adjective are well defined and contradictory (two positive assertions). You still can't prove a negative claim about the supernatural, as the description supernatural makes the claim unfalsifiable.
mercury1321 2 months ago
@mercury1321 So you concede that you can prove a negative? I don't exist. I can prove that's false. My thoughts don't exist. I can prove that's false. Square circles don't exist. I can prove that's false. And so on. One can prove a negative.
That's the problem with thinking in slogans - the slogans are nearly always false.
Look, when it comes to God's existence, there are no shortcuts. No slogans that'll help you escape the burden of having to argue the case for, or against.
Clear404 2 months ago
@Clear404 You can "prove a negative" by asserting a positive that can be verified, yes. You can't prove a negative by itself. You've just given more examples (and repeated the same) of things that can only be proven by having evidence for a contradictory claim. I can't prove anything supernatural exists because the nature of the supernatural makes contradictory evidence impossible. The claim is unfalsifiable. You can't prove it wrong because it isn't based in reality.
mercury1321 2 months ago
@mercury1321 Look, it is no harder to prove a negative than a positive. Prove to me that there are busses. Showing me a bus won't 'prove' there are busses, for it might be a clever hallucination. And so on. So this is really quite pointless. The cliam that you 'can't prove a negative' is false, and pointless.
No-one expects atheism to be 'proved'. And no one expects theism to be 'proved'.
Clear404 2 months ago
@Clear404 We agree on most of this. It's no harder to prove a negative than a positive, as long as you consider proving a contradictory positive to be "proving a negative." You still can't prove an unfalsifiable claim to be false.
"No-one expects atheism to be 'proved'." That's a bold claim. Do you speak for everyone? I've heard many people say things like, "you can't prove he doesn't exist," or "it takes just as much faith to be an atheist." I would become a theist if it were proven.
mercury1321 2 months ago
@mercury1321 well, nobody can suspend their beliefs until such time as they are 'proved'. For that would mean believing virtually nothing (beyond that one exists and is thinking). To live any kind of life, to make any kind of decisions, involves having assent to some beliefs. The best we can do is make sure that our most important beliefs are reasonable. Now, is atheism reasonable? I don't think so. I think the case for theism is better than the case against.
Clear404 2 months ago
@Clear404 So existence and thinking are the only things that have been proven? I agree that we should make sure our beliefs reasonable. If not proof, we could at least go by evidence, right? Things that are at least supported by reality or the observable universe? How is this not reasonable? How is choosing to only believe in things that aren't at least supported by reality and detectable in the natural world unreasonable? There's a case for theism? A single shred of credible evidence?
mercury1321 2 months ago
@mercury1321 are*
mercury1321 2 months ago
@mercury1321 Our own existence and the existence of our mental contents (thoughts, emotions, sense data) are the only things whose existence is beyond doubt. One cannot 'prove' with 100% certainty that anything else exists, one can only show certain views to be more reasonable than others.
Sense data are the sights, sensations, sounds, smells, tastes. The existence of this sense data is not in dispute. But what is it 'evidence' for?
Clear404 2 months ago
@Clear404 Are you trying to convince me the world doesn't exist? Maybe suggesting we add the phrase "as we know it" to the end of every description? It sounds like you're articulating the idea that we can't be absolutely certain of everything: an idea I have never contested. You seem to think this means everything we (humans) call evidence is not evidence of anything at all, therefor the claims with the least amount of evidence are more reasonable that others? So, truth holds no value?
mercury1321 2 months ago
@mercury1321 I don't know how you're getting those things from what I said. We both agree that we cannot be absolutely certain of virtually anything. That's not controversial - that's obvious. The best we can do for the most part is simply show some views to be far more reasonable than others. We can do that. I'm not advocating scepticism.
Am I saying the world does not exist? No. But it is important to recognise just what exactly the world around you is made of, uncomfy tho it may b.
Clear404 2 months ago
@mercury1321 Cont'd...and, though it may be disturbing to have to accept this, the world around you, the world you live in, is made of sense data, just as your dreams are (indeed, that's how dreams are possible).
That does NOT mean I'm saying everything is a dream. I'm not. I'm just saying first recognise, that if one is really concerned with following evidence, note that the world around you is made of sense data. Note that material substances have to be INFERRED. They r not experienced.
Clear404 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mercury1321 Cont'd...and, though it may be disturbing to have to accept this, the world around you, the world you live in, is made of sense data, just as your dreams are (indeed, that's how dreams are possible).
That does NOT mean I'm saying everything is a dream. I'm not. I'm just saying first recognise, that if one is really concerned with following evidence, note that the world around you is made of sense data. Note that material substances have to be INFERRED. They r not experienced.
Clear404 2 months ago
@mercury1321 Cont'd...my view is this: if you can get from sense-data to materialism, then atheism is clearly more reasonable than theism. However, if you cannot get to materialism, then theism is clearly more reasonable than atheism. I think materialism is false. It was roundly refuted in the 18th century. But it was an inconvenient truth and so it was ignored. That happens quite a lot.
Clear404 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Clear404 Ok, so what you're saying is atheism is less reasonable than theism if you completely redefine atheism and equate it to materialism, and act as though believing in unsupported theism is somehow less presumptuous. This is what I meant by "claims with the least amount of evidence are more reasonable that others." It seems like truth value would be a better for basing our beliefs. Theism doesn't hold any truth value as it's unsupported. Atheism is simply non-theism."
mercury1321 2 months ago
Comment removed
mercury1321 2 months ago
@Clear404 Showing you a clever hallucination is presenting false evidence. Not all things are proven by sight, you know. Also, to simply prove a bus exists suggest we already have a standard by which to determine what a bus is. If I fail to define what it is I'm showing you, or I show you something different than what I'm claiming to show you (like a hallucination) I'm not proving squat, am I? If I tried to convince you of undetectable monsters, could you prove they don't exist?
mercury1321 2 months ago
@TheSobek I won't and don't have to teach you anything. Everything is presented clearly for you.
hassmann2000 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Actually... cupcake orbiting Andromeda Galaxy is far more plausible than god. Scientists have discovered something that is called "dark mater", it's orbiting galaxies and no one knows what it is ;)
@hassmann2000
"There is PLENTY of proof, scientific and otherwise that God exists."
Name one.
yumemi13 5 months ago in playlist Religion
51 people don't like cup caekz!
oilotnoM 5 months ago
You are ignorant, arrogant and closed hearted due to your apparent intelligence.
There is PLENTY of proof, scientific and otherwise that God exists.
You also assume that the entire universe works on the basis of science only, and that there is zero spirituality around us. I'm not a Christian, but you are definitely arrogant, and for no good reason.
hassmann2000 5 months ago
@hassmann2000 Just because there are some unexplained things in science doesn't mean we won't figure them out in the future and you're right it is a possibility, but not how mortals define god I believe a god could exist, but not any written god. I mean just think about it a long time ago we thought the earth was flat, we thought the galaxy revolved around Earth look at how much we learn everyday think about what we'll learn tomorrow
KanjiYakushi11 5 months ago
Get some intelligence before you make baseless statments
3SpaceCadet 6 months ago
Never mind God's existence , I'm scared to death about existence of hell !!!
(google) scientists and intellectuals such as Dr. Azzacove and Dr. Maurice
Rawlings and pray these guys are wrong
sPitternaut 6 months ago
@sPitternaut The closest thing there is to "hell" is Phoenix, AZ.
eddiequest4 5 months ago 8
@eddiequest4 Hell Michigan, boom i win lol.
TheHippo00100 1 month ago
pray to the cup-cace in the sky!
workescapist 6 months ago
My friend you had no IDEA about what will happen to you when you DIE:
the Cupcake WILL Torture you Forever And ever...and ever.
You'll be SORRY you Did not BELIEVE in IT!
flightkiller09 6 months ago
How dare you say the almighty mystical cupcake isn't real! His graceful frosting shall save your soul!
TrollAndStuff 6 months ago 19
Ironically, the adverisement next to your video is Christian: "Christliche Politik für ein christliches Deutschland" and it is absolutely pissing me off right now.
eretrece 6 months ago
nerd
ZGExplosivrocK 7 months ago
Moreover if you believe you can't prove a negative, aren't you thereby admitting that all of the traditional arguments against God's existence (like the problem of evil, incoherence of the concept of God etc) all fail?
GGDFan777 7 months ago
This video fails, as even atheist philosopher Jeff Lowder (founder of infidels (dot) org) argues that you can prove a negative, including the case of God. In his article "Is a Sound Argument for the Nonexistence of a God Even Possible? (1998)", how would you respond to that article ZJemptv? You say, "you can not prove a negative" but can you prove that claim? if yes, aren't you admitting it is possible to prove a negative? if not, isn't it possible then that that statement is false?
GGDFan777 7 months ago
He is a young man. Look at the "Adam's" Apple. Dumbasses.
kd5alc 7 months ago
I am truly sorry. I meant "Young Lady" not young man.
kd5alc 7 months ago
@thesebunslookgood Oh shit. I think thesebunslookgood's point is valid. This might just collapse the Atheist point of view entirely. I think we're fucked now. I'm gonna have to convene the council of Super Heathen Devil Atheists to try to rebuke this well thought out claim. We're fucked for sure.
kd5alc 7 months ago
And so the torch is passed unto the younger generations of Rational Thinkers and Skeptics. It feels so very good to see young men and ladies on here voicing their rational view in a learned manner like this young man. Keep up the good fight and never let 'em get you down no matter how hateful and bigoted their words may be. God bless Atheism and Peace Be Unto Richard Dawkins.
kd5alc 7 months ago
Bertrand Russell dealt with this issue almost 100 years ago, using the famous teapot orbiting Mars analogy.
shiva369 7 months ago
you are so well presented i can't frickin stand it, i feel smarter just listening to you!!!
sailornaruto39 8 months ago
I saw an advert for God on a bus the other day... hmm
ange76prkr 8 months ago
are you a man?
christ7warrior3 8 months ago
proof = existence, and lack of proof does not equal lack of existence, however lack of existence = lack of proof.
so it is impossible to proof the general non-existence of something, unless that object is only non-existent in a particular scenario in which the objects absence proves the non-existence of that object in that scenario.
for example if I sit down and there's no chair the chair i thought i was going to sit on does not exists, but it does not mean chairs dn't exist.
Nixom1334 8 months ago
Philosophy 101. You can prove a negative! It is a fact and provable. That said in general language the burden of proof still remains with the claimant. So rightly you can say "God does not exist" and you can prove it. Let the proponent of religion prove "God" exists. They cannot. Steven D Hales has articles on this very subject and I will post you my video of one such essay. So yes the 'god botherer" has the right to ask you to prove the negative. Although That still does not prove him right
franks2732 8 months ago
By the way, the argument "You cannot prove a negative" is incorrect. Your argumentation is right, but the statement itself is utterly wrong.
steffenbieber 8 months ago
@steffenbieber how is not being able to prove a negative incorrect? just curious
trueChaos23 7 months ago
@trueChaos23 I can prove i have no money in my pocket by looking into it. You can prove negatives. However you can't prove God, because of its definition, You also can't disprove him and whether its logical to believe in a being both provable and undisprovable you got to decide by your own.
steffenbieber 7 months ago
@trueChaos Cuz it is possible to prove a negative. See atheist philosopher Jeff Lowder's article "Is a Sound Argument for the Nonexistence of a God Even Possible? (1998)" . Thus the atheist has to give some arguments if he wants to defends his position, he can't simply say, "the evidence for God's existence is not sufficient, therefore he does not exist". The question then becomes, is the evidence for theism/atheism better then for the other? I think the evidence for theism is better.
GGDFan777 7 months ago
@GGDFan777 Well actually that was always the central question, so it actually has become before you said it become the question. Anyways. No there probably isn't a god, and that is the best way to put it as far as we know. It would be just a ridiculous to refute thor as jehova as intergaltic cupcakes( ie this video). Regardless, the burden of proof is still on those trying to make a claim, compared to those who say, 'that claim has no proof' (this is where you present proof). I.D. is wrong
Thephyguy 7 months ago
@Thephyguy But do you or do you not agree that an atheist also has a burden of proof if he maintains 'that there is no God'? And do you agree that it is impossible to prove a negative? if so, do you admit that all the traditional arguments against the existence of God fail and how would you then respond to the article I cited? and if not, do you agree with me that the maker of this video is at least mistaken with respect to that specific claim?
GGDFan777 7 months ago
@GGDFan777 No not really,we can not push people who do not believe the same things as others to always prove how they are capable of not believing.It's unethical slightly even. Saying there is no god isn't going to be as adversely affecting as saying there is no mermaid, no allah(it really depends on when and where, who. Yes, some negatives can be proven, given a real context, like -there is no writing on that paper-Your god believe it or not, is a christian leftover, no matter its newagedness
Thephyguy 7 months ago
@Thephyguy You say that "Yes, some negatives can be proven" so you admit that ZJemptv is wrong when he says/writes: "it's impossible to prove a negative." ?
GGDFan777 7 months ago
@GGDFan777 Well taken in that far of a context yes. But I'm sure he'd agree with me in my special case context. And that's a good thing, being able to be wrong is something that is inherently anathema to religion. That's why religious people are lesser people. It's really simple.
Thephyguy 7 months ago
@Thephyguy Fair enough, thanks for at least agreeing on that specific point then :) However, if I understand you correctly though, you are saying that a proper context for God's existence/non-existence is not there, so that in the specific case of God, it would still be impossible to prove he does not exist? Just want to make sure I understand you correctly
GGDFan777 7 months ago
@GGDFan777 Yeah pretty much, the idea of an intelligent designer is moot, and most of the time people are trying to argue for some really lame stone age god with a bunch of schizophrenic sadomasochistic tendencies which doesn't lend any credence to their arguments. But even within the context that serious people can think of a designer, people with a eye towards objectivity aren't really that good I think, and it still fails. If universe is paper, I see no god on it.
Thephyguy 7 months ago
Another important aspect would be that God is defined as something both unprovable and undisprovable. Their definition is already so flawed, nobody could ever prove or disprove it. Is it logical to believe in such concept? Hardly.
steffenbieber 9 months ago
Are you a girl or a boy?
PimpingRice 9 months ago
@PimpingRice does it matter?
DocStrange0123 9 months ago
@DocStrange0123 It matters alot as it stands out more of the information coming out from the image.
PimpingRice 9 months ago
@PimpingRice are you saying by chance that the gender matters more that the argument or the message?
DocStrange0123 9 months ago
@DocStrange0123 Bingo!
PimpingRice 9 months ago
@PimpingRice if you pay more attention to how someone looks like rather than what that person is saying that's fucking lame; if a serial killer who thinks he's surrounded by teletubbies dresses in pink argues that if you drop a stone it will fall to the ground dues to the mass of The earth is bigger and gravity will pull that rock towards the ground, is he wrong? does the rock start to fall upwards from now on? according to you, yes... congratulations for being willfully mentally deaf.
DocStrange0123 9 months ago
@DocStrange0123 LOL thank you! So you don't know the answer?
PimpingRice 9 months ago
Suck my winky you ugly bastard
jpt23 9 months ago
We see no tangible evidence or philosophical need for a God. Therefore , if you claim that one exists , produce your evidence , so that we may assess it against our observations. Ah , but this is a matter of "faith". IE believing what the Vicar tells you ,even though it is based on the Bible , which can be shown to wrong about many of its claims.
ilikezappa 9 months ago
They said 'there is probably no God...' while the Christian one said 'There defientely is a God' We never gave a 100% negative but you gave a 100% positive so you sir are a hypocrite and I bid thee farewell.
iownall12able 9 months ago
if god doesn't exist then how did the bible come about? did some guy with a mental incapability wake up one morning and decide to trick everyone into think there is in fact a person in the sky looking down upon us?i don't think so because if this is true why are there so many other believes that also have a god or multiple gods involved?
lindzyrb 9 months ago
@lindzyrb because people are more inclined to believe in a god than to believe in nothing. if someone writes a nice story that gives hope to people, then there will be believers. and it so happens that christianity is one of those that have more followers. the more believers there are, the more people will be converted. all this was proven.
but voting doesn't prove anything
pcdsgh 9 months ago
@lindzyrb There have always been things that people can´t explain. Because of their desire to find answers to questions like: How was the world made?, Why can´t we live in a perfect world? or What happens after death?, people have tried to do so by inventing myths and Gods.
Believing in God can also be a lot easier than not doing so: You know that you are loved, have guidelines to your life that help you to stay on the right track and know you´ll be rewarded for all good things you do.
eretrece 9 months ago
@lindzyrb There is actually a very good (and tetsable) evolutionary explanation of religious belief. Essentially it goes like this: any society that is bound together by a shared faith including shared ritual and standardized belief is more likely to act as a coherent and effective 'survival machine'. Therefore such societies are more likely to survive and hence more likey to remain in existence than other societies.
In other words, god evolved in the minds of humans. Wonderfully ironic
labrat1807 9 months ago
@labrat1807 "In other words, god evolved in the minds of humans. Wonderfully ironic"
lol i'd never thought of it like that. that is indeed wonderfully ironic.
PurushadasaTotalFAIL 9 months ago
@PurushadasaTotalFAIL Thanks :)
labrat1807 9 months ago
@lindzyrb If God does exist, and you claim the number of believers as evidence of that, how do you explain atheists? If God is spreading his perfect word through the hearts of mankind, why isn't everyone a believer?
labrat1807 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"You can't prove God doesn't exist."
"Right. And you can't prove I'M not God, so by your logic, I am."
Works every time.
TheCeejReturns 10 months ago
The burden of proof certainly falls on those who make positive assertions, but announcing that there is no God is a positive assertion by which the asserting individual claims the nonexistence of God as positively being the case. There are instances in which one may be able to prove a negative, but this involves the perceptive capabilities of the observer in relation to the object which is being observed and the container in which the object is being observed.
PhillipNicewaner 10 months ago
@PhillipNicewaner Yeah, ZJ is wrong about this. The Christian God is a disprovable hypothesis because Jehovah has been said to interact with the natural world on several occassions. If we can prove He didn't actually interact with the world, the literal God of the Bible has been proven incorrect. For instance, there is no evidence of a Global Flood, and the logistics of Noah's Ark are impossible. Therefore, the literal God of the Bible is somewhat a lie, because Noah's Ark never happened.
Llawliet246 10 months ago
@Llawliet246: "If we can prove He didn't actually interact..."
How would you prove it? To know that He has not interacted with the world, you would have to first know what qualities are associated with God, which is impossible because His sovereignty would afford Him the capability of interacting on the most fundamental levels of existence. As for your example, no [current] evidence does not equal no evidence in existence and, consequently does not disprove the event in question.
PhillipNicewaner 10 months ago
@PhillipNicewaner We already know what qualities are supposed to be associated with the Christian God; he is supposed to be loving, kind, just, and he's constantly proved himself to be abhorrent - the constant genocides of the Old Testament, the death penalty for trifling "crimes", homophobia, misogyny, etc... and we also know the things he was supposed to have done according to the Bible. So many things that he said he did are impossible, improbably, or completely unsubstantiated.
Llawliet246 10 months ago
@PhillipNicewaner We already know what qualities are supposed to be associated with the Christian God; he is supposed to be loving, kind, just, and he's constantly proved himself to be abhorrent - the constant genocides of the Old Testament, the death penalty for trifling "crimes", homophobia, misogyny, etc... and we also know the things he was supposed to have done according to the Bible. So many things that he said he did are impossible, improbable, or completely unsubstantiated.
Llawliet246 10 months ago
@Llawliet246: Your supposed "genocides" is really nothing less than justice. You used the word "trifling" to describe the crimes that were committed, but ignore the significance of even the smallest crime. Consider Isaiah, who, in what is now chapter six, saw the LORD seated high and exalted, after which he cried out, "Woe to me! I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.” TBC
PhillipNicewaner 10 months ago
@Llawliet246: When Isaiah beheld the LORD, he cried out because God's holiness is so significant that even unclean lips are enough to draw out a devastating shame in him. This is a common event in the Scripture, even when men lay their eyes on God's messengers. The mistake you are making is ignoring the significance of the crimes in light of God's holiness. As for "impossible," God's sovereignty eliminates the impossible. Your argument is weak. TBC.
PhillipNicewaner 10 months ago
@Llawliet246: Lastly, of His qualities, you are right that we know traits, but the error is in believing that you can understand how God is said to act or interact with creation - these qualities are unknown and incomprehensible. Consider Sodom and Gomorrah: they were destroyed, but who is to say that God did not or could not use natural resources to achieve His end?
PhillipNicewaner 10 months ago
that was just perfect baby
jokifka 10 months ago
And finally, your claim about God being "outside the entire system of reasoning, evidence, or proof" is mistaken. Reasoning, evidence, and proof do not operate outside of a context of revelation and authority. This is seen even within science; empirically equivalent theoretical models cannot be falsified by appeals to evidence, because the models themselves determine what is evidence. Unless some source of information is available, there is no possible way by evidence alone to adjudicate models.
Hydragurum 10 months ago
Furthermore, philosophical encyclopedias routinely define atheism in the strong sense of positively asserting the non-existence of God; that bears the burden of proof. Even if you define it weakly, the notion of justification emerges, which requires evidence. Lastly, you erroneously describe God as being "external to the natural world." The Bible clearly says that it is in God that we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:26); He is inclusive of all of reality, including space-time reality.
Hydragurum 10 months ago
@Hydragurum jesus said no one can come to Me unless the Father draws them.unless God has somehow revealed to you,that HE is drawing the person making this video to christ, you should not waste time attempting to persuade him or is it her?
keeyk118b 10 months ago
To the person in the video, you're contradicting yourself repeatedly. First you claim "the burden of proof lies with a person making a positive claim" and then make the statement "there is no evidence that [God] does exists." The latter claim is a positive claim and likewise bears the burden of proof. If I ask you "how do you know there is no evidence" by your reasoning, you can't demand I present you with evidence to falsify the claim; all I'd be doing is asking you to back up your own claim.
Hydragurum 10 months ago
Prove to me there is no God and I will prove to you that God is. God does not have to prove himself to any one - I'd rather live knowing that God is real then live like He isn't and die and find out He was.
MissPat2011 10 months ago
@MissPat2011 I can reasonably discount your god the same way you have discounted thousands of other gods of other religions. You say that you would rather live like there is a god than like there isn't and come to discover there is. By that same reasoning you would have to follow the teachings of the god of the bible, the torah, and the quran, etc. What makes you so sure that the god you choose to believe is the most likely to exist? What evidence do you have to show this? Rewatch the video.
Kalashnikov5741 10 months ago
**ipad fail** believe on a book full of fantastic tales and morals, then how can the narrowly religious use the bible as some kind of proof? Was the bible written by god? And if so do you have a autographed copy i could borrow?
TajFludd 10 months ago
If i were to base a religion on harry potter i would never be taken seriously, but in essence to base what i be
TajFludd 10 months ago
Wait....I thought it was possible to prove SOME negatives. 4 +4 =/= 9. You see? Simple statement. Prove that Lady GaGa is NOT at my house. Well, I'd have to invite alot of scientists over so they can investigate it, and then the majority, or all, can conclude that she is NOT at m y house after thourough examination. :D
compsciguy 10 months ago
@compsciguy Nope.. There is no reason for anyone to believe that Lady Gaga is in your house until you prove that she is there. Until you furnish such proof, I will believe that she is not there.
loro1rojo 10 months ago 12
Ugh...evidence for God...The BIBLE. Now...you can start wth the Bible and try to disprove the stories presented in them. It's worth a shot. And God was not purposely "invented" to such an extent to bring up the "prove a negative" situation. Back when the Bible was written, noone knew about evolution, abiogenesis, nor big bang theory. So, their intentions were to spread the word from which had been handed down to them via oral tradition. They were not sam artists on purpose. They truly believed.
compsciguy 10 months ago
@compsciguy How do you know that the Bible is the word of God? Again, I don't have to disprove the stories in the Bible for me to not believe in them. Until you prove that the Bible is the word of God, I won't believe.
loro1rojo 10 months ago
@compsciguy Saying the bible is evidence of god is essentially the same as saying "God is true because the bible says so, the bible is true because God says so". It's circular reasoning, and flawed logic.
Kalashnikov5741 10 months ago 25
@Kalashnikov5741 Well, to be fair, "Evolution is true; now I'll go and look for two comparable fossils/ gene strains to show this" is cyclic logic as well.
TheSwireRob 6 months ago
marry me
KypHeM 10 months ago
look for the video 'Jewish Cats' and you will see what fate can do.
stamstuff 10 months ago
So then, where is the cupcake?
sibelius168 10 months ago
Let me also put it this way, ZJemptv. If there is no evidence for or against something, to draw ANY conclusions about it is very unscientific as there is absolutely no evidence to draw conclusions upon. Unlike your claim of the impossibility to prove a negative, this is this basis of the scientific method. I am interested to see if you would actually reply to any of my challenges.
ColibriAnna08 11 months ago
@ColibriAnna08 He probably won't reply because you're just repeating common arguments that have been answered thousdands of times before. Atheists don't claim God doesn't exist (or at least by definition). They simply disbelieve in your assertion of a God, not to say there is no God.. If not giving proof of nonexistence was a logical loophole for your belief, then some one basing their worldview on faries is also valid; however, I hope we can agree that would be ridiculous.
frenchmanjohn 10 months ago
@ColibriAnna08 You obviously do not know a thing about what you are talking about.
atchisrj1 10 months ago
(cont.) Your claim that it is impossible to prove a negative is not science. It's a flat out excuse atheists have come up with. Really, you are a kid posting vids on Youtube. You are not the keyholder to the universe's secrets.
ColibriAnna08 11 months ago
Atheists think the burden of proof is on the believer for making the claim, but "there is no god" is also a claim and all claims must be verified. If you say that there is no possibility that a deist or theism exists anywhere or in any form as if you are the authority on the universe while you ridicule anyone who says otherwise, you'd better have evidence to support it and justify this kind of behavior.
No evidence for + no evidence against = WE DON'T KNOW!!
ColibriAnna08 11 months ago
@ColibriAnna08 what is your faith ? christian? catholic ? muslim ?
keeyk118b 10 months ago
@keeyk118b Christian, but certainly not fundamentalist.
ColibriAnna08 10 months ago
@ColibriAnna08 no, YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE, WHY CAN"T U RELIGIOUS GUYS UNDERSTAND IT?
KypHeM 10 months ago
@KypHeM That, dear, is your opinion. Please state where in the scientific method it states that? The fact is, you can prove a negative. Because your mind is unable to realize how doesn't mean it isn't so.
ColibriAnna08 10 months ago
Actually Atheism begins with the lie that God does not exist, and the totally irresponsible individuals who embrace Atheism in rebellion against the God they say does not exist; begin manufacturing more hiding places such as they have no burden of proof but God disagrees and He not Atheists, makes the rules in his Universe. Since they do not choose to RETAIN GOD IN THEIR KNOWLEDGE, God turns them over to a reprobate mind. Romans 1:28
MegaSage007 11 months ago
Comment removed
MegaSage007 11 months ago
Dude u look like a girl.
brent0529 11 months ago
love your mastery of logic! I remember when this ad campaign was going around and also came to North America. In each city the reaction of religious types was similar. They felt threatened by the campaign and used various arguments to try and stop it. I think the one you mentioned used in Britain was hilarious because it is not meant to be used in such a way to stifle editorial opinion. It is there as a safe guard to protect consumers of products and services from being scammed by false claims
RedroomStudios 11 months ago
I believe in the cupcake.
WhutLoLz 11 months ago
The Proof that Atheism has, is the Lack of proof that Theism has. That is the burden of proof and benefit of assumption.
whiteboyfromco 11 months ago
Ok so what if I say: ""There is no atheism"? Does the same logic still apply? Show me proof that everything is natural then. I think atheists define God by drawing the line between naturalism and supernaturalism. Real people experienced God scientifically by touching Jesus' wounds after he was dead and risen. Is it not possible that everything is a miracle and that you or any atheists have the occasion to scientifically measure God? Do you have any proof as to why anything exists at all?
RonPaul2008DotComYal 11 months ago
@RonPaul2008DotComYal Atheist is just a label for people who do not believe in what religious people call God. Atheists do not define God, religious people do that.
People who claim there is something outside of the natural world, such as a spiritual world, have the burden of proof. To atheists there is only this world because there is no reason to believe there is something more.
No one has evidence of WHY anything exists at all, otherwise there wouldn't be so many different ideas.
OhReallyNoWai 11 months ago
@RonPaul2008DotComYal Your example is flawed. Atheists don't say "there is no theism". Theism and atheism are two positions in the question if there is such a thing as gods or a god. What atheists say is that they dont belive that a god exist. How do you know that what happened in the bible is real? What does it have with everything being a miracle? And if everything is a miracle, then that word is pretty useless. Except from fundamental laws of physics, we dont know. Do you? What created god?
NoiseSculpted 11 months ago
@RonPaul2008DotComYal Do you have any proof about people touching Jesus' wounds aside from an old scroll of parchment written by bronze age fishermen?
LesPaul2006 11 months ago
Notice they didn't say "There IS no god", they quite wisely said "There is PROBABLY no god".
What Christians are saying, when they proclaim belief in god, is that there probably is a god, and their 'probably' is no more certain than the 'probably' of atheists.
blueboyblue 11 months ago
Someone claimed a pink Unicorn do not exist, However, someone cannot provide evidence that a pink Unicorn do not exist. Thus, its as good as saying making a claims but cannot prove their claims are correct.... Atheist make claims and yet failed miserably to prove their claims are correct.... horrible people... =(
MrBoomSonic 11 months ago
@MrBoomSonic Well, do you think that there is something as pink unicorns then?
NoiseSculpted 11 months ago