frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Who Has the Burden of Proof?

Debate Information

As we all (should) know, there is no such thing as God, or any other supernatural phenomena for that matter.

So, the question is.....do I have the burden of proof to prove the absence of something or should the burden of proof be from someone on the other side of the reality fence to prove me wrong?
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • @Swolliw
    You just don't give up do you? 

    If any one thing in the world is a supernatural phenomenon it would be truth. GOD exists and it is you who does not know or doesn't want GOD to exist. In your beliefs set GOD does not exist no-one has the burden of proof in relationship to the representation of GOD to you. The principle of GOD might be established without crime so then the burden of proof falls in the realm of a person’s personal constitution and not a united state constitution of law. At the moment in most of the Western world it is the idea of religion only which is used to undertake criminal perjury or even witness tampering by use of legilsation of law on a masive scale.

    The issue is that a person would prove someone like yourself as incompetent to understand fact with a use of proof before a court not estyablish GOD exists. All that is unknown in your undertaking is the scientific connection between GOD and Independence from a governing state which you are asking onther to make. The question you are even asking is the wrong question when it comes to the liberty of religion a better question to asks is. Does GOD need a patten right with Astrailia to still be what  astralia describes as real?

    When filing a Patten in Australia who has the burden of establishment of GOD? Why the Patten filer does.

    The saying is what you do not know will not hurt you is simply not true in a legal sense what you do not know can and will hurt you in a court of law. This is part of the reason behind Miranda Right as it is to limit collateral damage caused by perjury. As a United State of law any burden of proof only ever falls on those who understand truth and whole truth, what is the piont you are trying to make, can  person force you or others to admit GOD esixists?


  • The burden of proof is on the person claiming that there isn't no such thing as a God or anything else for that matter.



  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 198 Pts   -  
    prove that there is no God @Swolliw
  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 198 Pts   -  
    So, you do believe in God? @John_C_87
  • So, you do believe in God? @John_C_87
    No. I do not believe in GOD I can establish GOD as something not relitious as that was the Consitutional requirement to clearthe use of GOD as an exsample in governing in the united States of America.
  • The burden of proof is on the person claiming that there isn't no such thing as a God or anything else for that matter.
    There is no burden of proof as GOD is not described as a crime.
  • JamesHillJamesHill 3 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: burden of proof

    the burden of proof rests upon the person who is making any claim or who is trying to (prove) some thing.
    ZeusAres42
  • @JamesHill

    That is not a burden of proof it is simply proof, a burden is created by accusation of a crime that does not exist anywhere else outside a judgment of law and as a act to attract attention a person might ask where is the burden of proof rest.However a request for something does not make something a burden one must hold.

    Example: Pi is not a ratio of any circle’s circumference, never will be, ever, the value of Pi is an approximation, thus always relative to other values and never proportional.

    The Proof is there are 100 ratios to a circle’s circumference to which the value 3.14159 is not one of them. As there is no crime and only possible negligence, I do not need to teach you how to find the ratios that do exist in proportion to the circle’s circumference. The obligation of curtesy dictates a person would share the information due to the nature of the unknown becoming a risk.

    I just love using the Pi example with SwoIIiw


  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    it is you who does not know or doesn't want GOD to exist.

    I would love it if there was a nice kind God existing and he gives me an  eternal life in Paradise just for believing. The thing is that given that the whole thing seems so far-fetched to be true and God is so elusive to the point of nobody ever communicating with him, I'm not going to believe such crap. 

    In any case, the case for there not being anything supernatural is so overwhelming I'm not going to bother even trying to believe such codswallop.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @pamelajohnson1 @ZeusAres42
    prove that there is no God

    No, because I can't and why should I need to or have to prove nothing? It is such a ridiculous proposition that it would give rise to having to prove there aren't any tooth fairies or green goblins or any other stu-pid thing I could concoct..

    So, it comes down to prove such a stu-pid thing as a supernatural entity, something added to nothing.

    It is utterly ignorant and arrogant to expect anyone to disprove something that isn't proven in the first place.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @JamesHill
    the burden of proof rests upon the person who is making any claim or who is trying to (prove) some thing.

    In debating and logical parlance the burden is upon the person making the positive assertion (there is a God) not the person who makes the negative assertion (there is no God). If someone can't get their heads around that rule or wants to argue it then, tough titties, that's the way it is.

    In most jurisdictions around the world the burden of proof rests with the prosecution (positive assertion)....."You murdered your wife" not with the defendant (negative assertion) "I did not murder my wife". The defendant is not guilty unless proven guilty. It would be absurd to drag a defendant into court and told "Prove you did not kill your wife" . The defendant does not have to utter a single word or provide a single piece of evidence to get off a charge.

    Similarly, as an atheist I don't have to provide a single piece of evidence to support the view "There is no God" in order for that view to be valid.

    There is no God.

  • Swolliw said:
    @pamelajohnson1 @ZeusAres42
    prove that there is no God

    No, because I can't and why should I need to or have to prove nothing? It is such a ridiculous proposition that it would give rise to having to prove there aren't any tooth fairies or green goblins or any other stu-pid thing I could concoct..

    So, it comes down to prove such a stu-pid thing as a supernatural entity, something added to nothing.

    It is utterly ignorant and arrogant to expect anyone to disprove something that isn't proven in the first place.

    I don't know why your quoting me here. I never said that. That was just Pamela. 



  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 198 Pts   -  
    You said' So, the question is.....do I have the burden of proof to prove the absence of something or should the burden of proof be from someone on the other side of the reality fence to prove me wrong?    So I think you should prove that there isn't a god.  There are millions of people who believe that there is, even if many of them believe in the wrong God.  @Swolliw
  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 198 Pts   -  
    Right, just little old me.@ZeusAres42
  • Swolliw said:
    @John_C_87
    it is you who does not know or doesn't want GOD to exist.

    I would love it if there was a nice kind God existing and he gives me an  eternal life in Paradise just for believing. The thing is that given that the whole thing seems so far-fetched to be true and God is so elusive to the point of nobody ever communicating with him, I'm not going to believe such crap. 

    In any case, the case for there not being anything supernatural is so overwhelming I'm not going to bother even trying to believe such codswallop.

      Must Give you eternal life in paradise?
    This does not sound like a search for proof of GOD it sounds like a search for eternal life and for eternal happieness.
    I do not know how to tell you this so I will just asy it. A truth exist with internal life and eternal happieness there is nothing supernatural about that fact it apears to be all about ourablilaties to make a connection to human reason.
  • Right, just little old me.@ZeusAres42

    I didn't say that either.



  • dallased25dallased25 352 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    Can you at least try to make sense?
  • Swolliw said:
    As we all (should) know, there is no such thing as God, or any other supernatural phenomena for that matter.

    So, the question is.....do I have the burden of proof to prove the absence of something or should the burden of proof be from someone on the other side of the reality fence to prove me wrong?
    While I am an atheist I also like to be fair. So, the implicit logical error in reasoning with this whole compound claim is the assumption that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This is actually a common fallacy found on the internet actually.



  • dallased25dallased25 352 Pts   -  
    prove that there is no God @Swolliw
    You cannot prove a negative. Might as well ask someone to prove that there's no invisible pink dinosaurs that cause happy thoughts! You cannot disprove something that has never been shown to exist. 
    Swolliw
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42
     the implicit logical error in reasoning with this whole compound claim is the assumption that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This is actually a common fallacy found on the internet actually.

    However it is not found in my post and what I wrote is not a fallacy, nor is there any implicit logical error. Nor did I mention "evidence". Nor did I make a "compound claim". I did not make an assumption nor did I lead anyone to make an assumption. Seven fatal flaws in one sentence, not bad going, is it?

    The title and body of the thread are about "proof"; while evidence may be used to prove something the two words are different.

    The burden of proof is on the party making the positive assertion (There is a God). The negative assertion (There is no God) is the default position...the positive assertion is the introduction of something onto to the default position. In the case of the argument for God, the absence of proof for the positive claim means that claim is invalid and the default position remains as it was.  There is nothing implied or assumed. It is pure logic and sound reasoning and there is no way that the law can be misconstrued or reinterpreted by those who refuse to accept the obvious....There is no God.

    My refutation of the claim stands.



  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @pamelajohnson1
    So I think you should prove that there isn't a god. 
    And what you think is completely wrong for the very reason I have already informed you of.

    There are millions of people who believe that there is

    It is unclear as whether you are using that piece of information as a reason for your odd thinking above but it is an ad populum fallacy. Millions of people believe in witches and millions of people believe in fairies however is that proof of such mythical things actually existing? No, not at all.

    The fact that millions of people believe that there is a God correlates with the fact that there are millions of deluded, gullible, thoughtless, ignorant, arrogant nit-wits.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4800 Pts   -  
    The burden of proof is on the one making a constructive proposition. Whether your claim is "god exists" or "god does not exist", the burden of proof is on you, because you are asserting a fact of reality.

    On the other hand, if your position is "there is no reason to believe that god exists", then the burden of proof is on your opponents: they have to counter your claim by providing such a reason. In the absence of such reason, "god" does not have to be a part of one's world view. It does not mean that "god" objectively does not exist, but it does mean that "god" is a concept that needlessly complicates one's world model without contributing any value to it.

    Negation of a constructive proposition is still a constructive proposition. "I am 38 years old" and "I am not 38 years old" are both propositions that you have to support with reasoning; you cannot just assert these things out of the blue and wait for someone else to prove you wrong. What is not a constructive proposition is negation of the truth claim of a proposition: "I see no reason to think that you are indeed as old as you say you are". By saying that, I neither agree nor disagree with your age claim - I simply make it clear that, without some elaboration, it is an empty claim.
    ZeusAres42Luigi7255
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
    The burden of proof is on the one making a constructive proposition. Whether your claim is "god exists" or "god does not exist", the burden of proof is on you,

    I have seen that one before but it is wrong because it is illogical since it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something and therefore absurd to ask someone to disprove something that isn't proven in the first place. And what the heck is a "constructive proposition"? ....a very loose definition or a term that really defines and means nothing.

    I have every right to correctly state "God does not exist" because I am negating a positive assertion that cannot be proven.

    God does not exist.......by default.

    ZeusAres42dallased25
  • MayCaesar said:
    The burden of proof is on the one making a constructive proposition. Whether your claim is "god exists" or "god does not exist", the burden of proof is on you, because you are asserting a fact of reality.

    On the other hand, if your position is "there is no reason to believe that god exists", then the burden of proof is on your opponents: they have to counter your claim by providing such a reason. In the absence of such reason, "god" does not have to be a part of one's world view. It does not mean that "god" objectively does not exist, but it does mean that "god" is a concept that needlessly complicates one's world model without contributing any value to it.

    Negation of a constructive proposition is still a constructive proposition. "I am 38 years old" and "I am not 38 years old" are both propositions that you have to support with reasoning; you cannot just assert these things out of the blue and wait for someone else to prove you wrong. What is not a constructive proposition is negation of the truth claim of a proposition: "I see no reason to think that you are indeed as old as you say you are". By saying that, I neither agree nor disagree with your age claim - I simply make it clear that, without some elaboration, it is an empty claim.

    Exactly that! The default position in Atheism is basically a mere absence or lack of belief or knowledge of a God or Gods; not denial or negation of such. I also think there is an alleged certainty (assuming the conclusion) fallacy in the OP too. This is reflected in the OP's sentence "As we all (should) know, there is no such thing as God, or any other supernatural phenomena for that matter." Hence for my previous post. For example, in the OP it is assumed with certainty that God doesn't exist because of a lack of proof. But as I said absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Now, the OP objected with a bit of semantic wordplay here and so I will use "proof" instead then "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

    @Maycaesar While this was not said in the OP can you spot something with this sentence "You cannot prove a negative?" Here's another one; "everything I say is a lie." ;)

    MayCaesar



  • @John_C_87
    Can you at least try to make sense?
    Turth has us understand thngs in our own time.
  • @Swolliw

    I have seen that one before but it is wrong because it is illogical since it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something and therefore absurd to ask someone to disprove something that isn't proven in the first place. And what the heck is a "constructive proposition"? ....a very loose definition or a term that really defines and means nothing.

     Yet, that is the process of a mathematical fixed equation, we prove something does not exist and in doing so we confirm one thing does exist as the result. The philosophical question is not if GOD is real or not. The question is can one truth then describe all truth?



  • Sorry, of course, you would have spotted what I was on about or you wouldn't say this lol:

    "Negation of a constructive proposition is still a constructive proposition. "I am 38 years old" and "I am not 38 years old" are both propositions that you have to support with reasoning; you cannot just assert these things out of the blue and wait for someone else to prove you wrong"



  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 593 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    That isn't how it works, you can't say "Unicorns and succubi don't exist, prove me wrong". They obviously don't, but you can't prove that they don't exist without evidence that they don't exist in a debate. Like May and Zeus said, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
    ZeusAres42
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4800 Pts   -   edited October 25
    Swolliw said:

    I have seen that one before but it is wrong because it is illogical since it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something and therefore absurd to ask someone to disprove something that isn't proven in the first place. And what the heck is a "constructive proposition"? ....a very loose definition or a term that really defines and means nothing.

    I have every right to correctly state "God does not exist" because I am negating a positive assertion that cannot be proven.

    God does not exist.......by default.

    There is no such thing as the "default" when it comes to any particular claim. By default, no claims are accepted, positive or negative; any claim is deviation from the default.
    You are also wrong that "it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something". It is not hard, for instance, to prove that there are no such entities that, if you take two and put together, you will get three - it is a metaphysical impossibility. From this perspective, actually, I think that non-existence of "god" can be proven, as the concept of "god" is self-contradictory - but that is a different matter.

    You have every right to state whatever you want; does not make your stance logical or truthful.

    What you are talking about is the epistemological concept of Occam's Razor. This, however, is simply a convenient concept to utilize; it has no bearing on what is true and what is not, and on what has to be proven to be true and what is not. It simply allows one to choose one theory out of a set of competing theories in the absence of sufficient information to disprove all of them but one. It implies that humans do not fundamentally learn the truth, but develop a model of the world that gives accurate predictions within that world - and it stands to reason that if you have two theories that both give accurate predictions, but one is simpler than the other, then the simpler one should be accepted.

    According to the Occam's Razor principle, if including the concept of "god" in one's model does not increase the predictive power of that model, then that concept should not be included. It does not mean that "god" by default somehow does not exist. "God" either exists or not regardless of what has been proven by anyone, or what the contents of anyone's mind are. The question is whether it is helpful to account for the possibility of "god's" existence or not when describing reality - and, based on everything humanity has learned so far, it is not. But whether it actually exists or not as a physical entity is a separate question entirely.
    John_C_87
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @Luigi7255
    Like May and Zeus said, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

    Which means nothing because it has nothing to do with the topic which is about proof and which I properly covered in my post of reply.

    Keep up with the pace.


  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2233 Pts   -   edited October 25
    Swolliw said:
    @Luigi7255
    Like May and Zeus said, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

    Which means nothing because it has nothing to do with the topic which is about proof and which I properly covered in my post of reply.

    Keep up with the pace.



    And as May I discussed there was some semantic wordplay that appears to be repeating. And as I pointed out to maxx in another debate merely just repeating the same assertions over and over again doesn't do anything to advance your position in an argument. In fact, it actively undermines it and shows desperation. This semantic wordplay has already been addressed a few posts back and I find it pointless to go over it again.



  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 198 Pts   -  
    Look at the plants.  There are seeds put inside the plants so that they will reproduce.  If they would have just happened,  that would have been it. The people would have been all, and when they died off there would have been no more.  There had to be an intelligent being to make the plants, animals and people to be able to reproduce in order to keep life going.@Swolliw
  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 198 Pts   -  
    It has been shown to exist, you just choose not to except it. Jesus Christ, is the answer.@dallased25
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4800 Pts   -  
    Regarding the connection between information and facts of reality, there are many different schools of thought here.

    Consider the following experiment. I put a deck of cards on the table, pull out one card (not showing you the face) and put it in my pocket. Then I say: "The card I pulled out is Jack of Spades". There are a few different ways to react to this, each valid in its own right:
    1. You can say, "I have no reason to take your claim seriously; the card could be anything. I will assume that you are right with the 1/52th probability and wrong with the 51/52th probability". This is the frequentist approach.
    2. You can say, "Well, you could say whatever you want - but you said what you did, and that gives me some information. I do not know if what you said is right or not, but let me consider what I can discern from knowing you as much as I do - would you be likely to lie or not?" This is the Bayesian approach.
    3. You can say, "I cannot know what the card is, and your words may be true or false. I refrain from making any claims here". That is the atheist-like approach.
    4. You can say, "You are either right or wrong. Let me consider two possibilities separately and independently; either one can be true". That is the agnostic-like approach.
    5. You can say, "Until the card is revealed, all possibilities are open. The reality has not been fixed yet. We actually have two different timelines here: the one in which you are right and the one in which you are wrong. Both realities exist, but one will be selected once the card is revealed". That is the old-school quantum mechanics approach.
    Note that in the 5th case you actually believe that the reality has not yet been settled: not just that you do not know what it is, but that it actually has not been determined yet. However ridiculous this position sounds, it actually is logically perfectly sound.

    What you, @Swolliw, do by bridging the gap between information and facts of reality in combination with assuming the "default" position is a 6th option. You say, "Until the card is revealed, I will assume the null hypothesis according to which your claim is false, as you have not provided proof of it. So the card is not Jack of Spades. If you reveal it later to be Jack of Spades, then that will become reality."

    In doing so, you are cornering yourself into having to explain the unexplainable. If I reveal the card and it turns out to be Jack of Spades, then now you have to explain how in this reality the card transitioned from not being Jack of Spades to being Jack of Spades. As there is no way to explain it rationally, your epistemology fails.

    Now, you may think, "What difference does it make? Who cares about whether it is Jack of Spades or not?" Well, the difference is that you create a potential for you to act based on objectively wrong assumptions about the world - and that can have pretty bad consequences.
    Imagine that our experiment has a twist: I never show you the card, but 10 years later I come to you and say, "Hey, let us have a bet: I will give you $1m dollars if all those years back I lied about the card being Jack of Spades, and you go to jail for life if I told the truth" - suppose there was a hidden camera that recorded that card, so the information about the truth is stored somewhere.
    Well, if you are consistent in your views and believe that the card actually was not Jack of Spades, then you have to take the bet: you can be 100% sure that you will get $1m dollars out of this bet. Yet anyone thinking rationally can see that this is a horrible bet to take: logically, I would not propose it to you if I had not actually picked Jack of Spades, as I have nothing to gain from this bet if I win and everything to lose if I, well, lose.

    See, the problem with having "the default" and treating it as truth in the absence of evidence of the opposite is that your model of the world is not aligned with existing evidence - and that qualitatively is no different from how theists behave. And while you are unlikely to get in trouble asserting that objectively "god" does not exist, your general approach will get you in trouble in other areas of your life.

    I will say that "god does not exist" is a much smaller and less consequential logical error to make, than "god exists". But it is still an error.
    Luigi7255ZeusAres42
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @pamelajohnson1
    Jesus Christ, is the answer

    So, what was the question then?

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -   edited October 26
    @ZeusAres42 @Luigi7255
    This semantic wordplay

    You were the one that made up the word play by sneakily using the word "evidence" and making a total blunder. I was the one who pulled you up on it and six other fatal blunders in one sentence. You lost the debate ages ago and trying to shift the blame and making dim-witted excuses does not change the fact. You said what you said and you were totally wrong. In fact, that little ditty alone must now carry the DebateIsland record for the most blunders in the shortest space of time.

  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 198 Pts   -  
    No proof that God exist.@Swolliw
    John_C_87
  • @pamelajohnson1

    It has been shown to exist, you just choose not to except it. Jesus Christ, is the answer.

    Jesus Christ is not the answer, the name Jesus Christ is your answer to connect a man as the so-called controller of all truth. Lord of truth. Pamelajohnson1 names Jesus with others in a democracy to be elect Jesus as GOD, just as Jesus had assigned himself overseer of GOD, GOD controller, and as Satin also attempted to assigned himself as GOD and was cast down to be lord of the underworld.


    No proof that GOD exists.

    There is no proof GOD exists as a human would be a more complete truth.

  • @Swolliw
    It is understood clearly by GOD SwoIIiw has reason to question truth, the one truth, and the eternal truth by it presented to him by thruth, Jesus, or by pamelajohnson1.
    Why does a person write Swoiiiw SwoIIiw?
  • Swolliw said:
    @ZeusAres42 @Luigi7255
    This semantic wordplay

    You were the one that made up the word play by sneakily using the word "evidence" and making a total blunder. I was the one who pulled you up on it and six other fatal blunders in one sentence. You lost the debate ages ago and trying to shift the blame and making dim-witted excuses does not change the fact. You said what you said and you were totally wrong. In fact, that little ditty alone must now carry the DebateIsland record for the most blunders in the shortest space of time.


    As you can see from a post above I went along with this semantic wordplay invented by swolliw and used the following which he keeps ignoring: "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." Either way, both sentences generally mean the same thing. What was going on there was a bit of a definition fallacy on the OP's part. It's a common fallacy often found on the internet, and tbh it really is useless debating semantics and so that will be my last post on this as it's getting boring.

    Now what is going on in this particular argument above is a bit of anger, ad hominem abuse, proof-by-assertion fallacies, and mere repetition of the same assertions which you can also judge for yourself if you scroll up. Swolliw fails to understand that merely repeating these sentences that he is right, winning and everyone else is wrong, and losing the debate is meaningless. I could just as easily say "I have tiny unicorns living in my butt and you can't prove it; therefore I win; you lost" it means nothing! Even if I said it 10 thousand times, it still means jack sh!t.

    As for his ad-hominem abuse, we should take that as a compliment as it's usually desperation on their part.



  • dallased25dallased25 352 Pts   -  
    @pamelajohnson1
    Why are you lying? No gods to date have not met their burden of evidence and have not been proven to exist. If any god had been proven then it would be common knowledge and scientific! Most christians will be honest enough to say "I can't prove it, but I have faith and here's why." I at least can respect that statement because it's honest. You are dishonestly stating that something has been proven and that I'm just denying it. This is why I don't respect you. 
  • Didn't you answer your own question?

    Swolliw said:

    In debating and logical parlance the burden is upon the person making the positive assertion 

    ZeusAres42
  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 198 Pts   -  
    You said and as Satin also attempted to assigned himself as GOD and was cast down to be lord of the underworld.,
    So, who cast him down to be lord of the underworld? @John_C_87
  • Who has the burden of proof?  S**t that's the wrong question.  Proof is science.  Science will never prove or disprove God.  Science NEVER reaches any complete proofs of anything.  And even when there's overwhelming consensus, like with the big bang, it only opens up 100 more questions.

    Faith... is faith.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @LikeTheHurricane
    Science will never prove or disprove God.

    If there is a God, it will be proven by science, not by a bunch of deluded, lying, deceiving charlatans sitting high and mighty and dictating that if people don't believe their completely contrived idiocy they will suffer an eternity in Hell.

    As it happens, those nit-wits nor anybody else has ever provided once slight piece of evidence, not even a tiny shred, to back up their hear-tell, outmoded, mythical claims. Yet there are mountains of tried and tested evidence that have irrefutably overturned any possibility that life was created.

    I think it a bit rich and telling that anyone should poo poo science (which is by far, the best measure of proof that we have) whereas since they have never come up with any evidence of any sort to back up their wild claims.

    There is no such thing as God. And I am quite within my right to make such a claim for the reasons I have already stated  and nobody has successfully refuted.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42
    Either way, both sentences generally mean the same thing.

    Whilst you are still busy looking up the words "evidence" and "proof" you may wish to look up the word "gaslighting".

    ZeusAres42
  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 198 Pts   -  
    There is proof that there is a God.  The God of the bible.  Genesis tells of giants and God destroying the world with a flood.  There are skeletons of giant people and giant animals, which proves that the bible is true and there for God is also true.  You always say I'm lying, like I just made it up.  @dallased25
  • dallased25dallased25 352 Pts   -  
    @pamelajohnson1
    You said god was "PROVEN" and that we are just denying it. Now you say there is "Proof", that's different. As far as the "Proof" you listed...no there are no skeletons of giant people and I'm not sure even at this point if you are serious or if you are trolling. There have been some faked photos of giant skeletons, but those were proven to be fakes. If there really was giant skeletons, they would be in a museum. Dinosaurs are not giants either and no they are not in the bible. There's also no evidence of a global flood either, so while we can't disprove the idea of a "god", we can say definitively that the biblical story of the flood is 100% disproven and that so far, there hasn't been a giant human skeleton found. Dinosaurs in the bible has always been a creative interpretation of "There were giants in those days" and description of behemoths with tails that swung like a cedar, which is very likely a description of a Hippo since their tails do move like a branch of a tree. So you've failed on all accounts and yes, when you do say things like "God has been proven", you are lying. 
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1477 Pts   -  
    @pamelajohnson1
    You always say I'm lying, like I just made it up. 

    In fact, somebody else made that up.

    But you must have to question your own credibility in the honesty stakes when you quote lies, myths, mistakes and exaggerations.

  • Swolliw said:
    @ZeusAres42
    Either way, both sentences generally mean the same thing.

    Whilst you are still busy looking up the words "evidence" and "proof" you may wish to look up the word "gaslighting".

    Here yet again, we have another attempt to get into a discussion about semantics without actually wanting to debate the relevance of the debate. Swolliw says that proof and evidence are different things and yes semantically they are. In fact, he even said it himself that evidence is used to prove something. So how tf does he propose one proves something without evidence? Any ideas folks?

    And exposing the logical errors in a person's argument is not gaslighting. Alright, I do admit I may recently have been a bit harsh on @Swolliw; I guess Hanlon's razor got the better of me again.



Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch