Any theist around here?

[JWeinCom]

reggin_bolas said:

Teeqoz said:

Burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, not the ones that don't believe it, meaning that theists would be the ones that would have to provide proof for their claim of a God.

The existence of Pluto is provable, and even though you haven't seen Pluto yourself, there is plenty of evidence to prove the existence of Pluto. There is no evidence for the existence of a god however, presumably because there is none. Now I bet you're gonna pick apart the "presumably" part, saying "You have to have faith in that to assume ....etc." but that's only if you are gonna continue treating agnostic and atheist as two different things. I'm an atheist. I'm also an agnostic. I accept that there is no way to disprove a God, just as you can't disprove that there's an unvisible, undetectable, magical animal made of rice walking around in your house right now. Doesn't mean either of them exists though.

When you see your girlfriend naked in bed with another guy, you don't choose to think that she slept with him. It's just your first assumption, as it's the one that makes sense given the evidence in front of you. Same can be said for atheists.

So does the atheist who boldy claims there is no god. And you can't prove a ne gative so have fun with that one. There is plenty of "proofs" postulated by philosophers throughout the ages. Artistotle for example. The universe is a series of causes requiring an ultimate cause. The argument is sound. 

Also laws of physics are conceptual in nature and not physical themselves. Conceptual laws require agency. They can't create themselves or appear randomly.

I don't enjoy these debates, they are ultimately futile. There is virtue in defending one's beliefs though.  

Well, I was just trying to show how atheism is not a choice, not to argue against the existence of god.  But... if you insist...

There is plenty of "proofs" postulated by philosophers throughout the ages. Artistotle for example. The universe is a series of causes requiring an ultimate cause. The argument is sound. 

Nope.  It isn't.  Look up "kalam argument" and you'll see dozens of refutations.

The argument basically goes like this.

1.  Everything has a cause.

2.  There must have been a first cause.

3.  The first cause (ultimate cause) is god who was uncaused.

This argument doesn't make sense.  You're saying that everything has to have a cause, and then you're saying that one thing did not have a cause.  So, does every event need a cause, or do some events not need one?  If god can bbe an uncaused event, why can't other events be uncaused?  Why can't other gods pop into existence?  And if you go with the "god is timeless/outside of reality" then why is god the only being that gets that privelege?  Why can't other things exist out of time?

I'm not sure what you mean by the laws of physics are not physical.  I mean, it's right their in the word physics.  The laws of physics are simply our descriptions of observable phenomena.  The actual phenomena though, is physical.  Objects attract eachother.  That's purely physical.