Is God's existence objectively verifiable?

[RadiantDanceMachine]

sabvre42 said:

Its funny how aethiests twist science and even inferential statistics to "prove their point." For example, by stating that the burden of proof lies on proving god exists/ the null hypothesis is necessarily the lack of god.

The fallacy with these arguments is that it requires just as much FAITH to believe in the infinite universe than it does to believe in a creator. Furthermore, based on applying the laws of the universe as we know it... its actually more irrational to believe in NOTHING than something.

The most fundamental rule of physics state that energy CANNOT be created, and instead, only change forms. This implies that without a creator... the ONLY alternative is the infinite universe. HOWEVER, this causes two paradoxes: first, based on modern science -- the universe is NOT infinite due to the fact that expansion is accelerating; second, without a creator... an event... or some abstract concept of creation.... can our universe exist? The infinite universe violates the entire concept of reality that humans understand. EVERYTHING has a cause. SOMETHING must have created the universe (not necessarily a conscious being).

Conversely, a god/event/creator does NOT actually fall into this paradox, as they are outside of the rules that define this paradox. In DND the game master can determine that every single being in their universe is green. This DOES NOT mean that the Game master is green... its a fabrication of their thought.

So I leave this on you. Prove to me that a creator does not exist as the burden of proof lies on the person making the outlandish claim.

This is a wonderful example of dishonesty. Thank you, this is exactly what I wanted.

The burden of proof lies with any claim maker. If the atheist is of the positive variety, i.e. embraces the claim "No gods exist" then indeed they do have a burden. However, if the atheist is of the negative variety, i.e. does not make any claims merely does not embrace the claim "God(s) exist" (more commonly known as agnostic...wrongly) then there is no burden.

It requires no faith to believe that the Universe is infinite. You've even admitted to the facts which lead to that adbuctive inference...those being the expansion of the Universe (indeed, at a rate faster than the speed of light), as well as the fact that the Universe is already much larger than what we can observe.

Furthermore, what does the expansion of the Universe have anything to do with atheism? You seem to have related completely unrelated things here.

What is a belief in "nothing"? That isn't even a coherent sentence to me and certainly has nothing to do with atheism (again).

 Indeed, conservation of energy is preserved...and violated by the notion that a magical wizard manifested it into existence out of nothing. This is contrary to everything we know about physics and philosophy for that matter. Creatio ex nihilo is thought to be logically impossible in addition to being physically (nomologically) impossible. I trust you're aware that physicists do not believe that the Universe is a creatio ex nihilo event, but I can expound if necessary.

Causality is a principle that applies temporally, however since time is thought not to have always been one cannot really comment about a contingency on causality when referencing the Universe itself. This is a abstraction problem on your behalf.

No burden here, as I am not a positive atheist. Indeed it's a position which one could say is nearly as ridiculous as the theistic claim.