Thread: "GOD EXISTS, ATHEISTS!!! I'll prove it SCIENTIFICALLY!!"

people see miracles as a good reason to believe, sure you could call it coincidence or luck but who's the say it wasn't a miracle?

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

also some people see a good reason to believe because they believe in miracles, and they'd view that as a good reason to believe, or they'll have some sort of vision they think is a good reason to believe

as for a believer having to prove the skeptic wrong it should go both ways, the believer should prove it's real and the skeptic should prove that it's false

No it shouldn't because that is being unreasonable. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and what cannot be justified with a good reason is not worthy of belief. A person may believe in miracles or whatever, but then the person would have to show these miracles can be observed and not be explained by any naturalistic means.

If the believer DOES provide proof and evidence, then the sceptic has to meet the burden of proof with his argument as well, otherwise it would be unreasonable for him to dismiss the claim without evidence of his own. But, the burden of proof is mainly on the believer or the proponent of any sort of claim.

if that was true and everyone thought like that then there'd be many things to never be corrected or looking more into if everyone skeptic thought that way

Actually, the world would be a lot better if people where more skeptical.

Being sheeply, gullible fools for things like superstition is what hampers society.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

No it shouldn't because that is being unreasonable. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and what cannot be justified with a good reason is not worthy of belief. A person may believe in miracles or whatever, but then the person would have to show these miracles can be observed and not be explained by any naturalistic means.

If the believer DOES provide proof and evidence, then the sceptic has to meet the burden of proof with his argument as well, otherwise it would be unreasonable for him to dismiss the claim without evidence of his own. But, the burden of proof is mainly on the believer or the proponent of any sort of claim.

what about in some medical things, something happens and they even say there's "no explanation for it" therefore theres no naturalistic mean, it only leaves one thing and that's a "miracle"

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

i don't agree with that, there is no way to prove of his existance and you won't know until you die, either nothing is going to happen or something is going to happen so that's the way to prove it

There is absolutely no evidence that if "god" exists it will present itself to the dead. "God" being real doesn't even guarantee the existence of some sort of after-life.

evolution used to be considered superstition, so what if people were skeptical of that? what if people were skeptical of there being cures for diseases, viruses, etc. etc. your claim is ignorant to even say because then there wouldn't be much of a world today, what if back in the 1700s and 1800s when they started to explore the world if they still stayed skeptical of the world possibly being round and everyone decided that it was in fact a square? nothing past the eastern half of the world would of been settled on

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

There is absolutely no evidence that if "god" exists it will present itself to the dead. "God" being real doesn't even guarantee the existence of some sort of after-life.

the only way to prove if he is real is to die, most religions that have a god believe in an after life of one or another, or reincarnation, so once you die that will be the only way to prove of god's existence

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

the only way to prove if he is real is to die, most religions that have a god believe in an after life of one or another, or reincarnation, so once you die that will be the only way to prove of god's existence

"Most", not all.

The 'after-life' doesn't prove or disprove god.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

evolution used to be considered superstition, so what if people were skeptical of that? what if people were skeptical of there being cures for diseases, viruses, etc. etc. your claim is ignorant to even say because then there wouldn't be much of a world today, what if back in the 1700s and 1800s when they started to explore the world if they still stayed skeptical of the world possibly being round and everyone decided that it was in fact a square? nothing past the eastern half of the world would of been settled on

You don't understand scepticism. One would be sceptical of claims that cannot be substantiated, and one would test the claims of which are backed up by evidence in order to check for validity. Scepticism requires evidence for claims to be seen as valid.

most of them you'll meet the creator once you die so yes it does infact prove god and the religion we're mostly talking about is christianity, once you die it's either going to be nothing or you're going to heaven or hell, and if you go to hell that proves of god's existence because he's the one that created hell

there's no cold hard evidence that prove "miracles" aren't "miracles"

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

most of them you'll meet the creator once you die so yes it does infact prove god and the religion we're mostly talking about is christianity, once you die it's either going to be nothing or you're going to heaven or hell, and if you go to hell that proves of god's existence because he's the one that created hell

Which Hell though? The Norse version of Hell or the Christian one?

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

there's no cold hard evidence that prove "miracles" aren't "miracles"

And there's no cold hard evidence that prove miracles really are miracles... your point is?

i don't even know about the norse hell lol but it'd be the christian hell, the lake of fire, big scary demons, etc. etc.

well until you can prove the "miracle" wasn't a miracle, it's a miracle to that person

and until you can prove that it actually was a "miracle" then it's not a miracle


it's all a person's opinion, it's my opinion god exists, it's your opinion he doesn't, there's no fact to either statement besides beliefs and opinions

and most people here claim you just need to disregard god as existing because there's no proof, there could be proof somewhere that he exists and people just haven't found it, so there's no real need to disregard it, there needs to be someone searching for the proof

so saying there's no proof is a false statement, there's proof to everything

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

and most people here claim you just need to disregard god as existing because there's no proof, there could be proof somewhere that he exists and people just haven't found it, so there's no real need to disregard it, there needs to be someone searching for the proof

so saying there's no proof is a false statement, there's proof to everything

Then show me that proof for God. If you claim that evidence suddenly exists for everything, then it shouldn't be a problem. Does it exist for the FSM as well? I sure as hell can show that Longcat exists...

I die, I go to hell and see it looks like exactly the hell described in the bible. Does it prove the bible's god exists? No, it does not.

For all I know hell could have origined by some other god or non-godly ways.

Death doesn't prove god, so drop it.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

I die, I go to hell and see it looks like exactly the hell described in the bible. Does it prove the bible's god exists? No, it does not.

For all I know hell could have origined by some other god or non-godly ways.

Death doesn't prove god, so drop it.

And even if you do die and see what resembles something you might think is God, you can't be sure it is not a Scooby Doo ghost illusion.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Then show me that proof for God. If you claim that evidence suddenly exists for everything, then it shouldn't be a problem. Does it exist for the FSM as well? I sure as hell can show that Longcat exists...

i don't have to search for evidence because i already believe in him, there is evidence to everything in the world you just have to find it

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

I die, I go to hell and see it looks like exactly the hell described in the bible. Does it prove the bible's god exists? No, it does not.

For all I know hell could have origined by some other god or non-godly ways.

Death doesn't prove god, so drop it.

if you die and go to hell and it looks like the christian bible's hell then you're in the christian hell, therefore god exists since he created it, that proves god's existance, so drop it.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

i don't have to search for evidence because i already believe in him, there is evidence to everything in the world you just have to find it

You are making a claim, therefore it is up to you to substantiate it. I am not obliged to do your research for you. If you are going to bother to debate about this, you should be prepared to justify the reasons for your beliefs, especially if you claim there is evidence for it.

Now Proof or GTFO.

This thread kills braincells.

Someone lock it.

i can turn that around and tell you to prove to me why god doesn't exist though, just because you don't believe doesn't mean you don't have to prove because then i can say just because i believe i don't have to prove he exists to you

you're statement goes either way, people who believe won't go out and prove there is no god

people that don't believe won't go out and prove there is a god