I don't believe in God because.....

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
um, no. his suppositions are incorrect. the onus of proof remains on the one making a positive claim.

How convient for the Atheist. In my case I am on the negative side of evolution.
I don't believe in it. So I guess the onus of proof is on the ones making the
positive claim that evolution is a fact, right?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]What I mean is there are only two possible scenerios. Life came about by chance from infinite matter or life came about by a higher power.

No, that's called a false dichotomy.

So what are the other scenerios? Give me one.

Originally posted by whodey
That is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the reasons people provide in debates as to why they don't believe in God. There is a difference. I created this thread to get input. You are free to give yours. As for others, I believe about 2 were added, that is all.

Good grief, man, do you pay attention at all? I have given you my input. You say you want to start a thread that examines the reasons that persons provide in debates for why they do not believe in God. But then you entirely ignore the actual arguments that they have made, and present some idiotic reasons such as "God cannot be proved." Is your reading comprehension really that bad? That's what you got out of your studies of the arguments given against God?

Originally posted by LemonJello
As a result, I see little difference between the agnostic and atheist.

Give over. You cannot see the difference between one who, based on the available evidence, endorses some positive conclusion in some direction and one who, based on the available evidence, does not think any positive conclusions in any directions are sufficiently warranted and ...[text shortened]... esty and bias agnostics and atheists bring to the table, I'm sure they have nothing on you.[/b]

I really don't remeber saying that agnostics drive me nuts. All I am saying is that those of faith produce a positive conclusion, those who are not of faith, agnostic or athiest, do not. For that reason, they are very similar to me.

Originally posted by whodey
So what are the other scenerios? Give me one.

Do you own research.

By the way, I know no one who claims "life came about by chance from infinite matter". I do not even know what that is supposed to mean.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Good grief, man, do you pay attention at all? I have given you my input. You say you want to start a thread that examines the reasons that persons provide in debates for why they do not believe in God. But then you entirely ignore the actual arguments that they have made, and present some idiotic reasons such as "God cannot be proved." Is your reading ...[text shortened]... really that bad? That's what you got out of your studies of the arguments given against God?

So far, what I have been presented with are the following arguments.

1. God cannot be proved.
2. There is not sufficient evidence to sway me.
3. If God exists, the he would not have allowed "X" to happen.
4. I don't care.

I believe you did contribute to #2. Any others?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Do you own research.

By the way, I know no one who claims "life came about by chance from infinite matter". I do not even know what that is supposed to mean.

What I mean is matter was not created, right? Then it must be eternal in some way. Also, such matter sprang to life on its own if there be no God. Right?

Originally posted by whodey
I really don't remeber saying that agnostics drive me nuts. All I am saying is that those of faith produce a positive conclusion, those who are not of faith, agnostic or athiest, do not. For that reason, they are very similar to me.

Well, obviously your memory is not too good. You cannot remember what you wrote in this thread, let alone what reasons you have heard given against God in debates on the topic.

And maybe you just do not understand what is meant by a "positive" conclusion.

Originally posted by whodey
So far, what I have been presented with are the following arguments.

1. God cannot be proved.
2. There is not sufficient evidence to sway me.
3. If God exists, the he would not have allowed "X" to happen.
4. I don't care.

I believe you did contribute to #2. Any others?

Here's my advice to you, since you do not seem to get it at all.

If you are intersted in reasons given against the existence of God, then go read serious arguments given in that capacity. Go do your research.

Originally posted by whodey
What I mean is matter was not created, right? Then it must be eternal in some way. Also, such matter sprang to life on its own if there be no God. Right?

No, it does not follow that matter "must be eternal in some way" from that matter was not created.

And, no, that there is no God does not commit one to the idea that matter sprang to life on its own.

And, even if you thought that, how would you reconcile "matter must be eternal" and "matter spring to life".

Your logic certainly leaves something to be desired.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Do you own research.

By the way, I know no one who claims "life came about by chance from infinite matter". I do not even know what that is supposed to mean.

You can read up on it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

This is very important to the evolution theory and you should know about it.

YouTube

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

Originally posted by RJHinds
You can read up on it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

This is very important to the evolution theory and you should know about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

I think you're a little confused. Abiogenetic theories are generally not committed to "chance" as the only factor involved in the origination of biological life, and they are not committed to "infinite matter" (whatever that means).

Originally posted by LemonJello
I think you're a little confused. Abiogenetic theories are generally not committed to "chance" as the only factor involved in the origination of biological life, and they are not committed to "infinite matter" (whatever that means).

We both agree that there is no such thing as infinite matter. But do we agree
that the theory of abiogenesis should be proved before we believe in it in the
same way the theory of evolution should be proved before we believe in it?

Originally posted by RJHinds
We both agree that there is no such thing as infinite matter. But do we agree
that the theory of abiogenesis should be proved before we believe in it in the
same way the theory of evolution should be proved before we believe in it?

That of course depends on what you mean by "proved".

I'm happy to hear you have such rigorous and stringent standards for what counts as credible. I'm sure you hold your belief in God to the same standards.

Originally posted by LemonJello
That of course depends on what you mean by "proved".

I'm happy to hear you have such rigorous and stringent standards for what counts as credible. I'm sure you hold your belief in God to the same standards.

I only came to true belief in God after obtaining enough proof that satisfied me.
I do not see the same level of proof in abiogenesis or evolution. I see a strong
relationship between these two theories, so for me, I must also accept both in
order to accept either. At this point, I can't see this happening.