The burden of proof of anyone who claims any particular worldview is on that individual… In other words if tabash can claim that the burden of proof is on the Christian then where is his burden of proof? Why is naturalism just automatically to be assumed and to believe otherwise only others have that burden of proof?
We have an abundance of evidence that the natural world exists. We have zero good evidence that a supernatural anything exists. All you have is unfounded claims.
Tabash has the burden of proof for any claim that he makes. If I say that no one created the car that I am driving, then I must give an explanation as to how the car came to be. I cannot simply tell everyone else "Well, that's on you to explain, not on me." Would you consider a man completely honest who responded to you in such a way?
The burden of proof lies with the believer in atheist Dogma, not with us theists: We theists make no independent claims -- we merely accept the objective facts as God has revealed them. The mere acceptance of objective facts does not carry any burden of proof, because it doesn't involve the production of any claims. The believer in atheist Dogma has produced his own personal claims in opposition to the objective facts that God has revealed to all mankind, so he must prove his personal claims to be true. He has failed to provide any proof for any of his atheistic claims, so God's revelation the objective facts remains valid, true, and unchallenged.
If the question was "Does God exist?" Then the burden of proof is both positive and negative. Yes and no. This requires one to be omniscient if answered in a period when God is invisible. Both the theist and the atheist are asking for the second advent of Jesus Christ as prophesied in the bible. Both will get what they ask for. Amos 5:18 Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light. John 14: 1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. :2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. :3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. :4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
Joseph JosephJoseph the Bible says specifically in Romans chapter 1 I believe that everybody knows that God exists they just suppress it in unrighteousness
All this conversation could be solved if people understand that scientific proof is different of historical proof. If I want to prove something scientific I make a testable, repeatable experiment and theorize a hypothesis to explain it. But in a historical claim I can’t repeat what happened, so I investigate the evidences left by the event or the agent. How could someone prove a supernatural God with natural process?
The burden of proof of anyone who claims any particular worldview is on that individual… In other words if tabash can claim that the burden of proof is on the Christian then where is his burden of proof? Why is naturalism just automatically to be assumed and to believe otherwise only others have that burden of proof?
We have an abundance of evidence that the natural world exists. We have zero good evidence that a supernatural anything exists. All you have is unfounded claims.
Dr. Bahnsen: Atheist Slayer
Tabash has the burden of proof for any claim that he makes. If I say that no one created the car that I am driving, then I must give an explanation as to how the car came to be. I cannot simply tell everyone else "Well, that's on you to explain, not on me." Would you consider a man completely honest who responded to you in such a way?
audio mixing needs fixed. 100% on the Right Side, so if you have headphones you can only hear out of the right earbud.
Without God, there could be no proof for or against anything.
The burden of proof lies with the believer in atheist Dogma, not with us theists:
We theists make no independent claims -- we merely accept the objective facts as God has revealed them.
The mere acceptance of objective facts does not carry any burden of proof, because it doesn't involve the production of any claims.
The believer in atheist Dogma has produced his own personal claims in opposition to the objective facts that God has revealed to all mankind, so he must prove his personal claims to be true.
He has failed to provide any proof for any of his atheistic claims, so God's revelation the objective facts remains valid, true, and unchallenged.
If the question was "Does God exist?" Then the burden of proof is both positive and negative. Yes and no. This requires one to be omniscient if answered in a period when God is invisible. Both the theist and the atheist are asking for the second advent of Jesus Christ as prophesied in the bible. Both will get what they ask for.
Amos 5:18 Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light.
John 14:
1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
:4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
Whaaaatt? The Big Bang. Oh, you don’t have the burden of proof
To debate if God exist, acknowledges that God may exist because if you believe God does not exist then why debate about it? God doesn't exist?
Joseph JosephJoseph Amen! The conscience bears witness; believers must go to the power of God
Joseph JosephJoseph the Bible says specifically in Romans chapter 1 I believe that everybody knows that God exists they just suppress it in unrighteousness
All this conversation could be solved if people understand that scientific proof is different of historical proof. If I want to prove something scientific I make a testable, repeatable experiment and theorize a hypothesis to explain it. But in a historical claim I can’t repeat what happened, so I investigate the evidences left by the event or the agent. How could someone prove a supernatural God with natural process?
Another atheist fail. Another one.