It is actually not self-evident that the sky is blue. That the sky is blue is only evident upon observation. The claim is not evident by itself. A truly self-evident proposition is “two plus two equals four” because if someone understands what the proposition means, it cannot be contradicted.
Indeed. It is at this part in a conversation that the theist stops trying to convince others of their beliefs, and only tries to convince themselves. Good luck with that, but don’t expect anyone to take you seriously if the best you can do is repeat the mantra “it’s just obvious!”
Of course, but that doesn’t work well for someone who is blind. To them, it is not self evident that the sky is blue because they are incapable of observing the color of the sky. However, the sky doesn’t stop being blue because it’s not blue, no, it’s not blue to the blind person because they are blind.
Life exists. I don’t see how this can be contradicted.
I keep repeating it because this is not a complex idea at all. There’s only so many ways you can explain how 2 + 2 = 4
I like to balance out the claims, something along the lines of “We claim that God is the cause of the existence of the universe, and here are are arguments. What is your claim regarding the cause of the existence of the universe, and what are your arguments?”
I did particularly say that to me it is plainly obvious. I’ve also given an explanation to why it may not be obvious to others. Please feel free to read through the thread.I don’t think God’s existence is all that obvious. I’ve always believed in him and felt that he is leading me, but I do accept that for others it is not that simple.
You can’t say “God’s existence is obvious, therefore you habe to prove he doesn’t exist!” and expect people to take you seriously.
To them, it’s not obvious. They haven’t observed him with their five senses or found a logical argument for why he must exist. If nothing else, we should give them the arguments and the evidence that they seek. We can’t just accept them to take our word for it; that’s silly.
And I do think the evidence is there, in logical arguments and prophecies and historical records. But no, it’s not obvious, if for no other reason than that many people don’t see it.
Is your claim that life exists or that God exists? Because those are two separate things, even if you attribute the existence of life to God.
They are in fact the same thing. God is often referred to as the Giver of Life. Because He exists, we exist. Simple as that.
No, it’s the behavior of someone who isn’t fooled by a crafty claim that the ones who believe are the ones who need to do the proving.
WOW, I’ve talked with a lot of religious people but you take the cake man. The deaf person couldn’t hear something in his head? God couldn’t accomplish this? If god is as you say he is he could allow the deaf person to hear. Even if there was another kind of evidence, god could still provide me the evidence I require. He could prove allll the atheists wrong and just say what religion is right. He doesn’t, STRANGE. The point was that the pope being a source of scientific knowledge that he couldn’t possibly have would really do a lot for the existence of god. Can god communicate with him or what? He has the power to manifest in reality if he exists, to act like he’s reaching out is just NONSENSE. I said not just in a book, so Jesus doesn’t really work. Emotion is not immaterial you dunce, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for it, or have you never heard of a brain?Strictly materially speaking, since that is the only thing you are concerned with, how would talking to everybody at once be proof for someone who is deaf?
Of course if it actually happened tomorrow everyone would hear it and witness it, but not the deaf person. Now this is kind of my point: the deaf person wouldn’t hear God’s voice not because God didn’t speak, but because of their own deficiency, which happens to be hearing in this hypothetical situation.
God talks to us everyday and showers us with His graces, only everyone (including myself at times) is defected by sin which deafens us to His voice. We do not hear not because He isn’t speaking, but because we are deficient in hearing.
I don’t understand how you would think this to be proof of God? The Pope is a man that is bound by the laws of this earth nor is he a scientist. God has the power to give us scientific advancements and he does with the great minds he lets flourish.
Jesus
I didn’t say “emotion = soul”. I asked why you’d believe in the evidence for one immaterial thing over another with the same set of evidence. Apparently you never answered that question.
Thank you for revealing yourself so clearly and completely. You have relieved me and I suspect many others from engaging your arguments as if they were serious. I just wonder what the other atheists here will think of their new comrade.
I’ve never stated that it was subjective and it is inaccurate to say so. The objectivity of the sky being blue is an obvious fact, but it’s not an obvious fact to a blind person. Just because the blind person cannot see the color of the sky, doesn’t negate the objectivity of the sky being blue.
Please tell me how me claiming the sky is blue (an obvious fact, but not for people who are blind obviously) is the same as me saying I have secret information that allows me to know that the sky is blue?
You are back pedaling like crazy here, Faith. You asked for material evidence. A voice in someone’s head isn’t material.
Technically and realistically speaking, a believer has no burden of proof whatsoever.
You are differentiating between the obviousness of God’s existence to you and the obviousness of God’s existence to others. I agree with you that God’s existence is objective; I am not calling it subjective or saying that you are calling it subjective. But when you say God’s existence is obvious to you you are implying (by definition of what it means to say “to me”) that obviousness is a subjective quality.
Not referring to your example of the color of the sky. If obviousness is subjective, and you are saying that God’s existence is obvious to you, then your claiming that God’s existence is obvious to you is the same sort of claim that Protestant Reformers were making when they disputed the Catholic Church’s teachings about the nature of God.
The dunce bit was too far, I’ll admit. Otherwise you’re just making an excuse to shrug off my criticism. If you don’t want to acknowledge how frustrating and condescending the person I was responding to was being, so be it. I have no problem with other people, and you might find that I’m perfectly respectful when interacting with someone who respects me. Edit: Also the brain part was relevant to the conversation… In other words, emotions come from the brain.
If the believer wants a skeptic to believe in something, he has to prove it. I am a perpetual skeptic. The burden I give to you is to prove to someone like me that God exists? I need proof. Otherwise, I will not believe.
I’m not backpedaling. I don’t recall asking for material evidence ever, I just dismissed your transcendental “evidence”. Also, I consider a voice in your head to have a material source, aka your brain. I don’t see how people being able to attest to hearing the same thing all at once somehow isn’t evidence. You could provide non-material evidence, but you’d need to prove the non-material first. Also, I do want to sincerely apologize for calling you a dunce. Sorry.
This is an assertion. You need to back this up. You seem to think that making blank assertions is the same as proving something is true. This is not true.
I don’t care what is obvious to you - that has no bearing on what is objectively true. You first claim that the truth of the proposition “God exists” is self-evident, which is a claim about the proposition. You then backpedal and say that you’re only talking about your perception of the proposition, it is obviously true to you.