Quote:
Originally Posted by Thee Alex
1-3=-2
Anyway, now we've got 'proving a negative' out of the way, I assume (by your attempts to divert attention away from the rather easy question I've asked you) that you've no answer?
The onus isn't on science to prove the existence or otherwise of 'god' - that rests ENTIRELY on the shoulders of the 'faithful'.
Even if your version of 'god' exists you still have to answer the following -
Explain how belief in a 'god' that is formless, powerless, and pointless, is any different from there being no 'god' at all....
|
Ok since no-one else seems willing to do it, I'll offer you a counter argument.
Firstly, the onus isn't actually on anyone here. If something was on trial, then yes. But in a discussion where one person is stating what they believe and the other person is accusing them of being wrong, there isn't really any onus on anyway. If you were desperate to place this responsibility on anyone I'd actually say it's on the aggressor, in this case yourself. Now I don't mean aggressor as in you're being aggressive, simply that you are the one who is casting doubt upon the other person's statement. It is up to you to show them why they are wrong.
I think in this case what makes it difficult is that it really is practically impossible to logically prove that something cannot exist. Especially when the 'believer' isn't actually maintaining that proof FOR existence is necessary for them to continue believing. What really would have solved this whole issue (and what I personally would have said if I was religious and defending my case here) is if whoever started defending the religious side had simply said, "I believe in God. I accept that it is possible, even probable, that there is no God and that I am completely wrong but I choose to maintain my faith". As far as I can see there is no way to legitimately arguing with that, simply because 'having faith' intrinsically implies that there is no evidence required. That's why it's called believing.
Right, an attempt to offer an asnwer to your long-unanswered question.
Explain how belief in a 'god' that is formless, powerless, and pointless, is any different from there being no 'god' at all....
The difference here is quite a simple one. It is the difference between there being 'higher' forms of being; and there not being any 'higher' forms of being. It is also the difference between there being some greater ultimate cause to life and everything in the universe (whether it be a conscious force in a creator role or an unconscious force as the original cause); and there being no cause to anything, leaving the conclusion that we as human beings are alone and, to use a more dramatic word, Godless.
I really don't feel that strongly about this topic and am just chirping in as devils advocate. Feel free to give me some counter points to what I've said as I'm sure there are many good ones (I can think of a couple myself!) and I'll look forward to reading over what I'm confident will be a well thought out response.
PS. is it obvious I'm quite desperate to avoid writing an essay I should be working on just now?!