God & the Fairy Tree

No of course I don't have all knowledge and of course we can never be 100% sure about things that there is no evidence of. But as an educated adult with a working brain I can be pretty damm sure that fairies, ipu's and gods are constructs of the human brain and exist nowhere else. Let's say I'm an atheist about fairies and gods until someone can provide some evidence for their existance. I think its more rational to not believe in things for which no-one has every presented evidence for then to withhold judgement forever.

if we go to the root of the issue, it all begins with evidence. Now, we are left trying to prove that the proposition is false in order to gain authority over the claim.Claim: God "Everything you see, I have created"
Evidence: we are surrounded by it.
Challenge: To demonstrate that God did not create everything, as claimed.Quick and dirty.Damned sure... does nothing to this claim.

Very, very few Atheists actively believe there are no supernatural entities. Most Atheists (like say, Richard Dawkins) simply find no reason to believe in supernatural entities. There is a marked difference. Atheists accept that there is a small chance that any given supernatural entity exists - they simply also acknowledge that, since there is no evidence suggesting the entity does exist, there is no reason to believe that it does.To say that Atheism means that a person believes with absolute certainty that the supernatural does not exist is incorrect. Atheism is NOT Theism in reverse - you describe some sort of "anti-Theism." Atheism is, quite literally, the lack of belief.An Atheist would say that, since there is no evidence for the existence of fairies, gods, or what have you, there is no reason to believe in them. This is NOT to say that the Atheist is 100% certain that such entities DO NOT exist. It is simply that, without any evidence to support the position, the likelihood of the existence of such entities approaches zero. False dilemma. Again, Atheism does not state anything with 100% certainty. Atheism simply states "since there is no evidence to support belief in x, I do not believe in x." It's simple parsimony. No one seriously believes there is an invisible dragon that pushes the clouds around in the sky. The Agnostic, whose position is eternally "maybe" on the unfalsifiable issues of the supernatural, is less parsimonious than the Atheist who clarifies with "but really, probably not."Agnostics who say that Theists and Atheists are equally wrong because both claim 100% certainty regarding their positions are strawmanning Atheism, and committing a Golden Mean fallacy by claiming both positions are equally correct. In defining pi, 3 is less correct than 3.14 is less correct than 3.1457. One of these positions claims 100% certainty - the other does not, meaning they are not "equally invalid positions."The position of the Agnostic is that any supernatural entity ever conceived, being unfalsifiable, may possibly exist, that we do not and cannot ever know for certain one way or the other. The Atheist simply accepts that the default answer to the question of whether something should be believed in is that it should not until a reason (ie, evidence) is given to cause that belief.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

What evidence supports the claim that god(s) created everything? Do you or anyone else have any evidence?

I am tempted to laugh, but not in a discriminatory way. Only because of the irony which surrounds this logic. The evidence, is all around us. It's a very simple claim, no matter how we churn it, the resulting problem will always be the same.The only way out of this, is to personally refuse to acknowledge the claim(which we are all entitled).

As a Christian, I have to wonder where you think you have pointed to any support for your position.You said: Where? What?We can see things around us, but that tells us nothing about how any of that was created.Where is the evidence that GOD created what we see around us?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It's a very simple claim, but it means nothing. You might have just as well have just said "because". Claiming that the evidence is all around us and there actually being evidence all around us are two totally different things. I'm asking what is the actual evidence, in other words back up the claim. An unbacked claim is not evidence and it should rightly be ignored.

There was no expansion on "how he did it" only a claim that "He is responsible for it" and the proof is in the pudding(so to speak). Explaining how creation was carried out has no bearing on the initial claim. Unless we are assuming that a lack of cooperation now disproves a claim.

INQUIRY: Who built this house.
CLAIMANT: I built it.
CHALLENGER: I don't believe you, prove it!
REBUTTAL: It's standing before you isn't it?
CHALLENGER: This proves nothing.
CLAIMANT: It proves that someone built the house.
CHALLENGER: It was not you.The challenger holds no authority on the claim. He did not claim to build the house, nor has anyone else other than the original claimant. The challenger could choose to ignore the claim, however under law, he would be required to provide evidence and prove that the claimant is wrong. Unless someone else comes forward with a claim.Unfortunately in this case, dismissing the house as evidence is not an option, it is the object of dispute. Edited by pbee, : typo

So...the fact that things exist is proof that your God created it because, according to an old text, your God said he did?How's this:I, Rahvin, created everything in the universe last Wednesday, complete with all of your memories, light from distant stars already en route, and with every other appearance of age. The proof that I created everything is that it all exists.That is identical to your claim that existence proves creation. If you think it is not, why not?

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

If you claimed to create all things as God did then, I would take that information and measure it up against the initial one. No prejudism applied.At face value, I am skeptical, however, how do I know your not possessed with divine powers. Now, I am left to reason on this claim. Would you provide me with some form of insight to these works. Written or otherwise? (so many questions)

Actually the house is not evidence, as it doesn't prove that the claimant build the house, just that the house exists. Building permits, contracts and receipts for building materials would be evidence.Most of us here are not thinking of legal evidence when we are asking for evidence, we are thinking more in line of scientific evidence. In that case the person making the claim (the claimant) has to prove his position, not the other way around.

You have still not shown any evidence that GOD created anything we see. I have not asked HOW God did it, only that you show some evidence that God actually created anything.So far all we have from you is the unsupported assertion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Cart before the horse.The identity of the creator is not the question. The question is whether or not the universe was created at all, or whether it has simply always existed in some form. The identity of the creator can only be asked after it is shown that the universe was created in the first place.So. What is your evidence that the universe was created, as opposed to having always existed in one form or another? Hint: if you say that everything requires a cause, meaning the universe MUST have been created, I'm going to ask you who created the creator, or what gives him a free pass at violating the very premise he is meant to fulfil.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Very good. The house does not prove anything in regards to the builder and this is perfectly logical. However, unless someone else contests the claim, there is no way to derive a need for proof beyond the object of dispute. We know the house exists, and a person did claim it was the product of there own doing. Are we entitled to drive him out of the house because he failed to prove he built it? That act would be unlawful.Taking it a step further(permits and by-laws aside). What if the inquirers have never seen a house? What if they do not believe the house is a product of anything known to them. What if the maker explained how He made the house but the inquirers were incapable of resolving the implications and decided the claimant was a liar.This has no bearing on the initial statement. However it does raise some interesting issues with the problem in question. But we are still left with a house and a claimant nonetheless.