Personal belief systems have no bearing on the reality of God or his existence

In reality, it is no more difficult for God to exist than not. This obligates all parties, regardless of belief, to equally bear the burden of proof for their belief system.

The reality of God’s existence does not respond to, nor is subject to, nor is dependent upon one’s belief system.

Labels and sublabels like Theist, Atheist, Agnostic, Supernaturalist, Naturalist have no bearing on reality when it comes to God’s existence.

Assigning labels and sublabels and mathematical probabilities to individual belief systems does nothing to remedy the equal obligation of all belief systems to bring proofs of God’s existence or non-existence.

If labels and sublabels and mathematical probabilities assign the Atheist a high intrinsic probability of .9 it is really only his label that is 90% correct if God does not exist. If God exists, neither labels nor probabilities can rescue him from being 100% wrong.

If labels and sublabels and mathematical probabilities assign the Theist a low intrinsic probability of .1 it is really only his label that is 90% correct if God does not exist. If God exists, neither labels nor probabilities can prevent him from being 100% right.

That is why philosophical arguments like this one are false constructs and are biased to set up Theism for failure

Operating from false presumptions, Atheists have too long taken their leisure while demanding proof from Theists for their belief system. The truth is that all labels and stripes are equally obligated to bear the burden of proof for their beliefs about the reality of God and his existence.

I disagree.

I go by Wittgenstein’s dictum “meaning is use.” The word “reality” can only mean what we take reality to be. And our beliefs do affect that.

1 Like

And yet…

Your God gives the impression of not existing. There’s no indication to the contrary.


What’s your beef? Does other’s non-belief spoil your Sunday? Why not live and let live (as I do)?

1 Like

If no one believes in Zeus anymore today, does it matter if Zeus exists or ever existed?

So you create your own reality? At least we now know why you believe in evolution.

Do you do that? When I build a paradigm that includes God in the foundational premise, does that mean you will not come back at me and say, “Prove your God exists”?

That is a different argument, but In the line-up of gods, only one God is left standing - the God of the Hebrews.

No, that is not what I said.

You have just changed the whole issue. I guess that means you have moved the goal posts.

Yes, if you make the existence of God a foundational premise for your argument, then you will be expected to provide support for that premise.

If I were to make the non-existence of God a foundational premise, then I should be expected to support that premise. However, I never depend on such a premise.



I wouldn’t ask because neither you nor anyone else are able to do so. Belief is an emotional appeal personal to the individual. It suits many but not everyone.

Whether stated or unstated, the non-existence of God is always at the foundation of your paradigm.


1 Like

In the pantheon of dead gods as society changes gods die off.

1 Like


All except the One who is true and eternal in nature.

As I’ve said, the way forward is peaceful coexistence. You live your truth and those who don’t share it live theirs. Public institutions and especially the law should reflect that plurality.


You are reminded that this is a forum where debate takes place. Because of that, I do not always expect to find peace here. Do you?

For instance, your above remark is a combative remark. Am I expected to live and let live when my God is personally attacked as you did above? Are you perhaps saying that while you are free to be combative, that I must lie down and be walked on for the sake of peace?

Debate takes place here. Sometimes, many times, this environment is anything but peaceful.


1 Like

Well, maybe debates take place here. I do see positions stated and ideas discussed but when it comes to core beliefs I don’t see much changing of minds. Of course the only views we should be concerned about are our own and whether they are justified. I don’t feel the need to change your mind or attack your personal beliefs, though when you make claims in public that are evidently counterfactual you should be and expect to be challenged.

Not at all. There is no way to demonstrate the Christian god ar any other; it is unentailed belief. There is no point in arguing over this, one simply chooses* to believe in a deity or one doesn’t. I accept that others don’t share my lack of belief and I have no wish to prevent the free exercise of that belief (up to the point where it infringes on the rights and liberties of others). Now if a religious group uses its political clout to gain control over the personal lives of fellow citizens who are not religious or of other faith, that might involve combat if legal protections are insufficient.

Oh good grief, what hyperbole! What I will grant is that all humans are entitled to a fair and reciprocal consideration regarding their beliefs or lack of them. Are you happy to live alongside folks who don’t share your religion, or would you like to discriminate against them if you had the power of the majority over them?

I grew up in England where blasphemy (against the Church of England version of Christianity) was still a crime. Immigration from Commonwealth countries meant the UK acquired a significant number of followers of Islam. There have been racist attacks on this community and their leaders suggested that the blasphemy law should be extended to protect muslims to put them on a more equal footing under the law. The much simpler solution was to abolish the blasphemy laws altogether (in 2008) making everyone equal under UK law.