Existence of God

I appreciate my opponents pleasant conduct, it makes the debate many, many times more appealing and just fun. O Burden of Proof "One has the onus of bearing the burden of proof if one were to make an assertion." I propose that things aren't that simple. " I have, as I've outlined previously, made none." Incorrect, rejection does not equal no assertion. As I have stated previously, the idea of God is such a basic and widespread belief that one must add some resistance to it before one rejects it. Meaning that you're not an atheist naturally, hypothetically, if atheism is correct, you still have never been an atheist "naturally". O Experiencing God Part 1: "How does one know they've experienced god? " A: One prays -----> The prayer is fulfilled. B: One is an Atheist or a light believer ------> One keeps on seeing God (not literally, obviously). C: The video (This was exactly my experience). http://www.youtube.com... Part 2: "In fact, how could one verify such claims?" A: How can one refute such claims ? B: The fact is I can't prove my experience which the video pins down quite well (it was a scary, exciting and a peaceful first watch for me). However it still is a good argument due to "C:". C: We can play a game of probabilities. Lets assume I am lying and I never experienced this. Q: Would I be a Christian ? A: No, the old testament and the new testament prohibits lying. Q: Is God pleased with my lying ? A: One must note that God can produce good things out of sin for example Judas betrayal led to the salvation of mankind. Nevertheless betrayal is a sin and God does not approve it ; Judas is nowadays considered a villain . Likewise with lairs. Q: Is this a prank ? A: If so then this is the most unorthodox and lengthy prank in the history of mankind. Also the joke would be on me. Q: Alternative explanations ? A: Sure, you may think of a rather plausible explanation. Nevertheless it seems and its more probable that I am sincere and that I am not alone. Argument from Contingency "Examples of such a being (or beings)?" "All of the human artefacts around us might not have existed; for each one of them, whoever made it might have decided not to do so. Their existence, therefore, is contingent. You and I, too, might not have existed; our respective parents might never have met, or might have decided not to have children, or might have decided to have children at a different time. Our existence, therefore, is contingent. Even the world around us seems to be contingent; the universe might have developed in such a way that none of the observable stars and planets existed at all." http://www.philosophyofreligion.info... "It's important to note that for something to be "caused to exist" is, as far as we have evidence for, is actually a transformative process than one where new things are truly created. With this in mind, what, then, would stop us from claiming the "necessary being" is the universe itself?" I don't quite understand you, nevertheless, you conclude that the universe may be a necessary being. However that is unlikely: "To say that the universe is necessary is to say that its non-existence is impossible. Most impossibilities are easily recognised because they involve obvious logical contradiction. The existence of a square circle is impossible, because the idea of a square circle is self-contradictory. Where, though, is the logical contradiction in the idea of the universe not existing? There seems to be none; the universe does appear to be contingent." http://www.philosophyofreligion.info... Kalam Cosmological Argument 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause " 'beginnings' we have evidence for are not 'beginnings' in the strict sense but are 'changes'? Indeed, in the strict sense we have only observed "changes" but as you said this is "in the strict sense". 2. The universe more likely than not began to exist I assumed that you are aware of the "Big Bang" and other scientific theories: http://skyserver.sdss.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... "Scientists generally agree that "the Big Bang" birthed the universe about 15 billion years ago." Tom Parisi, Northern Illinois University O Note "All arguments stand on the soundness of their claims. I also don't see how we would be theists here?" Indeed, I meant to say that I don't have to prove God with 100% certainty instead it may be 60% or even 50.1% (it would be insane to reject the more possible). Anyhow this is fun and hopefully I get to debate my opponent in the future !