fusion58

Possible or not, the burden to prove the existence of a supernatural being is still yours and yours alone. That’s because you are the claimant. So far, all I’ve seen from you is a plethora of long-winded dissertations the upshot of which is “you’re not willing to accept my brand of evidence” coupled with attacks on atheism and/or naturalism which merely serve as deflections and do nothing to fulfill your burden of proof. A rather roundabout way of demonstrating that you don’t really have any evidence, it would seem. Again, you could make your life a lot easier if you would simply admit that your belief in a supernatural being is a matter of faith and not a matter of fact.

You made no claim at all (which is the point.) You simply pounded your fist on the table and cried "he's really, really wrong! He's wrong in more ways than I can count!" without actually offering any sort of counterargument and without naming even one specific point on which he, in your estimation, was wrong. Not exactly a winning formula for having your objections (whatever they may be) taken seriously. There you go with that false equivalence fallacy again. Naturalism isn't a "belief" - it's a method of inquiry based on observation, experiment and evidence. Inaccurate definition. There's no need to deny something the sole burden to prove the existence of which rest solely on the proponent, e.g., a supernatural realm, supernatural agencies, etc. Moreover, naturalists are normally too busy studying the world and the universe we actually observe to waste time with people who claim, for example, that unicorns exist and no proof of their existence is required because unicorns belong to some kind of different or special ontological category. A logical argument (or mathematical axiom) is either true or false, valid or invalid, independent of any "framework." What's next? Are you going to argue for the existence of some supernatural realm in which 2+2=5? 😂 In any case, you speak of a "framework of naturalism" as if there were some other type of "framework" for studying how the world works...which brings us full circle to your burden (and repeated failure) to establish the existence of a supernatural realm (or "framework.') Frankly, it doesn't take much more than those to refute the pseudo-intellectual nonsense you've been slinging here, once we extract the gist of your arguments from the copious volumes of superfluous hot air which accompany them. 😀

LOL. Atheism has no "tenets" - just as atheism is not a "belief system." Atheism is simply the refusal to accept that which is offered without evidence - in this case, the existence of a supernatural sky monarch. LOL. "Hey guys! There's a leprechaun on a purple unicorn in the next room! Proof? What are you talking about? I don't need no stinking proof! Why not? Because no one can see them!"

So your position is that you're operating outside of any sort of formal logical or philosophical framework where the burden of proof is a thing? Or are you simply so grandiose as to believe your claims are self-evident and/or that we should simply take your word for them because you have "faith" in the existence of supernatural agencies? Good luck being taken seriously by anyone with even a modicum of intellectual honesty. If you can't support your contention that God is the best theory we have for explaining how reality works with physical evidence, then what sort of evidence do you propose to offer? The only other category of proof is the a priori philosophical or logical kind. Theists have historically fallen on their faces in their attempts to produce evidence or sound arguments in either arena. False. Naturalism isn't a "belief." It's a method of inquiry based on observation, experiment and evidence. When naturalists form hypotheses or scientific theories, then, unlike theists and other magical thinking types, they actually go out and look to see whether those hypotheses or scientific theories fit the data, i.e., match the world we see. This is almost tautological as far as science is concerned. Not exactly a bombshell there. The problem here, however, is that (a) your ontology includes supernatural agencies or entities which, by definition, are outside the realm of observable or verifiable phenomena, and, more importantly, (b) you (and most theists) claim to have certainty re: the existence of such agencies and/or entities despite having zero evidence for them. You could probably make life a lot easier for yourself by just accepting that your belief in the supernatural is a matter of faith vs. a matter of fact.

Your question assumes that which you're trying to prove, i.e., that the universe was "created" like some sort of artifact or construct. (And, of course, the corollary to the assumption is that God is some kind of cosmic architect, builder, etc.) However, it's entirely possible that the universe is uncreated, self-contained, self-sufficient and in no need of anything (or anyone) external or ontologically distinct from itself to hold it up or to keep it running.

And why does his son look like Kenny Loggins? 😂

You seem to be missing my point as my position is that neither one of these exists. We observe physical, chemical and biological processes along with emergent cognitive processes. Nowhere do we observe some sort of fixed and unchanging "man behind the curtain" who exists independently of said processes.

Then, by your reasoning, God has no explanatory power and is superfluous when it comes to our understanding of how reality works.

A long-winded attempt to evade the burden to prove the existence of a supernatural being. Bottom line: Two types of proof: 1. Empirical. 2. A priori philosophical. You have yet to offer either one. If you wish to try your hand at the former, (empirical) then feel free to present your evidence that God is the best theory when it comes to explaining the universe we see.

Not necessarily. It's possible that there is no reason for my existence and/or that of the universe in general. The principle of sufficient reason is a product of a bygone age in both physics and philosophy.

"I'd point them out, but..." LOL. If there are so many glaring holes in his logic, then surely you could name just one?

I'm not taking the position that you and I don't exist; I'm simply challenging the notion of an incorporeal "self" which exists independent of one's physical body, cognitive processes, etc.

Straw man. Your burden isn't to provide me with proof of my existence; your burden is to prove the existence of an incorporeal "self."

It's not up to me to find evidence for someone else's claims. No getting around that pesky burden of proof thing.

It sounds like you subscribe to an emergent conception of God as symbolic or otherwise representative of the self, the unity of all phenomena, etc. This kind of idea suffers from the same type of epistemological problem as that of the theist, viz., it assumes the existence of an atomic and/or incorporeal "self."

"God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson Teaching kids to ask magical beings to solve their problems creates irresponsible adults who fail to find solutions.

Not convinced that biology is teleological as opposed to causal or simply an example of patterns obeying the laws of physics.

How would consciousness constitute evidence for the existence of a supernatural being or deity?

I need not claim my vision is more accurate than yours; I need only affirm that the burden to prove the existence of something you claim exists is yours and yours alone.

The burden of proof rests solely on the claimant or the believer.

Theists are always free to present any empirical evidence and/or a priori metaphysical arguments in support of their belief in a supernatural sky monarch. Arguing "evidence exists - you're simply unable to see or understand it" is just a disingenuous way of conceding that you don't really have any evidence to present.

“If theism were really true there’s no reason for God to be hard to find. He should be perfectly obvious whereas in naturalism you might expect people to believe in God but the evidence to be thin on the ground. Under theism you’d expect that religious beliefs should be universal. There’s no reason for God to give special messages to this or that primitive tribe thousands of years ago. Why not give it to anyone? Whereas under naturalism you’d expect different religious beliefs inconsistent with each other to grow up under different local conditions. Under theism you’d expect religious doctrines to last a long time in a stable way. Under naturalism you’d expect them to adapt to social conditions. Under theism you’d expect the moral teachings of religion to be transcendent, progressive, sexism is wrong, slavery is wrong. Under naturalism you’d expect they reflect, once again, local mores, sometimes good rules, sometimes not so good. You’d expect the sacred texts, under theism, to give us interesting information. Tell us about the germ theory of disease. Tell us to wash our hands before we have dinner. Under naturalism you’d expect the sacred texts to be a mishmash—some really good parts, some poetic parts, and some boring parts and mythological parts.” - Sean Carroll

Unfounded = not supported by either evidence or logic. Pretty much sums up the belief in a supernatural sky wizard.

Teaching kids to ask magical beings to solve their problems creates irresponsible adults who fail to find solutions.

Point (re: the value of learning some Thai language) taken. However, the comparison is faulty inasmuch as English - not Thai - is the international language of business, and, as we all know, Thailand is perpetually soliciting foreign tourism, business, investment, etc. That said, we should blame the political powers that be and the miserable Thai educational system for the communication problem here before we blame the delivery driver.