You should read this thread and the video included.
Being an agnostic myself for a brief period of time, I generally thought that the burden of proof was irrelevant to the discussion of the existence of gods in general. The exception being if there was a claim made on either side -- e.g. "There is no God". Even then, the agnostic position somewhat has the burden of proof as well, because it makes the claim that there is no way that humans could know there is a god, if a god does exist. From my perspective, I eventually thought that the agnostic's burden of proof was a greater burden to bear, especially when, if a god did exist, all it would simply take is a simple appearance for him to be believed. Of course, this is based on the assumption that the god in question would want to be public as opposed to remaining in private. The mainstream concepts of god are quite the opposite. If he doesn't have a paparazzi following him, then he'll send a sign of his talent, such a burning bush. Thus, his celebrity status is elevated and he's the most widely talked subject for the next 6,000 years or so. It seems unlikely that the paparazzi or the mob that was allegedly after him would ever scare off this god, considering he said he was almighty. Of course, gods never lie, no? Or are we dealing with mythology? I forget which.
The problem with refuting gods is that for the sake of the argument, people allow them to have the capability for him to do whatever he wants to do, within his own sacred rule of course, even if he shows examples of himself breaking the rule (such as murdering), but the case is always made that he does it those who deserve it and he is above the rules. He can defy science as well, so he's a law breaker in more than one sense additionally, or at the very least, he is above the law. To me, the fact that one has to withdraw the field goal so far back, that the opposing team can't even see it, nevertheless hope to make it through the uprights, then the game was never a game to begin with. Likewise, the argument over the existence of god was never a debate to begin with. The standards are way too high for a man to prove and too preposterous for a man to disprove.
People often equate the existence of gods with extraterrestials. They are not the same, or at least of the societal defined sense of the term "god". Perhaps you know it simply better as God. Considering that the belief in extraterrestials is pretty vague (excluding the U.F.O and alien abductions conspiracies, all of which I doubt just as much as burning bushes and shape-shifting staffs), I am more inclined to believe in their possibility.
But in actuallity, both gods and aliens are possible to exist. However, the existence of extraterrestials is at least plausible, a distinction of which I think needs to be made.
Oh, and for the record, I think everyone to some agree, is agnostic. It's just a matter of conviction really. I realize that I seem to be debating agnosticism. I was rambling as you can tell, but my opinion of agnostics are the same as my opinion of theists. Additionally, I don't think any side can claim to hold a monopoly of logic, because in my view, logic isn't defined by someone's conclusion. It's how they came to that conclusion which makes it logical.
Log in to comment