PureX
Veteran Member
An asserted opinion, or an asserted belief, is not an assertion of universal truth.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Burden of Proof is on Atheists
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
We Never Know
No Slack
Its more of "I lack believe there is a God because there has not yet been given substancial evidence for me to believe in a god?
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Thank you for correcting my words in my reply
PureX
Veteran Member
They didn't invent it. They perceived it, and believed what they perceived.
We Never Know
No Slack
A persons can claim or assert something without having a belief.
I can claim its going to rain tomorrow and that has nothing to do with belief.
Some claims are made by what a person thinks, no belief needed
PureX
Veteran Member
What matters is the requirement that we accept the assertion. Not who believes it or not. If we are expected to accept the assertion as a universal truth, reasonable proof should be forthcoming.
We Never Know
No Slack
Joe claims there is a god.
Bob claims there is no god.
Neither can show their claim to be true.. therefore neither are a universal truth.
Let's make an analogy.
There is a proposed subatomic particle called an axion. It is supposed to be a type of 'super photon' and is predicted to exist in a number of plausible theories concerning subatomic particles.
But, as yet, there is no hard evidence that axions actually exist. We know what *type* of evidence would show they exist, but we simply haven't seen that type of evidence yet, partly because we don't yet have the technology to produce them.
So, I do not have a belief in axions. I do not claim that no axions exist. I simply say that the evidence we have right now is not enough to show that they exist.
One good thing about the axion proposal is that we know *exactly* what would be required to verify that they exist. We simply haven't seen that yet.
Now, suppose that we gained the technology that *should* produce axions. And suppose that we *still* do not see them, even if we should. Then, the evidence would point to saying that no axions exist.
Analogously, people have proposed that deities exist. But the evidence for such entities is very poor to non-existent. At the very least, the evidence is far from conclusive. So I do not have a belief in deities.
But, if sufficient evidence were given, I could readily be convinced that deities do, in fact, exist.
OR, if the technology gets to the place that we *should* detect deities and we still do not, then I could say that the evidence points to them not existing.
At this point, it seems that we should have evidence after looking for thousands of years, but we do not. Some people, however, claim that we *could* show they exist given the right conditions. I think the evidence weighs in the direction of non-existence of deities, but I could be convinced otherwise.
I do not have a belief in deities, but I can be convinced they exist if given good evidence.
There is a proposed subatomic particle called an axion. It is supposed to be a type of 'super photon' and is predicted to exist in a number of plausible theories concerning subatomic particles.
But, as yet, there is no hard evidence that axions actually exist. We know what *type* of evidence would show they exist, but we simply haven't seen that type of evidence yet, partly because we don't yet have the technology to produce them.
So, I do not have a belief in axions. I do not claim that no axions exist. I simply say that the evidence we have right now is not enough to show that they exist.
One good thing about the axion proposal is that we know *exactly* what would be required to verify that they exist. We simply haven't seen that yet.
Now, suppose that we gained the technology that *should* produce axions. And suppose that we *still* do not see them, even if we should. Then, the evidence would point to saying that no axions exist.
Analogously, people have proposed that deities exist. But the evidence for such entities is very poor to non-existent. At the very least, the evidence is far from conclusive. So I do not have a belief in deities.
But, if sufficient evidence were given, I could readily be convinced that deities do, in fact, exist.
OR, if the technology gets to the place that we *should* detect deities and we still do not, then I could say that the evidence points to them not existing.
At this point, it seems that we should have evidence after looking for thousands of years, but we do not. Some people, however, claim that we *could* show they exist given the right conditions. I think the evidence weighs in the direction of non-existence of deities, but I could be convinced otherwise.
I do not have a belief in deities, but I can be convinced they exist if given good evidence.
PureX
Veteran Member
What they claim is just what they claim. The question is, are they claiming that we accept their claim as universally true? If so, they are expected to give us reasonable proof of the truth of their claim. If they cannot, then we cannot be expected to accept their claim as true. It may be true. Or it may not be. We may accept it as true or we may not. The point about burden of proof is that it depends on the universality of the assertion. Not on personal opinion, or personal belief.
We Never Know
No Slack
Many christians I know really don't care if you accept their claim that a god does exist. Their claim is for them, not you.
Same as many atheist I know don't care if you accept their claim that at the current, there is no evidence for a god therefore I don't think a god does exist. Again thats for them, not you.
A god can neither be shown to either exist or not exist. When it comes to a god existing or not existing, its a choice made by the individual.
No one should try to force their choice upon others.
PureX
Veteran Member
I agree. Which is why the 'burden of proof' claim does not apply to assertions about God in most cases.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Since your OP concerns gnostic atheists, your OP doesn't address 99.99% of the atheists on this board.
Sincerely,
An agnostic atheist.
The bit I've highlighted implies that all purported evidence for God is false.
That's quite the assertion itself, IMO. Is this something you're planning to prove?
We Never Know
No Slack
You tell how to show something that isnt known and we will go from there.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
You are correct, if the atheist claim that there is no God, then the burden of proof is on them. Science is probably not going to help them a lot here, because it doesn't work in the supernatural realm.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
1. Most of humankind is perfectly sure, there is God. They even feel God and talk to God.
2. Most of humankind is not crazy.
This is very strong evidence.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Evidence for?
It's your claim, so that's your problem.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
1. Most of humankind is perfectly sure, there is God. They even feel God and talk to God.
2. Most of humankind is not crazy.