Existence of God. Can debate satisfy atheist ?

[Polymath257]

The point being made is..
If you ask a Christian do you have any proof of God existence..

Your called into question by your own question.
You first has to have the evidence to back up what your asking first .
That by the nature of your question.
You don't believe in the existence of God.

Which is the reasonable position to have prior to evidence being given.

So therefore your called into question by your own question.
You first has to have the proof of what asking first.
Otherwise it's useless to continue.

No. The person claiming unicorns exist is the one that has to provide evidence of unicorns. It isn't on others to show unicorns do not exist. And, it is quite reasonable if someone claims unicorns exist to ask for evidence to back up their claim.

The same is true of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, dark matter, a dragon in my garage, axions, neutrinos, nuclear decays, DNA, prions, or ANYTHING else.

The one making the claim something exists is the one that needs to give the evidence supporting that existence. The one who doubts gets to ask for that evidence. For that matter, other believers get to ask for the evidence as well.

You aren't 'called into question' by asking for evidence.

It seems to me that you are expecting people to believe with no good reason to do so.

 

[Ancient Soul]

No I'm not.

I never said you claimed God exists, did I? Of course, if you disagree with me, please feel free to point out which I posts I made that claim in.

So they WHY are you in such a lather demanding I prove to you something you know I didn't even say?

Like in your post to me:

I'm just pointing out that the person who claims God does not exist does not bear the burden of proof. @Polymath257 does not have to prove that God does not exist. The burden of proof lies on the person who makes the positive claim. All Polymath is doing is responding to the claim that God exists by saying "prove it." When you claim Polymath has to support their position, you are essentially saying that anyone can prove anything by claiming it exists, and when asked to provide proof that the thing exists they can reply with, "Prove it doesn't!"

Here you are saying that "I" must prove "my" claim that "I" never made. It's right there in print. Now you're claiming you never said that???!!!

I am simply saying that if Polymath rejects the claim that God exists, then Polymath does not need to prove their position.

You can repeat that thousands of times and it will always be false.

You cannot go around demanding that everyone who dares print the word "God", MUST prove that God exists, all the while claiming that God does NOT exist, but refusing to uphold your own standards by also proving your claim, that's hypocritical.

 

[Ancient Soul]

Yes, that is completely correct. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive existence claim.

If someone claims that unicorns exist, it is NOT on someone else to prove they do not. It is on the person claiming they exist to prove they do.

It is actually a very simple principle that is used universally.

Same applies to anyone claiming that God or anything else does NOT exist. A claim is a claim, no exceptions!

 

[Polymath257]

So they WHY are you in such a lather demanding I prove to you something you know I didn't even say?

Like in your post to me:

Here you are saying that "I" must prove "my" claim that "I" never made. It's right there in print. Now you're claiming you never said that???!!!

No, he said that someone who *does* make the claim must prove it. If you have no made such a claim, it says nothing about you.

You can repeat that thousands of times and it will always be false.

And you can deny it a thousand times and it will still be true. The burden of proof is on the person making the existence claim.

You cannot go around demanding that everyone who dares print the word "God", MUST prove that God exists, all the while claiming that God does NOT exist, but refusing to uphold your own standards by also proving your claim, that's hypocritical.

Who has made the claim God does not exist? All I have seen is the statement that there is no proof that such does exist.

 

[Polymath257]

Same applies to anyone claiming that God or anything else does NOT exist. A claim is a claim, no exceptions!

No, it is certainly NOT the case. If someone makes the claim that unicorns exist and I don't agree, then I can require proof of the existence claim. I do NOT have to prove such do not exist to be skeptical of the claims made.

 

[Ancient Soul]

Wow, you really don't get it.

John meets with Steven. John tells Steven that Fairies are real. John has the burden of proof to demonstrate that fairies are real. Steve does not have to show that fairies are imaginary.

Your argument would be something like:

John: Hey Steve, did you know that fairies are real?

Steve: No they aren't.

John: Yes they are.

Steve: Can you provide any evidence for your claim?

John: I don't have to. You have to prove that fairies are imaginary. Until then, I'm perfectly justified in saying that fairies are real!

I don't see anything here proving your claim that God does not exist, where is it?

 

[Polymath257]

Same applies to anyone claiming that God or anything else does NOT exist. A claim is a claim, no exceptions!

Yes, anyone making the claim that God does not exist needs to define their terms and prove their claim.

But that is NOT the position of most atheists. Instead, most atheists simply don't have a belief that God exists. They have been unconvinced by the arguments of theists and find them implausible.

There is a lack of belief in God, not a positive belief there is no God.

I would be interested in any proofs no deities exist as well as any proofs that they do. Frankly, I don't think either way can be proved.

Which, for me, defaults to a lack of belief.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't see anything here proving your claim that God does not exist, where is it?

Where did he make that claim?

 

[MikeF]

Nope not at all..
If you were to ask me do I have any proof of God existence..

Your called into question by your own question..
You first have to bring forth the evidence that backs up what your asking first.
Otherwise you have nothing and it useless to continue..

The primary reason one person asks another to explain their faith is that what one chooses to believe affects and has consequences for everyone else. It is not simply a personal choice. There are many real-world issues that are directly related to what people choose to believe in. Examples include abortion, availability of contraception, medical research, prayer in school, rights and privilages of a minority belief in a monotheistic culture, and the list goes on. Should we not ensure that the decisions we make that affect all of us are based on sound decisions? Many on this site treat belief vs non-belief as a binary choice. It is not. There are so many faith options out there, and they contradict each other. What we believe matters. We need to build up the courage to really think about why we believe what we believe. If there are inconsistancies or conflicts with other views, or conflict with new information about how the world works, we should not just brush those differences aside or dismiss them, but rather, look hard at how to resolve those difference, which may include changing what we believe.
We should ask the question, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Tiberius]

So they WHY are you in such a lather demanding I prove to you something you know I didn't even say?

Like in your post to me:

Wait, you think I'm doing what now?

Here you are saying that "I" must prove "my" claim that "I" never made. It's right there in print. Now you're claiming you never said that???!!!

What part of that do you think is me demanding you prove the existence of God?

My position is that you are wrong to claim that Polymath must prove that God doesn't exist. Demanding that Polymath proves there is no God is unreasonable, since Polymath does not carry the burden of proof.

Now, please stop misrepresenting my posts, okay? I know you have not claimed that God exists, I am not and have never demanded you prove God exists, and yet you are saying I have been making an argument that I simply have not been making.

You can repeat that thousands of times and it will always be false.

You cannot go around demanding that everyone who dares print the word "God", MUST prove that God exists, all the while claiming that God does NOT exist, but refusing to uphold your own standards by also proving your claim, that's hypocritical.

You really do not understand the burden of proof.

If Person A claims that something is real, then Person A must prove their claim is true. They do not get to claim that they are correct by default until others prove them wrong. If someone claims God exists, then they have to prove it.

Otherwise I can say anything exists, and you have to prove it doesn't, and until you do, I'm correct.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't see anything here proving your claim that God does not exist, where is it?

I'm not trying to prove that God exists.

I'm simply responding to those who claim that God DOES exist by asking them to back up their assertions.

Or do you think that asking people to support their claims is unreasonable?

 

[Willamena]

The claim that something does not exist, in the face of evidence that it does, also bears the burden.

Whether we like it or not, annecdotal evidence is evidence.

 

[Tiberius]

The claim that something does not exist, in the face of evidence that it does, also bears the burden.

But if a person makes a claim, the burden of proof does not lie with the spectator who says, "Oh yeah? Prove it!"

Whether we like it or not, annecdotal evidence is evidence.

I once heard of a guy who showed that anecdotal evidence isn't evidence!

And since that's anecdotal evidence, you must take that as evidence that your claim is wrong.

 

[Willamena]

But if a person makes a claim, the burden of proof does not lie with the spectator who says, "Oh yeah? Prove it!"

Some of us are exempt?

Where can I apply for an exemption?

I once heard of a guy who showed that anecdotal evidence isn't evidence!

And since that's anecdotal evidence, you must take that as evidence that your claim is wrong.

There's anedotes, and then there's not.

 

[Tiberius]

Some of us are exempt?

Where can I apply for an exemption?

What makes you think there's an exemption for anyone?

If someone claims God exists and I say I disagree, then it is up to the other person to back up their claim.

If I claim there is no God and someone else disagrees, then I have to back up my claim.

(Please note: me disagreeing with a person's claim that God exists does not mean that I think God does exist.)

There's anedotes, and then there's not.

What does that mean?

 

[Willamena]

What makes you think there's an exemption for anyone?

If someone claims God exists and I say I disagree, then it is up to the other person to back up their claim.

If I claim there is no God and someone else disagrees, then I have to back up my claim.

(Please note: me disagreeing with a person's claim that God exists does not mean that I think God does exist.)

I don’t know, you seemed to make an exemption for some.

A claim bears the burden, regardless who makes it, observes it, or that it is positively or negatively stated.

 

[Willamena]

There's anecdotes, and then there's not.

What does that mean?

Just what it says.

 

[Tiberius]

I don’t know, you seemed to make an exemption for some.

A claim bears the burden, regardless who makes it, observes it, or that it is positively or negatively stated.

But the person who says, "Oh yeah? Prove it!" is not making a claim.

 

[Tiberius]

Just what it says.

You'll have to go into more detail then, because I can't figure out what point you are trying to make there.

 

[Willamena]

But the person who says, "Oh yeah? Prove it!" is not making a claim.

They are not skeptics?

I disagree.