Who has the burden of proof?

[George-ananda]

Just add it to the list of things you're wrong about. What's one more at this point?

I'll take that as you stuck yourself in a corner. An insult is as close as I expect to an admission.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'll take that as you stuck yourself in a corner. An insult is as close as I expect to an admission.

Your silly attempt at distraction isn't fooling anyone.

Go back to sleep.

 

[outhouse]

What I do care about is what my personal beliefs are as to the most reasonable understanding of the universe.

Which is solely educationally dependent. YOUR education or lack of, dictates the answer. or should we call it "your answer"


It is the most reasonable understanding to someone avoiding the truth.

 

[outhouse]

The answer appears to be you don't understand the concept.

Sort of like how you don't understand the conscious mind is what you call a soul or spirit. Ignoring all research showing all thought originates there.

 

[Amechania]

Why do these discussions always degenerate into petty insults, you dicks.

 

[George-ananda]

Why do these discussions always degenerate into petty insults, you dicks.

Frubal...In my attempts to defend myself from the usual suspects I almost get sucked in instead of ignoring the peanut gallery. Thanks for the wake up call to me.

 

[Skwim]

The way I see it the one making the claim has the burden of proof. So if a theist makes the claim that God exists, the burden of proof is on them to support that proposition.

However the proposition that no God exists (which I think goes beyond disbelief until proportional evidence to the claim is given) also seems like a positive claim as well and needs justification/proof too even though the claim is negative.

So who has the burden of proof, one or the other, both, neither?

FYI, the burden of proof issue was hashed out about four months ago. See HERE, and in particular the insights made in post #11.

 

[oldbadger]

Indeed, many people believe all sorts of things that are empirically unsupportable. ......................

Empirically..?

You are hereby banned from observing the clear night-time skies, and you must no-longer attempt to contemplate the nature of.... or reason for..... our existence.

Big G will get in touch to let you know when you can go back outside, but I would strongly suggest you buy a bigger telly for now......

 

[viole]

Lets try this. Your gnostic atheist? Prove god isn't existence itself. Just curious.

Well, that boils down to the definition of God. If God is defined as my ipad, then it is obvious that my knowledge needs revision.

If you define God as all that exists, then I need a revision, too. But that would mean that believing that God exists is equivalent to saying that you believe that all that exists, well, exists, which does not need a lot of faith or knowledge, since it is tautological. It would be like believing that all bachelors are not married.

In other words, either your beliefs are tautological or you need to attribute some added value to God so that it is somehow greater than the aum of its part.

In case of the latter, you need to define this added value and provide evidence for its existence.

Btw. If God is existence. Can you tell me what it means to say that existence exists? Existing is an attribute. Does this attribute extends to existence itself? By saying that, you open the door to a whole set of paradoxes.

Consider the set of all things that exist. If God is this set, and if It exists, then God is contained in this set. Ergo, God is an element of itself.

Can you make sense of it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

Well, that boils down to the definition of God. If God is defined as my ipad, then it is obvious that my knowledge needs revision.

If you define God as all that exists, then I need a revision, too. But that would mean that believing that God exists is equivalent to saying that you believe that all that exists, well, exists, which does not need a lot of faith or knowledge, since it is tautological. It would be like believing that all bachelors are not married.

In other words, either your beliefs are tautological or you need to attribute some added value to God so that it is somehow greater than the aum of its part.

In case of the latter, you need to define this added value and provide evidence for its existence.

Btw. If God is existence. Can you tell me what it means to say that existence exists? Existing is an attribute. Does this attribute extends to existence itself? By saying that, you open the door to a whole set of paradoxes.

Consider the set of all things that exist. If God is this set, and if It exists, then God is contained in this set. Ergo, God is an element of itself.

Can you make sense of it?

Ciao

- viole

As for other attributes your one who understands when I say that the fabric of our existence is omnipresent and and even possibly omniscient, and timeless to boot.

 

[viole]

As for other attributes your one who understands when I say that the fabric of our existence is omnipresent and and even possibly omniscient, and timeless to boot.

Sorry, the sentence "the fabric of our existence is omnipresent and possibly omniscient" is meaningless to me.

It smells like a deepity.

Ciao

- viole

 

[RitalinOhD]

Who has the burden of proof?


It is Atheists weird and unnatural claim that God does not exist; so ethically, morally and spiritually the burden of proof is on them.

Regards

This statement is absurd. The definition of atheist makes no claim to knowledge. Saying one does not believe a god exists is in no way the same as stating one does not exist. So no, an atheist has no ethical, moral or spiritual burden to provide anything. I'm technically an atheist, and have never claimed no god or gods exist. I just have no reason to believe in one.
Granted, I am sure there are some atheists out there that may state none exist, but I would posit that they are a very tiny minority, as that is a silly claim to make.

And as far as being weird and unnatural, I think believing in something as unlikely as a supreme creator, in the face of zero empirical evidence is weird and unnatural. But I normally keep that opinion to myself.


More on topic, unless a person (atheist) definitively states there are no gods, there is no positive claim.

 

[idav]

Sorry, the sentence "the fabric of our existence is omnipresent and possibly omniscient" is meaningless to me.

It smells like a deepity.

Ciao

- viole

Here is a reference to what I mean.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-religion/165264-spacetime-eternal-omnipresent.html

 

[outhouse]

I am sure there are some atheists out there that may state none exist,

I am one.

We have all the evidence we need to prove god concepts are mythology.


Man has factually created gods for thousands of years, it is only special pleading to think one out of thousands, has any chance of ever existing as written.

But it gets deeper.


We see the god they talk about as a compilation of previous mythologies, giving us solid proof, only ancient men defined and created gods.


The case is closed to those with enough historical education.


The only thing left is for theist to go nuh uh! from ignorance.

 

[Glaurung]

And yet there is no negative clause implied in the assertion “God exists”! It’s a claim to the truth. And despite the grammatical form of “God does not exist” it is only a conclusion that can never be fully justified, since it is logically impossible to demonstrate the actual non-existence of that object

And so what?

All conclusions are truth claims, including the non-existence of God. You can refrain from holding a definite position on the question (but that's an entirely different discussion) I'm talking about strong atheism, which is a philosophical position on the state of the universe and there's simply no talking your way out of it. It's either true or it's not. It's is a philosophical conviction like any other. The grammatical construction of a clause doesn't change that.

whereas if God does exist then logically it must be possible to demonstrate his existence.

This is the thing. Christians believe in a deity that isn't so much a 'part of reality' but instead creates and sustains reality as an act of will. He is the transcendent cause of this reality but is not himself a part of it. You can search every square inch of the universe and you would find no God.

However, I believe there is reason to believe in this cause, and that this cause has and does reveal himself. But it is on his terms and never ours. Those who seek him on their terms will never find him.

Atheism is founded on facts

No it's not. Atheism is a position on one question, and it can be taken up for any reason whatsoever regardless of that reason's rationality or factualness. It's only based on facts as far as you believe it to be.

Tlaloc, it's an old saw, but what about the "God hates amputees" construct. Prayer induced regrowth of a limb would be powerful evidence indeed, the absence of which rather put the lie to, "the priest that cures blindness, exorcists who have encountered the demonic, visionaries who have had direct converse with religious figures."

A priest that heals a blind kid with a prayer doesn't make you stop and think, just maybe? Just maybe it really is as it appears?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ1--1Of21g

Take the video for what you will. It 'could' be an act sure. Unfortunately the English presenter is foolish as those 'Muslims' are probably Copts, but never mind that.

But if you're convinced it's all nonsense, then what can I say?

 

[cottage]

And so what?
All conclusions are truth claims, including the non-existence of God. You can refrain from holding a definite position on the question (but that's an entirely different discussion) I'm talking about strong atheism, which is a philosophical position on the state of the universe and there's simply no talking your way out of it. It's either true or it's not. It's is a philosophical conviction like any other. The grammatical construction of a clause doesn't change that.

No matter how the belief is held, even if it is doctrinally dogmatic, the atheist can only refer to the experiential world or to the logical construction of propositions. Whether strong or weak atheism it is exactly the same in one respect and that is the impossibility of demonstrating God’s actual non-existence. But as I explained in my previous reply to you, if “God exists” is true, and since a thing that is actual is also possible, it must therefore be possible to demonstrate the truth of what is claimed. That is the distinction between the two poles; hence the burden of proof is necessarily in the theist camp – quite regardless of the grammatical form of the atheist denial.

This is the thing. Christians believe in a deity that isn't so much a 'part of reality' but instead creates and sustains reality as an act of will. He is the transcendent cause of this reality but is not himself a part of it. You can search every square inch of the universe and you would find no God.

Your remarks in red support the argument that I’ve given above and below.

No it's not. Atheism is a position on one question, and it can be taken up for any reason whatsoever regardless of that reason's rationality or factualness. It's only based on facts as far as you believe it to be.

Well of course atheism is founded upon facts! If it were the case, i.e. a fact, that God exists is true in the same way that we know day follows night or that a leaden object sinks when placed in water, then unbelief would be utterly absurd.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A priest that heals a blind kid with a prayer doesn't make you stop and think, just maybe? Just maybe it really is as it appears?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ1--1Of21g

Take the video for what you will. It 'could' be an act sure.

And it most definitely is.

Sorry, but if there is an individual out there who could actually do that - was ACTUALLY capable of curing the common and often life-crippling effects of blindness - they probably wouldn't be found in an obscure YouTube video. They'd be on the news. They'd be in the hospitals. They'd be demonstrating their miraculous powers under scientific conditions and proving to the world not only their powers (which could do untold good for millions upon millions of people), but also be potentially demonstrating to the entire world the existence of supernatural forces and the power of a specific religious doctrine, and thereby fundamentally altering the world by revealing the demonstrative truth of said religious doctrine.

But no. They're not doing that. So, he's either a person with genuine magical powers who is somehow a selfish enough jerk that they don't think humanity deserves the benefits or knowledge that come from him demonstrating his miraculous gifts, or they're a fraud. Those are the only two reasonable conclusions until it can be demonstrated otherwise.

 

[Glaurung]

Sorry, but if there is an individual out there who could actually do that - was ACTUALLY capable of curing the common and often life-crippling effects of blindness - they probably wouldn't be found in an obscure YouTube video.

No individual is capable of supernaturally healing anything at will. Such a power does not exist. What we believe is that every once in a while those of exceptional holiness (and humility) just may have their petitionary prayers answered in a much more direct way than what is usual. And no, I'm not talking about those dubious, televangelist con men.

They'd be on the news. They'd be in the hospitals. They'd be demonstrating their miraculous powers under scientific conditions and proving to the world not only their powers (which could do untold good for millions upon millions of people), but also be potentially demonstrating to the entire world the existence of supernatural forces and the power of a specific religious doctrine, and thereby fundamentally altering the world by revealing the demonstrative truth of said religious doctrine.

Again, the priest has no power whatsoever, he can only ask God to intervene which can only happen as God, not the priest, wills.

There are thousands of cases such as this. Cancers being cured, hosts turning into real human tissue, stigmata, apparitions and possessions and so on. These phenomena are worth at least an honest look, but we live in an age where the dominant framework considers it all impossible.

You're naive if you think any of it will generate real attention by those determined to ignore it.

 

[Sapiens]

A priest that heals a blind kid with a prayer doesn't make you stop and think, just maybe? Just maybe it really is as it appears?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ1--1Of21g

Take the video for what you will. It 'could' be an act sure. Unfortunately the English presenter is foolish as those 'Muslims' are probably Copts, but never mind that.

But if you're convinced it's all nonsense, then what can I say?

Maybe, maybe not ... but your unresponsiveness to the issue I raised is telling ... DOES YOUR GOD HATE AMPUTEES? Regeneration of a lost limb is undoubtedly prayed for, is clearly possible, yet never occurs. Why? That would be pretty clear, though not absolute, evidence. Absence of such miracles is pretty clear evidence that a god does not exist, within the problems inherent in "proving" a negative.

 

[George-ananda]

Absence of such miracles is pretty clear evidence that a god does not exist

So for God to exist every possible type of miracle must occur???? No, I think miracles are an unusual occurrence to give us signs. In general, the normal flow of physical events are allowed to occur. The general design of the physical and natural world is not an error that needs correcting with miracles. I think God loves amputees, cancer patients and everyone that will die of a natural disease. In my worldview we are not a physical body.