Who is the one who must "prove"

[Spirit of Light]

Amanaki, if I told you that I believe that there is such a thing as an Invisible Pink Unicorn, who cannot be detected by any of the means of science that we know of today -- could you prove that I am incorrect?

If I then went on to assert that this Invisible Pink Unicorn has made it clear to me that all of the Abrahamic religions -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- are based on a falsehood told in 1650 BCE, once again, could you prove me wrong?

No, if I am to make such claims -- and expect to be believed -- it is up to me to provide evidence for my assertions.

Similarly, may I point out, Joseph Smith made some claims in the 1820s, that led to the creation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints (Mormons).

Mormonism originated in the 1820s in western New York during a period of religious excitement known as the Second Great Awakening. After praying about which denomination he should join, Joseph Smith, Jr. said he received a vision in the spring of 1820. Called the "First Vision", Smith said that God the Father and His son Jesus Christ appeared to him and instructed him to join none of the existing churches because they were all wrong. During the 1820s Smith reported several angelic visitations, and was eventually told that God would use him to re-establish the true Christian church, and that the Book of Mormon would be the means of establishing correct doctrine for the restored church.

Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was translated from writing on golden plates in a reformed Egyptian language, translated with the assistance of the Urim and Thummim and seer stones. Both the special spectacles and the seer stone were at times referred to as the "Urim and Thummim". He said an angel first showed him the location of the plates in 1823, buried in a nearby hill, but he was not allowed to take the plates until 1827. Smith began dictating the text of The Book of Mormon around the fall of 1827 until the summer of 1828 when 116 pages were lost. Translation began again in April 1829 and finished in June 1829, saying that he translated it "by the gift and power of God". Oliver Cowdery acted as scribe for the majority of the translation. After the translation was completed, Smith said the plates were returned to the angel. During Smith's supposed possession, very few people were allowed to "witness" the plates. (Adapted from Wikipedia)

Now, if this is all true, then it must mean that Mohammed was NOT the last Prophet -- that in fact Joseph Smith himself was (as is accepted by the LDS faith) a Prophet.

So, can you prove that this did not happen? If you cannot, does this pose a danger to your own faith? And if not, why not?

I know Mr smith existed and i know he created Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints , but no i do not believe he was a prophet. My belief is that Muhammad was the last prophet within the abrahamic faith.

If others wantvto believe differently then i do, not a problem for me.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I know Mr smith existed and i know he created Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints , but no i do not believe he was a prophet. My belief is that Muhammad was the last prophet within the abrahamic faith.

If others wantvto believe differently then i do, not a problem for me.

Well, and that's just fine. But this thread -- which you created -- is about whether or not you can "prove" what you believe. And as you just pointed out, no, you can't. You can only believe it. Therefore, I think the business of the thread is completed.

 

[ChristineM]

Unfortunately it is not like that in religion one must constantly work on once own morality, speech, action and thoughts. So no belief in it self can only get you so far.
It is the practice of the teaching that lead you toward the truth.

Opinion is a wonderful thing is it not?

It can only be like that in religion, because there is no (or very few) facts and/or reality so all you can do us accept what you believe on faith. Without that belief there would be no faith

 

[exchemist]

Culture. Much of the world has been conquered by christian europeans, while greek culture became Disney movie material.

Where and when did the big debate concerning the existence of Pegasus happen? It didn't. The fact we don't believe that Pegasus exists has nothing to do with logical arguments.

Culture. Much of the world has been conquered by christian europeans, while greek culture became Disney movie material.

Where and when did the big debate concerning the existence of Pegasus happen? It didn't. The fact we don't believe that Pegasus exists has nothing to do with logical arguments.

Yes, that's fair comment, I suppose. It's hard to disentangle cultural bias from these things.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Well, and that's just fine. But this thread -- which you created -- is about whether or not you can "prove" what you believe. And as you just pointed out, no, you can't. You can only believe it. Therefore, I think the business of the thread is completed.

The OP is actually about if non believer can dis prove God, and no you can not

 

[Spirit of Light]

Opinion is a wonderful thing is it not?

It can only be like that in religion, because there is no (or very few) facts and/or reality so all you can do us accept what you believe on faith. Without that belief there would be no faith

All religions start with belief and faith, then when someone practice it for some time it become wisdom about the truth in the teaching.

 

[ChristineM]

All religions start with belief and faith, then when someone practice it for some time it become wisdom about the truth in the teaching.

Yet it is still belief and faith

 

[Deeje]

If you want me to live in accordance with your God's law, behave in accordance with your God's will, or acknowledge your God, then the onus is on you to prove to me that your God exists.

If you keep your beliefs about your God to yourself and use these toward your own personal development, you have nothing to prove to me.

But then, when we try to impart the information, we come up against a wall of indifference or outright rejection when we do try to tell you about our God and what his requirements are for everlasting life. Strangely enough, from the Christian perspective, Jesus warned us that this would happen. (John 15:18-21)
God apparently tests people out by how they respond to the message rather than the appearance of messenger.

If someone actually listens, and there is even a spark of acceptance, at least God has something to work with. (John 6:65) If there is no spark, or a door is slammed, then nothing more will happen....that person will be disqualified from citizenship in the coming kingdom of God......we 'shake the dust off our feet' and move on. And since it will be the only kingdom that will exist on this earth....where does that leave those who don't qualify for citizenship? The Bible answers that question too......but there is no hell of eternal torment. You are either granted life or you exit it. There is nowhere else to go....and no fence to sit on. Like it or not, our decisions now, affect the rest of forever....

 

[ChristineM]

But then, when we try to impart the information, we come up against a wall of indifference or outright rejection

Unfortunately, when you try imparting your assumptions on what happens after death you have no idea of the victim of the proselytisation history with religion. Yet still they try

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The OP is actually about if non believer can dis prove God, and no you can not

Oh, so you only allow a one-way argument? Fairness, then, is NOT a part of your belief system. One rule for you, another one for everybody else.

That's not something I care to discuss -- not with you or anyone.

 

[Ponder This]

I have often seen someone say.

You must prove to me that your God exist. So the non believer claim that a believer must prove his or her personal belief.

But if a non believer want to prove that God does not exist. Why is it not them who must prove religioues people are wrong in their personal belief? How come it is always the believer who have to be the one to prove their belief?

So the challange will then be. Non believers can you prove my faith is untrue or false or can you prove that other peoples faith or religion is untrue or wrong?

And no i have no desire to mock you for not believing, feel free to disbelieve.
Maybe it is the disbelief in any sign of a God that make you unable to see God the way a believer do?

I would like to hear your take on this.
And remember, this is in the discussion area of RF, not in debate area

In a debate, both parties should present opposing arguments. So if there is something upon which you disagree, then both parties should present arguments.

If arguments have been exhausted and disagreement remains, it is proper for the debaters to acknowledge this and agree to disagree. Debates where both sides do nothing but repeat existing arguments over and over again without adding anything new is not in the spirit of debate, it's in the spirit of idiocy.

When one side provides an argument and the other side provides no counter argument, but merely states disagreement with the argument presented. Then the side failing to present counter argument loses the debate. This is because the burden of proof is a fluid thing that should bounce back and forth between people. You cannot state disagreement without incurring some burden upon yourself to explain why.

 

[Polymath257]

I do believe that nothing could exist if God did not create it.
My OP was created to see if non believers could disprove a religioues belief. And it look like it does not happens.

OK, so you believe this. You might ask yourself WHY do you believe this as opposed to the alternative where there are laws of physics that produce things? Why do you assume a consciousness must be involved?

From my point of view, religious beliefs are inherently unfalsifiable (there is nothing that can show them wrong if they are), so are ultimately meaningless as truth statements.

But that's just me.

 

[Vinayaka]

I probably won't.

Yeah me neither. Not a valuable exercise.

 

[MNoBody]

I have often seen someone say.

You must prove to me that your God exist. So the non believer claim that a believer must prove his or her personal belief.

But if a non believer want to prove that God does not exist. Why is it not them who must prove religioues people are wrong in their personal belief? How come it is always the believer who have to be the one to prove their belief?

So the challange will then be. Non believers can you prove my faith is untrue or false or can you prove that other peoples faith or religion is untrue or wrong?

And no i have no desire to mock you for not believing, feel free to disbelieve.
Maybe it is the disbelief in any sign of a God that make you unable to see God the way a believer do?

I would like to hear your take on this.
And remember, this is in the discussion area of RF, not in debate area

apparently the burden of proof is on the one who makes a claim
but like all issues legal [Law] there are a few different modalities applied....
common law holds that one is assumed innocent until proven guilty;
napoleonic law holds that one is assumed guilty until proven innocent.
quite different modalities for processing.
if someone wants to think they are an orange, or a cat, for me, it is just another curiosity in the annals of human psychology, why would I assume it is my job to "correct" them, hell, it might be amusing. And it certainly is their privilege as a sentient being to do so.

 

[Aupmanyav]

All religions start with belief and faith, then when someone practice it for some time it become wisdom about the truth in the teaching.

On what basis you say that Abrahamic religions indicate any 'wisdom'? What special wisdom do they have accept that they want all to believe what they believe and are ready to kill for it? You have experienced Buddhism. Is not Buddhism wise even without God or Allah? What is touted are simple 'rules of the society' though under their trade mark?

But then, when we try to impart the information, we come up against a wall of indifference or outright rejection when we do try to tell you about our God and what his requirements are for everlasting life.

When instead of information, you want to pass on first century superstition, why should any sane person listen to you?

 

[rational experiences]

Observable human facts, how we exist and live, naturally first.

With science claiming all end highest self present conditions as a support for why our form of life exists as a rational male thesis, without owning any other condition other than to think, to reason and to quote a thesis, which is highest in the form conditions and laws of science.

For science does not own nor control natural spatial evolution history. As a known thought upon philosophy. Why thinking and talking was the first human male ownership of stating facts without evidence.

Evidence being conditions of a self in an experience that denies the equal living conditions of normalised living standards.

Why medical sciences can quote any life harmed/defective or mutated, sick or dying unnaturally owns a medical scientific historic definition of past purposes.

The only true scientific condition that was supported historically to be allowed to think about reasons in the past life of living selves, now deceased who would own personal human reasons for humans today being sick and dying.

As a thesis discussion reason for God the Earth stone to disappear into sink holes...removal of original SIN. Whose history was a hot dense state.

Therefore in science the occult scientist was determined to be against natural history and evolution and was determined to be owner/causer activator of the hot dense state. So was a science teaching that quotes was against natural ONE, the O first body, the planet and entity that owned the creation history of its own atmosphere.

Relative truthful thesis is religious science, discussions upon the states of creation as a thesis first.

So rational science quotes that God inferred reasoning, the planet is a scientific thinking concept first. And not in any definition something especial to any human being.

Hence biological science quotes, human MEDICAL terms DNA reference, only owned by the human and nowhere else is the only correct religious scientist teaching. That directly infers and references the living human bio life for and all historic conditions in our Earth Nature that forced the human life to be cell/blood sacrificed and life harmed.

So it is personally in any country no matter who you claim you are, as a title, or Holy land inference, which is the origins of any religious cult group. Historically, no matter what you claim today, each country owned its own titled to define self in human life as a cult group defined self. Who emigrated into various countries to preach their own cult/DNA holy land teachings.

Yet every single human in medical science is quoted to have come from the original 2 human being same DNA history. In any country they lived, we all owned the EXACT same human DNA. Then you would ask, what conditions changed the holy life on the O one and only whole same equal atmospheric planet by gas mass and water mass conditions?

The answer is science/human occult chosen machine applied fusion sciences about using radiation releases for reactive converting of the mass of the fusion of the stone planet.

As we all own bones like the stone, change the stone mass fused body, cold radiation, our life bio blood, cells, genetics and bones alter their health and we die life sacrificed by how much radiation mass passes through our bodies in radio waves.

Why science studies of radiation changes to radio waves is a known destroyer of life cellular health in water. Water studies already proved the bio life form in its patterns change and die out.

Know totally that HOLY WATER was the human creation science teaching for life sanctity.

Therefore religious science as a retort became owner/controller of the human civilization control, to stop science from being practiced. So in fact you are all wrong about why spiritual science teachings were implemented to try to save human life from its owned human destroyer. Human scientists who took the ability to think past being natural to build and control artificial cause.

Why we also said that occult science was the artificial destroyer of our life....and agreed in that science teaching in every country.

Ask any human today why you all forgot...for heavy metal radiation fall out caused brain mind forgetfulness....a human condition we see gaining momentum in all ages, brain dysfunction and ability to remember or know who self is. It causes mutation and chemical brain/mind dysfunction and we lose our mental health and psychic ability to think correctly.

Although we all knew in the past what occurred in the sacrifice of human life, we eventually forgot. For the Holy wars in history were an elite owned condition that wanted control of the Temple pyramid science and Jeru salem...jeru meaning where the pyramid temple circuit turned was an important science building.

Why it was fought over. And in the past the trade and technology and the elite control did not want the Temple pyramid occult radiation sciences to stop being practiced. So it was fought over for a long time period....by the time the science was stopped being utilised it was too late.

All the years of releasing the Earth radiation mass held fused....was released into spatial conditions....which then began to attack our life, seeing the radiation was unnaturally placed into space. So we owned no control over the decline of human thinking, remembering or thesis. What actually happened to us all and why we quantified that era as the Dark Ages.

For we lost our own mentality and conscious spirituality.

It is why today we are again in inherited life ownership of making those same bad choices and once again see our holy life decline into its own science occult caused/owned attacks.

Religious science is after all just ancient human owned science thesis and quotes of its own age.

Human self observations.

If I was the same adult human DNA no matter what country I lived in.....if my owned holy land where I lived became life attacked, sacrificed, I would emigrate and leave my country to teach my realisation that my life was changed by my brother living in other countries.

How the same documented living life proof, to be sacrificed was owned by everyone, yet the origin of our spirit family life first human Mother and Father/DNA was converted/changed. Why each brother thought each self in own country was the truth teacher. Yet you were all teaching the same truth.

 

[Spirit of Light]

On what basis you say that Abrahamic religions indicate any 'wisdom'? What special wisdom do they have accept that they want all to believe what they believe and are ready to kill for it? You have experienced Buddhism. Is not Buddhism wise even without God or Allah? What is touted are simple 'rules of the society' though under their trade mark?When instead of information, you want to pass on first century superstition, why should any sane person listen to you?

I only speak my view, if people dont like it or disagree that is fine.
The abrahamic teaching in torah bible and quran teaches the 2isdom to thode who studybit and follow it

 

[Aupmanyav]

Same here. Read Qur'an. Did not find any wisdom in it, and a whole lot of things which may have been the rule in 7th Century but are despised now.
Even the Islamic countries have abandoned a few rules that were given in Qur'an. They find it wrong.

So, either you accept that what is given in Qur'an is liable to change, it is not Allah's last message to humans. In that case you end up with Bahais or Ahmadiyyas. Take your pick.

 

[Heyo]

Culture. Much of the world has been conquered by christian europeans, while greek culture became Disney movie material.

Where and when did the big debate concerning the existence of Pegasus happen? It didn't. The fact we don't believe that Pegasus exists has nothing to do with logical arguments.

Believe in gods is not bound to a single culture.
And therein lies one of the reasons why the existence of gods question is still going on. We do know what pegasi are. We don't know what gods are. You can't disprove (or prove) such an arbitrary thing as "god".

 

[Aupmanyav]

If there has been no proof in the 200,000 years of human history, what more proof you need for non-existence of God / Allah, and ignorance and hoax for existence of prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis?