Who is the one who must "prove"

[Deeje]

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

We are not mind readers.....but still we are sent to impart the message....to 'plant the seed'.

It isn't us who determines where the seed lands.....

Matthew 13:3-9....
"Then he told them many things by illustrations, saying: “Look! A sower went out to sow. 4 As he was sowing, some seeds fell alongside the road, and the birds came and ate them up. 5 Others fell on rocky ground where there was not much soil, and they immediately sprang up because the soil was not deep. 6 But when the sun rose, they were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Others fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked them. 8 Still others fell on the fine soil, and they began to yield fruit, this one 100 times more, that one 60, the other 30. 9 Let the one who has ears listen."

Who determines where the seed grows?

1 Corinthians 3:6-7.....
"I planted, A·polʹlos watered, but God kept making it grow, 7 so that neither is the one who plants anything nor is the one who waters, but God who makes it grow."

If God 'draws' you, (John 6:44).....the seed that was planted, will germinate......and it is a fairly irresistible force....like a magnet, you come to him, sometimes even against your will.....there is something that just gets into your psyche and won't leave you alone......it has to be experienced.....it is not at all unpleasant...sort of like unwrapping a gift that has many layers.

A person's history with religion is known by God before we call.....we don't do it to annoy anyone. I am sorry if it stirs up bad memories for you.....from our perspective, we have wonderful news about the future....so needed in such a troubled world.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Using the OP as the perspective of this thread. The only person who would have to prove something is the one who wants someone to change their view, path, ideas, perspectives, etc.

If someone is simply commenting on what they disagree with or on the flip side what they beleive with no concern for someone else changing their mind, view, path, ideas, perspectives, etc. then there is only debate with no real end goal; thus no burdon of proof on anyone.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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?

...

Your standard of proof is science, so here is my answer using that standard, as to if you are incorrect. No, because being incorrect is not empirical. Here are the reasons for that:

#1 You can't see or otherwise observe incorrect and there is no instrument or scientific measurement standard for measuring incorrect. That is related to your use of detected. Here it is in a deeper sense for the words objective and incorrect:
Objective:
- expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
- of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
- having reality independent of the mind.
Incorrect:
-not in accordance with fact; wrong.
-not in accordance with particular standards or rules.
Now science is a particular set of standards and rules for how to name and interact with certain aspects of the world. But what is important is that these standards and rules are in part subjective.

#2 How is that so? They are cognitive interpretations of processes in the world, but not all processes are objective. I.e. as per the definitions of objective as related to defect, you can't detect that you ought to understand the world using science. Your problem is that you apparently treat incorrect as a scientific and/or objective fact.
Here it is as short as I can express it:
I can't prove you are incorrect, because I can't observe it as per detect and the rule I have to use to claim that you are incorrect is not scientific itself as it can't be derived using science as a scientific theory( or law). Nor can I prove it objectively, as it involves a subjective interpretation.

#3 Here is what you apparently are doing:
For these human behaviors, which you can't do using science, you appear to treat incorrect as a scientific fact detected through observation. But here are the limits of science as a human behavior related to detect:
-Science doesn't make moral judgments.
-Science doesn't make aesthetic judgments.
-Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge.
-Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

#4 So rather you are in fact using incorrect as judgement of behavior in another human, but the act of judgement is in you.
So I don't consider you incorrect, because you apparently confuse scientific behavior and other human behavior, when it comes to incorrect. A lot of humans do that. Rather you believe differently that me and you do something I don't do.
I don't believe I can prove another human incorrect, because being incorrect is not an objective empirical fact detectable using science. It is a subjective rule and I use another:
We make sense of the world differently and it can be understood as something as a part of the world, if you accept subjective facts. It is a subjective fact that you understand incorrect differently and that incorrect can't be detected using science, yet you apparently treat it as some kind of scientific fact.

So here it what I predict. You in effect won't accept that you are not using science and that incorrect as a human behavior is not detectable using science. How? Because if you admit that, you are incorrect according to your own rule of being incorrect and most people don't like that and won't admit it. Now you might be different and accept that this is not science:
"...could you prove that I am incorrect?"

Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

God is not necessarily Christian and all ideas of God are not theistic. Your culture is showing. Here is what religion is according to science:

Religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death. In many traditions, this relation and these concerns are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitude toward gods or spirits; in more humanistic or naturalistic forms of religion, they are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitudes toward the broader human community or the natural world. In many religions, texts are deemed to have scriptural status, and people are esteemed to be invested with spiritual or moral authority. Believers and worshippers participate in and are often enjoined to perform devotional or contemplative practices such as prayer, meditation, or particular rituals. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life.
religion | Definition, Types, & List of Religions

So learn to understand the influence of you being in a culture yourself and learn to understand that as per what you answered to as it was about philosophy. And what God is in philosophy is not Christianity.
In short what God is in philosophy is metaphysics and that is not religion per se.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

So could please you prove that another human is incorrect? Or is it something you believe?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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".

And you can't prove metaphysics as related to "god". In fact as the world apparently works, that is so for all versions of positive metaphysics.

 

[HonestJoe]

I do believe that nothing could exist if God did not create it.

Do you mean the specific God you believe in or any kind of sentient creative force?

My OP was created to see if non believers could disprove a religioues belief. And it look like it does not happens.

Whether a belief or assertion can be disproven has nothing to do with whether it is part of a set of religious beliefs or not. You present a conclusion and the evidence on which you're basing it. Other people might offer additional evidence or different interpretations of the evidence and either agree with you, reach an alternative conclusion or determine the point inconclusive (at least based on the evidence available).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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?

Please explain how proof works as for what the world is?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Do you mean the specific God you believe in or any kind of sentient creative force?
Whether a belief or assertion can be disproven has nothing to do with whether it is part of a set of religious beliefs or not. You present a conclusion and the evidence on which you're basing it. Other people might offer additional evidence or different interpretations of the evidence and either agree with you, reach an alternative conclusion or determine the point inconclusive (at least based on the evidence available).

I meant Allah in that answer you qouted me on yes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yet it is still belief and faith

Do you believe that the monitor in front to you that you are reading this on, is there independent of you as the monitor itself?
If yes, that requires belief and faith.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

You are getting there. You admit that you are subjective in effect.

 

[HonestJoe]

I meant Allah in that answer you qouted me on yes.

Why do you say it must be Allah specifically who created everything and not a similar but different god instead? By your argument, wouldn't you have exactly the same responsibility to disprove every other propose creator and anyone else would have to disprove yours?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Why do you say it must be Allah specifically who created everything and not a similar but different god instead? By your argument, wouldn't you have exactly the same responsibility to disprove every other propose creator and anyone else would have to disprove yours?

It is my religious belief that Allah created it.
I have no need or wish to disprove of other gods that may or may not exist and their parts in existence. My focus in only on the teaching in the Qur'an.

If others wish to believe in other twachings or disbelieve everything, thst is up to them

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why do you say it must be Allah specifically who created everything and not a similar but different god instead? By your argument, wouldn't you have exactly the same responsibility to disprove every other propose creator and anyone else would have to disprove yours?

I can answer that as me relevant to the God I believe in.
The need to disprove other beliefs requires that I have that need. I.e. since I don't need to prove anything as what reality really is, I don't do that any more and since I accept other people can believe different there is no need to disprove them as long as they don't judge me with a claim of objective reason, logic, proof, truth and/or evidence.

So how did I figure out that I don't need to prove what I believe in as in regards to what reality really is and if there is a God or not?
That is simple and the atheists taught me that. For me and another religious human for which we with logic can't both have proof of 2 contradictory Gods, it follows that at least one of us don't have proof and thus don't need proof. How? Well, all humans according to this argument, about that all different versions of Gods can't have proof, because of how logic works, are still in the world, right?
Do you understand? The fact that there are a lot of people, who believe something about what reality really is and all but one version is without proof, taught me that you don't need proof for what reality really is.
I realized that for metaphysics I don't need proof. I only need to believe if I have that need. I do have it and since all metaphysical claims, not just the religious ones, are in effect supernatural, I realized, that I am in effect religious.

This is related to cognitive relativism and that there in effect is no proof possible of any positive claim of metaphysics. That includes all version and also philosophical materialism, physicalism and naturalism.
Nobody have any proof in the strong sense of what reality really is in itself, because everybody else can in effect in practice believe differently.
That is the problem of if we with logic can't all have proof of what reality really is. It applies to humans in general and not just believers in religion.

For some us as religious it is not about being objectively right, it is about being subjective and individual "right". But the idea of objectively right is not limited to religious humans. So non-religious humans also do that. In other words claims of objective authority as to what is correct, right, true and so on are not limited to only religious humans.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Not always...if a unbeliever comes asking for proof of God's existing....
Then that unbeliever is called into question by their own question first...
Before you can go and ask a believer for the proof of God's existing....
The unbeliever has to provide their proof first that God doesn't exist before they can ask anyone anything..

If I came to unbeliever and ask them for their proof that God does not exist..
I'm called into question to provide my proof first....so it is vice versa...

So if you came to me and ask me for proof of God's existence...you first have to give proof of God's non-existence..

So why would a person ask something and not have any proof to back what their asking first.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Please explain how proof works as for what the world is?

He could stop natural calamities and diseases. He could make amputees regrow their parts. He could stop crimes like murder and rape. Can't God do this? Why has he made the world like this? If he ever does that, I will gladly bow to him.

And when he sends a prophet / son / messenger / manifestation / mahdi, then he could make a general announcement in the skies in every ones language that he is sending someone. Or otherwise he could send his message individually to all people in a way that they can understand it. As even the theists (Bahais) say that Allah has chosen a faulty method to get his message to people.

 

[HonestJoe]

It is my religious belief that Allah created it.
I have no need or wish to disprove of other gods that may or may not exist and their parts in existence. My focus in only on the teaching in the Qur'an.

Doesn't the Quran teach more than just the existence of Allah though? It also covers how followers should behave and some of that behaviour will inevitably impact others, sometimes significantly. That will be when you might be asked the reason behind that behaviour and, if you give that reason as Allah, asked to support and prove that reasoning. In general, I see it as a fundamental difference between a personal belief and a structured religion.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Doesn't the Quran teach more than just the existence of Allah though? It also covers how followers should behave and some of that behaviour will inevitably impact others, sometimes significantly. That will be when you might be asked the reason behind that behaviour and, if you give that reason as Allah, asked to support and prove that reasoning. In general, I see it as a fundamental difference between a personal belief and a structured religion.

Allah gave the muslims the teaching of the Quran, and the curan explain how Allah want us to live so we can enter his paradise when we die from this human existance.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

He could stop natural calamities and diseases. He could make amputees regrow their parts. He could stop crimes like murder and rape. Can't God do this? Why has he made the world like this? If he ever does that, I will gladly bow to him.

And when he sends a prophet / son / messenger / manifestation / mahdi, then he could make a general announcement in the skies in every ones language that he is sending someone. Or otherwise he could send his message individually to all people in a way that they can understand it. As even the theists (Bahais) say that Allah has chosen a faulty method to get his message to people.

No, what you claim that the world is and how proof works for you.
Can you e.g. prove that there are no Gods and that the world is natural?

 

[firedragon]

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

This is because of the Theists weakness brother. Let me explain if you dont mind.

For a theist it sounds silly when a non-theist comes and tells him "God doesnt exist". The same way an atheist would find it silly when a theist goes and tells him "god exists". For both of them the default position is their "ism", be it theism or atheism.

The problem with theists is brother that when an atheist makes this claim that God doesn't exist and tells him "if he exists, prove it" the theist reacts and gets into an argument. But you have identified the weakness and commend you for that. The weakness is that the theist more frequently doesn't respond with the "Burden of proof fallacy claim".

If an atheist is claiming that God doesnt exist, its his burden of proof to prove he doesnt. He thinks his position of "No God" is the default position. So it is your responsibility to make him understand that "it is your default, not mine" so make him understand that its his burden of proof. It works both ways. Vise Versa.

Peace.