Who is the one who must "prove"

[Spirit of Light]

Forgive me for answering your question with a question, but what is the point of telling anyone you believe in Allah unless asked? What is it you are hoping to accomplish with this information?



Only a fool would say they don't believe in elephants in the presence of one.

In a discussion forrum like RF it is clearly a reason why one will make known what God one believe in.
In daily life i do not preach about Islam or Allah to others except when asked about my belief.

I was not talking about elephants as proof of God
Would you believe someone who stood in front of you and said, I am God?
I think 99% of non believers first responce would be, prove it.

Or?

 

[Nimos]

Would that non believer ever accept any of the proves that is put in front of him/her?

To be honest most of the discussions people have about whether or not it's likely that God exist or not, is not really what it's about. Rather its about how we think and evaluate things. It's about critical thinking and skepticism. And I have said it before, for some reason religious people seem to forget this when they are talking about their religion, but have absolutely no problems applying it, if they talk about UFOs, other people's religions or other claims which seems to good to be true.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I actually never got through a full conversation over this because it starts and ends with a debate or just cut off. I feel asking believers to prove their claim is not a religious issue but more logical or elementary school issue. I think using religion confuses the purpose of the question which I'm sure believers would understand if they were not offended by it.

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?

It's not really a bad thing, just religion tends to make it more personal than it needs to be. It's more of a logical question not one to ask your personal experiences with god.

If you closed your hand right now, I wouldn't know what was in it. So far I know, there is nothing there. So, I have "no reason" to believe and question something is in your hand. It's irrelevant.

Then you tell me there is something in your hand.

I say what?

You say, it's a mystery and I (you) don't even know. It's my "thing" (in my hand) and I wont tell you. If you keep asking, I won't say anything more. It's a secret.

Okay. I say, than I can conclude there is nothing in your hand (believers take offense because of this statement), You say there is something in your hand. You made the claim.

So, I ask you again, what?

You say "you made the claim there isn't anything in my hand."

I made no truth statement. I didn't say you were wrong. I just told you what I believe based on lack of knowledge to the contrary.

With god (and the hand analogy), that's not a truth claim, but a conclusion based on lack of evidence. You'd have to prove it to me (show me what's in your hand) for me to agree with you. I have no reason to agree-and you won't tell me what god is, what he's like, nor even tell me your experiences to describe him-so how can I make a claim when I have no information to build that claim from?

Only You know the evidence. You know what's in your hand (since you said there was). So I ask what? It would be You that would hopefully be able to tell me. If you believe there is something there, it's as simple as either opening your hand to show me or at least give me a hint without being offended.

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?

We can't because you don't show us what's in your hand. We have no evidence to base our conclusions-for or against-on. Only the believer does because that is what he or she believes. He says he believes X; he knows what X is. Why can't he tell others?

The challenge would be for believers to find a way to describe what they mean, how, and the conclusions they got to their belief.

If I had a math problem and didn't know how to solve it, I wouldn't expect you to tell me you can't prove the answer the math question is true or untrue. I have nothing to go by until you answer the problem you set up. Once you set it up and show me how to solve it, THEN I can tell you if it's true or untrue.

It's really not a religious thing.

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 have a question. I only know christians to do this since many have a need to convert. After your conversion, why is this question relevant to your faith?

It assumes that the disbeliever is at a disadvantage because he is blind. Does Islam teach this in a way it must be expressed like this or is there another way to see people not believing in god without their blindness, ignorance, or fault being the cause?

I put a lot of time into this. It's a good question but I don't think it's well understood by believers. Possibly because they are offended, maybe don't know how to answer the question themselves, or asking because it's too hard for them to believe there is no god.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So if a non believer I do not believe in a God exist, there will not be any proof that he/she ever will accept as the truth. Even if the God stood in front of him/her they would reject it, because God can not exist according to them.

How do they give proof of that God does not exist?

Well if there was a godlike being that presented itself I would take a more incremental approach rather than jump to conclusions. I'd first speculate if what was there would be an incredibly advanced alien being first and take it from there. Its rational to reject one conclusion in favor of something that would fit the bill a bit better if one would encounter a 'god' standing in front of them.



As for the latter, the proof as it stands presently already speaks for itself. Its the complete silence and absence that speaks volumes all on its own, which favorably tips the scales well into the non existent category.

It all boils down to the adage that you can't prove something that isn't there. The tea pot analogy.

 

[Spirit of Light]

To be honest most of the discussions people have about whether or not it's likely that God exist or not, is not really what it's about. Rather its about how we think and evaluate things. It's about critical thinking and skepticism. And I have said it before, for some reason religious people seem to forget this when they are talking about their religion, but have absolutely no problems applying it, if they talk about UFOs, other people's religions or other claims which seems to good to be true.

I think a religious person would go to their teachings to see if those things are mention there, if it is they would probable use that info when making their own decision of what to believe of example UFO or other topics

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The onus is on a person who is making any assertion to provide publicly verifiable evidence to support it.

Prove that!!!
You can't use publicly verifiable evidence, because your rule is not based on publicly verifiable evidence itself. It is a first person subjective and cognitive rule and thus without evidence to support it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Whoever is making the assertion. Absence is not an assertion, there is an infinite number of absences - unicorns, unicorns with two horns, pink unicorns, red unicorns, unicorns made of jelly... and that's just a few unicorns.

That is an assertion itself. Now give proof or evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That would have to be the believer. Theres no question where the initial assertion came from.

That is a belief itself. Now give proof or evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

It is called the burden of proof, you make the claim, you provide the proof.

...

Proof of that, please.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So if a non believer I do not believe in a God exist, there will not be any proof that he/she ever will accept as the truth. Even if the God stood in front of him/her they would reject it, because God can not exist according to them.

How do they give proof of that God does not exist?

Interject.

Let's say I tell you that the medicine sun shine says works with COVID patients. I tell you 100s of patients have been cured from it. I even give you "my" book as evidence of this claim that COVID patients are cured.

Are you going to take my word for it?

If I tell you I was cured from this medicine, why would I tell you to prove that the medicine doesn't work?

Wouldn't it be sensible that I prove (give some stats, for example, not just from my book) to you how I was cured and how others were cured?

Do you think you have the burden of proof or the one who said the medicine worked and the chosen evidence to prove it?

Actual questions.

 

[danieldemol]

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

Actually possibly neither have to provide proof.

All things I know of except for God and spirits provide proof that they exist themselves, for example fire proves its existence by burning, gravity proves its existence by attraction of masses etc.

Therefore I say if God exists, God is the one with responsibility to prove God exists.

If God is unwilling to provide the evidence then what hope do mere humans have of providing the evidence?

If God does not care to reveal God's self to the individual then why do we humans care?

Therefore I'm not inclined to do God's job on God's behalf.

I just share that I believe in God if it seems to pertain to the discussion but do not attempt to convince people that God exists.

 

[Nimos]

I think a religious person would go to their teachings to see if those things are mention there, if it is they would probable use that info when making their own decision of what to believe of example UFO or other topics

Well they could do that as part of the "figuring out" process, but if they are unable to be sceptical and critical about these teachings. Then they might not only be able to not get closer to the truth, but might in fact "contaminate" their texts, trying to make them fit something that they were not intended for. Again its about how to approach, analyse and evaluate claims and evidence. And not just cherry pick stuff from wherever, trying to make them fit one's own beliefs, that is not to be either critical thinking or sceptical.

 

[SalixIncendium]

In a discussion forrum like RF it is clearly a reason why one will make known what God one believe in.

For what reason?

Can you tell me what God I believe in?

I was not talking about elephants as proof of God

I was drawing an analogy.

Would you believe someone who stood in front of you and said, I am God?

As much as if someone stood in front of me and said, "I am a snake charmer."

Behaviors and actions, not words, demonstrate what one is.

 

[Nimos]

Proof of that, please.

What do you mean proof of that? it's not universal law or fact It's about what one can reasonably expect and because it is a fallacy, if it is not the case, as it can't lead anywhere.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I actually never got through a full conversation over this because it starts and ends with a debate or just cut off. I feel asking believers to prove their claim is not a religious issue but more logical or elementary school issue. I think using religion confuses the purpose of the question which I'm sure believers would understand if they were not offended by it.



It's not really a bad thing, just religion tends to make it more personal than it needs to be. It's more of a logical question not one to ask your personal experiences with god.

If you closed your hand right now, I wouldn't know what was in it. So far I know, there is nothing there. So, I have "no reason" to believe and question something is in your hand. It's irrelevant.

Then you tell me there is something in your hand.

I say what?

You say, it's a mystery and I (you) don't even know. It's my "thing" (in my hand) and I wont tell you. If you keep asking, I won't say anything more. It's a secret.

Okay. I say, than I can conclude there is nothing in your hand (believers take offense because of this statement)

You say there "is" something in your hand. You made the claim.

I ask you again, what?

They say "you made the claim there isn't anything in my hand."

I made no truth statement. I didn't say you were wrong. I just told you what I believe based on lack of knowledge to the contrary. That's not a claim but a conclusion based on lack of evidence. You'd have to prove it to me (show me what's in your hand) for me to agree with you. I have no reason to agree-and you won't tell me what god is, what he's like, nor even tell me your experiences to describe him-so how can I make a claim when I have no information to build that claim of.

Only You know the evidence. You know what's in your hand (since you said there was). So I ask what? It would be You that would hopefully be able to tell me. If you believe there is something there, it's as simple as either opening your hand to show me or at least give me a hint without being offended.



We can't because you don't show us what's in your hand. We have no evidence to base our conclusions-for or against-on. Only the believer does because that is what he or she believes. He says he believes X; he knows what X is. Why can't he tell others?

The challenge would be for believers to find a way to describe what they mean, how, and the conclusions they got to their belief.

If I had a math problem and didn't know how to solve it, I wouldn't expect you to tell me you can't prove the answer the math question is true or untrue. I have nothing to go by until you answer the problem you set up. Once you set it up and show me how to solve it, THEN I can tell you if it's true or untrue.

It's really not a religious thing.



I have a question. I only know christians to do this since many have a need to convert. After your conversion, why is this question relevant to your faith?

It assumes that the disbeliever is at a disadvantage because he is blind. Does Islam teach this in a way it must be expressed like this or is there another way to see people not believing in god without their blindness, ignorance, or fault being the cause?

I put a lot of time into this. It's a good question but I don't think it's well understood by believers. Possibly because they are offended, maybe don't know how to answer the question themselves, or asking because it's too hard for them to believe there is no god.

Thank you for taking your time to answer in lenght
I will start with your question in the end of your reply.

When i converted to Islam i noticed that "critique" of my faith got ten folded in a matter of days, something i find natural actually.
Why is it relevant to my belief? Hmm in it self it is not important because my belief is a personal belief, so others can believe or disbelieve how they wish, it will not affect my way of beliving.
But i also noticed that a lot of the people who critique a religion, not only Islam,tend to only focus on the negative tvey know about the religion. The very good parts of the religion is not mention with one word.
That used to bother me a lot, and it was a reason why I in the past got upset, and said things i see today was bad of me to say.

About your math problem sorry i cant help you there, i dont know math in a good way.

The evidence a religioues person can use is in the teaching they follow. But when a non believer hear it, it seems like they do not accept 8t, because it is just a book to them.
Fair enough, yes it is a book, but it is a book that gives answer to you, how to gain access to God. One thing is the belief that there is a God, but to actually understand God the teaching is needed. So for one who do not see the teaching as other then words, they can not see or understand how God get in touch with us

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

It all boils down to the adage that you can't prove something that isn't there. The tea pot analogy.

The tea pot could be there. We just haven't looked. And you are confusing proof and evidence. Further non-existence as "something that isn't there" is not evidence or science, that is philosophy.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I mean, no one I would hope would just take numbers on the screen as fact unless there is some objective explanation that the people who post those numbers got their information. They posted the information up there so if you asked if it were true, those numbers, -they- would need to provide proof of their conclusion. Once the evidence is presented, then, the questioner can determine if it's true or false. Can't do it without data.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do you mean proof of that? it's not universal law or fact It's about what one can reasonably expect and because it is a fallacy, if it is not the case, as it can't lead anywhere.

You are using your subjective thinking. I use mine differently, so your rule doesn't apply to be. You have made a rationalistic argument and logical one as per fallacy. Now I want proof of that, because there is no evidence.

 

[Spirit of Light]

For what reason?

Can you tell me what God I believe in?



I was drawing an analogy.



As much as if someone stood in front of me and said, "I am a snake charmer."

Behaviors and actions, not words, demonstrate what one is.

I can not tell what God you believe in my friend

Yes you can know the God by how God would speak and act in front of you, that is one of the signs

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do you mean proof of that? it's not universal law or fact It's about what one can reasonably expect and because it is a fallacy, if it is not the case, as it can't lead anywhere.

Take 2. Your smile is maybe an appeal to emotion. Use evidence please, not philosophy or emotions.