Who is the one who must "prove"

[Erebus]

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.

This raises an interesting problem regarding proving the existence of deities. There's always the question of what somebody would accept as a deity and what sort of evidence they would find sufficient to believe in it.

To give an example, let's say somebody holds up a rubber ball and says, "This is my god. Its divine power is that it bounces when you throw it against a wall."

That person has provided a deity that can be seen and touched. You can also test whether or not the claims about its divine power are true by throwing it at a wall. Despite that person making a claim and being able to back it up, I'd wager that they'd have a hard time converting people to rubber ball worship.

Asking somebody to provide evidence for their claims when they expect you to worship their god is fair enough. However, the person asking for proof still needs to have at least a rough idea of what they would consider a god and also what they would consider to be compelling evidence for that god.

 

[Nimos]

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.

Fair enough... as part of my proof. I need you to do something for me and as you are doing it you will have my proof.

"What I want you to do is to prove that unicorns doesn't exist?"

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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 general, the person making the claim must do the proving. If I say that Trump said ABC, then it is my responsibility to show that trump said it. It is not the responsibility of others to show that he did not.

Also, in general, negative claims cannot usually be proven. For example, I can say there are no unicorns and say its because no one has ever seen one, so how can we say they exist. But truthfully, a unicorn may exist that no one has seen. Thus generally speaking, negative statements are not proven.

So basically, if you don't like it when an atheist says "there is no God," just remind him that he cannot prove a negative. He in return will probably say that you have no evidence of God, as in the case of unicorns. Logically, Gdd can be neither proven nor disproven. People usually believe in God not because of logic or empirical evidence, but because of intuition -- seeing something in the glory and design of nature and calling that something God. But as we all know, intuition can see patterns and agency where none exist. Again, God can be neither proven nor disproven. (And this is being written by someone who believes in God.)

It becomes complicated when people confuse arguing against a positive for arguing for a negative. For example, when I make the negative statement that Santa does not exist, what I'm really doing is challenging the positive assertions of pro-Santa believers. For example, if Santa exists, he will have a toy shop at the north pole. Since we know none exists, it becomes not an argument against the existence the positive statement that Santa exists (pointing out that they have no evidence of a toy shop).

It's 4 am, and I'm tired, so I hope I haven't said this all too badly.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Amanaki,

• Do you believe that Odin and Frigg, the Norse gods of Asgard, exist?
  • If you do, then prove that they exist.
  • If you do not, then prove that they do not exist.

Which do you think is easier to do?

 

[Spirit of Light]

In general, the person making the claim must do the proving. If I say that Trump said ABC, then it is my responsibility to show that trump said it. It is not the responsibility of others to show that he did not.

Also, in general, negative claims cannot usually be proven. For example, I can say there are no unicorns and say its because no one has ever seen one, so how can we say they exist. But truthfully, a unicorn may exist that no one has seen. Thus generally speaking, negative statements are not proven.

So basically, if you don't like it when an atheist says "there is no God," just remind him that he cannot prove a negative. He in return will probably say that you have no evidence of God, as in the case of unicorns. Logically, Gdd can be neither proven nor disproven. People usually believe in God not because of logic or empirical evidence, but because of intuition -- seeing something in the glory and design of nature and calling that something God. But as we all know, intuition can see patterns and agency where none exist. Again, God can be neither proven nor disproven. (And this is being written by someone who believes in God.)

It becomes complicated when people confuse arguing against a positive for arguing for a negative. For example, when I make the negative statement that Santa does not exist, what I'm really doing is challenging the positive assertions of pro-Santa believers. For example, if Santa exists, he will have a toy shop at the north pole. Since we know none exists, it becomes not an argument against the existence the positive statement that Santa exists (pointing out that they have no evidence of a toy shop).

It's 4 am, and I'm tired, so I hope I haven't said this all too badly.

@IndigoChild5559 i like your reply, nothing wrong in your words
I am not looking for fault to "take" atheists on i only wanted a good discussion on the OP, and you given me that

 

[Spirit of Light]

Amanaki,

• Do you believe that Odin and Frigg, the Norse gods of Asgard, exist?
  • If you do, then prove that they exist.
  • If you do not, then prove that they do not exist.

Which do you think is easier to do?

The easiest would be to say they do not exist, but can i prove it ? No

 

[Vinayaka]

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

Neither can prove it. In the realm of belief, 'prove' does not exist. Proof is in the realm of math, or sustantiated facts. So the entire idea is pointless. It's like asking to prove which transmission is best, manual or automatic?

So why waste time on such things?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Neither can prove it. In the realm of belief, 'prove' does not exist. Proof is in the realm of math, or sustantiated facts. So the entire idea is pointless. It's like asking to prove which transmission is best, manual or automatic?

So why waste time on such things?

It was just a thought i had this morning, in on it self the question is not important

 

[stvdv]

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?

The smart believer, better keeps his mouth shut
The one opening his mouth first making a claim
Is the one who needs to prove

Usually the "non believers" are the smartest ones in this regards
Which can be easily understood, as the majority of them is into evangelizing

IF you feel yourself being asked the question too often
Just remember this, and let the other ask first

 

[Terry Sampson]

The easiest would be to say they do not exist, but can i prove it ? No

You say that you cannot prove that Odin and Frigg do not exist. So, don't you think it would be kind of silly to demand that you prove that they don't exist?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fair enough... as part of my proof. I need you to do something for me and as you are doing it you will have my proof.

"What I want you to do is to prove that unicorns doesn't exist?"

So please give proof of existence and/or non-existence.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Neither can prove it. In the realm of belief, 'prove' does not exist. Proof is in the realm of math, or sustantiated facts. So the entire idea is pointless. It's like asking to prove which transmission is best, manual or automatic?

So why waste time on such things?

I find it a curiosity that there are those within Christianity who will call it faith, but then proceed to try to prove their claims.

I'm not saying prove that the NT makes their claims. I'm saying they believe you can prove God exists, that the Bible is true, and then by extension prove taht christian claims are true.

If it can be proven, you know it. You don't believe it. No faith needed.

I think that as a human species we are born with the instinct to be religious. We intuit agency and patterns in creation, for example, and conclude that there is a God or gods. And something in our innate biology responds to that awesomeness by wanting to worship, whether it is singing hymns and listening to a sermon, or making elaborate rituals in which to offer fruit and stuff.

I further think that this ability to sense the divine, or intuit it, is very primitive, like an eye that only sees light and dark. This explains why all around the world you have so many different religions -- the classic blind men and the elephant.

But intuition can be mistaken. We sometimes intuit agency when none exists, and can see patterns when none are there (classic example--a circle with two dots and a curve inside is a face,eh?).

So we are left with the fact that we make leaps of faith. I'm going to accept what my intuition tells me. This book moves my heart so it must be of God, or whatever. We often accept things simply because trust the person or the community which taught it to us. None of this is "wrong." It's just not proof.

So be a human being. Intuit. Take a leap of faith. Be religious. Just don't give me this stuff about how you can prove it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It was just a thought i had this morning, in on it self the question is not important

No actually it is a really good thought, and I'm glad that the discussion has ensued.

 

[Spirit of Light]

You say that you cannot prove that Odin and Frigg do not exist. So, don't you think it would be kind of silly to demand that you prove that they don't exist?

I have not demanded anything, the questi9n in the OP was realated to why non believers demand a proof from believers but csn not them self disprove God.

I believe Allah exist, its a personal belief i hold, but can you disprove my belief?

 

[Vinayaka]

I find it a curiosity that there are those within Christianity who will call it faith, but then proceed to try to prove their claims.

I'm not saying prove that the NT makes their claims. I'm saying they believe you can prove God exists, that the Bible is true, and then by extension prove taht christian claims are true.

If it can be proven, you know it. You don't believe it. No faith needed.

I think that as a human species we are born with the instinct to be religious. We intuit agency and patterns in creation, for example, and conclude that there is a God or gods. And something in our innate biology responds to that awesomeness by wanting to worship, whether it is singing hymns and listening to a sermon, or making elaborate rituals in which to offer fruit and stuff.

I further think that this ability to sense the divine, or intuit it, is very primitive, like an eye that only sees light and dark. This explains why all around the world you have so many different religions -- the classic blind men and the elephant.

But intuition can be mistaken. We sometimes intuit agency when none exists, and can see patterns when none are there (classic example--a circle with two dots and a curve inside is a face,eh?).

So we are left with the fact that we make leaps of faith. I'm going to accept what my intuition tells me. This book moves my heart so it must be of God, or whatever. We often accept things simply because trust the person or the community which taught it to us. None of this is "wrong." It's just not proof.

So be a human being. Intuit. Take a leap of faith. Be religious. Just don't give me this stuff about how you can prove it.

Nice. Besides that, it's far more 'fun' to get out of the intellect into the feeling of it. The intellect can be so draining. I'd far rather sit and make a beautiful garland from the flowers I grew than have coffee with anyone and debate religion. But apparently this isn't so obvious to some people, as it is to me or you.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I have not demanded anything, the questi9n in the OP was realated to why non believers demand a proof from believers but csn not them self disprove God.

I believe Allah exist, its a personal belief i hold, but can you disprove my belief?

Actually, if you believe in Allah, you are the one making the claim. Thus the responsibility is on you to prove Allah exists. There is no responsibility for an interlocutor to prove he does not.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

Some parts of religions the negative outweighs the positive. If two people went to the same story Isaac and Abraham, one would see, in simple terms, god telling his follower to kill his son for him/god. A parent killing their son for their religious belief is negative in and of itself. Of course one can say (the other) "oh, Isaac is fine. God is a god of justice." etc but the fact that he (or it's biblically written) he sanctioned a death of a child by a parent in itself is negative.

Unless someone believed in god, how would a disbeliever find positive in a story where parents can kill their children by god's command?

Anyway. The negative does outweigh the positive only because the negative you can see it by study from historians, objective conclusions, people's experiences, etc. The positive can only be seen if believers wish to share their testimonies. Pointing to books shows good and bad points but if a believer really wants others to see the truth they say it is, they need to get more personal.

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.

Yeah. When I was Catholic it bothered me as well: you're a pagan, you're not a real christian, you worship blocks of cement; you're drinking real blood.

Some things are quite ridiculous. But I'm sure your experiences would eventually see their view has a justified cause. I don't believe one should be ignorant of the negativities of their religion (and put fault on those who see it that way) because of the positives.

Speaking of people in general.

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

Ha. I just got through a D couple months ago. Both classes.

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.

True. Which there's nothing inherently and spiritually wrong with that.

They don't accept it because it is not spiritually healthy for their well-being. A math book is just a math book to me, but to my friend whose a financial advisor would look at me silly if I said that (which I did). Likewise, I tell her that music makes me swoon and she says it's a distraction.

Of course I'm shocked she doesn't like music (and still am), but it's not her fault and she's not ignorant because she doesn't like music. I have to accept and be happy for her in the interest she finds that makes her happy and see life better. Hers is scientific. Mine is art-istic.

She is also a christian. I don't care for christianity. I don't tell her, though, why she doesn't believe as if she has a fault but I support her in our belief. We talk sometimes about the bible and she tells me a bit of how she sees god.

I feel that's what believers should do with non-believers. If there is trust or friendship, there should be support for the other person's spiritual well-being without reference to one's own.

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

Another way to put it, "one who do not see the teaching as other than words may not see the teaching of god and this book as healthy for their wellbeing." Maybe see it from their point of view not yours?

 

[Secret Chief]

I would agree with this in the form in which you originally wrote it (as shown in post 3), but actually I think that demanding "publicly verifiable" evidence is possibly a step too far. I see what you are getting at with that qualification: something close to the scientific requirement for reproducible evidence. But, given that not all claims are scientific claims, I don't think we can demand that all must meet the criteria for evidence that science uses.

In the arena of religion in particular, people often make tentative claims that are not absolute, or black and white, and are based on personal, subjective feelings or experience. I think that is fair enough, myself.

If we are talking personal, subjective feelings or experience then I have no problem with that. Obviously we all have that. But there is no expectation (well, there should not be) that others should accept such as objectively true, without supporting evidence. My head is no doubt full of all sorts of nonsense but I keep it to myself unless asked because I know I cannot support it. I have no issue with the subjective internal lives of others, what I object to is if there are real world (negative) consequences.

When it comes to the question of the existence of God, it seems to me only a fool would make a black and white claim that there definitely is, or definitely is not, a God. It is one of the oldest chestnuts in philosophy that this can never be settled.

All things considered, imo, there is no god of any flavour. But it's a non-issue in my life, I'm a non-theist, not an atheist. I'm only responding to such OPs because the relentless "badgering" of others occasionally stirs me to post once or twice every now and then.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

To sway from the topic slightly - I'd say whether or not you even need to prove it depends much on the board you're posting in.

If you post in Debates, it's like you blind agree to have a debate - in which case, by making the opening post, it'd be very hard not to be the one to have to prove your assertions with the focus being on the OP.

If you make the post in Journals, I find that usually, people just read what you have to say. The worse that often happens is that people might find your ideas a bit farfetched and give you an "Optimistic" rating.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I believe Allah exist, its a personal belief i hold, but can you disprove my belief?

I would be crazy if I said I can.
But what I might be able to do is prove that some of your beliefs are inconsistent and contradict each other. If I could do that, I would not have proven that Allah does not exist, but I would have proven that you do not understand

• either the law of non-contradiction,
• or what you believe.