Who is the one who must "prove"

[mikkel_the_dane]

The burden of proof is *always* on the one making the existence claim.

...

So prove that there is such a thing as existence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

True. Subjective or objective, why should I believe in something of which I do not see any evidence?

Because there is no evidence of objective reality in itself. Objective is a variant of a for of subjective belief how strange it might sound.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have no reason to try convince you one way or the other, you are free to believe what you want. I do not say my belief is correct for others, its correct for me.

If that's your postition now, great. Back when you were arguing against same-sex marriage, for conversion therapy, and against trans people's rights, you had the burden to support your arguments.

Edit: in any case, I was only using you as an example. Anyone who's spent more than 5 minutes on RF can point to several examples of people trying to convince others of something based on the tenets of their religion. These people have the burden to demonstrate that those tenets are true.

When it come to LGBTQ i can only say it is not for me, and yes of those religions i have practiced in my life it is said it is immoral to practice LGBTQ if you want to practice religion, i have no reason to say it is wrong to be born Gay or Lesbian or any of the LGBTQ and practice it if one are non believer, but in a religioues setting one can not practice both ( my understanding)

Again: I can't say what your personal beliefs are now, but even if those beliefs have changed, you shared your experience of being asked to support your beliefs many times; I'm sharing my experience of seeing many times when asking you to support your beliefs was entirely justified.

If you've grown beyond those positions, great. I'm not trying to say you aren't allowed to change your mind, but you're the one who brought up the past in your OP.

But i do not want to harm anyonwe who are LGBTQ.

... any more. I hope.

 

[Secret Chief]

The wisdom that opens up to someonecwho deeply practice a religioues teaching is the " proof" a religioues person need to understand that God is real.

For a person who do not devote his/her life to religioues practice will not experience God like a religioues person do. So that part can not be proven except for those who actually do the practice (in my understanding)

I agree.

 

[epronovost]

I don't know what existence and non-existence are, since they are beliefs without evidence and I don't believe in them. Give evidence for existence and I will listen.

Really? You don't know what existence and non-existence are? How are you still alive if you can't make the difference between imaginary food, real food and non-edible material? That sounds like a lie. You know the difference. You simply want to trap someone in the demarcation problem to win an argument.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

But if a non believer want to prove that God does not exist.

Simple.

1. The concept of God originates from the theist. The theist is asserting the existence of a God and asking for faith in a founder or a book.
2. The atheist disagrees with this assertion due to lack of evidence.

#1 *always* happens before #2. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on the theist.

This is simple logic. The person who asserts the reality of Santa Claus or aliens or mermaids has to prove his claims.

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?

Is this different for believers?

There is no shortage of Gurus in India who claim to be God. They have managed to acquire millions of followers who believe they are in the presence of divinity.

So, - as a believer - are you ready to believe these Gurus when they claim they are God?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Really? You don't know what existence and non-existence are? How are you still alive if you can't make the difference between imaginary food, real food and non-edible material? That sounds like a lie. You know the difference. You simply want to trap someone in the demarcation problem to win an argument.

I don't know anything. I am a strong skeptic. Apparently I have beliefs, which seems to work, but I have no evidence or proof.

I.e. if you use some version of JTB for knowledge, then nobody have solved that. In other words all claims of knowledge hits the problem of epistemological solipsism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Simple.

1. The concept of God originates from the theist. The theist is asserting the existence of a God and asking for faith in a founder or a book.
2. The atheist disagrees with this assertion due to lack of evidence.

#1 *always* happens before #2. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on the theist.

This is simple logic. The person who asserts the reality of Santa Claus or aliens or mermaids has to prove his claims.



Is this different for believers?

There is no shortage of Gurus in India who claim to be God. They have managed to acquire millions of followers who believe they are in the presence of divinity.

So, - as a believer - are you ready to believe these Gurus when they claim they are God?

Please explain how your kind of evidence must apply to all humans.

 

[Spirit of Light]

[QUOTE="Amanaki, post: 6824913, member: 65429"...if you want to practice religion, ...

You use a narrow version of religion as far as I can tell.[/QUOTE]
I might have a different view of what religioues practice is yes.
Belief in it self without practicing the teaching and do ecerything one can to become better as religioues hunan being is in my understanding not fully religioues practice.

Others may see it different then me

 

[SalixIncendium]

**MOD POST**

THIS IS INTERFAITH DISCUSSION, A NON-DEBATE FORUM.

DEBATE POSTS OR POSTS INCITING DEBATE ARE SUBJECT TO MODERATION UNDER RULE 10.​

 

[Spirit of Light]

If that's your postition now, great. Back when you were arguing against same-sex marriage, for conversion therapy, and against trans people's rights, you had the burden to support your arguments.

Edit: in any case, I was only using you as an example. Anyone who's spent more than 5 minutes on RF can point to several examples of people trying to convince others of something based on the tenets of their religion. These people have the burden to demonstrate that those tenets are true.


Again: I can't say what your personal beliefs are now, but even if those beliefs have changed, you shared your experience of being asked to support your beliefs many times; I'm sharing my experience of seeing many times when asking you to support your beliefs was entirely justified.

If you've grown beyond those positions, great. I'm not trying to say you aren't allowed to change your mind, but you're the one who brought up the past in your OP.


... any more. I hope.

After i converted to Islam my views have calmed a lot, and i do not judge people the way i used to do before, Islam has changed me a lot already.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

After i converted to Islam my views have calmed a lot, and i do not judge people the way i used to do before, Islam has changed me a lot already.

That's great. If Islam is working for you, I'm happy for you.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, and several points of mine that you jumped over: would you agree that it's a tenet of Islam that the Quran is reliable?

Would you agree that it's a tenet of Islam that salat is necessary?

If so, like I pointed out earlier, these tenets are false until it has been established that the Quran came from God (which itself depends on establishing that God exists at all).

These are just a could of examples. Most religions have similar things going on.

So in this position of "I can't prove my beliefs are true, but you can't prove that they're false," large chunks of most religions end up being wrong.

 

[Spirit of Light]

That's great. If Islam is working for you, I'm happy for you.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, and several points of mine that you jumped over: would you agree that it's a tenet of Islam that the Quran is reliable?

Would you agree that it's a tenet of Islam that salat is necessary?

If so, like I pointed out earlier, these tenets are false until it has been established that the Quran came from God (which itself depends on establishing that God exists at all).

These are just a could of examples. Most religions have similar things going on.

So in this position of "I can't prove my beliefs are true, but you can't prove that they're false," large chunks of most religions end up being wrong.

Yes the Holy Qur'an is from Allah, and salat or prayer in islam is very important in the practice.
Persona i do not see religion as false

 

[ChristineM]

But it is the non believer who claim God do not exist. Prove it

It is the believer making the claim that their god exists who should justify their claim

The none beliver simply does not believe the unverified claim of the believer.

The non believer is not making claims about any gods

Look at it from your point of view
As a believer in the abrahamic god, more precisely allah , you are in precisely the same situation when discussing any of the thousands of gods that are believed in or have been believed in by other people. Do you think you need to provide evidence that none of those gods exist?

 

[Twilight Hue]

The initial assertion came from God. "Here I am and I made you and everything" The story is that the first people believed in God because they experienced God. It was after that that people started to doubt the stories passed down to them from their ancestors and added to them and even dismissed the whole God/s thing.

Well that's another assertion made first. It stands to reason that the person making it must also confirm it if there is any hope of making past the assertion.

 

[epronovost]

I don't know anything. I am a strong skeptic. Apparently I have beliefs, which seems to work, but I have no evidence or proof.

So what led you do those beliefs if you have no evidence or proof?

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Well that would still require producing the teapot. ;0]

I can easily prove there is no teapot if there is actually nothing there. That is hard science, not philosophy.

Philosophy is assuming there could be a tea pot so it must therefore be there somewhere. . If we keep looking hard enough.....keep looking... searchin.. .

 

[Spirit of Light]

It is the believer making the claim that their god exists who should justify their claim

The none beliver simply does not believe the unverified claim of the believer.

The non believer is not making claims about any gods

Look at it from your point of view
As a believer in the abrahamic god, more precisely allah , you are in precisely the same situation when discussing any of the thousands of gods that are believed in or have been believed in by other people. Do you think you need to provide evidence that none of those gods exist?

Personally Allah is the God who are creator according to islam.
If other people want to follow or believe in other Gods, that is up to them, not to me
They do not need to prove to me that their belief is right for them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes the Holy Qur'an is from Allah, and salat or prayer in islam is very important in the practice.
Persona i do not see religion as false

If we weren't sure that the Quran was from God, would we be able to rely on it?

If we weren't sure whether God commanded his followers to pray, would we be required to do it?

 

[Onoma]

Who ?

Idk, but probably going to destroy anything people consider truth