Who is the one who must "prove"

[Unveiled Artist]

I would say the universe and earth should be evidence enough that God exist, i can not in my wildest dreams understand how something so complicated as the universe can just create it self from nothing at all, to me it has to be something higher being who started it.

That is only my belief. What others believe is up to them.

The question wouldn't make sense if you're asking how people can prove disbelief. Usually, we need facts to acertain what may or may not exist.

The thing is, when you state what you believe and we ask about it or challenge it, you go silent. What drawn you to the conclusion god created the world?

Intuition?
Emotions?

It's hard to answer your OP if you deflect the challenge away from yourself to others.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

If one makes a claim of no consequence, one
could give reasons. But that's optional.
This would apply to individual religious practice.

If one makes a claim of great consequence,
then reasons should be given.
This would apply to imposing religious based
practices upon the unwilling.

 

[ChristineM]

It is my personal belief it is how i understand it to be.

So by that standard whatever people believe is their personal belief so they can claim whatever they want, no questions asked.

I eagerly await the anarchy in science

 

[Spirit of Light]

The question wouldn't make sense if you're asking how people can prove disbelief. Usually, we need facts to acertain what may or may not exist.

The thing is, when you state what you believe and we ask about it or challenge it, you go silent. What drawn you to the conclusion god created the world?

Intuition?
Emotions?

It's hard to answer your OP if you deflect the challenge away from yourself to others.

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.

 

[Spirit of Light]

So by that standard whatever people believe is their personal belief so they can claim whatever they want, no questions asked.

I eagerly await the anarchy in science

A muslim will use the Qur'an to strenghten his or her belief.
A Christian will use the bible to strenghten his or her belief

And so on.

Non believers will use science to exolain existence. Nothing wrong in that.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

You op was badly worded then

 

[ChristineM]

A muslim will use the Qur'an to strenghten his or her belief.
A Christian will use the bible to strenghten his or her belief

And so on.

Non believers will use science to exolain existence. Nothing wrong in that.

But that was not the whole point of the op. The op asked who provides the evidence

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not speak for other belief anymore for me now, Islam is right for me, that is what i wish to practice.

A minute ago, you weren't even talking for Islam.

 

[Spirit of Light]

You op was badly worded then

Maybe

 

[Spirit of Light]

A minute ago, you weren't even talking for Islam.

Since i converted to Islam that will be my focus from now. Other membets will speak for their beliefs

 

[Spirit of Light]

But that was not the whole point of the op. The op asked who provides the evidence

Yes, because non believers always ask for evidence, but never put forth evidence for absense of God.
But i am not mocking non believers, i only ask question

 

[SalixIncendium]

Other membets will speak for their beliefs

I probably won't.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I probably won't.

That is your choice

 

[Terry Sampson]

but you can't make everything one time, space and sense.

Apparently, that doesn't prevent you from trying, eh? Amanaki's OP raised an issue, which for him, during one period of time (i.e. a subset of infinite time a.k.a. Absolute Time) in a one three-dimensional locus (i.e. a subset of infinite space a.k.a. Absolute Space), makes sense: which issue is that anyone who says 'Allah does not exist' should be able to prove that claim. And you have, IMO, turned his OP into a discussion of Paraconsistent Logic, which--although PL is interesting--seems to me to be a tad-bit off-topic and at least two planes above Amanaki's level of reality. P.L. and models of reality or non-reality merit their own thread, IMO.

 

[Yazata]

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.

A question one might ask there is what force the word 'must' has in those sentences. What if you don't "prove" (that word is being misused) that your God exists? What's the downside to that? What are the repercussions?

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?

I think that it's a rhetorical truism that if A wants to convince B of something, then A bears the burden of convincing B to accept it. It would seem to work both ways, there's no such thing as a "Get out of thinking free" card that's issued only to atheists.

So what ensues if you violate the 'must' in the sentences above and fail to "prove" that your God exists?

Nothing much, merely that the atheist will continue on in his or her atheism and won't join you in believing in your God.

And in the reverse case, what happens if the atheist fails to "prove" that your God doesn't exist? Only that you will fail to be convinced to stop believing in your God.

That's all it is.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, because non believers always ask for evidence, but never put forth evidence for absense of God.
But i am not mocking non believers, i only ask question

Been there, you ignore the answers

It s NOT up to a non believer to offer evidence of your belief. It is YOUR belief, not theirs.

Do you want to provide evidence for the absence of leprechauns? Pink unicorns? The oh god of hangovers. No, because you dont believe in them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, because non believers always ask for evidence, but never put forth evidence for absense of God.

I've seen people put forward evidence for the non-existence of God many times.

It's just that there are many versions of God, so the evidence against God varies depending which version of God we're talking about.

For instance, the Problem of Evil is an argument that a particular (but popular) version of God does not exist.

Edit: a God that's impossible to prove as false is an irrelevant God that no religion actually believes in.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Been there, you ignore the answers

It s NOT up to a non believer to offer evidence of your belief. It is YOUR belief, not theirs.

Do you want to provide evidence for the absence of leprechauns? Pink unicorns? The oh god of hangovers. No, because you dont believe in them.

Now the fun answers starts to come, because there is no way to disprove God. There will be the try to blame the answer given.

As i said my belief in Ais my personal belief, i have no need to prove to others.if others dont want or can not believe, that is their choice. I have no wish to damage atheists dis beluef. All i did was ask a question to have a discussion.
I do not take any of the comments personal. I just enjoy discussion

 

[ChristineM]

Now the fun answers starts to come, because there is no way to disprove God. There will be the try to blame the answer given.

As i said my belief in Ais my personal belief, i have no need to prove to others.if others dont want or can not believe, that is their choice. I have no wish to damage atheists dis beluef. All i did was ask a question to have a discussion.
I do not take any of the comments personal. I just enjoy discussion

You created the OP, dont try putting your ignoring answers on me.

There are loads of ways to disprove aspects of any claimed god, as you well know (or knew) because i have listed a few of them previously. That you ignore them is not my problem.

So why did you post the OP?

BTW, You make it personal when you say it is your personal belief

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now the fun answers starts to come, because there is no way to disprove God.

There isn't? How do you know?