Who is the one who must "prove"

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

This sounds like a self-fulling prophecy, if that's the right word. I'm sure you already knew nonbelievers can't prove disbelief (and I'm not sure the intent behind asking them to given the question has been answered many times). It's almost as if you already knew and it just confirms your belief in god rather than learning something new from the discussion (and adding more to it).

Amanaki it won't happen because you already have expectations of what disbelievers will say without thinking through what is being said.

You need to go beyond "disbelievers vs. believers" and see new perspectives that you don't disagree with. You can ask all the disbelievers questions about belief, faith, god, creation, so have you all day and night but unless you want to learn something new, your answers will already be confirmed beforehand, and once it's repeated, then you give up a cause that would have been deeper if you didn't already have pre-expectations of answers.

 

[Heyo]

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

The burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim. (I think that has been said multiple times now. I have only read the first page of answers.)

But why is that? It is because the one making the claim is asking the interlocutor to grant him credulity. And only the interlocutor is in the position to grant it.

That puts the proselytiser in the awkward position to always have to work and with little chance of success. No wonder many believers try to reverse the burden of proof.

And I think that (colloquial) atheists are a bit lazy in that regard. They are retreating to their "I don't have to prove anything and I don't believe your claim" (non-)position. That's one reason why I'm an Agnostic. I do have a position. I do make a claim and I'm willing to defend it.

 

[Yazata]

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

Once again, the word 'disprove' is being misused. Proofs only exist in mathematics and logic. The idea isn't all that applicable to areas like religion, where there are all kinds of hidden assumptions, unstated premises and questions of interpretation.

Trying to concoct a proof can be helpful though, if it reveals that a proof of God (or whatever it is) will only be valid if we accept A, B and C.

As for me, I think that it's rather trivial to concoct a proof of the existence of God, provided that a handful of premises are accepted that many people wouldn't find all that objectionable.

1. The universe exists. (seemingly self-evident)

2. For every x, if x exists, then a sufficient explanation exists for why x exists (Principle of Sufficient Reason.)

3. God is the universe's sufficient explanation (by definition from natural theology)

4. A sufficient explanation for the universe exists (from 1 and 2)

5. God exists (from 3 and 4)

I'm sure that one can concoct proofs of the nonexistence of God, defined in particular ways, just as easily.

The problem of evil seems to suggest that a particular set of divine attributes is internally inconsistent. One could argue that the idea of an omnipotent God is likewise incoherent. (Can God invent a task too difficult for God to accomplish? Whether we answer yes or no, the omnipotence assumption would seem to be contradicted.)

The value in these little philosophical exercises is that they help reveal the logical consequences of thinking about things in particular ways.

But they aren't likely to win the day for either atheism or theism. Too many variables, too many assumptions and too much vagueness about too much.

 

[Spirit of Light]

There isn't? How do you know?

Nobody has done it yet

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nobody has done it yet

So anything that hasn't happened yet is impossible?

(And from my perspective, it has happened)

Edit: how do you know nobody has done it yet?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Well, since I don't believe in proof or evidence like most people as I am a strong skeptic, it is relevant. Any God of the version of a reality creator is a subset of what reality real is. Since per cognitive relativism there apparently is no positive evidence/proof for any positive claim of what reality really is, it is meaningless to do both as with proof/evidence for reality real is or is not.

In other words your different levels of reality are apparently all the same. They are all belief systems. In practice it boils down to whether you accept that or believe you have proof/evidence or what not.

 

[Yazata]

Nobody has done it yet

Done what?

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.

That wasn't what your OP seemed to be about. It seemed to be about so-called 'burden of proof'.

I don't share your belief, at least not exactly. Before I can argue against your belief, you would need to spell out your reasons for holding it a little better. Your statement of belief is just too indistinct to grapple with.

Without purporting to put words in your mouth, I'll argue instead against myself. My little proof of the existence of God up above provides points where a counter argument might get leverage. It would seem to me to depend on the truth of three propositions,

1. The universe exists. (seemingly self-evident)

Except that one might want to argue that 'exist' is a word that applies to particular things within reality but not to reality as a whole.

2. For every x, if x exists, then a sufficient explanation exists for why x exists (Principle of Sufficient Reason.)

Except that some things/events might lack a reason or an explanation. The assumption that it can't happen is just an assumption, even if science arguably depends on it.

3. God is the universe's sufficient explanation (by definition from natural theology)

Which depends on a particular Greek inspired tradition of philosophical theology. It seemingly runs counter to other tendencies in philosophical theology such a apophaticism.

My own objection to my own little proof revolves around the third premise. The problem is that all it delivers in the conclusion is a metaphysical function, namely whatever explains reality and reality's rather arbitrary nature. It doesn't supply us with a God that's a suitable object of religious emotion and worship.

All that this kind of argument justifies us in saying is that the universe has an unknown explanation for why it exists at all. Which may or may not be true (depending mostly on what we make of the Principle of Sufficient Reason). Even if we accept premise 3 and choose to call the unknown explanation 'God', it's still something very austere conceptually and exceedingly remote from the deities that the Bible, Quran or Gita supposedly reveal.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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

No body has to prove or disprove anything to anybody about their belief or disbelief.
We live in a time, where everyone is literate and has access to books and information. Thus everyone is able to invetigate, learn, and judge independently whether or not a belief is true or false. No body is responsible to prove or disprove anything to anyone. Rather it is the duty of each individual to do a fair investigation, free from all biases, judging independently about a religion, God or any other beliefs. In another words, in my view, it is just the wrong way to argue for the purpose of proof or disproving anyone's belief! These arguments are just as fighting among beasts of the jungle for the purpose of defeating another one. Far from the station of human to act this way, trying to hurt feelings of others. Rather all, should respect each others beliefs, even if they do not share that belief. If I argue with you and win, I had hurt your feelings, as you would feel defeated. And should you win against me, I would feel heartbroken. So, what good is in this? What benefit does it have?
When two people argue about their beliefs, both are wrong!

 

[Secret Chief]

I think that has been said multiple times now. I have only read the first page of answers.

It has.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Done what?



That wasn't what your OP seemed to be about. It seemed to be about so-called 'burden of proof'.

I don't share your belief, at least not exactly. Before I can argue against your belief, you would need to spell out your reasons for holding it a little better. Your statement of belief is just too indistinct to grapple with.

Without purporting to put words in your mouth, I'll argue instead against myself. My little proof of the existence of God up above provides points where a counter argument might get leverage. It would seem to me to depend on the truth of three propositions,

1. The universe exists. (seemingly self-evident)

Except that one might want to argue that 'exist' is a word that applies to particular things within reality but not to reality as a whole.

2. For every x, if x exists, then a sufficient explanation exists for why x exists (Principle of Sufficient Reason.)

Except that some things/events might lack a reason or an explanation. The assumption that it can't happen is just an assumption, even if science arguably depends on it.

3. God is the universe's sufficient explanation (by definition from natural theology)

Which depends on a particular Greek inspired tradition of philosophical theology. It seemingly runs counter to other tendencies in philosophical theology such a apophaticism.

My own objection to my own little proof revolves around the third premise. The problem is that all it delivers in the conclusion is a metaphysical function, namely whatever explains reality and reality's rather arbitrary nature. It doesn't supply us with a God that's a suitable object of religious emotion and worship.

All that this kind of argument justifies us in saying is that the universe has an unknown explanation for why it exists at all. Which may or may not be true (depending mostly on what we make of the Principle of Sufficient Reason). Even if we accept premise 3 and choose to call the unknown explanation 'God', it's still something very austere conceptually and exceedingly remote from the deities that the Bible, Quran or Gita supposedly reveal.

Look like we have a different way to look at it, for me the Quran explain it in a very good way that give me the belief the teaching is correct.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Well, since I don't believe in proof or evidence like most people as I am a strong skeptic, it is relevant.

Apparently, your strong skepticism isn't quite as strong as you would have me believe. You still manage to have some belief that your belief is relevant.

 

[Koldo]

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.

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.

I am going to disagree with you here. We wouldn't call a fool a person that claims that Pegasus doesn't exist. I don't see why claiming that God doesn't exist is any different.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Apparently, your strong skepticism isn't quite as strong as you would have me believe. You still manage to have some belief that your belief is relevant.

Correct, that is a part of my psychology that I apparently can't avoid. I have noticed it myself. The joke about relevance though is that it is subjective and without proof or evidence.
I learned it by a follow skeptic. He taught me that there are no strong objective claims possible about reality as such. If you try yourself you will find, that if you test what you believe as to whether it is objective or subjective, it always end up being subjective in practice. I do believe in objective reality, but that is a subjective belief.
In other words objective reality in itself is there, but it is empty of what it really is in practice. It is connected to the problem of what a thing is in itself, if you only have your subjective experience of it. i.e. epistemological solipsism.

Now you can believe as you like as it will work for you. The same goes for me. The problem is that I know in practice of no proof/evidence what reality really is. So if you demand proof/evidence for what I believe, I can't give it to you. Nor have I come across anybody else, who can. They all retreat down to that it subjectively first person makes sense. That is regardless of religion or not and includes me.

So if we are to agree, we in effect have to share the same beliefs or disagree because we believe differently. That is where relevance kicks in. Can we agree on what is relevant?

 

[Koldo]

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

It works both ways. Whoever makes the claim should bear its' burden.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am going to disagree with you here. We wouldn't call a fool a person that claims that Pegasus doesn't exist. I don't see why claiming that God doesn't exist is any different.

Could you explain that differently?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It works both ways. Whoever makes the claim should bear its' burden.

Now bear the burden of your claim and prove that we ought to have proof of claims, because your claim according to itself requires proof.

 

[Koldo]

Could you explain that differently?

Sure. I consider the existence of God as far-fetched as the existence of Pegasus. Therefore, considering I wouldn't call someone a fool for saying that Pegasus doesn't exist, I find it improper to call someone a fool for saying that God doesn't exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure. I consider the existence of God as far-fetched as the existence of Pegasus. Therefore, considering I wouldn't call someone a fool for saying that Pegasus doesn't exist, I find it improper to call someone a fool for saying that God doesn't exist.

I agree. I wouldn't call somebody a fool for saying that God doesn't exist. Now for claiming that it is with evidence or proof/truth is another matter. But I hold the same consideration for claiming that God exists.

 

[Koldo]

Now bear the burden of your claim and prove that we ought to have proof of claims, because your claim according to itself requires proof.

It is a matter of praticality.
I am talking about claims that have the intent to convince others here. If you intend to convince others, you should give them a reason to do so, particularly if they see no reason, prima facie, to believe in your claim. That's what bearing the burden of proof consists of.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Can we agree on what is relevant?

Can we, i.e. you and I, here in RF? At this moment, in this space, you're going to have to tell me: "what's in it for me?" If what you tell me is in it for me is more attractive than what I've seen so far, maybe. If not, then I think it's unlikely that we'll agree on what is relevant.