Why does the believer in God's existence have the burden of proof?

[leibowde84]

So basically you atheists all get off by claiming anyone that has the slightest doubt if there is a God is by definition an atheist. OK so Atheists, by this definition are the majority and hence the most powerful force in the Universe, well done, end match.

I'm not an atheist. I believe in God. I just don't like it when people try to assume things that aren't true about any group of people. Atheism is being "without" theism. So, anyone who is not a theist is an a-theist. That is why the requirement to be an atheist is so miniscule. It is an extremely general term, just like theism, which includes anyone who believes in any god or gods.

 

[leibowde84]

So basically you atheists all get off by claiming anyone that has the slightest doubt if there is a God is by definition an atheist. OK so Atheists, by this definition are the majority and hence the most powerful force in the Universe, well done, end match.

You erroneously equate it with a belief system or church, but it isn't. It is merely the lack of belief, which is why there are a plethora of subcategories.

 

[Robert William]

You are assuming that the Bible is accurate and divinely inspired. It is pretty disrespectful to spew Bible verses when it is obvious that, if the Bible were accurate, we wouldn't be having this debate. You can't enter a debate about belief in the existence of God with the assumption that the Bible is accurate. It is employing nothing but circular reasoning.

It's very disrespectful to not back up your mouth with scriptures, because if you don't your just another one of trillions of opinions, in other words, mass confusion.

 

[leibowde84]

It's very disrespectful to not back up your mouth with scriptures, because if you don't your just another one of trillions of opinions, in other words, mass confusion.

How so? Many don't give the "scriptures" you cite any credence at all. So, how does quoting scripture present them with any kind of argument whatsoever. You are merely reiterating the claims of those men who wrote the Bible. You can't expect anyone to believe that the Bible is an accurate representation of God's will.

How, specifically, does quoting scripture strengthen your argument that what scripture states is accurate? You don't see the clear presence of circular reasoning?

 

[leibowde84]

It's very disrespectful to not back up your mouth with scriptures, because if you don't your just another one of trillions of opinions, in other words, mass confusion.

How so? Many don't give the "scriptures" you cite any credence at all. So, how does quoting scripture present them with any kind of argument whatsoever. You are merely reiterating the claims of those men who wrote the Bible. You can't expect anyone to believe that the Bible is an accurate representation of God's will.

How, specifically, does quoting scripture strengthen your argument that what scripture states is accurate? You don't see the clear presence of circular reasoning?

 

[leibowde84]

It's very disrespectful to not back up your mouth with scriptures, because if you don't your just another one of trillions of opinions, in other words, mass confusion.

But, your belief that the Bible is the word of God is subjective. I think that people on this site are interested in what you think, not what the various authors of Scripture claim.

 

[Fraleyight]

But it is a claim to not having knowledge, Therefore choosing not taking a side because of a lack of knowledge. You can argue against what I'm saying it implies but It seems to me to be the opposite of what you think it means.

Ok, I could have used a better choice of words. I mean its a claim "about" knowledge. It is saying "I don't know" you can not know something in believe, you can know something and choose not to believe it, you can not know and not believe and you can know and believe. That is why I am saying knowledge is a subset of belief and saying "I don't know" does not tell us if you believe.

 

[leibowde84]

Ok, I could have used a better choice of words. I mean its a claim "about" knowledge. It is saying "I don't know" you can not know something in believe, you can know something and choose not to believe it, you can not know and not believe and you can know and believe. That is why I am saying knowledge is a subset of belief and saying "I don't know" does not tell us if you believe.

Does anyone really "know" anything about God, though. I feel like any claim of "knowledge" is merely a strongly held belief in actuality.

 

[Fraleyight]

Does anyone really "know" anything about God, though. I feel like any claim of "knowledge" is merely a strongly held belief in actuality.

I agree with you. This isn't really about what people actually know though. It is about what they "claim to know".

 

[leibowde84]

I agree with you. This isn't really about what people actually know though. It is about what they "claim to know".

"Know nothing know it all's" I guess, right?

 

[Fraleyight]

"Know nothing know it all's" I guess, right?

I think the problem lies in how they think knowledge is obtained. I think some people think knowledge can be obtained by "feeling something is true" I will fundamentally disagree with that assertion. I do not think anyone can independently claim to know anything without verification from other people. Our own senses and feelings often play tricks on us.

 

[Nakosis]

Ok, I could have used a better choice of words. I mean its a claim "about" knowledge. It is saying "I don't know" you can not know something in believe, you can know something and choose not to believe it, you can not know and not believe and you can know and believe. That is why I am saying knowledge is a subset of belief and saying "I don't know" does not tell us if you believe.

Yes, they are claiming a lack of knowledge about God. However knowledge about say, Christianity, is not really the same as knowledge about God. It's a claim about God. They can know about the claim but perhaps not see that as knowledge. If they do see it as knowledge about God then they are kind of stuck with having a belief about God.

I would assume then they don't see Christianity as being knowledge about God, just a claim.

I could claim to know about life on the darkside of the moon. The claim is not necessarily knowledge. It could just be a claim. They could have knowledge of my claim but that doesn't mean they have actual knowledge of life on the darkside of the moon.

 

[Fraleyight]

Yes, they are claiming a lack of knowledge about God. However knowledge about say, Christianity, is not really the same as knowledge about God. It's a claim about God. They can know about the claim but perhaps not see that as knowledge. If they do see it as knowledge about God then they are kind of stuck with having a belief about God.

I would assume then they don't see Christianity as being knowledge about God, just a claim.

I could claim to know about life on the darkside of the moon. The claim is not necessarily knowledge. It could just be a claim. They could have knowledge of my claim but that doesn't mean they have actual knowledge of life on the darkside of the moon.

Yes, but they can also claim to not know and still believe. For example, many people do not know if aliens exist but many people believe they do.

You can also know something but choose not to believe it. For example, many people know racism exists but choose not to believe it does.

 

[Pudding]

When it comes to believing in a spiritual existence.....all you can do is reason toward it.

If you chose to reason away from it.....It might do the same in return.

I believe in cause and effect.

When it comes to believing in the spiritual existence of many thousands of different religion's different Gods .....all we can do is reason toward all of them?

If we chose to reason away from all of them.....they might do the same in return?

You must be reason toward all of those thousands of different religion's different Gods's existence then?
You must be believe in all of those thousands of different religion's different Gods's existence then?

I say, if you dare reason away from any one of those different Gods's existence, i'll then use your illogical argument to regard you as an irrational and unreasonable non-believer to those Gods that you disbelieve in.

If you say that you've some special reason or condition to find out that which religion's God is the one true God, then please understand that i may disagree with your reason or condition, that is just your personnal opinion that you're right about what you've claims. I'll only follow what i think is convince to me.

 

[Thief]

Ok, but since we do not know that there was "nothing" before the big bang, and, further, even if there was, "nothing" does not mean an absence of anything scientifically, there is no reason to think that the "cause" you point to must be supernatural or even more specifically God. That is what I mean by you jumping to a conclusion that fits your previously held beliefs. In other words, a "confirmation bias".

It seems you are confusing what I know.....with what I can be sure of.

 

[Thief]

Non belief is just agnosticism, stating God does not exist is a theory.

and some.....wishful thinking

 

[Quagmire]

Why does the believer in God's existence have the burden of proof?

.

Because they were foolish enough to get into a debate about it on the internet.

 

[Thief]

and what fool stands before congregation?...pronouncing there is no God....

sorry.....it was there....

 

[Thief]

Every prayer that is not responded to is no better or worse than if you had never prayed, every prayer that is answered is a bonus.

yeah....

One farmer will pray for rain and the neighbor will pray for sunshine.....

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

Why does the believer in God's existence have the burden of proof?

The problem is that the skeptic and/or atheist requires scientific evidence for God's existence. But what he or she fails to understands is that belief in God's existence is presented as a metaphysical belief, not as a scientific fact.

Well, atheists and agnostics refuse to ask certain questions in the scientific process because to them these questions are unscientific. These people accept psychology, which literally means the study of the soul, however they refuse to acknowledge any physician of the soul. Atheists and agnostics are problem solvers, however, they don't actually believe any problem is solved, therefore, they don't believe in any actual problem solver. They think this world is ill will because it, the world, was created out of nothing by nothing. They're illogical as problem solvers and scientists.