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

[leibowde84]

Faith entails belief.



If it is presented as a belief, then it doesn't require proof.

Beliefs still demand reasoning behind them, or "proof". You are incorrect, sir. They don't have to be "proven" to any degree, as that would no longer be "belief", but there should be sufficient reasoning that causes one to "believe" in anything. Beyond that, it would merely be "blind faith", which is more dangerous than anything.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Faith entails belief.



If it is presented as a belief, then it doesn't require proof.

Rational people seek to justify their beliefs, and set those beliefs aside if they can't be justified.

Strictly speaking, I suppose that rationality is optional, but it's a really good idea, IMO.

 

[Gambit]

I find unsubstantiated beliefs very unsatisfying, but each to their own.

Everyone has a metaphysical belief on what constitutes ultimate reality. So, in this sense, an "atheist materialist" is just as much of a believer as a "theistic spiritualist."

 

[Lyndon]

Atheism requires just as much belief and faith as Theism, only agnosticism can claim to require less belief and faith.

Atheists claim to be more rational, but if God exists, then disbelief in God isn't so rational at all, kind of like 300 years ago calling flat earth rational when it could not be proven that the earth revolves around the sun.

 

[George-ananda]

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

We need to drop the word 'proof' from these discussions. The question comes down to what is the most reasonable position based on all evidence and argumentation.

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.

I agree as I believe God is so fully integrated as the universe that there is nothing separate to detect as 'God'. It becomes a philosophical position not a scientific position.

 

[Gambit]

Someone can believe what ever they want, the burden of proof is on whoever is trying to prove or disprove something, whether they are a believer or non believer.

Agreed.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Only if you want to convince someone else of your belief.

I don't ask or expect anyone else to accept my beliefs. I sometimes talk about them and give my reasons, but the reality is I don't have proof to provide.

My evidence is my experience. I don't have a process to validate that experience to someone else. If they have a common experience, then we have something to share, not prove.

So if you don't have a common experience and you want to convince another person of the truth of your experience, you got to provide them with some proof. Proof is evidence they can validate or at least is validated by someone they happen to trust.

Even biblical prophets like Moses had to provide proof right?

 

[leibowde84]

Atheism requires just as much belief and faith as Theism, only agnosticism can claim to require less belief and faith.

Atheists claim to be more rational, but if God exists, then disbelief in God isn't so rational at all, kind of like 300 years ago calling flat earth rational when it could not be proven that the earth revolves around the sun.

All "agnostics" are "atheists", by definition, as all that is required is "a lack of belief in the existence of God" to rightly be classified as an "atheist". "Agnosticism" is a subcategory of "atheism", as "deism" is a subcategory of "theism".

 

[Lyndon]

Sorry but a lot of agnostics might disagree with you. Agnosticism implies a lack of belief one way or the other. A true agnostic is skeptical of both believers and non believers.

 

[Koldo]

Sorry but a lot of agnostics might disagree with you.

That's correct. There are agnostic theists.

Agnosticism implies a lack of belief one way or the other. A true agnostic is skeptical of both believers and non believers.

An atheist doesn't need to actively believe that a god doesn't exist to be an atheist. Therefore, this agnostic would still be an atheist. If we had a scale where the number 0 represents the lack of belief in one way or the other and any negative number represents a stronger and stronger disbelief as numbers go by, then this agnosticism would be ( in this sense ) represented by the number 0, while atheism would be represented by 0 and all numbers below 0.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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

Because...

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• "In epistemology, the burden of proof or onus probandi is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position."

• "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim."
• "... shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition is not valid reasoning."
  
• "... the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards.
  
• "Once participants in discourse establish common assumptions, the mechanism of burden of proof helps to ensure that all parties contribute productively, using relevant arguments."

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

If you are not arguing that your god exists then you have no burden to prove anything. But if you do then yes you do. I can't think of an instance where you would ever have to prove your beliefs to anyone unless you were arguing them.

 

[Lyndon]

Because...

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• "In epistemology, the burden of proof or onus probandi is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position."

• "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim."
• "... shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition is not valid reasoning."
  
• "... the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards.
  
• "Once participants in discourse establish common assumptions, the mechanism of burden of proof helps to ensure that all parties contribute productively, using relevant arguments."

So you are contradicting yourself by claiming the person asserting a claim that there is no God has no burden of proof on their claim???

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheism requires just as much belief and faith as Theism, only agnosticism can claim to require less belief and faith.

Quite on the contrary actually. Agnosticism is ultimately a position of faith (in that it is impossible to know whether there is a deity), while atheism is simple pragmatism when faced with lack of convincing evidence.

Atheists claim to be more rational, but if God exists, then disbelief in God isn't so rational at all, kind of like 300 years ago calling flat earth rational when it could not be proven that the earth revolves around the sun.

That makes no sense, Lyndon. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence.

 

[LuisDantas]

All "agnostics" are "atheists", by definition, as all that is required is "a lack of belief in the existence of God" to rightly be classified as an "atheist". "Agnosticism" is a subcategory of "atheism", as "deism" is a subcategory of "theism".

Not really. Lyndon is correct there.

 

[leibowde84]

Not really. Lyndon is correct there.

What is incorrect? I've thought about this quite a bit, and, according to how "atheism" is defined, all that is necessary is a lack of or the absence of a belief in the existence of God. Doesn't an agnostic lack this belief?

 

[LuisDantas]

What is incorrect? I've thought about this quite a bit, and, according to how "atheism" is defined, all that is necessary is a lack of or the absence of a belief in the existence of God. Doesn't an agnostic lack this belief?

The difference may be quite subtle in practice, but no, not necessarily.

Agnostic theists do exist. They are people who hold a belief in a deity of some sort, but feel technically uncertain about whether such a belief corresponds to reality.

 

[leibowde84]

The difference may be quite subtle in practice, but no, not necessarily.

Agnostic theists do exist. They are people who hold a belief in a deity of some sort, but feel technically uncertain about whether such a belief corresponds to reality.

That is true for every belief, that it is not technically certain about whether it is true. Right? Otherwise it would be knowledge.

 

[Marisa]

Why do I as a believer have to justify my personal belief to you?

It's not that it's presented as mere belief, rather than its presented as an ago lute fact which must be accepted by all.

 

[jonathan180iq]

So you are contradicting yourself by claiming the person asserting a claim that there is no God has no burden of proof on their claim???

No...

This gentleman asked the question of why his assertion that there was a god carries the burden of proof. I was simply answering him. Those who make the claim carry the burden of proof. If you want to bring something else to the conversation (like past claims that I may have made) that's fine. But note that I have made no assertion one way or another in this particular thread. I'm simply answering his question.



Regardless though, I'll still play along.

Tell me why atheism exists...

Why does the term "atheist" describe anyone at all?
Doesn't it naturally require there to be an original claim of deity in order for that word to have any meaning whatsoever?
That means that theists made the first positive claim.
We then have to ask ourselves if that positive claim was ever proven to be true.
Has that positive claim ever been substantiated by anyone throughout history?
Did the Sumerians prove their gods existed, or did they vanish into history?
Did the Egyptians prove their gods existed, or did they vanish into history?
Did the Greeks prove their gods existed, or did they vanish into history?
Did the ancient Israelites prove their gods existed, or did they vanish into history?
Did the Romans prove that their gods existed, or did they vanish into history?
Did the Nubians probe their gods existed, or did they vanish into history?
You see where this is going...

Have the Abrahamic monotheists proved their god exists, or will he vanish into history?

Atheism (or simply the direct claim that there is no god) is simply a response to an original positive claim by a theist. So how can implicit atheism possibly carry the burden or proof, since it requires theistic claims to start with?

Now, despite the fact that it is not necessary for us to to do, atheists seem to have no problem substantiating their position. It seems quite common for us atheists to spout out plenty of evidences for their being no god(s). The fact that theists don't like the implication of our substantiation, and thus reject it, isn't really our problem...

If theists are certain of their claim, and if evidence for their claims truly exists, all they every have to do is show us. Theists could show the whole world that their god is real and that their supernatural claims are fact and it would forever change the course of human progress... but they've never done it. Not once. They haven't done it because they can't, because their claim is false.