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

[Lyndon]

Likewise If you're sure that God doesn't exist, all you have to do is prove it........It seems like most of the belief claims being made on this forum are being made by Atheists, if so the burden of proof rests on them. Most Theists are just saying they believe in God, that's their right and opinion, no burden of proof required.

 

[leibowde84]

Likewise If you're sure that God doesn't exist, all you have to do is prove it........It seems like most of the belief claims being made on this forum are being made by Atheists, if so the burden of proof rests on them. Most Theists are just saying they believe in God, that's their right and opinion, no burden of proof required.

Why would belief claims by Atheists require a burden but belief claims by theists do not? Shouldn't all beliefs be sufficiently backed-up with reasoning?

 

[Lyndon]

Because the belief claims by Atheists tend to be backed up by insults and ridicule of believers, whereas the Theists tend to just state that they have a belief and leave it at that.

And no, all beliefs don't have to be backed up by reasoning, at least especially not by someone else's reasoning. Its a free country (at least it was) we can believe whatever we want to believe, and its not our prerogative to defend our beliefs to anyone else unless we're trying to force them on someone else.

 

[Gambit]

Don't you agree? If not, why not?

I don't agree, and I have already explained why in the original post of this thread.

 

[Gambit]

Technically, he does not.

Agreed.

But without accepting that burden he has no reason to expect others to care about his beliefs.

I could make the very same argument about an atheist who subscribes to materialism.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't agree, and I have already explained why in the original post of this thread.

I think you must be confused, as your OP in this thread does not explain why you disagree with my claims. Can you clarify why you disagree? I am interested to hear specifics as to why you think differently. Thanks.

 

[Gambit]

You're describing a guess, not a belief.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I could make the very same argument about an atheist who subscribes to materialism.

Well that depends actually. Which materialism do you mean? Two of the main three definitions you could make that kind of argument with. However you could not craft a similar argument against pragmatic materialism.

 

[Gambit]

Everyone is responsible, imho, to have sufficient reasoning for holding their beliefs. This reasoning should be based on more than just what "makes sense" or "seems to be the case", as our conscious experience is often faulty. So, I think you both have a point. No absolute "proof" should be demanded, but there should always be reasoning behind the beliefs you hold, rather than holding them blindly.

I never argued that my belief did not have a rational basis. In fact, I believe theism is a more rational worldview than atheistic materialism. But now I digress.

 

[leibowde84]

I never argued that my belief did not have a rational basis. In fact, I believe theism is a more rational worldview than atheistic materialism. But now I digress.

I'm confused then, as you refused to provide your reasoning previously when asked for "proof" or evidence.

 

[Gambit]

Not as a believer; as a person arguing a claim... as you did here:

Is expressing a belief the same thing as making a claim?.

 

[Gambit]

I don't think anyone "has" to justify their personal beliefs to anyone else. But, in a debate forum such as this, I think that it is a different story. We owe it to each other on here to present substantial arguments to defend our beliefs. This practice helps everyone involved, as it forces us to look at our own beliefs skeptically.

The problem is that the atheist and/or skeptic is operating under the false impression that a metaphysical argument requires scientific verification.

 

[leibowde84]

The problem is that the atheist and/or skeptic is operating under the false impression that a metaphysical argument requires scientific verification.

There are always an unreasonable few, but you can't actually think that all skeptics and atheists make this false assumption, can you? Do you really think that atheists in general demand this, because I surely do not think that is the case. I meant evidence as in your reasoning for ending up with your belief(s).

 

[Gambit]

"Proof", in this context, merely means "evidence or argument helping to essstablish a fact or the truth of a statement." It doesn't demand absolute proof. If it did, I would agree that it would cease to be a "belief".

To reiterate: Metaphysical arguments do not require scientific validation.

 

[leibowde84]

To reiterate: Metaphysical arguments do not require scientific validation.

I agree. "Evidence" and/or "arguments" do not necessarily have to be scientific.

 

[Gambit]

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.

Metaphysical arguments don't require scientific validation.

 

[leibowde84]

Likewise If you're sure that God doesn't exist, all you have to do is prove it........It seems like most of the belief claims being made on this forum are being made by Atheists, if so the burden of proof rests on them. Most Theists are just saying they believe in God, that's their right and opinion, no burden of proof required.

It seems unreasonable to ask someone to prove a negative in this context, especially when God has not been sufficiently defined.

 

[Gambit]

Because...

Epistemology is concerned with knowledge, not with belief.

 

[Gambit]

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.

Metaphysical arguments do not require scientific validation.

 

[Gambit]

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.

I have never presented my theistic belief as an "absolute fact which must be accepted by all."