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

[outhouse]

Muslims could be looked at as technically a Christian

Only if you refuse academia and all education on the topic, and MOVE GOAL POST to suit your personal needs making any attempt to discuss the topics completely pointless

 

[LuisDantas]

The issue being discussed was how many people believe in God, not how many people believe Jesus is God.

Which brings us to how little such a belief actually means.

 

[Lyndon]

Thief originally brought up the issue, it was about believers in God.

 

[Pudding]

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 some religion's believer demand that non-believer must obey their God's moral/law, then those believer must give scientific/reality evidence or supernatural/spirituality evidence to prove their God's existence.

For the scientific/reality evidence, i'm not sure about it.

As we can see, we cannot consistently to replicate supernatural/spirituality evidence of any God's existence, it lead to the thinking that it's unreliable, but it nonetheless is still important to those believer as this belief may encourage and give meaning to their life and make them a good person.

All this "evidence" or "theory/presupposition/assumption" is only personal and subjective to a person.

If any religion's believer demand that non-believer must obey their God's moral/law, it's reasonable for non-believer to demand the objective evidence of those religion's claims, and demand this objective evidence can be consistently be replicate to show to them for then they can be convince.

If no any religion demand that non-believer must obey their religion's God's moral/law, then maybe it's likely that no any non-believer will demand such "evidence".

 

[Pudding]

Assume majority of population believe in many different religions's different Gods's existence, so every other non-believer should be believe in Gods too even if they find the reason to do so unconvincing?

What is the most popular colour/occupation/hobby among everyone's choice?
If some research reveal that the most popular one is "green colour/doctor/collecting stamp", should then every other colour/occupation/hobby be ban/discourage?

 

[Cephus]

You only need one reason to believe.

I use cause and effect.

Would like to hear your 'good' reason for disbelief.

Lack of objective evidence.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Muslims could be looked at as technically a Christian religion because they follow Jesus and his teachings and worship the same God, so if you add Christians to Muslims, you're at about 50% or more.

And once we take out the Christians that other Christians would say are "not TRUE Christians" were back to about 5% I'd guess.....

 

[Thief]

In 2010, only 31.5% were Christian. Try again.

No need.....it would depend on which website you went to.
Have you tried any reporting the number of atheists?.....I have.

 

[Thief]

Lack of objective evidence.

When you can't have proof.....and you can't.....
you have to use your sense of reasoning.

 

[Thief]

"Irrational" is also defined in Webster's dictionary.

How about logic?
for those things you can only think about....

 

[Pudding]

No need.....

No need? Why you do not need his source of that research?

it would depend on which website you went to.

You mean atheist website then the result is with atheist's bias?
And theist website then the result is with theist's bias?

Have you tried any sire reporting the number of atheists?.....I have.

Where is the link for this sire report's website of your? Is this website an atheist or theist website?

 

[Pudding]

When you can't have proof.....and you can't.....
you have to use your sense of reasoning.

When a religion's believer can't have proof to support his religion's claims, then please don't expect others to believe their religion's claims, or even demand that others should follow their religion's moral/law.

One have to use his sense of reasoning to conclude which religion is the true religion?

Then i may use my sense of reasoning to conclude that as no any religion is convincing to me, then i do not follow any religion.
But of course i'll not forbid others to follow their religion if they think their religion is convincing to them.
But if they say that my sense of reasoning to conclude that no any religion is convincing to me, is wrong, then i may explain why i disagree with them.
If they don't accept my explanation and i also don't accept their version of sense of reasoning, then both sides will have to stop debate and let each other to agree to disagree.

 

[Thief]

When a religion's believer can't have proof to support his religion's claims, then please don't expect others to believe their religion's claims, or even demand that others should follow their religion's moral/law.

One have to use his sense of reasoning to conclude which religion is the true religion?

Then i may use my sense of reasoning to conclude that as no any religion is convincing to me, then i do not follow any religion.
But of course i'll not forbid others to follow their religion if they think their religion is convincing to them.
But if they say that my sense of reasoning to conclude that no any religion is convincing to me, is wrong, then i may explain why i disagree with them.
If they don't accept my explanation and i also don't accept their version of sense of reasoning, then both sides will have to stop debate and let each other to agree to disagree.

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.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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

You're saying that a thing, which doesn't definitely exist, may reason away form you because you reason away from it?

That's a lot of reasoning being done by something that only exists as a subjectively reasoned thing, isn't it?

How can the thing that you've mentally invented do any reasoning at all?
It would, by definition, simply be doing your reasoning. You would be that which reasons. You would be god.

 

[Lyndon]

Yeah and if God really exists then that would make you the fool for not appreciating it, just because you don't THINK God exists doesn't mean God is not real, at most you have a THEORY that God doesn't exist, you might use some caution before you try throwing your THEORY at other people.

 

[leibowde84]

You only need one reason to believe.

I use cause and effect.

Would like to hear your 'good' reason for disbelief.

But, we don't know nearly enough scientifically to jump to the conclusion that God is necessary because of "cause and effect". That is merely jumping to a conclusion prematurely.

And, I would say that a lack of evidence is adequate to explain a lack of belief in the existence of God.

 

[leibowde84]

Yeah and if God really exists then that would make you the fool for not appreciating it, just because you don't THINK God exists doesn't mean God is not real, at most you have a THEORY that God doesn't exist, you might use some caution before you try throwing your THEORY at other people.

What "theory" are you referring to? It seems like he is pointing out the flaws in the "theory" that God is necessary. I'm not sure a "theory" is even necessary to think this. It is merely a prudent position.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Yeah and if God really exists then that would make you the fool for not appreciating it, just because you don't THINK God exists doesn't mean God is not real, at most you have a THEORY that God doesn't exist, you might use some caution before you try throwing your THEORY at other people.

By that same logic, shouldn't you be worshiping all of the gods?
I mean, you wouldn't want to be made a fool for not appreciating the right god, would you?

 

[Thief]

You're saying that a thing, which doesn't definitely exist, may reason away form you because you reason away from it?

That's a lot of reasoning being done by something that only exists as a subjectively reasoned thing, isn't it?

How can the thing that you've mentally invented do any reasoning at all?
It would, by definition, simply be doing your reasoning. You would be that which reasons. You would be god.

Be it as it is written....ye ARE gods....
I make no error and would not claim to be the Almighty.

 

[Thief]

But, we don't know nearly enough scientifically to jump to the conclusion that God is necessary because of "cause and effect". That is merely jumping to a conclusion prematurely.

And, I would say that a lack of evidence is adequate to explain a lack of belief in the existence of God.

There is an entire universe (one word)......and it had a Cause.
Genesis uses the term....word....unlike we usually do.