Why the burden of proof lies on God ?

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I think I will concede to your use of the term "evidence". I've gotten so used to people on this site demanding "evidence" when what they are actually demanding is objective physical proof, that I tend to object automatically. It does not appear that you are (mis)using the term in that way, so I will stop objecting to the use of it.

Yes, we do all decide what to believe at any given time based on the available evidence. but we are also picking and choosing what evidence we think applies and carries the most weight. And once we realize that we are doing this, we can choose to change those assignations to attain a different result. It's as easy as just changing our minds.

We can change our minds based on how we evaluate evidence or new evidence that is provided.

Of course you could. There most likely have been people that have believed that about themselves. They just chose the "believe in" whatever "evidence" they had that led them to that conclusion.

I cannot just choose to believe another piece of evidence if it does not convince me. So no I cannot choose to believe I was born on the moon with the evidence I have.

Some people believe that Donald Trump was sent by God to save America. They just chose to ignore all the evidence to the contrary, and focus only on whatever evidence they think they have as support.

I decide what evidence supports what claim. And when, and how, and why. So do you.

I agree we decide how to evaluate evidence. But that is not choosing what we believe.

 

[RestlessSoul]

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens

If I had a pound for every time that old chestnut got trotted out on these forums…

 

[SDavis]

Seriously what made you think that the burden of proof lies on God ?

I had a friend in my late teens early 20s, (this was years ago) who used to always say if God exists tell him to prove it to me.

I've always known even much of my childhood that many people require to see with their eyes before the notion of belief began. Why do some people think in that manner, well maybe it goes back to free will - maybe it is as written (they allow) Satan has blinded them.

One may say that it is the burden of proof on the believer who says God exist _ well as a believer I will say the burden of proof is on those who say God doesn't exist.

 

[chinu]

The burden of proof lies with the people that make claims about god(s).

There is no god to be found who's making claims.
It's people claiming to speak for or about gods.

I am one out the people who is NOT making any claim about the existence of God.
My question/claim to you is that -- IF there's any God, then why the burden of proof lies on God ?

Kindly note: please do refrain replying to this post -- if you don't want to suppose the existence of God.

 

[chinu]

Because the burden of proof lies with people who make claims.

And your thread title asks "why the burden of proof lies on god", which implies that god has made claims.

Why can't I make an assumption that -- why the burden of proof lies on God ?

 

[chinu]

It was the question you asked at the beginning of the thread. If a human makes a claim, then the reasonable expectation is that they would be able to support it with evidence and/or some sort of logical argument. If (hypothetically) God made a claim, then the expectation might be much the same, but since I've never heard God make any claims, I can't possibly hold God to any burden of proof, which was the premise of your original question.

Its an assumption claim

 

[chinu]

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens

Much better, it can also be left unreplied, isn't ? or why not ?

 

[Stevicus]

Its an assumption claim

Then it's more in the realm of supposition, not really a direct factual claim.

It's really a matter of how one chooses to say things. If your word choice and manner of expression is made more speculative or tentative, then there would be no need to delve in to any "burden of proof."

 

[PureX]

Then it's more in the realm of supposition, not really a direct factual claim.

It's really a matter of how one chooses to say things. If your word choice and manner of expression is made more speculative or tentative, then there would be no need to delve in to any "burden of proof."

It doesn't matter once you understand that "proof" is a subjective assessment being made by someone other than the truth claimant. Which renders it a logically absurd expectation.

"I demand you give me what only I can give myself!"

 

[chinu]

Then it's more in the realm of supposition, not really a direct factual claim.

It's really a matter of how one chooses to say things. If your word choice and manner of expression is made more speculative or tentative, then there would be no need to delve in to any "burden of proof."

So, you have no answer for my assumption claim ?

 

[Tomef]

Seriously what made you think that the burden of proof lies on God ?

Do you mean why should god prove that god exists? If there was a god, that would be that god’s business. People do ask god to prove he/she/it exists I suppose but that’s not some sort of official stance held by some group or other.

There’s no reason to assume there is a god, which means there’s no need to disprove it.

 

[chinu]

Do you mean why should god prove that god exists? If there was a god, that would be that god’s business. People do ask god to prove he/she/it exists I suppose but that’s not some sort of official stance held by some group or other.

There’s no reason to assume there is a god, which means there’s no need to disprove it.

No that's not what I mean.

My question is: assuming the existence of God -- Why the burden of proof lies on God ?


Kindly do refrain replying if you don't want to assume. You win, I lose this debate. All the best..

 

[PureX]

Do you mean why should god prove that god exists? If there was a god, that would be that god’s business. People do ask god to prove he/she/it exists I suppose but that’s not some sort of official stance held by some group or other.

There’s no reason to assume there is a god, which means there’s no need to disprove it.

There are irrefutable logical reasons that some people presume that some sort of meta-being exists. You may not be aware of those reasons, or may refuse to accept them, but they stand valid, nevertheless. These reasons are not "proof", but proof is an unreasonable expectation to place upon someone else.

 

[Stevicus]

It doesn't matter once you understand that "proof" is a subjective assessment being made by someone other than the truth claimant. Which renders it a logically absurd expectation.

"I demand you give me what only I can give myself!"

Well, again, I see it more as a matter of how one chooses to say it. If someone is just speculating or "thinking out loud," as some might call it, then it's not held to the same standards as one who is presuming to make some sort of official pronouncement of fact or an outright accusation.

 

[Stevicus]

So, you have no answer for my assumption claim ?

I believe I already answered the original question of this thread.

 

[Tomef]

irrefutable logical reasons

These reasons are not "proof"

“Irrefutable” is tantamount to proven, so what do you mean exactly? I’ve come across arguments for a god existing, none of them are irrefutable. What is it you are thinking of as irrefutable?

 

[Tomef]

My question is: assuming the existence of God -- Why the burden of proof lies on God ?

Why would you assume the existence of god without evidence? If god does exist, and hasn’t provided proof of his existence, then why? What would be the point of being so inscrutable?

 

[chinu]

Why would you assume the existence of god without evidence? If god does exist, and hasn’t provided proof of his existence, then why? What would be the point of being so inscrutable?

Assumption is blind

 

[PureX]

Well, again, I see it more as a matter of how one chooses to say it. If someone is just speculating or "thinking out loud," as some might call it, then it's not held to the same standards as one who is presuming to make some sort of official pronouncement of fact or an outright accusation.

Facts are just bits of information that appear true in relation to other bits of information. A fact claim is not a truth claim. And as it is not reasonable to expect the claimant to provide us with "proof" of anything, all we can expect from them is the reasoning through which they concluded their claim to be true. And this is a valid expectation for both a fact and a truth claim. (Truth being a conclusion drawn from a set of facts.)

So this constant insistence we see around here for theists providing proof for their God claims, and then counter-claiming that when it's not forthcoming that the theist's claim is false, is all just illogical nonsense. There is no logical demand for proof, and no logical conclusion to be drawn from not getting it. P

That being understood, we are all left with a couple of choices in the face of our ignorance regarding the God question. Those choices mainly being skepticism, hope, or indifference. And of the three, it appears to me that only hope would provide a positive benefit. Whereas skepticism and indifference provide nothing. Or might even cause us to act against hope.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Seriously what made you think that the burden of proof lies on God ?

The burden of proof lies with the people who invented their gods.