Why the burden of proof lies on God ?

[Tomef]

Assumption is blind

Ok, so you blindly assume there is a god, but have no means to prove his existence. As you cannot prove he exists, the burden of proof can only be on him.

 

[PureX]

“Irrefutable” is tantamount to proven,

No it's not. It just means the logic is sound. There may still by other paths of logic that are equally sound, that lead to a different conclusion. And this is very often the case.

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?

I think you're over-estimating the meaning of "irrefutable". The logical reasoning may be irrefutable, but that doesn't mean there are no alternative courses of logic, or that the conclusion is irrefutable.

 

[Altfish]

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

Is it not in the 'debate' forum?

 

[chinu]

Ok, so you blindly assume there is a god, but have no means to prove his existence. As you cannot prove he exists, the burden of proof can only be on him.

Assumption is a blind thing. Assumption don't have eyes. Say -- assumption, or say -- blind assumption, both are one and the same things.
The one which is blind is known as assumption

 

[Tomef]

No it's not. It just means the logic is sound. There may still by other paths of logic that are equally sound, that lead to a different conclusion. And this is very often the case.

I think you're over-estimating the meaning of "irrefutable". The logical reasoning may be irrefutable, but that doesn't mean there are no alternative courses of logic, or that the conclusion is irrefutable.

The word you are looking for is ‘convincing’. If you have reasons you believe are actually irrefutable, that cannot be refuted, then what are they? Or if you meant something else, what arguments do you find convincing?

 

[Tomef]

Assumption is a blind thing. Assumption don't have eyes. Say -- assumption, or say -- blind assumption, both are one and the same things.
The one which is blind is known as assumption

An assumption isn’t necessarily blind. I have some pasta boiling in a pot. 10 minutes have passed since I put it in the boiling water. I assume that it is nearly cooked.

The assumption that there is a god is of a different order. Since it is impossible for anyone but god to prove that he exists, then the burden of proof cannot like on anyone but god.

 

[chinu]

Is it not in the 'debate' forum?

Of course, it is a debate forum.
But, sorry I cannot debate with a "dead person" (Christopher Hitchens)

 

[chinu]

An assumption isn’t necessarily blind. I have some pasta boiling in a pot. 10 minutes have passed since I put it in the boiling water. I assume that it is nearly cooked.

No need to assume, you can look into your pot to see -- are they ready to serve to chinu ?

 

[Tomef]

No need to assume, you can look into your pot to see -- are they ready to serve to chinu ?

Why start a debate thread if you can’t or won’t engage in it seriously?

 

[PureX]

The word you are looking for is ‘convincing’. If you have reasons you believe are actually irrefutable, that cannot be refuted, then what are they? Or if you meant something else, what arguments do you find convincing?

Convincing you, or anyone, is not the responsibility of the claimant. Nor is it a requisite for the truthfulness of the claim. What I find convincing does not determine the logical validity of the claim, nor it's likelihood of being true.

 

[chinu]

Why start a debate thread if you can’t or won’t engage in it seriously?

It is a serious debate.
The thing you can go and see live -- there's no need of assumption there.

Give me some appropriate example of assumption.

 

[Tomef]

It is a serious debate.
The thing you can go and see live -- there's no need of assumption there.

Give me some appropriate example of assumption.

That’s what an assumption is - a calculation based on prior experience. I’m sitting in my living room. I put pasta in boiling water in the kitchen. Rather than get up and walk to the kitchen every 30 seconds, I make several assumptions. The most pertinent of these is that the pasta will take 10 minutes to cook. Based on that assumption, I wait 10 minutes before checking it.

People make assumptions of this sort on a regular basis. People make these assumptions based on experience and knowledge. 2,000 years ago, for example, it may have been reasonable to assume a god created everything, based on what was known at the time. Know we have sufficient knowledge of the natural world to make that assumption redundant.

 

[Tomef]

Convincing you, or anyone, is not the responsibility of the claimant. Nor is it a requisite for the truthfulness of the claim. What I find convincing does not determine the logical validity of the claim, nor it's likelihood of being true.

Ok. Getting back to the question, re.

There are irrefutable logical reasons that some people presume that some sort of meta-being exists

What are these irrefutable logical reasons? If you could just answer the question, it would be greatly appreciated.

 

[PureX]

Ok. Getting back to the question, re.

What are these irrefutable logical reasons? If you could just answer the question, it would be greatly appreciated.

There is an irrefutable logical necessity for existential origination. And that, by definition, transcends the nature of existence as it is now being expressed. Being cannot logically have occurred from non-being. If we label this transcendent mystery source "God" (as most people do), then logically this God must be.

 

[Tomef]

There is an irrefutable logical necessity for existential origination. And that, by definition, transcends the nature of existence as it is now being expressed. Being cannot logically have occurred from non-being. If we label this transcendent mystery source "God" (as most people do), then logically this God must be.

Not at all. There’s no logical necessity involved. Some eternal state of matter or energy (or whatever) is no more or less logical than a ‘first cause’. Being occurs from non-being continually. Where was your being before you were conceived? If what you mean is matter or energy cannot spontaneously come into existence, what is the logical basis of your argument?

Who uses the term god in that sense? The majority of people have something other than a mystery source in mind when using the word god. What you are calling logic here is restricted to the terms of your argument and your belief in it, i.e. it makes sense to you therefore you think it is logical. What it actually is is a fudge based on dubious definitions paired with your subjective opinion.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

Well, sure, we might "hope" that there might be some sort of benevolent deity or deities - or some kind of positive "power" which governs the mechanisms of the universe. But in the end, all we're really stuck with is "hope" in each other. I see the question of God as being more a theoretical abstraction. All we're really dealing with is the physical reality we have, along with all the other humans we coexist with on this planet. We can't count on or expect God to get us out of this mess. We humans have to work and do it ourselves.

To me, that's a more practical and realistic way of approaching things. We have to work with what we have, with whatever resources and abilities are available. There is nothing else, other than our own capabilities and skills as humans and what we might achieve.

 

[chinu]

That’s what an assumption is - a calculation based on prior experience. I’m sitting in my living room. I put pasta in boiling water in the kitchen. Rather than get up and walk to the kitchen every 30 seconds, I make several assumptions. The most pertinent of these is that the pasta will take 10 minutes to cook. Based on that assumption, I wait 10 minutes before checking it.

You are confusing expectation with assumption.

If replace the word expectation with assumption in your pasta story then what difference does it make ?

 

[Tomef]

You are confusing expectation with assumption.

If replace the word expectation with assumption in your pasta story then what difference does it make ?

No, not at all. Based on my experience and what it says on the packaging, I go on the assumption that 10 minutes is the right amount of time for the pasta to cook. Based on that assumption, I expect the pasta to be ready after 10 minutes.

Using expectation instead of assumption wouldn’t make any difference per se, it would just be a more unusual phrasing.

 

[chinu]

No, not at all. Based on my experience and what it says on the packaging, I go on the assumption that 10 minutes is the right amount of time for the pasta to cook. Based on that assumption, I expect the pasta to be ready after 10 minutes.

Using expectation instead of assumption wouldn’t make any difference per se, it would just be a more unusual phrasing.

As per google:
Assumptions are defined as “a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.”
Expectations are defined as “a strong belief that something will happen or be the case in the future.

 

[Tomef]

As per google:
Assumptions are defined as “a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.”
Expectations are defined as “a strong belief that something will happen or be the case in the future.

What’s your point? That you assume god exists, without proof? That point has been made already. You can’t prove that god exists, hence the burden of proof can only rest with god - as only god has the ability to prove the existence of god.